Panopticon & Modern Day Effects
Daniel C. Wright
SOCI 3860
Dr. Stahl
Public and private surveillance. What values do these modern day phenomenon hold in contemporary societies? In this age of technology, national public surveillance has put a halt to the days of running red lights at intersections, failing to yield in traffic and speeding on the interstate. For instance, trafficland.com (2010) is just one of the many video monitoring entities providing the public and government (federal & state level) with detailed traffic patterns including everything from video footage of car accidents to the reporting of general traffic congestion. Similarly, video surveillance has made a steady transformation from monitoring traffic into the confines of other public arenas, such as malls, small businesses, restaurants and even private residences. This notion begs the question, where did this concept originate? But, more specifically, how are these types of surveillance affecting our lives? In short, the answer lies with understanding “panopticon.” In order to investigate this concept as well as to better understand its effects, several articles must be examined.
First, the birth of what we know today as video surveillance began in the late 1700’s. At that time, the term Panopticon was coined by an English radical named Jeremy Bentham. The idea was introduced in his 1787 work, “Panopticon,” and was written in response to a newspaper article (read by Bentham) which discussed a conventional prison establishment. In the first letter of “The Panopticon Writings,” as they were later named, Bentham describes his concept of the “Inspection Principle.” This is simply the idea of constant supervision over others. In the prison context, Bentham explains the concept consists of creating a building which would allow a steady surveillance over all prisoners. The Englishman strongly believed it was imperative to watch over every member a prison regardless of the prisoner’s history, and this thought was furthered by Bentham mentioning regardless of the purpose of the members’ imprisonment, whether it be: punishing the incorrigible, guarding the insane, reforming the vicious, confining the suspected, employing the idle, maintaining the helpless, curing the sick, and instructing the willing, the Inspection Principle would prove useful. Moreover, Bentham held a strong belief that this very principle should be applied to locations outside of prisons; specifically, he mentions hospitals, schools, workplaces and judicial buildings. The bottom line of the first letter was the proposal that keeping a constant watch over individuals would, ultimately, allow for a more efficient achievement of goals within environments (i.e. tracking prisoners, monitoring employees, etc.).
In his second letter, Jeremy Bentham illustrates the physical aspects of his idea for the prison. The building should be circular, with the cells of prisoners making up the circumference and no physical connection between individual cells. Most importantly, “the watcher,” as Bentham called it, should have a room in the middle of the cells. Additionally, each cell will have a small window (cut from the back) in an effort to allow light into the room, as well as each cell having a single door on the inner-side wall. Bentham also described a contemporary mechanism that would allow the watcher to see into every cell regardless of the time of day. In simple terms, the technique consisted of displaying lamps outside of the cells beside reflectors which would cast light into the cells at night. Lastly, and possibly most importantly, Bentham described the usage of tubes made of tin in which the watcher could whisper through to communicate with guardsmen so he could man his central position at all times.
Next, Steve Mann’s 1995 piece, Reflectionism" and "Diffusionism": New Tactics for Deconstructing the Video Surveillance Superhighway, recognizes the growing phenomenon of surveillance that is being coupled with sophisticated technology in order to observe individuals. Mann uses the phrase “surveillance superhighway” to describe this national public surveillance process, which includes examples such as automatic face recognition, television set top-boxes, pressure-based imaging sensors inside office chairs and synthetic aperture cameras (used to detect weapons beneath clothing). With an understanding of these types of surveillance, the chief question Mann intends to answer is at what price is society achieving safety? In an attempt to shed light on this notion, the concept of “reflectionism” is introduced as a method for analyzing and challenging social issues. In simple terms, reflectionism philosophically attacks the techniques of the oppressor by reversing the very techniques against the oppressor. Thus, the oppressor switches roles with the audience and endures their own methodologies. In the context of video surveillance, Mann believes the power of reflectionism could, “raise sufficient awareness to make a meaningful reduction in the inappropriate use of video surveillance” (Mann, 101). Lastly, the researcher claims, upon the failure of reflectionism, “diffusionism,” or the wearing of cameras, must be implemented. He supports this tactic by referencing Foucalt, who once claimed, “It is only necessary that the prisoner not know whether there is a guard watching in the tower,” and flips this logic by recognizing the centrality of the guard (watcher) knowing he could be arbitrarily identified, hence, the use of everyday cameras.
The last research study was done by Michael Curry in 1997, titled, The Digital Individual and the Private Realm, and assessed the topic of privacy in relation to the use of geographic information systems coupled with technological innovations (i.e. global positioning systems, geodemographics and remote surveillance systems). Most importantly, the researcher identifies, along with these systems characterizing privacy breeching capabilities, another manner in which such surveillance is abusing privacy: new contemporary surveillance technology, itself, is pushing for more advanced versions which are drawing thin the line between the private and public as well as challenging existing views of the term privacy. In order to evaluate this inquiry, Mann utilizes a certain methodology. First, he briefly illustrates the history of privacy, and second, identifies issues with the modern usage of geographic information and geodemographic systems (i.e. the accessibility of unregulated information and data, problems with visual representations of households or individuals, and data profiling). Lastly, Mann declares ways in which geographic information systems is linked to the redefining of privacy through data profiles and individuals (i.e. new surveillance technology gives culture and place a sort of makeover, as well as people viewed as attached to locations from where they are seen). In the end, Mann conveys his resolution that new surveillance technology is inevitable; thus, two realizations must be understood in an effort to decrease the problems raised by geodemographic and geographic systems. First and foremost, we must take digital individuals (the user of private information conveyed through credit card, social security numbers and/or residence address information) seriously. Finally, we should remember that by being constantly monitored, we have the ability to act accordingly in an effort to become the person we so desire.
Resources
About. (2010). Traffic Land. Retrieved from http://corporate.trafficland.com/about.html.
Bentham, J. (1995). Panopticon. The Panopticon Writings, 29-95.
Curry, M. (1997). The Digital Individual and the Private Realm. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 87, 681-699.
Mann, S. (1998). "Reflectionism" and "Diffusionism": New Tactics for Deconstructing the Video Surveillance Superhighway. Leonardo, 31, 93-102.
Thompson, P. (2003). Fantasy Island: a Labour Process critique of the ‘age of surveillance’. Surveillance & Society, 1, 138-151.