Comparing Foucault And Panopticism

From the concrete walls, the schematics of Architecture and even the way that we are taught, school can remind us of a type of prison. We are taught by repetition and to regurgitate information rather than actually go in depth to understand the topic. We are ready to absorb information and not question said info. We are like fishes swimming in a bowl, unable to comprehend what exists outside of our own sphere of learning. In an essay written by Foucault, he talks about the idea of the Panopticon. When reading his essay, it becomes clear there are striking similarities between the Panopticon and the schooling system. It is my intent to show how both the schooling system and the Panopticon strip Individuality away because of mechanical teaching. This will be conveyed by showing the comparisons of the Panopticon and the schooling system through the topics of how describing the similarity of the two locations and lead into the course of Surveillance on both subjects. I will then lead into the topic of Discipline shaping behavior and will finalize with discussing how the general architecture of schools and the Panopticon are similar.

To begin with, ethos is apparent in the excerpt “The Most Dangerous Job” by Eric Schlosser through his stories about workers and their families’ struggles. In the excerpt “The Most Dangerous Job,” Eric Schlosser states, “Each of their stories was different, yet somehow familiar, linked by common elements-the same struggle to receive proper medical care, the same fear of speaking out, the same underlying corporate indifference” (Schlosser 186). Schlosser shows the audience that he is a credible source through the stories of workers families. The families’ hardships showcase the corruption inside of

Ethos is an appeal to ethics, which gives the author credibility to persuade their attended audience. For instance, both Lukianoff and Haidt give a little insight about who they are, “Greg Lukianoff is a constitutional lawyer and the president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which defends free speech and academic freedom on campus, and has advocated for students and faculty involved in many of the incidents this article describes; Jonathan Haidt is a social psychologist who studies the American culture wars.” (Lukianoff and Haidt). Using this rhetorical strategy to start their argument off was a strong approach to persuading their attended audience because it provides credibility to the readers to prove to them that the authors know what they’re talking about and it makes the argument much more effective. Another example of ethos that the authors provide is, “Today, what we call the Socratic method is a way of teaching that fosters critical thinking, in part by encouraging students to question their own unexamined beliefs, as well as the received wisdom of those around them… But vindictive protectiveness teaches students to think in a very different way… A campus culture devoted to policing speech and punishing speakers is likely to engender patterns of thought that are surprisingly similar to those long identified by cognitive behavioral therapists as causes

Panopticism is a social theory named after the Panopticon, according to Foucault, his describes a watch tower in a prison and he thinks Panopticism is how people act different when they’re being watched. Rayner perspective on Panopticism is how we can use social media to our advantage. In this essay, I will analyze both Foucault and Rayner perspective on Panopticism and will determine the rhetorical appeals of both writings.

Foucault in a few short words does not like the implementation of the panopticon or the idea of

Foucault began to compare this new idea of surveillance, power and punishment of the Panopticon to the power during the Middle Ages by the King which was more public in contrast to the Panopticon. The Panopticon was more discrete. It was not a show or form of entertainment when someone was punished unlike when someone is punished with the King. By exploring this, Foucault demonstrated how surveillance has changed overtime.

“The Panopticon functions as a kind of laboratory of power,” Foucault declares; indeed, much knowledge can be ascertained by “penetra[ting] into men’s behavior” (379).

The final sentence reveals the Panopticon’s true purpose: a political tool. The previous sentences break down the previously configured definition of the Panopticon and with this final piece, Foucault finishes redefining the term. Understanding that limiting the definition of the Panopticon would eliminate its functionality, Foucault chooses to interpret it loosely without assigning a set meaning to it. Thus, allowing the concept of the Panopticon to be used in other subject areas and not just as a tool for prisons. John Berger also addresses a similar issue through the example of artwork in his text, “Ways of Seeing”. Berger’s description of present day reproductions of images from the past explains how past processes can find use in the present through interpreting the essence of its meaning. More specifically, Berger believes that we can assign several different uses to objects of the past because the information that they provide remains the same even if the actual, physical object does not. “It is not a question of reproduction failing to reproduce certain aspects of an image faithfully; it is a question of reproduction making it possible, even inevitable, that an image will be used for many different purposes and that the reproduced image,

