The Sea of Panopticons

In my previous post, I had expounded on my understanding of the panopticon and how the panopticon affects human behavior and whether or not it should be utilized in certain aspects of society. The architectural theory of a single, central tower observing its occupants through one-way mirrors seems pretty far-fetched. Though some would assume that the panopticon is a mere concept, the Internet has surprisingly become a panopticon in its own way. I explained in my previous post about how anonymity brews a feeling of power and ability to do as one pleases, and most people would assume that the internet is a very anonymous place where such power exists. However, Mark Winkour explains how the internet has ironically become a panopticon itself. Winkour talks about the “gaze” and how the Internet server sends and receives information from the user back and forth. In a sort of bidirectional gaze, the server controls what is sent to the user, and the user is able to respond to the information. Because the user chooses which server or which content to view, the user feels a sense of empowerment of choice. However, this is the opposite because the user never really has true freedom. Choosing from a list of options is a limited amount of freedom that has been hyperbolized by society. The internet has been praised and criticized countless times for its offerings of freedom and anonymity to its users, but instead, the internet has become a huge web of panopticons that constantly regulate information to its users. 

The concept of the internet server has paralleled the concept of the panopticon in several ways. The user does not know who is monitoring the server or whether or not someone is monitoring the user’s activities on the server. Much like the panopticon, the central server has a lot of power to regulate information that is sent to the user and also can anonymously monitor the user. With the development of IP addresses and other user identifying procedures, the user can easily be identified and located. The server is able to record and identify all those who have visited the websites that the server hosts. An example of how the internet has lost its attributes of anonymity is the internet pirating that has spread throughout modern society. Almost anyone can simply press a button to download music and movies illegally for free, something that enrages media publishing companies. As a result, countless people have been arrested, fined, and imprisoned for downloading and distributing illegal content over the internet. How can such people be identified so accurately? It’s simply the concept of the panopticon at work. These users had no idea they were being watched, and so they participated in activities over the internet that violated copyright laws. The servers had logged and recorded the activities of the suspects, who had no idea they were being watched. Using these logs, the government had tracked and found the suspects. It’s a frightening concept; the fact that the users of the internet have lost anonymity doesn’t sit well with the internet community, which is why there is so much backlash and criticism against agencies such as the NSA. The internet is a huge web of panopticons that have encompassed and recorded all the activities of the millions of internet users. Though the illusion of anonymity and choice still exists throughout the internet; the seemingly implausible concept of the panopticon has already begun to apply itself to society as a whole.

Anonymity and Power

Foucault’s proposed applications and illustrations of facilities that utilize the panoptic form of architecture was a fascinating read. The idea of constant surveillance seems rather harsh and traumatizing, but also coldly effective in its application and regulation of human behavior. I think that human integrity and morality can be among the most fragile aspects of mankind. When no one is watching, what does a person do, and how does he or she act? It’s a pretty disputable stance, but I can assume that a person is inclined to act “honorably” only when others are going to see or acknowledge their behavior. In Plato’s The Republic, one of the characters, Glaucon, brings up the concept of the ring of Gyges, a mythical item that allows the user to turn invisible at will. Glaucon illustrates how an innocent shepherd came upon the ring and eventually fell to his selfish greed and committed heinous crimes because he could easily escape any form of punishment or social consequences because of his anonymity. This story illustrated a very important part of human nature: people base their decisions on whether or not others are watching. As a result, because of the social morals and laws around them, people choose to behave accordingly. The Ring of Gyges eliminates the possibility of one’s crimes being discovered, so whoever possesses the ring is definitely going to succumb to the temptations of thievery and the raw power that he or she possesses. The idea that raw power and/or anonymity corrupts is well illustrated by history and human behavior.

            The theory of the panoptic structure strives to eliminate such possibilities. When one is constantly being watched, the concept of anonymity is essentially eliminated in its entirety. The surveillance causes the subjects to lose their sense of power over their situation. Because the subjects inside the panopticon are unable to see whether or not they are being watched by their superiors at any point in time, they are forced to constantly behave as if they were being watched 24/7. All actions are observable and monitored, so to avoid any negative consequences and punishments, the subjects constantly abide by the regulations set out by their superiors. The subjects are under a power that lacks a face. The one-way mirror that hides the supervisor from the subjects makes power “autonomous” and impresses the rules of the panopticon at a psychological level into the subjects. When no one is watching, a person is inclined to behave much differently than when there are others around. The panopticon strives to eliminate privacy and anonymity, putting the subject in a situation where there is no way of knowing whether or not they can get away with any violations of rules. They never know when they are being watched, and therefore, are forced to assume that surveillance is perfect and that the power over them is constant and immune to manipulation. This prevents the subject from feeling any sorts of power themselves. When one is prideful or has a lot of power, it can easily corrupt them, but the panopticon eliminates this. The isolation enforces a sense of helplessness that ultimately leads to obedience and abidance by the rules. I feel that the panopticon is a very extreme concept that has limited uses. The usage of panopticons in prisons and correctional facilities is a feasible, realistic option, especially when surveillance is crucial. However, its uses anywhere else (i.e. schools) may be too extreme or harsh for the psychology of the average person, essentially creating a fear complex in its subjects that may be more harmful than beneficial to humanity. All in all, the panopticon's primary purpose is to eliminate anonymity and power, two crucial aspects that control human behavior and morals.

