Stephanie Buck (BA
HONS) GRAPHIC DESIGN LEVEL
5
In
what ways does contemporary surveillance reinforce social (and working)
divisions?
Historically it is known that surveillance, in the everyday sense we
contrive to today, is a product of modernity. (Giddens – 1985)
Recording and monitoring social
situations and daily workplace routines has become a way for modern hierarchies
of power to exist in modern day society.
With surveillance being put into place so commonly, it is often viewed with
negative connotations that question political and personal rights, and though
surveillance is mainly attached to these values, they always seem to be
disputed.
Panopticism, in its humanist form, is a method of isolating certain
individuals or groups of people, as it aims to pursue a person’s subconscious
desire to conform to society.
In the past, it’s considered that panopticism was founded on the basis
of ‘the plague,’ (Michael Foucault ‘Discipline and Punish’ 1975) were disciplining the order of purification within
society existed. The idea of
discipline was created through techniques and institutions measuring and
supervising those affected; invented from the fear of the plague, and
therefore, it is contemplated that all modern disciplinary mechanisms have
derived from this.
In todays society one of the
main forms of isolation is prone to criminals, in the method of prisons.
Allowing a person to be broken down mentally instead of injuring physical
punishment. This
involves the main disciplines of conventional panoptisicim, such as the process
of quarantine were each person is sectioned to pure isolation and ‘the crowd’
is abolished. For
panoptisism to work, social divisions must exist. When a person is accused of
committing a crime, it is perceived that punishment is evident. Rather then breaking down the individual
through methods of torture, panoptic tactics can be used; Prisoners can be broken down mentally,
which can then allow for the reconstruction of their mentality. This
concept is effective due to the natural desire that people in general have to
conform to society’s pressures with social boundaries and divisions.
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) was a British
theorist who proposed the theory of surveillance through the concept of the
‘Panopticon.’ (1791). Bentham defined the term ‘utilitarianism,’ meaning,
‘The doctrine that an action is
right in so far as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of
the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct.’
(Oxford Dictionaries)
Part of human nature is to feel ‘part of’ society and to therefore
attempt to survive in society; whether it is of an elitist nature or within a
working class environment. The fear of abandonment from society allows for
Bentham’s idea to work.
In the 17th century the importance of
labor and ‘worth’ to society began to emerge, and society began to see madness
as a threat to the structure of society.
‘Houses of Correction’ (HOC) emerged, as a combination of workhouse and
prison, in which the ‘mad’, homeless, criminals, unemployed and single mothers
were put into together. These
people were forced to work in the Houses of Correction, in a way to make them
combat their ‘unproductivity’. HOC’s however, soon began to be seen as a
mistake, as it was assumed the different categories of people inhabiting them
were corrupting each other. Attitudes
then changed from forcing the unproductive by physically labor, to the idea of
‘reforming’ them mentally.
Institutions then came
about to ‘reform’ these people, such as asylums, schools and prisons.
Then emerged disciplinary society and disciplinary
power. Foucault refers to this as
‘panopticism’.
This disciplinary punishment was based around mental
discipline rather than physical forms. These mental punishments aimed to make
the offenders more ‘useful’ to society. Jeremy
Bentham’s Panopticon is the prime example of this.
Bentham believed that the
Panopticon was ‘a new mode of obtaining power of mind over
mind’ and that it could be used to stop torture and introduce redemption and
rehabilitation.
But
for Michael Foucault (1975: ‘Discipline and Punish’) the Panopticon is a scheme that cultivates links between historical,
political and social ideology of social control and resistance.
In concrete structural form, the Panopticon (Jeremy
Bentham) is a social model for institutional
orders such as prisons, schools, factories, hospitals and most recently office
environments.
In its meaningful form, the Panopticon, as Foucault explains, works,
“To induce in the
inmate to a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the
automatic functioning of power.”
(Foucault 1977:205) (Discipline and
Punish 1975)
Foucault believes that Bentham's Panopticon is the architectural figure of the structure of the
surveillance, which existed throughout the plague.
Foucault
argues that surveillance at this time was ‘based on a system of permanent
registration.’ (Discipline and Punish (1975)
“reports from the syndics to the intendants …
a
copy is sent to the intendant of the quarter, another to the office of the town
hall, another to enable the syndic to make his daily roll call. Everything that
may be observed during the course of the visits - deaths, illnesses,
complaints, irregularities is noted down and transmitted to the intendants and
magistrates. The magistrates have complete control over medical treatment; they
have appointed a physician in charge; no other practitioner may treat, no
apothecary prepare medicine, no confessor visit a sick person without having
received from him a written note 'to prevent anyone from concealing and dealing
with those sick of the contagion, unknown to the magistrates'.”
(Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison
(NY: Vintage Books 1995) pp. 195-228 translated from the French by Alan
Sheridan © 1977)
This manner of social registration then lead to the
idea of social hierarchies developing and controlling social boundaries of
various groups of people;
‘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.’
