1

In class, we introduced and discussed the idea of the Panopticon. How good is it as a model for discussing contemporary surveillance in the city?

With reference to key ideas, theorists and examples, consider the strengths and weaknesses of the Panoptic model.

2 3

Fig. 1 Elevation, section and plan of Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon penitentiary, drawn by Willey Reveley, (1791)

In class, we introduced and discussed the idea of the Panopticon. How good is it as a model for discussing contemporary surveillance in the city? With reference to key ideas, theorists and examples, consider the strengths and weaknesses of the Panoptic model.

Surveillance is, of course, nothing new, but rather an unavoidable feature in the contemporary society. This paper invites a comparison between the panoptic model and the new techniques proposed through the new departure for surveillance. With further exploration, there is in no doubt a relation between technological change and social change, which will both importantly acknowledge the analytical and theoretical aspects of the subject matter, without dismissing the concept and the practice of surveillance. Furthermore, in relations to the fundamental aspects of the Panoptic model, the paradox of punishment suggested by Bethnam's utilitarian theory invites comparison with the effects of contemporary surveillance-saturated environment/cities. It is relatively vital to consider the effects of both surveillance in order to arguably construct a comparison. In Bethnam's eyes, the idea of punishment(or apparent punishment) relatively acts upon the mind where the spectacle effortlessly involves 'achieving the greatest apparent suffering with the least real suffering' with the 'least inflicted pain' (Bozovic, 2010, p. 5). Such spectacle enables us to question the accuracy and precision of the model in discussing contemporary surveillance in 'cyberspace.' Panopticon, in the means of contemporary surveillance, also known as digital surveillance in society today, draws a line between invisible omnipresence, where it plays a mode of 'obtaining power of mind over mind' (Bozovic, 1995, p.1). In no doubt, both positioning of surveillance concerns primarily in the interchange of 'privacy' and 'freedom' (Lyon, 2002), thus promoting social constraints amongst individuals in society, as a matter of fact, endlessly destroying one's capability of fulfilling their basis of individual differences, through constantly making attempts to fulfilling the governmental wants and needs. Consequently, it is relatively important to not be fixated on a particular argument, and thus should not judge in advance 'using vulgar assumptions' upon panopticism and the negative effects of technological surveillance (Lyon, 2002, p. 3).

The surveillance system of the panopticon model and contemporary surveillance today, unavoidably consist of its inadequacy or weaknesses which may consequentially be damaging for particular individuals. Through examination of the Panoptic model, it invites a comparison between fiction and reality. Theory within theory, or theory within fiction undeniably depreciates the presence of reality, neglecting the concept of 'how things are' in the real world, thus, the panoptic model may likely to unqualifiedly succeed in the field of practice. Although panopticon drives a powerful imagery, it fails to overcome the epistemological obstacle of sociological complexities, thus, fails to account for the future long term consequences in the society. For instance, in the writing of 'Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates', it presents real-life examples of the members in 'total institutions', which arguably holds an extent of equivalency to those who were in the Panoptic cells, and after released when approached with real-life situations, one similarly experience a prison cell, but 'without a wall.' For some individuals, they may have learned their lesson to behave appropriately, however, in no doubt for others, the problem would not have been solve, leaving issues to be impaired, which may exhale back into the society. Similarly, contemporary surveillance in developed countries retains some rudimentary and unsatisfactory aspects which, as mentioned, does not emphasise or account for human sociological complexities. What primarily fails for the modern surveillance system is the lack of perplexing and detailing identification amongst individuals where, for instance, the functionality of 'mass' social sorting through technological advancement. Although, to some extent, the functionality of social sorting does foster significant considerations to the human race. However, such do not prudently emphasise on delivering specific solutions for individuals, but rather sorting individuals into categories that determines whether one should or is under target or in suspicion (Lyon, 2002). In relations to the points mentioned related to the panopticon model above, the activities arranged by authorities are nothing more than 'a single rational plan purportedly designed to fulfil the official aims of the institution' (Goffman and Goggman, 1991, p. 17).

