is michel foucault’s claim that the ‘panopticon’ is the principal form of social organization...

7/23/2019 Is Michel Foucault’s claim that the ‘panopticon’ is the principal form of social organization and control in modern societies entirely justifiable?

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/is-michel-foucaults-claim-that-the-panopticon-is-the-principal-form 1/24

Visual Culture

Is Michel Foucault’s claim that the ‘panopticon’ is the principal form of social organization

and control in modern societies entirely justifiable?

Words appro!" #$%&%"

In this essay we will address whether Foucault's claim that the panopticon is the

principle form of social organization and control in modern societies whilst making reference

to Guy Debord's eponymous work The Society of the Spectacle. e will begin by looking at

how sur!eillance maintains a power structure and how the masses are engaged in

consumption to highlight how the spectacle is inclusionary and how sur!eillance societies are

otherwise e"clusionary. Then we will go on to use the panoptic model to e"plain

consumerism as a form of social control. #e"t we will argue how consumer sur!eillance is

related to social control through an internalization process of the role of the commodity$ a

central theme in Debord's spectacle thesis$ and look at how the institutionalization of the

panopticon is rele!ant to the spectacle as a model for social control. e will also consider the

spatial alienation present within both the panoptic model and the spectacle$ how

contemplation of the spectacle reinforces the alienation of the spectator$ and how a spatial

partitioning is both present in the spectacle as in the panopticon. e will consider the

1



characteristics of omnipresence and omniscience implied by the power structures of both the

panopticon and the spectacle. e will look at the power structures of both the panopticon

and the spectacle and how the notion of separation reinforces their inherent power. e will

argue that in the society of the spectacle the pleasure of the illusion of what is being !iewed is

anathema to the confinement of the sub%ect in the panopticon. #e"t we will consider realities

as they are made to appear in order for the panopticon and the spectacle to reinforce social

control. Then we will consider how super!ision and the di!ision of labour is a disciplinary

mechanism and how in Debord's !iew the social di!ision of labour is a sub%ect of class rule.

e will then consider how the sur!eillance system constitutes e"clusion whereas in the

spectacle a monopoly of appearances produces a passi!e acceptance of its conditions of social

control. e will then argue that domination is synonymous with the economy of !ision. e

will look at the power of perception that is constituted by the gaze and how the sub%ect of

both the panopticon and the society of the spectacle are affected by communication. e will

then discuss how the panopticon and the spectacle produce a one&way relationship to their

centres which creates conditions of isolation to bring about order and control. e will

discuss how refle"i!e organization is a monitor of action and will then look at how the

sub%ecti!e internalization of social acti!ity permeates society to produce conformity and

normalization. e will then look at the disymmetry in relations of seeing and how these

disymmetries are a diagram of a mechanism of power. e will consider how the panopticon

is a metaphor for the modern sur!eillance society and draw a comparison to the society of the

2



spectacle. e will finally discuss the notion of the synopticon whereby panopticism and

spectacle are to be seen as parallels.

ccording to (yon )*+,-$ sur!eillance has a character that is di!isi!e in nature yet$

broadly$ maintains a power structure. Despite sur!eillance's di!isi!e character$ a new

inclusionary reality emerges whereby the masses are engaged in consumption. Guy Debord

)*++* tells us that production implies consumption$ and that that production is a dominant

mode$ the pro%ect and result of what he calls the totality of the spectacle. In terms of social

control$ he goes on to say that social life is colonized totally by the commodity.

/0ommodification is not only !isible$ we no longer see anything else1 the world we see is the

world of the commodity.2 )Debord$ *++*$ p. ,+ nd it is out of an alienated production of the

commodity$ by the masses$ that breeds an alienated consumption of the commodity. 3e says

that the consumption of the commodity is an illusion4 /5t6he commodity is this materialized

illusion$ and the spectacle is its general e"pression.2 )Debord$ *++*$ p. ,* hereas the

spectacle may be inclusionary through the processes of consumption$ sur!eillance is puniti!e

and e"clusionary and negates consumption. (yon )*+,- argues that the social order is

maintained significantly through acts of consumerism. /576lder forms of sur!eillance and

control 8 cope with the non&consuming residue.2 )(yon$ *+,-$ p. 9, e might be able to

gauge the measure of social control through how we !iew consumerism. certain

channelling of beha!iour takes place when ob%ects such as ad!ertisements are personalized.

