Applying Foucaults Panopticism - Essay Example

Running Head: Panopticon The Camera’s Gaze: Applying Foucault’s Panopticism to the Photograph and the Video The French intellectual MichelFoucault is known for his genealogical works on insanity, sickness, and criminality. One of the well-known principles that are laid out in his works is the panoptic principle, the idea that constant surveillance, or more appropriately the constant feeling of surveillance, is the key to controlling the individual as the subject of discipline. Foucault takes Jeremy Bentham’s model prison that uses the Panopticon, and extends it to the idea that modern society operates in pretty much the same way. In this paper, the author attempts to show how Michel Foucault’s notion of surveillance using the panoptic principle is in fact made manifest by the use of video and still cameras. Further, panopticism has been used as themes of various photo exhibits, no doubt inspired by the creeping feeling of being watched. At the end of the chapter entitled Panopticism in his book Discipline and Punish (1977), Michel Foucault explicitly stated: The practice of placing individuals under ‘observation’ is a natural extension of a justice imbued with disciplinary methods and examination procedures. Is it surprising that the cellular prison, with its regular chronologies, forced labour, its authorities of surveillance and registration, its experts in normality, who continue and multiply the functions of the judge, should have become the modern instrument of penality? Is it surprising that prisons resemble factories, schools, barracks, hospitals, which all resemble prisons? (p. 228). In this particular passage, Foucault outlines the mechanisms that the prison uses in controlling criminality. On closer examination, what he in fact outlines are the mechanisms that operate within different social institutions. This is a noteworthy point, since the institutions that he mentioned, i.e. factories, schools, barracks, and hospitals, all function in essentially the same way as the modern prison. These all use specific procedures and techniques to discipline subjects. What follows is a discussion of Foucault’s notion of discipline as correct training, with its particular mechanisms and techniques. Discipline and Punish Foucault’s book was originally titled in French, Surveiller et punir. The translator, Alan Sheridan, explained at the outset the difficulty in translating the title itself for various reasons. Apparently, the French surveiller does not have a directly appropriate English counterpart. The term “surveillance” proved too limited, and “supervise” tended to be understood quite differently from what Foucault originally meant. In the end, Foucault himself chose Discipline and Punish, clarifying in the book that the term “discipline” really implied training or forming. In this book, Foucault examined the development of disciplinary mechanisms employed in prisons. His main thesis is that these mechanisms, in various forms, are representative of the same disciplinary mechanisms in society. He began by showing how the torture and execution of criminals was made a public spectacle. He gave an account of how condemned men were paraded in a manner that suited the crime committed. However, public tortures and executions at some point became a ‘hidden’ affair. The condemned began to be transferred secretly from one place to another, using only plain carriages with no distinguishing marks. What was the reason for this shift? Foucault believed that the shift of torture from the public to the private realm indicated how discipline evolved and took various forms. The more subtle the form, the more efficient discipline became. While penal practice started out as a means of torture, as if the state punished an offender to get even or to demonstrate its power, the prison soon evolved into an institution of reform. Foucault (1977) stated: ‘Discipline’ may be identified neither with an institution nor with an apparatus; it is a type of power, a modality for its exercise, comprising a whole set of instruments, techniques, procedures, levels of application, targets; it is a ‘physics’ or an ‘anatomy’ of power, a technology (p. 215). He points out the concern that the institution has with the ‘body’, a preoccupation that the prison has in common with the asylum and the hospital, along with other institutions as well. As a technology, discipline may be used by different institutions in different ways. The more invisible it becomes, the more economical the use, hence more efficient. Panopticism In discussing panopticism, Foucault made reference to some important insights about the development and sophistication of disciplinary mechanisms. Apparently, discipline also included the practice of segmentation and division, not just exclusion. He stated: If it is true that the leper gave rise to rituals of exclusion, which to a certain extent provided the model for and general form of the great Confinement, then the plague gave rise to disciplinary projects. Rather than the massive binary division between one set of people and another, it called for multiple separations, individualizing distributions, an organization in depth of surveillance and control, an intensification and a ramification of power. (Foucault, 1977 p.198) To talk about discipline in this sense involved a whole set of practices that are aimed at something more than just simply putting away or separating one class of people from another. In the case of criminality, discipline involved more than just separating the offenders from the populace for the purpose of punishing them or executing them. Incarceration was practiced for the purpose of producing what Foucault referred to as docile bodies, or individuals who may be transformed and molded into a specific type of individual. Thus, the idea of prison reform was made manifest. The prison institution is seen as no