4 5

(Zuboff, 1989, p. 320). In comparison to contemporary surveillance in the cities, data collection is most likely to be 'automated' by the machines, rather than operationalised by humans (Marx, 2002), therefore, without needing the presence of the observer, unlike the Panopticon system. The capability of both form of surveillance is more than a simple matter of convenience as the alteration or differences, perhaps, can place a major impact on the quality of the data received. Given the nature of 'technological' surveillance, the system advantageously is capable of providing great amount of real-time data which not only provides solutions to problems that are 'apparent', but also to achieve better control and 'higher levels of reliability', which in turns primarily satisfy governmental and authoritarian certainty and control (Zuboff, 1989, p. 324). The highly influential work of Zuboff(1989), delivers multiple of scenarios or case studies in work settings, which are primarily associated with information panopticon. The Cedar Bluff 's Overview System for instance, mentioned in 'In The Age of the Smart Machine, The Future of Work and Power' by Soshana Zuboff, regarded the management as a system that had been developed as a 'solution to problems that were pragmatic, immediate, and technical', which allowed tremendous amount of information/data to be gathered; allowing 'better process control' (Zuboff, 1989, p. 324). It is no surprise that technologies will continue to develop and push boundaries, thus would limitlessly outweigh the capability of Bethnam's Panoptic model, thus questioning the potency of the Panoptic model in discussing contemporary surveillance. Beyond any doubt, the information systems of contemporary surveillance unquestionably exceeds Bentham's fictitious Panoptic-inspection house, however, both to some degree, consist of universal transparency that are continuously transmitted through the panoptic vision. While contemporary surveillance in the city eliminates the necessity of face-to-face engagement, the act or process of the 'computerised' information collection in the cities or urban space highly recognises the disciplinary potential of surveillance (Gray, 2003), which in turn undoubtedly reflects on the disciplinary influence and potency proposed by the Panoptic model.

In conclusion, Bentham's 'panoptic' tradition of thought generally place focus upon the concept of provoking disciplinary power, and which in relations to the contemporary surveillance systems, the functionality of facial recognition in the cities for instance; similarly highlights the matter of disciplinary power, due to the technological ability of providing limitless amount of gaze over the urban spaces, which in turns evidently reflects on the disciplinary influence by the Panoptic model. Moreover, the weakness of the Panoptic model arguably involves the demands acquired to meet the requirements of the panopticon; as it is relatively complex and multitudinous, of which it employs endless amount of psychological effort to produce control and disciplinary technique. Although the methodology of panopticon was deliberately criticised when compared with the contemporary methods for conducting surveillance, it is relatively prejudiced and immoderate to downgrade the model merely based on what was available at the time. Thus, the model should not undeservingly receive inadequate treatment, rather,

Fig. 2 VeriLook Surveillance biometric face recognition technology (no date)

This dismantling similar subject of 'weakness' and criticism draws a path between the Panoptic model and modern surveillance, thus portraying a wider picture of the evolution and influence of Jeremy Bethnam's empowering utilitarian philosophy, which today, are adopted for effectuating governmental powering and needs. Although both systems from different centuries neglects the purpose of sustaining lifelong solutions amongst individuals in society, it is in no doubt that technological development heightened the significant boundaries proposed by the initial mechanism of the Panoptic model. However for both, it is essential to account for the inabilities of model/system for future practical application.

