In respose to Mark:
It seems we have different emphases in our examination of the Panopticon.
My interst is not in its initiation (I almost don't care how it was
initiated) but the way the system works once it is in operation (perphaps
because of my interest in what Mark Poster calls the "superpanopticon" i.e.
the way our society functions in the information age, where the existence of
a central tower is even less in evidence).
The "time line" of this mechanism of power is interesting. It's as if the
explanation of the guard in the tower (and the gaze which begins with the
guard in the tower before it is internalized) is a story of a myth of
origins of this mechanism of power. Again, I would emphasize that the point
(or--I'll qualify it--at least the point I am interested in) is not this
"story of origins" but rather the generalizable way of functioning of this
disciplinary mechanism in society. The importance is not on explaining how
it may have been initiated but how it works now. And not how it works in an
actual prison setting but in the society at large. Paying attention to an
actual prison as the emphasis of this work falls into a certain pattern of
reading which Foucault's work was interested in criticizing: not taking
these things and putting them on the Other--as only asepcts of the madman,
the prisoner, the homosexual--but seeing them in society in general. As far
as putting responsibility and initiation of the generalizable Panopticon on
one sovereign--I don't see how you would go about identifying such a
person/group.
Your point about "challenges" or if we rephrase it in more Foucauldian
terms--"resistance"--to the system is an interesting one, because Foucault
has been criticized for not allowing (or at least not elaborating) a space
of resistance to this particular technology of power. (See Angela Carter's
novel _Nights at the Circus_ for a facinating and hilarious subversion of
the Panpopticon.) But I'm not clear on why you think one has to posit a
sovereign in order for resistance to be imagined. Why does resistance to
the system have to be focused on the guard in the center? That sounds to me
like: if in fact where power is operating is in the internalization within
each person, then the focus of resistance should be directed here and not
towards some fictional/absent center.
Coming back to what i mentioned at the beginning of the message, i wonder
how you would read the superpanopticon--would you search for the guard in
the center of this mechanism? in terms of initiation? in terms of resistance?
In response to atefeh:
By saying that the most important part of the Panopticon is "to see without
being seen" the second part of his description of the Panopticon is left out.
He describes it as a "dyad": "in the peripheric ring, one is totally seen,
without ever seeing; in the central tower, one sees everything without ever
being seen." (202). Since most live in the peripheric ring and not in the
central tower, and further, I would argue, Foucault moves towards emptying
out the central tower, the "most important part" would actually be the other
part: "one is totally seen, without ever seeing." (which is the emphasis of
the rest of your message anyway--and i agree that it is the interiorization
that is important and not the existence of the external see-er. and yes, it
takes place in the mind (but is also inscribed in self-initiated practices
on the body--let's not forget the Foucauldian body!))
>m, All what you have said is true, but all for a system in operation, and
>also for the general fucntioning of the system. What you say does not hodl
>for the initiation of the system nor for any challenges to the system.
>Initiation: someone, an authority figure with sovreign powers, has to
>show/convince the prisoner/subject that the guard tower has someone in it.
>Second, challenges: one can assume given human nature that challenges will
>be made to the system even if it is illogical. There has to be enough of a
>response, of the sovreign power, to "answer" these challneges. Yes, for the
>VAST majority of the time, disciplinary power operates through the subject
>and other subjects around him/her -- but the sovreign power is still there
>and is incorporated into the disciplinary machinery.
>MArk
>This is interesting but if ia m not wrong, Foucualt says that one of the
most >important element of " panoptique" is to see without being see
(chapt. III) >I have the french text so forgive me if the reference is in
french:
>"La visibiliti est un pihge" p. 202. Want is necessary id that the
prisoner >THINKS and BELIEVES that s/he is being gazed/watched: "Induire
chez le ditenu >un itat conscient et permanent de visibiliti aui assure le
fonctionnement >automatique du pouvoir" (idem) one the process of
"interiorisation" ( >internalisation) takes place within the mind ( un itat
conscient et permanent) >the power will function without being seen ( and
even better).
>atefeh
****************************
Margaret Toye
English Department
University of Western Ontario
mtoye@xxxxxxxxxxxxx