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.
