Foucault, Michel. 2008. ""Panopticism" from Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison." Race/Ethnicity: Multidisciplinary Global Contexts (Indiana University Press) 2 (1): 1-12.
One of Foucault’s central arguments about the motivation for a panopticon is that a facility (prison, hospital, school, etc.) could be open to the public for random ‘inspection’. Proponents suggest this approach could counter the risk of a ‘Potemkin village’. One obvious counter is the practicality of actual inspection. All of those environments are intended to be secure either from or for those inside.
Foucault’s work was published in 1975. Technology has changed dramatically since then. Although the physical domains he spoke about remain, much of security is more about the virtual domain today. Many government and financial institutions stress the need to monitor (surveil?) in a global version of a virtual panopticon. We all now wonder, who is watching us through online technology, or when, or how? Are we at risk of violence from the other ‘inmates’? Will someone enter our virtual ‘hospital room’ to hold our ‘treatment’ hostage?
It seems as if one could make the argument that in our current state-of-the-art, all the same arguments for and against the physical panopticon exist. Those in power can justify ever-increasing levels of intrusion in the name of security. Those out to take advantage of the vulnerable constantly look for ways around the system. Most of us are less versed about the technological means and must make a decision between varying levels of security, access to services, and freedom. Another direction could be to opt out of online life. Like the Potemkin village, that is becoming less and less an option. As physical businesses become ever more virtual (or at least hybrid physical/virtual) our ability to remain ‘old-school’ (offline) continues to decrease. Pandemics also discourage use of cash in favor of a third-party account.
One of Foucault’s central arguments about the motivation for a panopticon is that a facility (prison, hospital, school, etc.) could be open to the public for random ‘inspection’. Proponents suggest this approach could counter the risk of a ‘Potemkin village’. One obvious counter is the practicality of actual inspection. All of those environments are intended to be secure either from or for those inside.
Foucault’s work was published in 1975. Technology has changed dramatically since then. Although the physical domains he spoke about remain, much of security is more about the virtual domain today. Many government and financial institutions stress the need to monitor (surveil?) in a global version of a virtual panopticon. We all now wonder, who is watching us through online technology, or when, or how? Are we at risk of violence from the other ‘inmates’? Will someone enter our virtual ‘hospital room’ to hold our ‘treatment’ hostage?
It seems as if one could make the argument that in our current state-of-the-art, all the same arguments for and against the physical panopticon exist. Those in power can justify ever-increasing levels of intrusion in the name of security. Those out to take advantage of the vulnerable constantly look for ways around the system. Most of us are less versed about the technological means and must make a decision between varying levels of security, access to services, and freedom. Another direction could be to opt out of online life. Like the Potemkin village, that is becoming less and less an option. As physical businesses become ever more virtual (or at least hybrid physical/virtual) our ability to remain ‘old-school’ (offline) continues to decrease. Pandemics also discourage use of cash in favor of a third-party account.
RSS Feed