Mass Surveillance and the Panopticon Analysis Essay

Totalitarian governments, by their very nature demand control over the people, encompassing all aspects of their lives, and through the use of surveillance, this control is maintained. Through the works of Anthony Burgess in A Clockwork Orange, Tom Rob Smith in Child 44, and George Orwell in 1984, these authors take a closer look into the necessity of surveillance in the survival of any totalitarian government. To begin with, the motivation for using surveillance over the people stems from the concept of power, maintaining the power of the state is the ultimate goal, and as long as the state is maintained, any measure taken is worth it. In addition, through the use of surveillance, governments create an environment where the family unit itself is broken down, and society drifts towards one devoid of trust, encouraging people to turn on one another in the name of the state. Finally, the use of surveillance allows the government to form the next generations, molding their ideal nation, into one where the truth of the government is absolute, and any thought of revolution is crushed. Through the use of surveillance, totalitarian governments create an environment where secrets and privacy no longer exist, and the state is the dominant and absolute power, at the expense of the people

Surveillance is not a new thing. In fact, espionage, tracking, and sleuthing were part of society ever since 5000 B.C. But in the rise of the modern era, the idea of surveillance in the public eye serves as a controversial topic of discussion. People everywhere complain about the existence of security cameras, government tracking, and the right to privacy. Such problems, however, are not due to the sudden discovery of surveillance, but the modern abuse of it. Seeing the disastrous effects of over surveillance from George Orwell’s 1984, the public rightfully fears societal deterioration through modern surveillance abuse portrayed in Matthew Hutson’s “Even Bugs Will Be Bugged” and the effects of such in Jennifer Golbeck’s “All Eyes On You”. The abuse of surveillance induces the fear of discovery through the invasion of privacy, and ensures the omnipresence of one’s past that haunt future endeavors, to ultimately obstruct human development and the progress of society overall.

To start, is Foucault 's Panopticism. Panopticism uses the idea of Bentham’s Panopticon to elaborate the disciplinary ideas that he is trying to explain. The Panopticon is an “all seeing” structure that makes observations without the people ever knowing when they were being watched, even though it is clearly visible (Foucault, 204). Its gaze can be upon anyone, from a “madman, a patient, a condemned man” (Foucault, 200). These features allow Panopticism to be a passive power, rather than an active one. With this in mind, power is shifted from the hands of the individual to the anonymous “supervisor” of the Panopticon (Foucault, 200). This method of observation facilitates the transformation of individuals to controllable individuals (Foucault, 205).

“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).

When information is posted online for example, individuals are now aware that CSIS has full control over that information—and can get a warrant essentially whenever they want. This can lead individuals self-governing what they say, what they post—and in a way—the way they think. Based on Michel Foucault’s research in his article Discipline and Punish, CSIS’s mode of surveillance is much like the notion of Jeremy Bentham’s panopticon. The panopticon is an idea for a prison where there is a guard tower in the centre of a circular room. Around the perimeter of the prison is where the cells are.

Foucault's "Panopticism" (1979) is a careful piece that talks about how a panoptic framework would impact culture, society, the political, and individuals. Foucault describes panopticon is to “induce the inmate a state of conscious and visibility that assures the automatic function of power.” Foucault mentions, surveillance has a lasting effects, regardless of the fact that it is discontinuous in its activity; that the perfection of power ought to render its real unneeded practice. The Inmates are in a dominating circumstance that they are them-selves the bearers. Foucault (201, 202–3) also mentions that "He who is subjected to a field of visibility, and knows it, expect responsibility regardless of the constrains of power; he makes them play spontaneously upon

Originally an architectural model for a prison (Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon), American philosopher Michel Foucault applies the panopticon’s characteristics – which include: the lack of privacy; the forced conformity and changes in behaviour to cope with the lack of privacy; and lack of knowledge of who is watching you, why they are watching you, how, or whether you are being watched or not– to our modern world (Simon 2-3). Bart Simon argues, “To know one is being seen without being able to see carries with it uncertainty that becomes a source of anxiety, discomfort and terror” (Simon 4). In other words, feeling that you are being watched causes stress, which ultimately leads to “normalization” and “conformity” – changing our behaviour (which mimics the behaviour of those around us) to adapt (Simon 4-5, 7; Langlois). Furthermore, in the panoptic prison of our everyday world, we are inmates who try to adapt to the slow deterioration of our right to privacy. Citizenfour, presents the concepts of privacy and surveillance following the September 11 Terrorist Attacks, along with the behavioural effects of knowing one is relentlessly being watched by the state. Through the behaviour of Edward Snowden and the director’s use of symbolism, Citizenfour reveals the panoptic prison present in our modern