This is an inclusionary tactic rather than an e"clusionary one. :eha!ioural conduits that are

3



desirable are created by the more subtle forms of social control whereas coerci!e forms of

social control are puniti!e and e"clusionary. ;et$ /commercial sur!eillance is intrinsically

bound up with social control.2 )(yon$ *+,-$ p. ,-<

If /consumer sur!eillance is an e"tension of modern management techni=ues$2 )(yon$

*+,-$ p. ,-< then it resembles the structure$ form$ design$ and function of the >anopticon. (et

us say that power$ fundamentally$ is at the centre of the >anopticon. The central column of

the >anopticon and its central situation is the meting out of that power. If consumerism can

be !iewed as form of social control$ which we can argue that it is$ then we can assign it power.

>ower o!er the consumer.

/The images detached from e!ery aspect of life merge into a common stream in which

the unity of that life can no longer be reco!ered. Fragmented !iews of reality regroup

themsel!es into a new unity as a separate pseudoworld that can only be looked at.2

)Debord$ *++*$ p. ,

The separate pseudoworld world here referred to is the situation of the consumer who

is metaphorically isolated inside the metaphorical cell of the >anopticon. s Debord says

abo!e$ this separate pseudoworld is looked at$ sur!eilled. s a totality$ the >anopticon is also

this regrouped unity of which Debord refers to in the abo!e =uote$ but it is a reality that is

fragmented$ each consumer is isolated$ fragmented in this way.

4



0oerci!e and direct forms of social control like consumer sur!eillance encourages

consumers to /internalize marketplace rules of beha!iour5.62 )(yon$ *+,-$ p. ,?? 0onsumer

sur!eillance can be understood by returning to the role of the commodity. :usinesses and

administrations with their indi!idual users cannot function without the capitalist market and

the commodity which creates a contemporary high&class establishment for the deli!ery of

ser!ices. )(ianos$ *++- Guy Debord )*++* tells us that modern capitalism and its

de!elopment of undisturbed commodity of abundance is associated with the diffuse

spectacle. (ianos )*++- refers to this spectacle entity when he says4 /5t6herefore a remote$

often in!isible and diffuse$ entity pro!ides its ser!ices to isolated indi!iduals.2 )p. @,9 The

power at the centre of the metaphorical >anopticon is the power that looks upon these

isolated indi!iduals. The spectacle is the entity that returns its gaze. Things such as

e"change$ consumption A related to the commodity A e"ist in the domain of institutional

mediation where /institutional control as a factor embedded in the de!elopment of the

institution2 )(ianos$ *++-$ p. @,9 is e!er&present. Debord )*++* is bleak when he asserts that

the possibility of change is eliminated by this organizational structure. Debord )*++* says

that power is camouflaged by a mythical order that has gi!en rise to class di!isions$ a social

di!ision that has become institutionalized. If the >anopticon represents institutionalization

then its separation of classes within its structures echoes the same sentiments put forward by

Debord's spectacle thesis.

Foucault )*+,+ gi!es the model of the panopticon the character of /a strict spatial

5



partitioning.2 )p. 9, This characteristic is present in Guy Debord's !ersion of the spectacle

when he says that4 /5i6n this spatial alienation$ the society that radically separates the sub%ect

from the acti!ity it steals from him is in reality separating him from his own time.2 )Debord$

*++*$ p. ?* 3e calls this the /estranged present2 )Ibid. where the !ery producers engaged in

production of the spectacle impose their own alienation upon themsel!es. Debord says that

e"isting society essentially supports this alienation. The spectacle is real and from within the

spectacle emerges reality. bsorption into the spectacle comes through its contemplation and

life is in!aded by materiality. There is an unconscious acti!ity that results in the

ob%ectification of the contemplated spectacle which reinforces the alienation of the spectator.

/The more he contemplates$ the less he li!es1 the more he identifies with the dominant images

of need$ the less he understands his own life and his own desires.2 )Debord$ *++*$ p. B The

gesture of the indi!idual is e"pressed by a sub%ecti!ity whose act is one of estrangement.

ccording to Debord$ this alienation is manufactured conceretely by the social function of the

spectacle. The spatial partitioning that is present within the structures of panopticism is

present within the structures of the spectacle as totality and is characterized by fundamental

alienation.

The >anopticon shares many other similarities with the totality of the spectacle.

Foucault says that the >anopticon is4 /an omnipresent and omniscient power that subdi!ides

itself in a regular$ uninterrupted way e!en to the ultimate determination of the indi!idual$ of

what characterizes him$ of what belongs to him$ of what happens to him.2 )Foucault$ *+,+$ p.