(Discipline
& Punish 1985)
From this, it is highlighted that a
strong connection exists between these actions and the after effects they had
on society then, and within the modern day approach to ‘managing’ society. Magistrates at the time of ‘the plague’
were considered ‘leaders’ and the ‘power’ of society as they allocated roles
and supervision tactics over the rest of common society. They started to
allocate these specific roles and divisions within society by introducing
methods of records and registration, as a form of surveillance, to monitor the
success rate of a society in need.
This is an element of pure panopticism; Individualizing and ordering
classification systems to ‘supervise’ a select few of society.
The idea of Panopticism therefore
creates a self-disciplined aspect to society as one is forced through one’s
fear, paranoia and subconscious rehabilitation and redemption, to be accepted
as part of society once again, such as with ‘the plague’ or the 17th
century HOC’s, asylums and schools.
This is similar to modern day tactics of surveillance, where management
of ‘power’ such as governments, use social divisions to keep society in order
with the same or similar methods.
Methods such as registers in education
systems, ID cards for extensive public and private tracking systems and
fingerprinting procedures for database schemes of surveillance.
In contrast, there are alternate ideas on what panopticism actually
suggests and what it will do to society and the divisions within society.
William Bogard suggests that Panopticism will lead to absolute
perfection and will therefore lead to the elimination of the Panopticon and
it’s various aspects. He suggests that surveillance will survive, as it’s own
stimulation, therefore societies would start to realize the presence of
surveillance and this would consequently effect their actions. Thus effecting
society as a whole, rather then using the Panopticon as a tool for ‘specific’
members of society. He proposes that ‘one can stimulate
a space of control’ and project a number of courses of action, but
pre-programmed responses to actual courses of events will be definite, as
increased technological advances of surveillance will be pushed as a changing
mix of localized events and processes. (Bogard 1991: 327-28)
In modern day society, this seems to be effective. In consequence to
surveillance such as CCTV, actions of citizens differ from what would be a
natural reaction to controlled reaction due to ‘big brother’ watching. This is an example that refers to Bogard’s
suggestion of surveillance perfecting society.
Taking this into account, Foucault’s main view on the Panopticon in
modern day stems from aspects of Bogard’s understanding. Modern society is based upon self-discipline;
in Faulcults opinion the Panopticon does in fact have a physical effect on
modern day society. It seems to adopt
certain aspects of modern design within buildings and layouts, such as open
bars, pubs, and office spaces, sharing with managers.
This is similar to the layout of the Panopticon that
was created by Bentham. In the book ‘Discipline and Punish – The Birth of the
Prison’ by Foucault, the Panopticon that Bentham built is described as:
“an annular building; at the center, a tower; this
tower is pierced with wide windows that open onto the inner side of the ring;
the peripheric building is divided into cells, each of which extends the whole
width of the building; they have two windows, one on the inside, corresponding
to the window of the tower; the other, on the outside, allows light to cross
the cell from one end to the other.”
This structure allows for the individual
to be seen but unable to communicate with neither security nor other prisoners.
In this case, it expels the idea of crowds as they become inexistent as
prisoners feel boundaries of confinement whilst believing that they are being
constantly watched. Foucault explains that the Panopticon works “to induce in
the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the
automatic functioning of power.” The effect being that the prisoner never knows
if anyone is watching, introducing forms of paranoia as a controlling method.
Foucault argues that the Panopticon does have a physical effect as it
produces ‘docile bodies’ which introduces the idea of passive obedientent’s
within society, consisting of self-monitoring, correcting and submissive
people.
This is reflected throughout everyday life today, as
people conform to the idea of what is seen to be right. However, whenever
conformists are created, there will always be an uprising of resistance, which
normally exists within the social divisions of society. Foucault argues that power is not a
‘thing’, but a relationship with the subject. Wherever there is power, there is
also space for resistance. Power is only given to something if people allow it
to be powerful. So in the case of surveillance, he suggests that it has become
powerful due to society allowing this to happen. Panopticism then,
is the idea that people are unaware of the power over them. For example, the
common office layout is seen to primarily focus on creating a sociable and
comfortable environment, with often-large rooms and open desk space. However,
with panoticism in mind, there are aspects of the layout that monitor and
supervise a level of control, via glass booth windows placed to ‘observe’ the
workplace and other techniques.
These methods of subtle surveillance allow for social
rankings to be suggested. The manager figure would be seen to monitor the
office space through component’s of layout that is similar to those, of the
Panopticon. With the glass booth as a main focus within the office space,
employees would be unsure whether the manager would be watching them, therefore
always attaining a level of obedience, consequently being controlled.