This critical definition of the panopticon was popularized by Foucault and later applied to present-day surveillance measures by other social critics. According to Foucault, the panopticon is simply an older form of biopower, that is, a technology of power for overseeing people as a large group. It indicates the control of individual bodies through state discipline. While primarily imposed from external sources, it becomes internalized as the human body progressively complies with indirect regulations and goals. Therefore, the use of biopower has allowed for the rise of modern capitalism and the modern nation state. Ideas of the individual and subjectivity would inherently confront modern capitalism hence the state’s adamant approach to generalize and control entire

In the main occasion the observation instrument was an exceptionally planned building, Bentham's Panopticon; in the second, a firmly controlled television network, Orwell's Big Brother; today, an electronic human-GPS beacon. When television came along in the 1940’s, George Orwell imagined a new sort of electronic Panopticon that would be far less expensive to implement and would extend beyond buildings to streets and other public spaces. He called it ““Big Brother” and indelibly cast it as an enabling technology for totalitarian government. In popular culture it was associated almost exclusively with communism.” His vision sparked a sense of fear, and the term became a rallying cry for those opposing surveillance of any sort, but mainly surveillance as an device of tyranny.

The author of the essay “Panopticism”, Michel Foucault gives his opinion on power and discipline in Panopticism. He describes Jeremy Bentham’s “Panopticon”, a tower in the centre of a room which has vision to every cell, generalized for prisoners. In simple words, it functioned in maintaining discipline throughout the jail. It’s most distinctive feature was that; prisoners could be seen without ever seeing. Prisoners would never really know when they are watched and when not. They are always under the impression that someone is keeping an eye on them continuously and if anything goes wrong, or they make mistake, they would be punished severely. Since, a prisoner would never know when he/she is watched, they have to be at their best. In a

The report puts forward some questions about how mass surveillance is affecting our country, and where to draw the line when it comes to watching our population. The main aim of this article is to shed the light on how far the government is taking public surveillance so that people can know exactly how private their lives are, and make a

“Our society is not one of spectacle, but of surveillance; under the surface of images, one invests bodies in depth; behind the great abstraction of exchange, there continues the meticulous concrete training of useful forces; the circuits of communication are the supports of an accumulation and a centralization of knowledge; the play of signs defines the anchorages of power; it is not that the beautiful totality of the individual is amputated, repressed, altered by our social order, it is rather that the individual is carefully fabricated in it, according to a whole technique of forces and bodies. (pp.333-34)”

The Panopticon is a building which has an annual part in the periphery and a tower in the centre. Next to omitting little details its most important feature is the ability to see into every cells without being visible. “The panoptic mechanism arranges spatial unities that make it possible to see constantly and to recognize immediately.” (Calhoun et al., 2007: 209) The consciousness of being watched make people put on their best behaviour, their best way of acting thus the inmates do not commit any further crimes as it usually occurs that could happen without being watched.

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.

Surveillance was used by the sovereign as a form of power “that it was more efficient and profitable in terms of the economy of power to place people under surveillance than to subject them to some exemplary penalty” (Foucault, 1977, p. 38). For Foucault individuals had more freedom in the past even though people were tortured in comparison to today, he explains to us that in the past people knew that if they committed a serious crime torture would ensue. In the prison system, prisoners are being watched at all times, everything is regulated and documentations are filled out on regular and irregular behaviour. In order to watch inmates at all times, Bentham’s architectural structure called the panoptican was used in prisons. This enabled officers to watch inmates without them knowing. All cells could not be watched at the same time but inmates did not know if they were bring observed or not so they behaved as if they were being observed. Prisoners are confined in their cells with no engagement with other inmates. Watchmen can see in but prisoners cannot see out. They are in total confinement. (Spierenburg,