6



9* ccording to 3ung )*+,-$ absorption into an entrancing and penetrating$ prying

omnipresence of spectral simultaneity characterizes the !ery e"istence of the spectacle. She

goes on to say that the global spectacle is defined by a parado" of presence&absence$ a spectral

omnipresence of recession /imposing itself upon sub%ects and wills5.62 )p. ,-9 3owe!er$

according to Gumb )*++B$ omniscient control is not tantamount to the omnipresence of the

spectacle. 7n the contrary$ /5s6ur!eillance would be much more dangerous had it not been

led by its ambition for absolute control of e!erything to a point where it encountered

difficulties created by its own progress. There is a contradiction between the mass of

information collected on a growing number of indi!iduals$ and the time and intelligence

a!ailable to analyze it.2 )Debord$ ,<CC$ p. ,+C

In a sur!eillance system$ Foucault says that4 /mediation of the complete hierarchy 8

5assures6 the capillary functioning of power5.62 )*+,+$ p. 9* ediation is a central

characteristic of the power of the spectacle. ccording to Debord )*++*$ /the spectacleEs %ob is

to use !arious specialized mediations in order to show us a world that can no longer be

directly grasped5.62 )p. @ The hierarchy$ to which Foucault refers$ is$ according to Debord$ a

condition of separation$ a separation which is intrinsic to the functioning of both the power

inherent within the >anopticon and the spectacle themsel!es. ccording to hee ),<<<$

/power does not flow only in one direction.2 )p. - Instead$ the bodies of indi!iduals are

operated upon by the strucure of a polymorphous power bolstered by a micro&mechanism of

omnipresence in which e!ery field of life$ each tra%ectory$ e!ery sector$ is permeated by a

7



centralized capillary power. /5T6his /capillary power2 8 treats the indi!idual as the bearer

and practitioner of power !ia the process of /interiorisation2.2 )Ibid. hat hee calls an

/2inspecting gaze2 8 is allotting dispersed power to the indi!iduals and making them

participate in the power operation in the sur!eillance network.2 )Ibid. Thus$ sur!eillance

o!er oneself is e"ercised by the indi!idual as o!erseers of each other.

ccording to Foucault )*+,+$ sur!eillance is a system of /e"clusion$ which to a certain

e"tent 5pro!ides6 the model for and general form of 8 5c6onfinement5.62 )p. 9* There is a

completely different machinery at work in the spectacle$ one in which the /!iewer or

ideological sub%ect is suturedE into the dominant ideology$ not because the spectacle is so

effecti!e but because the foregrounding of the machinery creates the illusion of mastery o!er

the spectacle$ and therefore offers e!en more pleasure in !iewing it.2 )Teurlings$ *+,-$ p. ?*,

In order to be effecti!e the spectacle relies on this machinery. s Teurlings notes4 /their

interrelationship is one of compatibility rather than e"clusion.2 )Ibid. ather than being

confined and e"cluded as in the panopticon system$ within the system of the society of the

spectacle the ideological sub%ect is caught up in the pleasure of the illusion of what is being

!iewed.

Foucault )*+,+ says that those who are sub%ect to sur!eillance are /caught up in a

meticulous tactical partitioning in which indi!idual differentiations 5are6 the constricting

effects of a power that 5multiplies6$ 5articulates6 and 5subdi!ides6 itself.2 )p. 9* In a

sur!eillance system$ the di!ision of labour helps to simulaneously coordinate the mo!ements

8



of and o!ersee hundreds of workers$ similar to the functioning of the panopticon. /ithout

this 8 discipline$ which is to say without the hierarchy$ without the o!erseeing$ without the

super!isors 8 it would not ha!e been possible to obtain the di!ision of labour.2 )ood$ *++B$

p. *@B In a sur!eillance system$ the di!ision of labour is a disciplinary mechanism and

compact model which constitutes the constant location of the indi!idual in a system whereby

/5t6his enclosed$ segmented space$ obser!ed at e!ery point$ in which the indi!iduals are

inserted in a fi"ed place$ in which the slightest mo!ements are super!ised$ in which all e!ents

are recorded$ in which an uninterrupted work 8 links the centre to the periphery$ in which

power is e"ercised5.62 )ood$ *++B$ p. *?C Debord )*++* says that all social di!isions are a

concentrated e"pression of class rule whose chief instrument is the social di!ision of labour

which produces /5t6he social separation reflected in the spectacle5.62 )p. ? Debord says that

power is camouflaged by a mythical order of contemplation in which class di!isions ha!e

been brought about by the /institutionalization of the social di!ision of labour5.62 )Ibid. The

>anopticon is a system whereby the power$ at the centre$ is$ like the spectacle$ camouflaged$

in this e"ample by the !enetian blinds that obscure the !oyeur$ and as a model di!ides those

of its sub%ects so that their labour power can be di!ided and institutionalized.