In ‘The Panopticon Writings’ by professor of Early Modern Philosophy, Miran Bozovic, accentuates the predominant characteristics of the panopticon as ‘the apparent omnipresence of the inspector’ integrated with ‘the extreme facility of his real presence’. According to Bentham, such combination forms a whole to sustain perfect discipline that utterly discourages the prisoners from carrying particular actions through persistently instilling doubt or fear of the consequences produced (Bozovic, 2010, pp. 8-9). The inculcation comparably corresponds with the element of surveillance today, evidently through technological development and achievement. For instance, the usage of cameras and its advanced face-recognition system(see fig. 2.) on streets allows reliable monitoring of individual citizen. Thus, in no doubt adversely draws a relation between the subject matter of privacy and surveillance, where, unsurprisingly, leading to a discouragement of freedom upon citizens. Such circumstances echoes the conception of omnipresence by the Panoptic model, as it equivalently infects people today to relentlessly ‘rethink’ their actions in public with the fear and conscious of being ‘targeted for exclusions’ or the hesitation of whether their identity are being ‘confirmed or rejected’ (Lyon, 2002, p.8). As a result, giving a judgement concerning such matter, the Panoptic model and contemporary surveillance similarly drives the principles of omnipresence, whereby in both structure, one does not know whether they are being seen, therefore self- presumptuously presume that they are being brought into attention (Bozovic, 2010). On the other hand, further exploration of the existence of omnipresence in surveillance today remains doubtful, where the philosophical concept of ‘I think therefore I am’ by Rene Descartes or the new mantra of ‘I am seen and I see that I am seen’ predictably driven by the operations of power in the subject of panopticism(Mirzoeff, 1998, p. 10) may arguably lack traceability in surveillance today. Nonetheless, the ultimate and fictitious result(omnipresence) stirred by the Panoptic model can be criticised for its reductionist approach, where Clive Norris, the author of ‘The Maximum Surveillance Society: The Rise of CCTV’, highlights the unseen observer is ‘less obvious than it might at first seem’, thus leading to a reduction in the reliability of the model as an establishment or discussion in modern surveillance as an object of controlling or modifying behaviour. In addition, data collection conducted through contemporary surveillance is likely to be integrated into routine activity, with exceptionally low visibility in comparison with the Panoptic model, thus raising the concern of the Hawthorne effect. On the basis of Hawthorne effect(driven by omnipresence), the panopticon model steer inmates to modify their behaviour, whereas the modern surveilling system considerably undertakes an approach where the ‘gaze’ is invisible or not immediately apparent, which in turns, encourages more truthfulness and natural behaviour among citizens. Thus overall, indicating a differentiation between their means, and rather, questioning the ability of the Panoptic model in explaining contemporary surveillance today.

Moreover, in terms of methodology, it is important to direct attention to the techniques of control in relations to the general operated system of the Panoptic model and contemporary surveillance. While it is certain that both can conceivably differ from one another, it is important to raise the matter of techniques and elements that both ‘new’ and ‘old’ surveillance acquire, as they are the main source which drives the surveilling activity, the central component of the surveilling activity. For instance, Bethnam’s panopticon, although never built, was an ingenious architectural plan (see fig. 1), a prison administered by ‘invisible overseers’ which are governed by both gaze and voice. The philosophical implication in no doubt, placed emphasis on the independent observer, thus the operator(person) is at its prominence of operating and regulating, which the Associate Professor Shoshana Zuboff, at Harvard Business School, described the sustaining Panoptic power is in independence of the ‘person who exercises it’

6 7

Bibliography

Barnard-Wills, D. (2011) Surveillance and identity: Discourse, subjectivity and the state. United Kingdom: Ashgate Publishing.

Bauman, Z. (2000) Liquid modernity. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

Bentham, J., Božovič, M. and Bozovic, M. (2010) The Panopticon writings: (wo Es war). 2nd edn. London: Verso Books.

Dear, M.J. and Wolch, J.R. (1987) Landscapes of despair: From deinstitutionalization to homelessness. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Descartes: ‘I think therefore I am’ (no date) Available at: http://newlearningonline.com/new-learning/chapter-7/descartes-i-think-therefore-i-am (Accessed: 29 April 2016).

Goffman, E. and Goggman, E. (1991) Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates (Penguin social sciences). London: Penguin Books.

Gray, M. (2003) ‘Urban surveillance and Panopticism: Will we recognize the facial recognition society? *’, Surveillance & Society, 1(3), pp. 314–330.

Knowles, C. (2000) Bedlam on the streets. Routledge.

LaBossiere, M. and Nelson, B. (2015) Free will, materialism & dualism. Available at: http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?tag=rene-descartes (Accessed: 12 April 2016).

Lyon, D. (ed.) (2002) Surveillance as social sorting: Privacy, risk and automated discrimination. New York: Taylor & Francis Books.