According to Foucault, power does not belong to the individual, but to the system, to the institution. In his essay on Discipline and Punish, Foucault presents his idea of the panopticon mechanism, a mechanism in which visibility is a trap. With little importance over the actual individual in the role of the observer or of the observed, the object of the system is total power over the observed. Due to the unique shape of the panopticon, there are no corners and thus no blind spots for the observed to hide in. The private space is replaced by the public one. Furthermore, as final evidence of total control, the observed never knows for sure if they are being watched or not, as they can’t see the observer (Foucault 200-205). Foucault further argues that this system is followed by any government institution, placing the society under permanent observation. Individuals might try to evade the system, but achieving liberation and freedom is not something that anyone could do. Dostoevsky’s famous novel, Crime and

Panopticism is a social theory named after the “panopticon”, which was originally developed by the French philosopher, Michel Foucault. Panopticon was first mentioned in his book, Discipline and Punish. In his book, he refers "panopticon" to “an experimental laboratory of power in which behaviour could be modified.” Foucault considered panopticon as a symbol of the “disciplinary society of surveillance” (Panopticism). In the two novels, Nineteen Eighty-Four and Frankenstein, panopticism is an element shown greatly. Though these two novels have many differences, this similarity shared between the two is equally important.

     The Panopticon, a prison described by Foucault, “is a machine for dissociating the see/being seen dyad: in the peripheric ring, one is totally seen, without ever seeing” (321, Foucault). This literally means that in the formation of the panopticon those who are being seen can not see one another and the one who sees everything can never be seen. That is the most important tool of the panopticon. Foucault makes this assumption about today’s society by saying that we are always being watched whether we know it or not. One always keeps an eye over their shoulder as a

From many of Foucault’s work, he tries to breakdown and analyzes key aspects of society, such as, good and evil, reason and madness, etc. I agree with Foucault on a general sense, in that I also believe the separation of good and evil, reason and madness, are just the society’s tools to manipulate and control humans; we try to be reasonable and normal so that we fit in, and we do good deeds to be rewarded, even if the reward is simply feeling satisfied, and on the other hand, we stay away from the evil and the mad, because to us they are disruption and abnormality of the society and should be kept away. Foucault’s writings are trying to shed light on this uncomfortable territory that most people may very well never even think about, and Foucault seems to be trying to explore the thought of a world where none of these standards exist, which to me is understandable but fairly problematic and risky.

Ethos is the sacralization of the norms and institutions, by religion or social origin, on which the sociality of a group of people is based (Altan 1995:21). This term has been widely used by anthropologists who pointed their research toward the study of religion. Ruth Benedict in her book Patterns of Culture, refers to as ethos in order to name the cultural emotional order of a group of people (1950:31,86,233)1. Also Gregory Bateson (1958), in his study about an Iatmul-speaking village in Papua New Guinea, linked cultural patterns of emotion (which he calls ethos) and cognition to the body.

"Theories of the gaze and spectatorship are theories of address, rather than theories of reception in which methods are used to understand how actual viewers respond to a cultural text" (p-102). On the other hand human subject is not universal, it is historically and culturally dependent. The concept of interpellation is quite significant to understand the gaze, which is not just individual's act of looking, moreover it is in between the spectator's sustained looking practice in the field of rational meaning making. The authors also explain gaze by the notion of discourse and power, "discourse is helpful to understanding how power systems work to define how things are understood and spoken about (and, by implication, represented in images) in a given society" (p-105). According to Foucault, discourse is a body of knowledge that both defines and limits what can be said about something, but in the broad social domains particular form of knowledge can change the form any particular time period and in different social context. For example, Gene is also integrated with the system of power and ideas about knowledge. To describe this authors introduces Foucault's panopticon concept, where subject are seeing without being seen. In contemporary world camera surveillance, whatever it is turned on or off we are responding

Sandra Bartky begins her piece by explaining Michel Foucault’s ideas about modern power dynamics. Unlike in the past, power in modern society focuses not only on controlling the products of the body but, rather, on governing all its activities. In order for this power to continue, people are disciplined into becoming “docile bodies” which are subjected and practiced (Bartky, 63). This discipline is imposed through constant surveillance in a manner similar to the Panopticon. Inmates in said prison are always visible to a guard in the central tower, so they mentally coerced into monitoring their own behavior. In the same way, individuals become their own jailers and subject themselves to the society’s whim due to being in a “state of conscious and permanent visibility” to its all-seeing eye (65). Bartky, however, breaks from Foucault’s theory by claiming that there is a clear difference in the disciplines imposed on men and women that are ignored in the latter’s writings.