Foucault )*+,+ says that the sur!eillance system employs /the tactics of

indi!idualizing disciplines 5that6 are imposed on the e"cluded5.62 )p. 9- ccording to

3ollinshead ),<<<$ those who are go!erned by sub%ugation and domination emanating from

obedience to a so!ereignty inherit ties to a model of social life that constitutes e"clusion. In

9



terms of social life that constitutes e"clusion$ Debord )*++* says that /the spectacle is an

affirmation of appearances and an identification of all human social life with appearances.2

)p. * In his !iew$ what one possesses e=uates to human fulfillment and that ha!ing

supercedes being. 3e goes on to say that4 /social life has become completely dominated by

the accumulated productions of the economy$ 5which brings about6 a general shift from

having to appearing.2 )pp. - A @ In the society of the spectacle$ appearances are an

identification with all social life and appearances are an affirmation of the spectacle$ yet$ they

are a /!isible negation of life A a negation that has taken on a visible form.2 )Debord$ *++*$ p. *

Through its monopoly of appearances the spectacle imposes upon the sub%ect a passi!e

acceptance in which it can ne!er be =uestioned and constitutes a !ast inaccessible reality.

The >anopticon$ as a model for social control$ consists of /many small theatres$ in

which each actor is alone$ perfectly indi!idualized and constantly !isible. The panoptic

mechanism arranges spatial unities that make it possible to see constantly and to recognize

immediately.2 )Foucault$ *+,+$ p. 9@ In the panoptic system$ modern life becomes

synonymous with the economy of !ision$ and domination synonymous with !ision. );ar$

*++* ;ar says that /!ision 5is6 a 8 sub%ectifying technology of power.2 )*++*$ p. *?? The

authority of the spectacle depends upon the gaze. /Spectators become subser!ient to a gaze

that controls5.62 )Turner$ ,<<C$ p. <@ To paraphrase Turner ),<<C$ the sur!eilling gaze runs

parallel to an in!estigatory look of !oyeurism$ a /curious$ in=uiring$ demanding to know2 )p.

,+< that is the ob%ect of separation which fractures space surrounding the !oyeuristic

10



sur!eillant.

ccording to Foucault )*+,+ the sub%ect of the panopticon is /seen$ but he does not

see1 he is the ob%ect of information$ ne!er a sub%ect in communication$2 )p. 9? which renders

him laterally in!isible. The ob%ect of information that the prisoner has become is that they are

under sur!eillance. In the system of the panopticon$ communication is replaced by the look.

)0rossley$ ,<<- 0rossley says that4 />anoptic power is the effect achie!ed through the

realisation that one is sub%ected to the gaze.2 )Ibid.$ p. @+- In the panopticon it is the

prisoner's own perception that constitutes the gaze4 /the gaze which operationalises the

>anoptic effect is not the gaze of the sur!eyor but is$ in fact$ the gaze of the sur!eyed.2 )Ibid.$

p. @+? ccording to 0rossley ),<<-$ this means that the gaze is not one of ob%ectification but

one of intersub%ecti!ity. This means that we are not concerned with the ob%ectifying gaze but

rather the gaze of the sur!eyed. It is not the presence of an ob%ect but the presence of another

sub%ect of which the prisoner is aware. ccording to 0rossley ),<<-$ self and other are

differentiated by an e"periential relationship of intersub%ecti!ity. The >anopticon /feeds off

and manipulates 8 this substructure of intersub%ecti!e meaning.2 )Ibid.$ p. @+9

0ommunication is embodied by interhuman meanings which is an effect of the power of the

panopticon. ccording to Debord howe!er$ /manifestations of the spectacle include certain

totalitarian specializations of social communication and control5.62 )*++*$ p. ,9 In the society

of the spectacle$ the population is kept under control by the effecti!e methods of mass

communication. Debord )*++* says that spectators are held in contempt by their awareness

11



and e"perience of one&way communication by which the absolute power of the spectacle

operates. /5S6pectacular communication 5is6 absolute 8 5in a6 society where communication

takes the form of a cascade of hierarchical signals.2 )Ibid.$ p. 9- Debord )*++* describes a

unilateral communication that is instantaneous and totally dependent on people and their

contact with the administration of society as characteristic of the spectacle.