Marvin, C. (1990) When old technologies were new: Thinking about electric communication in the late nineteenth century. 10th edn. New York: Oxford University Press, USA.

Marx, G.T. (2002) ‘What’s New about the “ new surveillance ” ? Classifying for change and continuity *’, Surveillance & Society, 1(1), pp. 9–29.

McMullan, T. (2015) What does the panopticon mean in the age of digital surveillance? Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/23/panopticon-digital-surveillance-jeremy-bentham (Accessed: 29 April 2016).

Mirzoeff, N. (ed.) (1998) The visual cultural reader. 2nd edn. New York: Routledge.

Norris, C. and Armstrong, G. (1999) The maximum surveillance society: The rise of CCTV. New York: Berg Publishers.

Nunes, M. (2006) Cyberspaces of everyday life. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Wacks, R. (2015) Privacy: A very short introduction. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Wise, M.J. and Wise, J.M. (1997) Exploring technology and social space: Communications and agency at the end of the 20th century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications (CA).

Zuboff, S. (1989) In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power. Butterworth-Heinemann.

List of Illustration

Figure 1.Elevation, section and plan of Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon penitentiary, drawn by Willey Reveley, (1791) [online] At: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon#/media/File:Panopticon.jpg(Accessed on 25.04.16)

Figure 2. VeriLook Surveillance biometric face recognition technology (no date) [online] At: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-fbis-nationwide-facial-recognition-system-2012-9?IR=T(Accessed on 25.04.16)

one should acknowledge the powering principles and mechanism of power proposed through the visualisation of the architectural structure. With such acknowledgement, one should in no doubt realise that the principles of the Panoptic model is applied technologically in contemporary surveillance in the city. In addition, as noted above, the pace of technological development will continuously increase surveillance in the cities. Thus, the saturation of developed systems in the 'cyberspace' would significantly enhance the mechanism of observation as well as enforcing disciplinary control/power over the increasing years; heightening the potentiality of surveillance, permitting higher levels of efficiency (Lyon, 2002, p. 18). Furthermore, in relations to the arguments explored for the strengths and weaknesses of the Panoptic model, it unquestionably relates to contemporary surveillance in the city, which for instance, both aspect of surveillance addresses ways to achieve a balance between privacy and security. Without doubt, contemporary surveillance exceedingly absorbed some prominent characteristic and ideology proposed by the metaphorical/fictitious principle of panopticism. Nevertheless, both remarkably brought attention and debate in great reform in philosophy.

8 9

Miran Bozovic, a Professor of Early Modern Philosophy, and has written on many controversial subjects.

Overall, the book on a whole, explains panopticism, ranging from explaining the general architectural structure to taking fascinating accounts for its fictitious aspects. Throughout the entire book, it continuously questions the boundaries of the panoptic model, addtionally with the various inclusions of reliable cites.

Reference list (Annotated version)

Bentham, J., Božovič, M. and Bozovic, M. (2010) The Panopticon writings: (wo Es war). 2nd edn. London: Verso Books.(Bentham, Božovič, and Bozovic, 2010, pp. 3–9)

Gray, M. (2003) ‘Urban surveillance and Panopticism: Will we recognize the facial recognition society? *’, Surveillance & Society, 1(3), pp. 314–330.(Gray, 2003)

Goffman, E. and Goggman, E. (1991) Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates (Penguin social sciences). London: Penguin Books.(Goffman and Goggman, 1991, p. 17)

Lyon, D. (ed.) (2002) Surveillance as social sorting: Privacy, risk and automated discrimination. New York: Taylor & Francis Books.(Lyon, 2002, pp. 1–21)

Marx, G.T. (2002) ‘What’s N ew about the “ new surveillance ” ? Classifying for change and continuity *’, Surveillance & Society, 1(1), pp. 9–29.(Marx, 2002)

Mirzoeff, N. (ed.) (1998) The visual cultural reader. 2nd edn. New York: Routledge.(Mirzoeff, 1998, p. 10)

Zuboff, S. (1989) In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power. Butterworth-Heinemann.(Zuboff, 1989, pp. 320–325)

This source specifically focuses on the technological facial recognition mechanisms in surveillane. This is related to my question of surveillance in the city. It also explores the reactions to perception of insecurity in urban spaces.