This also applies with contemporary surveillance to
reinforce social divisions. Citizens are watched with contemporary
tactics, which are enormously varied and would include:
- A database for employers containing the names of persons, who have
filed workman compensation claims,
- A video monitor in a department store scanning customers and matching
their images to those of suspected shoplifters,
- A supervisor monitoring employee's e-mail and phone communication,
- A badge signaling where an employee is at all times,
- A hidden camera in an ATM machine,
- A thermal imaging device aimed at the exterior of a house from across
the street,
- Analyzing hair to determine drug use,
- A self-test for level of alcohol in one's system,
- A scanner that picks up cellular and cordless phone communication,
- Compulsory provision of a DNA sample,
- The polygraph or monitoring brain waves to determine truthfulness,
With these techniques, divisions in society are controlled, as it tends
to be those of upper class – politicians or governmental forces that seem to
have the power over the above techniques. Controlling the citizens in mass
tends to leave to a dispute between these hierarchies. As
Foucault argues, the ‘panoptic gaze is used by
society to internalize the displiplne of the self, it internalize the rules and
regulations of the State in the social body.’ This
therefore highlights that the idea suggests that there is power circulating
through social practices, and that power is preserved through economical and
technological statuses. With a rise in
computer and internet societies, people can develop new ways of information
gathering and uprising, with new forms of ‘the crowd’ in virtual form instead
of physical presence as society is produced and meditated in large parts by
computer technology. From this, a post-panoptic era seems
to be formulating. A shift toward non-visual surveillance by a physical
presence has started to shift cultural attitudes about modern day surveillance
techniques, such as those listed above.
Although these methods do not seem as intense as big brother watching in
public and private sectors, they seem to be more developed and enhanced to gain
a more detailed account of surveillance, monitoring the social aspects of
communities and citizens. Even though
modern devices seem less common, they are specific to hidden surveillance, out
of sight and out of mind, which perhaps influences citizens into believing that
they are being monitored on a lesser extent. Contradicting
to these types of surveillance monitoring, sections of social divisions, such
as parents, working class and middle class families, feel that this could
enhance and protect society from offenders such as criminals and terrorists. So
although there is an aspect of fear and obedience, it also appears to be a
general ambivalence suggested in parallel. Modern
day surveillance was primary a technology of military and police control, but
in recent years; surveillance has become a form of entertainment. From
households having webcams and applications such as Skype, to reality TV shows
where individuals from different backgrounds subject themselves to constant
observation, which in turn feeds the public prurient desires. This
also applies within the workforce, when surveillance is enhanced to
differentiate or create generazaiation to non-specialized roles, such as within
a retail store environment where employees are trained to identify shoplifters
no matter their role within the store. This is a form of social surveillance
that highlights surveillance in it’s most everyday form, as a mass store is
focused on one or two individuals based on stereotypes which is a form of
‘close observation’. This
in turn, highlights the idea of panopticism, where people are aware of the
power over them and therefore will not behave abruptly or in the manor they
should not, as they will be caught out. This idea can arguably be said to
spread from not only workplace and public environments, but also into one’s
free time such as browsing the internet, shopping etc. For example, a gym is a
form of self-discipline. As gyms offer a lot of windows it allows people to see
you training, this in turn forces one to work harder and to ‘feel guilty’ if
they are not reaching their full potential and slacking off. This is used
within many other aspects of society and allows for pressure from society to
effect individuals as a form of surveillance.
In reaction to exploring the presence of
surveillance within society, I feel that it in certain aspects contempory
surveillance does reinforce social standings. The idea of panopticism is
explored throughout history, but in modern day, it is reflected through new
technological advances that try to hide the fact that we are being monitored to
a massive extent. Everything nowadays seems to be controlled, with
re-precisions that effect society and societies reactions. Overall
Foucault highlights important information that allows us to reflect on our
social divisions and activities to underpin the whereabouts of power and
control within society.
Bibliography:
Lyon,
D. (1994) The Electronic Eye.
Cambridge: The Policy Press
Lyon,
D. (2002) Surveillance Society:
Monitoring Everyday Life. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Foucault,
M. (1997) Discipline and Punish: The
Birth of the Prison. New York: Pantheon.
Bogard,
B. (1996) The Stimulation of
Surveillance: Hyper Control in Telematics Societies. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Related
Articles:
Managerial
control and workplace regimes: an introduction
Work, Employment & Society
September 1, 2010 24: 1-12
Surveillance,
Resistance, Observance: Exploring the Teleo-affective Volatility of Workplace
Interaction
Organization Studies August 1,
2006 27: 1111-1130
Michel
Foucault in the Social Study of ICTs: Critique and Reappraisal
Social Science Computer Review August 1, 2006 24:
274-295
Overcoming
Resistance to Surveillance: A Genealogy of the EAP Discourse
Organization Studies July 1, 2005 26: 973-997
Political process perspectives on organization and
technological change
Human Relations July 1, 2005 58: 827-843
Introduction:
Foucault, Management and History
Organization
November 1, 2002 9: 515-526