For Foucault )*+,+$ /the crowd$ a compact mass$ a locus of multiple e"changes$

indi!idualities merging together$ a collecti!e effect$ is abolished and replaced by a collection

of separated indi!idualities.2 )p. 9? ccording to Debord )*++* there is a parado" in that it

is through separateness that the spectacle reunites the separated. 3e writes that separation is

the common language of the spectacle. s in the panopticon$ each indi!idual in the society of

the spectacle is isolated /by their one&way relationship to the !ery centre.2 )Ibid.$ p. B In /a

one&way system 8 sprawling isolation 5pro!es6 an e!en more effecti!e method of keeping a

population under control.2 )Ibid.$ p. ?@ Debord )Ibid. likens the prison cells of the

panopticon to the family cell. It is$ according to Debord )Ibid.$ that within the family cell

pre!ails the same collecti!e isolation that is present in the panopticon. 3e says that this is the

site /where the omnipresent recei!ers of spectacular messages fill the isolation with the ruling

images H images that deri!e their full power precisely from that isolation.2 )Ibid. So$ the

function of the panopticon and the society of the spectacle are operating on the same

principle of separation.

Foucault )*+,+ says that$ theoretically$ the panopticon contains /a multiplicity that can

12



be numbered and super!ised.2 )p. 9? ccording to Turner ),<<C the mechanism of

super!ision is refle"i!e. This resonates with aplan's hypothesis that /in DebordEs society of

the spectacle all social spheres of life$ including culture$ become refle"i!ely organized5.62

)*+,*$ p. @9* onitoring of action that is refle"i!e is incorporated into a world that is

constituted by the managing of acti!ities by sur!eillance apparatuses that produce a

/permanent and conscious !isibility5.62 );ar$ *++*$ p. *9-

/5T6he social indi!idual is in no sense a passi!e ob%ect of a normalising gaze 8 but is a

creati!e and acti!e sub%ect in the management of his own !isibility. Such a sub%ect

enters the field of !isibility empowered with !arious repertoires and skills of self&

presentation$ and culti!ates a !isible demeanour in line with practical pro%ects and

goals that he refle"i!ely organises.2 )Ibid.$ p. *9@

s ;ar says$ this refle"i!e organization is due to the !isible demeanour of the sub%ect$

who manages their own !isibility. This !isibility is produced by sur!eillance apparatuses to

manage acti!ities and monitor action. efle"i!e organization encompasses culture and all

social spheres of life within the society of the spectacle whereby super!ision is the mechanism

of social control.

Foucault )*+,+ says that the ma%or effect of the >anopticon is4

13



/5T6o induce 8 a state of conscious and permanent !isibility that assures the automatic

functioning of power. So to arrange things that the sur!eillance is permanent in its

effects$ e!en if it is discontinuous in its action1 that the perfection of power should tend

to render its actual e"ercise unnecessary1 that this architectural apparatus should be a

machine for creating and sustaining a power relation independent of the person who

e"ercises it5.62 )p. 9?

In the society of the spectacle$ Debord )*++* argues that there is a world beyond in

which human powers ha!e been e"iled by the technology of the spectacle$ the culmination of

which brings about a separation. Debord )Ibid. argues that power remains in contradiction

and lacks cohesion in order to establish this kind of detachment. ccording to 0rary )*++,$

/Debord and Foucault both outline diffuse mechanisms of power$ through which imperati!es

of normalization or conformity permeate most layers of social acti!ity and become

sub%ecti!ely internalized.2 )p. B@ ccording to Foucault )*+,+ /5t6he panopticon is a

machine for dissociating the seeJbeing seen dyad 8 for it automatizes and disindi!idualizes

power. >ower has its principle not so much in a person as in a certain concerted distribution

of bodies$ surfaces$ lights$ gazes5.62 )pp. 9? A 99 Separation$ cellurization$ and isolation are

all techni=ues of how bodies in space are arranged. In this way$ the spectacle is also a type of

architecture that relies on separation to bring about social organization and control.