Untouched in the Contact Zone

When Mary Louise Pratt discussed the “contact zone” in her essay, “Arts of the Contact Zone,” NYU and New York City popped into my mind instantly. The contact zone that Pratt refers too reminded me of how NYU was known to be a diverse university with so many different cultures and backgrounds coming into contact with one another. The city of New York itself is considered the melting pot of the world, where all different types of people and cultures come together to interact, creating the ultimate contact zone. However, I noticed there is a very obvious trend in this contact zone: people tend to cluster according to ethnicity. Chinatown, Little Italy, Flushing, and other ethnic enclaves are examples of this phenomenon. With so many immigrants coming to New York City, most immigrants tend to cluster together because it most likely reminds them of home. A new country and new city can be scary, so people like to interact and do business with those of the same race.

NYU is a microcosm of this phenomenon. One would think that young students coming to New York City from all over the world would mix and interact more readily, but this is usually not the case. Of course there are exceptions and I don’t mean to jump to conclusions from my single perspective, but this is what I have observed. Among the freshman class, Founders Hall, a first year residence hall, has become known as the “Asian Dorm” because of its high concentration of Asian students. It’s quite astonishing that even in a college setting, ethnic enclaves can form among the residence halls. Apparently, international students, primarily in Hong Kong and Korea had coordinated among one another to choose Founders as their dorm. Why? Because in a new city, school, and country, familiarity is the most comforting.

I am no exception to this trend. During my first semester at NYU, I lived in Third Avenue North, another first year residence hall. However, after seeing how Founders was predominantly asian (most of my friends were asian, and as a result lived in Founders), I moved to Founders myself. However, I was not an international student, yet I caved into the temptation of the Asian Dorm. Another interesting thing was that I grew up in a predominantly white neighborhood in Southern California. I am very familiar with other cultures and didn’t have many Asian friends. When I came to NYU, I interacted with almost every single race, but I found the most comfort in my Asian circle of friends. I felt like I belonged the most with my Asian friends. Honestly, I can’t really explain or give reasons as to why this is the case. It’s merely a connection that I share among my friends who are Asian. Walking down the streets of New York, one can see that, for the most part, ethnically similar people will be together. Even though the opportunity to mix, interact and bond with people from different backgrounds, people tend to become closest to those who are ethnically similar. Pratt explained that people prefer “social and intellectual spaces where groups can constitute themselves as horizontal, homogeneous, sovereign communities with high degrees of trust, shared understandings, temporary protection from legacies of oppression.” This usually explains that ethnically similar people have similar backgrounds, where they feel homogenous and free from oppression. Though this sounds somewhat harsh, it is very true. Fortunately though, society is definitely shifting towards a welcoming generation where oppression is heavily frowned upon. Despite this trend, it’s likely that people will continue to group together. Some say that it’s a waste to interact like this when there’s such a diverse student body within this huge contact zone, but it’s usually the most comfortable to be with those who are ethnically like me, and I have no problem with it.

The Informational Advantage

Speed has become so important to modern society. The time it takes for information to travel in between two people via the internet has become negligible. Information about a bombing that happened on the other side of the world can be accessed by the average person within 30 minutes of its occurrence. The intro of chapter 1 in Academic Writing illustrated how media revolutions brought huge changes to the world, like the printing press. In the introduction, the internet is like the new printing press, and some argue that the internet signal “the democratization of literacy” (Rectenwald 2) and how knowledge is incredibly accessible to anyone. I have been reading the book Freakonomics that I think well explained the concept of information and how the internet has changed this society. For example, in terms of the business world, information that is withheld or hidden from the public can be used by businesses to take advantage of their customers. In the past, life insurance companies had taken advantage of the customers’ inability to compare other life insurance rates and jacked up their own prices. However, when the internet had rolled along and life insurance quote websites began popping up, the public was then able to compare and contrast life insurance plans to find the best one, hence dropping the life insurance rates dramatically. This is a primary example of how the internet has distributed information in a concise way so that the public is benefitted more. The democratization empowers the people to use new found information to their own benefit, and “the spread of the knowledge to the disadvantaged” helps create “a more equitable distribution of wealth” (Rectenwald 2). Even in the classroom, the internet has closed the informational gap between the teacher and the student. With laptops allowed in the classroom, the student has instant access to almost all of the knowledge of humanity at his or her fingertips, which could possibly explain why some teachers may not like laptops in the classroom, because the informational advantage that the teacher has over the student is significantly diminished. Though laptops and the internet may be a possible distraction for the student, they’re incredibly useful, allowing the student to clarify unknown terms during class and keeping pace with the lessons, as a result, the internet helps put an end to the knowledge disadvantage that the average person, like the student or a life insurance customer, has compared to the expert, like the teacher or the life insurance provider. The internet is simply a distributer, like the Robin Hood of information, that allows the knowledge-starved public to gain more of an advantage in their day-to-day lives and finances against the money-hungry companies that try to hide such information to exploit customers and maximize profits.