longer simply concerned with punishing criminals, but as a mechanism of the state that ‘re-forms’, or breaks down and rebuilds, the criminal. The prison is able to accomplish that by using the panoptic principle. Jeremy Bentham’s concept of the Panopticon became an influential model for modern day architectural efficiency. The prison that he envisioned was to be constructed in such a way as to have the individual cells arranged in a circular manner, with an observation tower at the center of the formation. Light coming from the outside of the cells illumines the inmate for whoever is staying at the observation tower, while the observer in the tower itself remains hidden from the cells’ occupants. From Discipline and Punish, 1977 This arrangement reverses, yet makes even more powerful, the traditional notion of incarceration that is, the putting away of criminality. In the panoptic model, visibility becomes the central principle that governs incarceration. In Foucault’s words (1977), “Full lighting and the eye of a supervisor capture better than darkness, which ultimately protected. Visibility is a trap” (p. 200). In other words, the one who is being observed is aware of being observed, thus making him/her prone to the effects of the disciplinary gaze. It is this gaze that makes discipline possible, relying on the capacity of the supervisor to see constantly. Thus, to assume that someone is in the observation tower even if there is no one there is the full effect of the Panopticon. Foucault (1977) further clarified: Hence the major effect of the Panopticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power. So to arrange things that the surveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its action; that the perfection of power should tend to render its actual exercise unnecessary;… in short, that the inmates should be caught up in a power situation of which they are themselves the bearers. (p. 201) It can be seen that central to the effective use of the panoptic principle is the efficiency of surveillance mechanisms. The latter should function in such a way as to force the recipient of disciplinary power to keep watch over his/her own actions, because of the fact that s/he is being observed by the authority figure. The concept of the gaze is what makes discipline work. In Foucault’s works, he outlined the premise that whatever can be made visible can in fact be mastered or controlled. In the case of criminality, the latter can be controlled by bringing it under the gaze, the watchful eye of disciplinary power, the Panopticon. The effects of the gaze should be felt even in its physical absence, thus showing the internalization of the disciplinary power. In short, if previously the coercive element lay outside the individual, through the effective use of the panoptic principle it now became possible to have this disciplining power coming from the individual himself/herself. As such, the individual is said to place oneself under his/her own gaze, effectively influencing and shaping one’s social behavior. It is this capacity, the capacity to form and re-form individuals, which makes the panoptic gaze so powerful and important. Foucault (1977) stated further that “The Panopticon, on the other hand, must be understood as a generalizable model of functioning; a way of defining power relations in terms of the everyday life of men” (p. 205). Foucault might indeed have a legitimate point, considering how relatively easy it is to conceive of an institution, any institution for that matter, incorporating the panoptic principle in its operations. This can already be seen in schools, factories, barracks, and even in the seminaries. The panoptic principle of keeping the subjects under constant observation for myriad purposes is already in practice. This shows itself most clearly in how modern society preoccupies itself with watching and seeing through the camera, whether still or video. The Camera’s Gaze While Bentham’s prison relied on the architectural formation of the prison to produce the panoptic principle, modern day, state-level applications of the latter rely on technological advancements such as Social Security Numbers, National IDs, credit cards, various registrations, and of course, gadgets such as electronic eyes or sensors, and surveillance cameras and videos. The extent of Foucault’s work can be felt in those areas that deal primarily with governance, control, and the policing of social interaction and behavior. The latter points in Foucault’s works seem to be placed as a counterpoint to Guy Debord’s notion of society as spectacle, where Debord “proposed turning the spectacle back upon itself” (Rocco, 1999). Foucault on the other hand, sought to examine the panoptic principle and how it operated within a society. Both however, were concerned with the role of the gaze in making visible that which needs to be controlled. In the context of photography, visual arts, and modern video technology, the ideas of Foucault are made prominent. In 1993, a sensational child abduction case near Liverpool, England caught national attention because of the disturbing nature of the crime: two ten-year olds abducted and consequently murdered a two-year old boy. It was disturbing because such an act of violence seemed inconceivable for ten-year olds, but also because of the fact that the abduction was in fact caught on tape. The photo below, courtesy of Shirley Lynn Scott (2005), is taken from the surveillance video that captured the act: Two-year old James Bulger was abducted and later murdered by ten-year olds Jon Venables and Robert Thompson. What led to their eventual capture was the surveillance video inside the Bootle Strand Shopping Center, showing Venables taking Bulger in hand while Thompson walked a few paces ahead. This demonstrates how the panoptic principle, utilizing modern technology, is efficiently used by the state in pursuit of justice. While the