For Foucault )*+,+ the >anopticon /is a machinery that assures dissymmetry$

14



dise=uilibrium$ difference.2 )p. 99 ithout e!er being seen one sees e!erything from the

central tower whilst without e!er seeing one is totally seen in the peripheric ring which$

according to 0aluya )*+,+$ shows /the dissymmetry of relations of seeing.2 )p. 9*? It is this

!isibility that is the mechanism of panopticism. For :righenti )*++B$ /what is most important

for its effecti!e functioning is not only the first-order asymmetry of !ision between the guard

and the inmate. It is the whole mechanism of control that must remain in!isible.2 )p. --9

The >anopticon$ rather than being a !isual setting that is physical in nature it is a logical

diagram of power. mechanism of !isibility is e"hibited by this diagram. /Indeed$ the

diagram consists in a second-order asymmetry of !isibility$ between those who are aware of the

e"istence of the diagram and those who are unaware of it.2 ):righenti$ *++B$ p. --9 Foucault

)*+,+ indeed calls it a /diagram of a mechanism of power reduced to its ideal form.2 )p. 9B

For Foucault )*+,+$ /5t6he >anopticon may e!en pro!ide an apparatus for super!ising

its own mechanisms 8 5to show6 how the entire establishment is functioning.2 )p. 9B The

functioning of the entire establishment$ in Foucauldian terms$ is a /disciplinary program2

which /separates 8 immobilizes 8 5and6 partitions5.62 )p. 9B Simon )*++* argues that the

general population$ with its irrationality and di!erse agency$ has an order imposed upon it by

the mechanism of the panoptic machine. /It is precisely in the conditions of enclosure$

isolation and training that the >anopticon is said to break down as an appropriate metaphor

for the modern sur!eillance society.2 )Ibid.$ p. < >anopticism$ and its generalized

mechanism$ is a laboratory&like space of material enclosure where populations can be

15



analyzed. ccording to Debord ),<<C$ disinformation and sur!eillance are networks that

slide imperceptibly into control mechanisms. 3e says that any sub%ect of the established

order that once conspired against it is now /conspiring in its favour 8 Knder spectacular

domination people conspire to maintain it5.62 )p. B@ This shows us that the panopticon and

the society of the spectacle share the same attributes in the way that they support their own

mechanisms.

Foucault )*+,+ says that the panopticon can be4

/represented as a pure architectural and optical system 8 a political technology 8 of

disposition of centres and channels of power$ of definition of the instruments and

modes of inter!ention of power 8 In each of its applications$ it makes it possible to

perfect the e"ercise of power.2 )p. 9C

To understand the role of power in the society of the spectacle$ 0rary ),<C< says that

the spectacle is /a mystification of the functioning of power$ a new opiate&of&the&masses type

of e"planation$ a !ague cultural&institutional formation with a suspicious structural

autonomy.2 )p. <9 It is an absorption and recuperation of power that has /a capacity to

neutralize and assimilate acts of resistance by con!erting them into ob%ects or images of

consumption.2 )Ibid.$ p. ,++ 3owe!er$ unlike the panopticon$ 0rary says that /spectacular

power cannot be reduced to an optical model but is inseparable from a larger organization of

16



perceptual consumption.2 )Ibid.$ p. ,+* e can say that the e"ercise of power is perfected by

the spectacle$ as in the panopticon$ but its applications are different in this case. The

inter!ention of power depends upon the modes and instruments a!ailable to it$ and the

disposition of power depends on the technology that gi!es rise to it. In the spectacle$ power

is structurally autonomous whereas in the panopticon the power relations rely on the

architecture.

For Foucault )*+,+4

/nti=uity had been a ci!ilization of spectacle 8 to which the architecture of temples

8 responded. 8 7ur society is one not of spectacle$ but of sur!eillance5.6 8 e are

neither in the ampitheatre$ nor on the stage$ but in the panoptic machine$ in!ested by

its effects of power$ which we bring to oursel!es since we are part of its mechanism.2

)pp. 9< A B+

Throughout the course of this argument we ha!e delineated a discourse that =uestions

whether there e"ist similarities between the operations of the panoptic machine and the

spectacle and ha!e found some striking comparisons by which they both operate but

Foucault is clear here when he says that the spectacle belongs to a former age and that the

present age's control mechanism is based on panopticism. 3owe!er$ Doyle )*+,, posits that

there is an interaction between the mass media A spectacle A and sur!eillance A panopticism.