Bibliography (Annotated version)

Barnard-Wills, D. (2011) Surveillance and identity: Discourse, subjectivity and the state. United Kingdom: Ashgate Publishing.

Bauman, Z. (2000) Liquid modernity. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

Bentham, J., Božovič, M. and Bozovic, M. (2010) The Panopticon writings: (wo Es war). 2nd edn. London: Verso Books.

Dear, M.J. and Wolch, J.R. (1987) Landscapes of despair: From deinstitutionalization to homelessness. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Descartes: ‘I think therefore I am’ (no date) Available at: http://newlearningonline.com/new-learning/chapter-7/descartes-i-think-therefore-i-am (Accessed: 29 April 2016).

Goffman, E. and Goggman, E. (1991) Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates (Penguin social sciences). London: Penguin Books.

Gray, M. (2003) ‘Urban surveillance and Panopticism: Will we recognize the facial recognition society? *’, Surveillance & Society, 1(3), pp. 314–330.

Knowles, C. (2000) Bedlam on the streets. Routledge.

LaBossiere, M. and Nelson, B. (2015) Free will, materialism & dualism. Available at: http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?tag=rene-descartes (Accessed: 12 April 2016).

Lyon, D. (ed.) (2002) Surveillance as social sorting: Privacy, risk and automated discrimination. New York: Taylor & Francis Books.

Marvin, C. (1990) When old technologies were new: Thinking about electric communication in the late nineteenth century. 10th edn. New York: Oxford University Press, USA.

Marx, G.T. (2002) ‘What’s New about the “ new surveillance ” ? Classifying for change and continuity *’, Surveillance & Society, 1(1), pp. 9–29.

McMullan, T. (2015) What does the panopticon mean in the age of digital surveillance? Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/23/panopticon-digital-surveillance-jeremy-bentham (Accessed: 29 April 2016).

Mirzoeff, N. (ed.) (1998) The visual cultural reader. 2nd edn. New York: Routledge.

Norris, C. and Armstrong, G. (1999) The maximum surveillance society: The rise of CCTV. New York: Berg Publishers.

Nunes, M. (2006) Cyberspaces of everyday life. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Wacks, R. (2015) Privacy: A very short introduction. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Wise, M.J. and Wise, J.M. (1997) Exploring technology and social space: Communications and agency at the end of the 20th century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications (CA).

Zuboff, S. (1989) In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power. Butterworth-Heinemann.

Specifically focused on conducting analysis on contemporary surveillance in the UK. Includes many fascinating ‘real-life’ case studies which draws strong valid connections between new technologies, governmental projects, and in general, significantly linked to surveillance throughout.

Heavily focused on the reactions of inmates of institutions. Provides great/substantial amount of results from survey, which the author takes into account of; by interpreting their experiences and finding ways to justify the system.

Written by Professor of Sociology at Queen’s University. Lyon has attracted may authors in producing writings related to privacy and surveillance. The book offers various approaches related to the interation between societies and technologies.

Zuboff, Professor at the Harvard Business School, published numerous writings on information technology, widely in United States and Europe. The book draws detailed information on the surveillane, as well as in the workplace, furthermore supported by philosophical significance.

Gary T. Marx is Professor Emeritus from M.I.T. His work has appeared or been reprinted in over 300 books and articles in over a dozen languages.

Providing detailed case studies of several cities in the United States and Canada. And examines the concept of 'deinstitutionalization' and how it has placed a burden on community services.

Written by a Professor in the Department of Media, Culture and Communication at New York University. He is known for his work in developing the field of visual culture and also his widely used textbook on the subject.

Raymond Wacks is an expert on the legal protection of privacy and how this protection varies in different countries. Examines our need for privacy and why it is valued so highly, as well as what the sociolgical and psychological impacts on people. In addition with what constitutes an invasion of privacy.