installation of surveillance cameras appears primarily significant in recording crimes and other violations, from the Foucauldian perspective it does more than that. Surveillance in itself also operates as a technique of discipline. The height of panopticism is where the disciplinary gaze is internalized, to the point where the subject of the disciplinary gaze at once becomes the subject and object of his/her own gaze. In other words, the individual is forced to govern himself/herself, or forced to watch over his/her actions, because s/he feels that someone is watching. The key is to make the presence of the disciplinary power felt by letting the subjects become aware of that gaze. Here are two examples of the panoptic principle at work. A surveillance camera installed just outside of an establishment functions as an extension of the gaze, where physical proximity is impossible. The photo on the right shows the position occupied by the one who supervises, the one responsible for the efficient use of panopticism. It should be realized that the authority behind the gaze is as much a part of the disciplinary mechanism as the subject, because failure on the supervisor’s part undermines the mechanism itself. In short, the supervisor is indirectly observed by the subject as well, in the same manner that a teacher for example, is also engaged in a power relation by the students the moment the former enters the classroom. A teacher is often forced to prepare for class because an ill-prepared teacher is easily seen by students. A pickpocket who gets away with stealing despite the surveillance cameras points to a failure in the disciplinary mechanism, and the one responsible for such a failure is the one who watches. But the presence of a surveillance camera inside a supermarket is often enough to deter an individual from stealing off the racks. This shows the panoptic principle at work in its highest degree. An argument against Foucault’s claims about the efficiency of the panoptic principle was raised by the Surveillance Camera Players. They argued that a serious flaw in Foucault’s theories is the instance where the subjects perform in front of the camera because they know that they are being watched. These individuals may simply act a part, precisely because they are aware of the fact that they are under observation. The Surveillance Camera Players or SCP, does exactly that. They violate certain norms as a form of resistance to the act of surveillance itself. However, such an argument does not weaken Foucault’s position, because the panoptic gaze was still able to influence behavior. In this case, the act of resistance itself by the SCP is an influenced behavior, resulting from the presence of the disciplinary power. Photographers have also been influenced by Foucault’s theories on panopticism, often taking surveillance and voyeurism as themes. This is manifested in works dealing with taboo subjects such as privacy, sex, and even death. But it is noteworthy that by dealing with the taboo, the latter is made visible and hence, mastered. Recall the basic premise of the gaze, that that which is made visible can be cured, mastered, or controlled. By subjecting a subject such as death under the gaze of the camera, the mystery and horror associated with death is thereby mastered. An exhibit by the National Museum of Photography Film and Television entitled The Dead (1996) dealt precisely with that subject. It is interesting to note that that exhibit featured photos of actual dead people and scenes where suicide had been committed. In an exhibit entitled, The Furtive Gaze (MoCP, 2003), contemporary photographers such as Chris Verene and Shizuka Yokomizo explicitly dealt with themes of surveillance and observation. Their photos depicted images of individuals apparently being observed in secret, although the actual manner of composing the photos was contrived. The following are some sample works of Yokomizo and Verene, respectively: Perhaps it is in the works of Taro Yamasaki that photography and Foucault’s ideas on panopticism meet. The camera is at once the instrument of surveillance and the medium for portraying discipline. The photo below is one among many that were taken from Southern Michigan State Penitentiary by Yamasaki. It can be seen that Michel Foucault’s work on the penal institution offers an interesting perspective. The panoptic principle of perpetual visibility as a mechanism of discipline is in fact representative of society’s operations. Such a principle has found its way in various expressions, and one of the most significant expressions is through the modern technology of the camera, the instrument and medium of surveillance, discipline, and governance. References Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Vintage Books. (Original work published 1975). Museum of Contemporary Photography. (May 8- July 12, 2003). The Furtive Gaze, (photo exhibit). Retrieved January 27, 2006, from website http://mocp.org/exhibitions/2003/05/the_furtive_gaz.php National Museum of Photography Film and Television. (Oct. 5 – Jan. 7, 1996). The Dead, (photo exhibit). Retrieved January 28, 2006, from http://www.nmpft.org.uk/education/notes/thedead.pdf Rocco, J. (1999). Beckett and the Politics of Nothing: Spectacle/Panopticism/ Ocularcentrism. Retrieved from Modernity Critiques of Visual Culture, January 27, 2006, website http://www.eiu.edu/~modernity/rocco.html Scott, S. L. (2005). The Death of James Bulger: Tragic Child Abduction Caught on Tape. Retrieved from Crimelibrary, accessed January 26, 2006, website http://www.crimelibrary.com/classics3/bulger Surveillance Camera Players. (2004). On the flaws of Michel Foucault’s Discipline and Punish. Retrieved January 27, 2006, from website http://www.notbored.org/foucault-and-debord.html Yamasaki, T. Jackson Prison (Southern Michigan State Penitentiary). Retrieved January 27, 2006 from http://www.taroyamasaki.com Read More