17



3e argues that the spectacle is /a parallel and reciprocal system of control alongside the

panopticon.2 )pp. *C- A *C@ 3e argues that the /modern mass media in general 8 first of all

directs and controls or disciplines our consciousness.2 )Ibid.$ p. *C9 3e also notes that

measures of sur!eillance by the panoptic machine specifically support the re=uirements of

modernity that induce control. :y paralleling these two disciplinary control measures Doyle

refers to a new system of control known as the synopticon. For Doyle )*+,,$ the synopticon is

a system /in which the many are seduced by the dream li!es of 5the6 few5.62 )p. *CB

ccording to Doyle )Ibid.$ in a system whereby the few see the many panoptic control can be

seen as a complement to contemporary society in which spectacles persist. 3e argues that

Foucault is blinkered when he writes that /the panopticon itself is only a limited and partial

way of thinking e!en about sur!eillance$ let alone about social control more generally.2

)Doyle$ *+,,$ p. *C< Dynamics of sur!eillance that are contemporary are better captured by a

sur!eillant assemblage of an alternati!e formulation to the panoptic metaphor. /hile the

panoptic model suggests sur!eillance is centrally organized$ in fact sur!eillance proliferates

often without much centralized control5.62 )Ibid.

There is an interaction between spectacle and panopticism that produces a reciprocal

system of control. The spectacle is a mystification of the functioning of power whose

absorption and recuperation of power con!ers acts of resistance into the consumption of

images. The power of the panopticon relies upon its static architecture whereas the power of

the spectacle is structurally autonomous. The panopticon$ in Foucault's !iew is said to

18



represent the entire establishment and the way in which it functions to maintain social control

through its disciplinary program. Debord agrees with Foucault in that sur!eillance networks

are imperceptible control mechanisms and that sub%ects of the establishment conspire to

maintain its domination. disymmetry in relations of seeing are both present in the

panopticon and the society of the spectacle. Separation is a fundamental operation of both

the power structures of the panopticon and the spectacle that bring about social control.

efle"i!e super!ision is a mechanism of the panopticon and in Debord's society of the

spectacle social spheres of life are refle"i!ely organized which constitutes the management of

acti!ities in both systems through a permanent and conscious !isibility. In both systems

separateness reunites the separated and sub%ugates the sub%ect to a one&way relationship to

the centre to bring about social control. Debord likens the prison cell of the panopticon to the

family cell where the same collecti!e isolation is present and spectacular messages are in

receipt. In both systems$ communication is replaced by the gaze4 sub%ection to the gaze is the

relaization of both powers. The gaze of intersub%ecti!ity negates ob%ecti!ity so that both

systems can feed off and manipulate intersub%ecti!e meaning. In both systems$ domination is

synonymous with the economy of !ision. L"clusion constitutes a model of social life that is

tied to obedience to so!ereignty from which emanates domination and sub%ugation. In the

spectacle it is appearances that are an identification with social life and e!en through they are

an affirmation of the spectacle they are a !isibile negation of life. The di!ision of labour is an

o!erseeing process of super!ision. In both systems$ the di!ision of labour is a disciplinary

19



mechanism. The social separation within the spectacle is due to the social di!ision of labour

whose chief e"pression is class rule. e can argue that the >anopticon is a model for the

institutionalization of the social di!ision of labour$ a prime characteristic of Debord's society

of the spectacle. The !ery e"istence of the spectacle is characterised by a spectral simultaneity

of omnipresence such as the omnipresence of the sur!eillance mechanism within the

panopticon. Global spectacle is defined by the !ery same presence&absence as the sure!eiller

of the panopticon. Spatial alienation are characteristic of both the spectacle and the

panopticon which work to bring about a reality that enforces social control through the

absorption of sub%ecti!ity into estrangement. Debord's spectacle thesis shares the same

sentiments as the structural separation of the institution of the panopticon. 0onsumerism is a

form of social control and the situation of the consumer is fragmented by a separate

pseudoworld that can be thought of in terms of the isolation they e"perience within the

system of panopticism. key difference between the spectacle and the panopticon as models

for social control which we outlined at the !ery beginning of this argument is that the

spectacle can be thought of as inclusionary through the processes of consumption whereas

the sur!eillance system is punati!e and e"clusionary negating consumption but o!erall$ in

light of the notion of the synopticon $ we can see parallels between the two systems and their

characteristics of social organization.

