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 – Modernity and Self Identity,1985 Published
11/07/1991;
Publisher
Polity Press) 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.
But how does contemporary surveillance create these divides?
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. For panoptisism to function,
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.
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 (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) 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
(Foucault, 1975: ‘Discipline and Punish’ Published: Galimard (France) 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 metaphoric
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
Published: Galimard (France)
In addition, 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.’
(Foucault: Discipline and Punish (1975) This
routine came in the form of “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 (1975) : The Birth
of the Prison (NY: Vintage Books 1995) pp. 195-228 translated from the French
by Alan Sheridan © 1977) This system reinforced the idea that the public are
required to report to a figure of authority and puts an emphasis on the social
hierarchy.
Historically, 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.
In
addition, one of the main forms of isolation is seen practiced with 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. 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.’ (Michel Foucault; Discipline
& Punish 1975, Publisher; Gallimard) 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.
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; Foucault, Discipline and Punish) 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 Foucault’s 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 NY: Vintage Books 1995) pp. 195-228’ 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 a persons details, home address, banking information and other
sensitive material. Similarly a supervisior on shift monitors behavior, emails
and phone calls in an office enviorment. Although they cannot be watching
everyone at all times, employees are aware of their presence and therefore act
accordingly. This is a situation most
employees would be familiar with and even aware of their resposnse to a person
in authority being nearby, yet probably wouldn’t consider it to be a form of
panopticism.
Moreover,
the likes of department stores and ATM cash machines use surveilence to monitor
users, such as cctv. Knowing that you are being watched means you are less
likely to steal or commit criminal activity. Even those that do chose to hide
their identity or remain some how out of sight. Crime prevention relies on many
panoptic tenchinques, surveilence just being the obvious, compulsory prevision
of DNA samping, drug and alcohol testing, even thermal imaging are all methods
put in place which affect societies behavior.
More sophisticated equipment allows scanners to pick up cellular and
cordless phone communication, for those making untoward phone calls, in some
cases they will be aware of their conversation being monitored, maybe using
code names or cryptic messages. Law
enforment are even permitted to use polygraphs to determine accuracy and honesty
with those providing information to them on cases by monitoring brain waves. Because of 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.
On
the contrary, 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. This is used
within many other aspects of society and allows for pressure from society to
effect individuals as a form of surveillance.
To conclude, in reaction to exploring
the presence of surveillance within society, seemingly in certain aspects of 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. (D.L) (1994) The Electronic Eye. The Rise of Surveillance: Cambridge: MA:
The Polity Press.
Lyon,
D. (2002) Surveillance Society:
Monitoring Everyday Life. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Foucault,
M. (1997) Discipline and Punish: The
Birth of the Prison. 2nd Edition (April 25,
1995) 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
