Foucault and Panopticism

In Michel Foucault’s “Discipline and Punish”, the author expands on and develops his own unique understanding of “panopticism”, which is a social theory of organization and management that centers around the idea of maximizing the efficiency of a given state. Foucault builds on Jeremy Bentham’s ideas of the panopticon, which is a theoretical structure built in the center of a large area in which a tower is position as to oversee the occupants of every cell and room in it. Foucault takes this idea to argue that the inmates or prisoners in the cells are held to be constantly visible, which changes the behavior of the population in question to one of obedience. Individuals in a constant state of surveillance, whether or not they are actually observed or not, vastly increases the efficiency of the given institution. It is argued in this essay that Foucault’s social theory of panopticism has fascinating implications for how human society should be organized in order to maximize efficient behavior and, in particular, has strong implications for the ways in which surveillance technology has begun to occupy a central part of the tension between civil rights of citizens and the necessity of government to ensure safety and public order.

Michel Foucault was born in 1926 in Poitiers, France and attended university in France where he studied philosophy, sociology, literature, and other important fields. His overall goal in academic was to understand the methods behind social control in contemporary societies, as well as the institutions through social control and organization is exerted. Foucault published “Discipline and Punish” in 1975, which attempted to understand the development of the modern penal system in Europe. This work is largely considered to be his most influential piece throughout his relatively short career, and is welcomed by critics as an enlightening and brilliant text that seeks to understand the incredible changes that defined systems of criminal rehabilitation and penal institutions in Western Europe throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. In essence, Foucault studied “political thinking focused on the concept of power relations” and is known, in particular, for his emphasis on prison systems and the development of modern institutions of social control.

At its core, panopticism refers to social theory of control and management that Foucault feels characterizes modern western penal systems. As the “essential building blocks of the social world presupposed by that social theory” take the form of societal institutions such as prisons and the growth of the modern state, Foucault argues that it is through the prison system that understanding can be gleaned (Petkovic 179). Disciplinary institutions, then, began to form and construct themselves around the idea that modern society requires strict obedience, even in lieu of active observation. The birth of the modern nation-state and the ways in which necessity compels the state to organize itself, such as through the use of economies of scale, mass conscription, and general regimentation of economic activity and societal life, meant that the discipline required to operate this society would have to come cheaply. Foucault argues that the use of force by a state can only go so far; instead, more coercive and inventive means of societal control are necessary, and he argues here that panopticism takes the formative role in the organization of the modern state.

Using the Panopticon as an idea or theoretical framework allows the reader to understand the core underlying message of Foucault’s work. Though the tower itself described by Jeremy Bentham is more theoretical in nature, albeit used somewhat inside prison designs of the modern era, the idea of an all-seeing tower in which individuals maintain the fear of being observed without actually knowing they are observed or not provides the modern state the ability to institutionalize societal control on a massive scale. In the words of Foucault, “educational practice may be used to control people and to render them into “‘docile bodies’”, which allows society to exert control over itself without requiring the use of overbearing force (Bowdridge and Blenkinsop 149). To use force to guarantee social control is a recipe for disaster, as it is highly unlikely that any state exists that truly has the resources and domestic commitment available to overpower its entire population. Instead, through the use of the panopticon and panopticism as a theory of social control, the modern state is able to exert institutionalized influence over its population through more indirect means. Foucault is keen to point out that the mere thought of being observed is sufficient enough to deter criminal behavior, that people commit crimes because they think they can get away with it, thus making the panopticon a brilliant and fascinating example of a mechanism of societal control and organization that operates independently of any real resource requirement or staffing need.

Foucault’s ideas of panopticism are not limited to merely the prison system, however. To the contrary, Foucault argues that prisons are merely one of many “prisons” that exist in the world today. As the modern state grows and expands, the resources needed to police it become less and less available. The idea of the panopticon, then, likewise expands to allow society more opportunities to exert control over itself, through institutionalized events, desires, and organizations that exist solely or in part to make sure that society remains cohesive and coherent. These institutions include things like economies of scale, in which factory work absorbs hours of one’s life yet must be done almost in lieu of any real supervision, schools, militaries, and even medical centers. Altogether, these institutions represent enhanced and expanded conceptions of the panopticon, and the workers contained in these spheres are kept unaware of the fact that no one is truly watching them. Even without direct observation, the idea that individuals in society are being observed is sufficient enough to deter outbreaks of crime, thereby lending support to Foucault’s conception of panopticism.

Understanding panopticism and Foucault’s core argument is critical in understanding the ways in which modern society interacts with the development of societal institutions of control. Efficiency is central to the understanding of the modern world--all institutions are focused on increasing the levels of efficiency of their operations. Militaries, for example, are concerned with operational efficiency and combat prowess. Economics of scale are concerned with avoiding waste during the production process. In the modern world, efficiency is the metric by which success is measured. Panopticism, then, becomes an enlightening social theory in terms of outlining the mechanisms by which societal control is enforced on cultures worldwide. It could be argued, for example, that the everpresent Nazi Gestapo during the period of Nazi rule in Germany was only successful for the reason that the citizens of the Third Reich felt they were being watched. While the practical resources and limitations of the Nazi state were obvious, the rulers of that regime nonetheless managed to implement a society of fear centered around the idea of observation. The Gestapo, for practical reasons, could hardly monitor even a tiny percentage of the entire German population, but the panoptic fear of observation can be argued to help justify the ways in which the Nazi regime retained power for so long.

In its simplest form, Foucault’s theory of panopticism is one of fear of observation. The core idea is that individuals are highly unlikely to break with their determined role in society if they are being directly observed by an authority figure. Most people, for example, will not assault another person directly in front of a police officer. What Foucault does is use this primal fear of observation of illegal acts to explain institutionalized forms of societal control, by which individuals in a state of constant visibility are held in check by the presumed power of the observer, regardless of whether or not that observer is even present. Panopticism has allowed society to create a sense of self-discipline which help control our behavior along pre-determined and socially-acceptable paths. Lastly, while it could be argued that Foucault’s theory can be used to promote electronic surveillance of the modern state, it can also be said that society is capable of self-regulating in lieu of direct electronic surveillance. The example would be the institutionalized system of control established in Nazi Germany.

In this essay, it is argued that Foucault’s social theory of panopticism is based on the idea of the fear of observation that exists in societies. When individuals believe that are directly observed, they are less likely to actively commit crimes. Thus, Foucault created an entire system of social control theory based around the core idea of control via observation. With an anonymous figure observing the actions of the populace, the people of the panopticon are effectively guaranteed to act in accordance with their social roles and responsibilities. With this in mind, Foucault’s theory is one that promotes the idea of the self-regulation and self-disciplining of modern society, which exists in a partial state of observation.

Works Cited

Bowdridge, Michael and Sean Blenkinsop. "Michel Foucault Goes Outside: Discipline AndControl In The Practice Of Outdoor Education." Journal Of Experiential Education, vol. 34, no. 2, 2011, pp. 149-163.

Foucault, Michel. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Pantheon Books, 1977.

Petkovic, Kresmir. "Michel Foucault And The Ontology Of Politics: E Pluribus Unum?."Politicka Misao: Croatian Political Science Review, vol. 47, no. 3, 2010, pp. 176-202.