| advertise add site services publishers database health videos | ![]() | about toolbar stats live show health store more stuff JOIN/LOGIN |
Panopticism is a social theory originally developed by French philosopher Michel Foucault in his book, Discipline and Punish.
[edit] Summary
[edit] ScienceTechnology seeped into the lives of all. Slowly it made its way into hospitals, schools, making them, along with other institutions, apparatuses such that “any mechanism of objectification could be used in them as an instrument of subjection”.[1] Panopticism was not placed in the same category as other technological advancements such as agronomical, industrial, or economic.[1] It is seen as nothing more than an idea. One reason that it received little praise was because the discourses it presented rarely acquired the status of sciences.[2] There was not much to gain, unlike the other sciences that could be used to make money. The real reason, however, is that “the power that it operates and which it augments is a direct, physical power that men exercise upon one another”.[2]“What this politico-juridical, administrative and criminal, religious and lay, investigation was to the sciences of nature, disciplinary analysis has been to the sciences of man.”[3]. [edit] Examples in modern societyA central idea to Foucault’s Panopticism is the systematic ordering and controlling of human populations through subtle and often unseen forces. This is apparent in many parts of the modernized world. Modern advances in technology and surveillance techniques have made Foucault’s theories all the more pertinent to any scrutiny of the relationship between the state and its population. It could also be argued that increased surveilance technologies represent a threat to the panoptic ideal of the inmates essentially governing themeselves. Foucault argues that Jeremy Benthams Panopticon provides us with a model in which a disciplinaed society has been able to develop. These disciplines are essential if we are to govern ourselves, without the constant surveillance and intervention by state apparatuses in every aspect of our lives. The extent to which the state can obseve everywhere is limited. Surveillance cameras serve more to remind the governed that they are not being watched more often than they are. [edit] England and WalesThe use of photographic surveillance began in 1913 with the surreptitious taking of pictures from disguised locations of the suffragette inmates of Holloway Prison. The first use on record of camera surveillance in public space was that of the Metropolitan Police at Trafalgar Square in 1960. They used two temporary cameras to monitor crowds during the arrival of the Thai royal family and on Guy Fawkes Day. Between 1960 and 1996, the proliferation of the closed circuit system resulted in government spending on it accounting for more than three-quarters of the total crime prevention budget and a mass demonstration against camera surveillance in Brighton in May 1997. Over the next few years, face and license plate recognition was installed in key positions in London.[4] With the recent 7/7 bombings, the effectiveness of the CCTV system has come under scrutiny, with emerging reports showing little or no deterrence of overall crime in London.[5] [edit] United StatesNew York City has recently stated ambitions to create its very own 'ring of steel', very much similar to that surrounding London. It would surround 1.7 square miles (4.4 km2) of Lower Manhattan and cost $90 million. As of August 2007, the city had raised about $25 million.[6] As in the case of the already installed camera security system in London, its ostensible effectiveness is continually under question. [edit] Notes
[edit] References
|
| ↑ top of page ↑ | about thumbshots |