'ibliography

20



:righenti$ . )*++B /Misibility 0ategory for the Social Sciences$2 in Current Sociology $ ?? )-$

pp. -*- A -@*.

0aluya$ G. )*+,+ /The post&panoptic societyN eassessing Foucault in sur!eillance studies$2

in Social Identities $ ,9 )?$ pp. 9*, A 9--.

0rary$ O. ),<C< /Spectacle$ attention$ counter&memory$2 in October $ pp. <B A ,+B.

0rary$ O. )*++, Suspensions of perception: Attention, spectacle, and modern culture. 0ambridge4

IT >ress.

0rossley$ #. ),<<- /The politics of the gaze4 :etween Foucault and erleau&>onty$2 in

uman Studies $ ,9$ pp. -<< A @,<.

Debord$ G. ),<CC Commentaires sur la soci!t! du spectacle" >aris4 Peditions GPerard (ebo!ici

)repris par Gallimard en ,<<*.

Debord$ G. ),<<C Comments on the Society of the Spectacle. )Mol. ,C (ondon4 Merso.

21



Debord$ G. )*++* #he Society of #he Spectacle. ). nabb$ Trans. :erkeley4 :ureau of >ublic

Secrets.

Doyle$ . )*+,, /e!isiting the synopticon4 econsidering athiesenEs The Miewer

SocietyEin the age of eb *.+$2 in #heoretical Criminology $ ,? )-$ pp. *C- A *<<.

Foucault$ . )*+,+ />anopticism$2 in O. L!ans Q S. 3all )Lds. $isual Culture: the %eader. )pp.

9, A B, (ondon4 Sage >ublications (td.

Gumb$ :. )*++B /hat is shown$ what is hidden4 0ompulsary disclosure as a spectacle$2 in

Critical &erspectives on Accounting $ ,C )B$ pp. C+B A C*C.

3alnon$ . :. )*++? /lienation incorporated4FRRR the mainstream musicEin the

mainstream$2 in Current Sociology $ ?- )-$ pp. @@, A @9@.

3ollinshead$ . ),<<< /Sur!eillance of the worlds of tourism4 Foucault and the eye&of&

power$2 in #ourism 'anagement $ *+ ),$ B A *-.

3ung$ . ;. ;. )*+,- /Imagination Sterilized4 The orkings of the Global Spectacle$2 in

(oundary ) $ @+ )-$ pp. ,+, A ,-B.

22



aplan$ . (. )*+,* /:etween mass society and re!olutionary pra"is4 The contradictions of

Guy DebordEs Society of the Spectacle$2 in *uropean +ournal of Cultural Studies $ ,? )@$ pp. @?B A

@BC.

(ianos$ . )*++- /Social control after Foucault$2 in Surveillance Society $ , )-$ pp. @,* A @-+.

(yon$ D. )*+,- #he *lectronic *ye: #he %ise of Surveillance Society-Computers and Social Control

in Contet. 3oboken4 Oohn iley Q Sons.

hee$ O. ),<<< /irroring edusa4 counter!eillance in Shooting :ack$2 in Information

$isuali.ation, /000" &roceedings" /000 I*** International Conference $ pp. @+C A @,*.

Simon$ :. )*++* /The return of panopticism4 Super!ision$ sub%ection and the new

sur!eillance$2 in Surveillance Society$ - ),$ pp. , A *+.

Teurlings$ O. )*+,- /From the society of the spectacle to the society of the machinery4

utations in popular culture ,<9+sA*+++s$2 in *uropean +ournal of Communication $ *C )?$ pp.

?,@ A ?*9.

Tse$ #. S. )*++* %eading consumption: image, identity and consumption in late-capitalist society

)Doctoral dissertation$ The Kni!ersity of 3ong ong )>okfulam$ 3ong ong.

23



Turner$ O. S. ),<<C /0ollapsing the interiorJe"terior distinction4 Sur!eillance$ spectacle$ and

suspense in popular cinema$2 in 1ide Angle $ *+ )@$ <- A ,*-.

ood$ D. . )*++B /:eyond the >anopticonN Foucault and sur!eillance studies$2 in Space,

2nowledge and power: Foucault and geography $ pp. *@? A *9-.

;ar$ . )*++* />anoptic >ower and the >athologisation of Mision4 0ritical eflections on the

Foucauldian Thesis$2 in Surveillance Society $ , )-$ pp. *?@ A *B,.

24

is michel foucault’s claim that the ‘panopticon’ is the principal form of social organization...

Documents