This system is discussed in Discipline & Punish. I actually made a point
about it in an undergrad lecture I gave last year on Bentham and Foucault,
on a lecture heading 'The Tyranny of 'Society' - Representative Punishment?'
"[T]he arrangement of this machine is such that its enclosed nature does not
preclude a permanent presence from the outside: we have seen that anyone may
come and exercise in the central tower the functions of surveillance, and
that, this being the case, he can gain a clear idea of the way in which the
surveillance is practiced. In fact, any panoptic institution, even as
rigorously closed as a penitentiary, may without difficulty be subjected to
such irregular and constant inspections: and not only by the appointed
inspectors, but also by the public; any member of society will have the
right to come and see with his own eyes how the schools, hospitals, prisons
function. There is no risk, therefore, that the increase of power created
by the panoptic machine may degenerate into tyranny; the disciplinary
mechanism will be democratically controlled . This Panopticon, subtly
arranged so that the observer may observe, at a glance, so many different
individuals, also enables everyone to come and observe any of the observers.
The seeing machine . has become a transparent building in which the exercise
of power may be supervised by society as a whole." Michel Foucault,
Discipline and Punish
I didn't write down the page number on the powerpoint, sorry. The point
here is that the panopticon displaces the problem of 'tyrrany' or
'despotism' only via the guarantee provided by public opinion, inspection.
This presumes a certain type of public opinion of course, a properly sober
and utilitarian one, rather than one that dehumanizes the 'criminal', but it
also suggests that Foucault recognised that Bentham saw the power of the
warden as potentially 'despotic'. It also suggests that claims that James
Mill wanted to turn India into a giant panopticon, as is often claimed,
based on a reading of his account of the Cornwallis judicial and police
reforms in Book VI of _The History of British India_, is directly related to
his claim that 'public opinion' exercised little force in India. In
'civilized' societies, we might conclude, public opinion might work as a
panopticon for most people (i.e., Althusser's 'good subjects'), while the
panopticon in its various forms might serve to discipline the other, 'bad'
subjects.
While Bentham was always keen for projects to pay for themselves, especially
in earning a profit, I doubt that he would have been a supporter of the
project of displaying the mad for amusement, if only because it might debase
the viewing public.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Thorpe" <S.Thorpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: Panopticon Reversed
> It is not often discussed that Bentham's design included an elaborate
> tunnel system whereby people from society could come into the structure
> and emerge in the central tower to watch the prisoners and also the guards
> watching the prisoners). Not sure whether this connects functionally with
> the ritual display of the mad for profit that Foucault talks about in
> chapter 2 of Madness and Civilization, but my sense is that the gaze was
> never understood to be unidimensional (hence "panopticon reversed"
> doesn't work for me as a descriptor). I like Lynn Fendler's concept of the
> "ricochet of the gaze" here as a way of underscoring that Bentham's plan
> was to govern *all* of society through architectural technology, not
> merely the imprisoned. Does this mean that the new 'feral' media forms
> that evade politico-military censorship and give possibility to new
> economies of gaze are a sign of post- or retro-panoptic society, or maybe
> rather a sign of panoptic work par excellence?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "max neill" <meneilu2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent by: owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 10/05/2004 05:34 AM
> Please respond to foucault
>
>
> To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> cc:
> Subject: Panopticon Reversed
>
>
>
> Any opinions on the apparent reversal of the 'Panopticon Effect' at Abu
> Ghraib, where now the gaze of the world is focussed on the jailers?
>
> "We speak and the word goes beyond us to consequences and ends which we
> had
> not conceived of" Gadamer
>
>
>
>
>
> --- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
> This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
>
> Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/alternative
> text/plain (text body -- kept)
> text/html
> ---
about it in an undergrad lecture I gave last year on Bentham and Foucault,
on a lecture heading 'The Tyranny of 'Society' - Representative Punishment?'
"[T]he arrangement of this machine is such that its enclosed nature does not
preclude a permanent presence from the outside: we have seen that anyone may
come and exercise in the central tower the functions of surveillance, and
that, this being the case, he can gain a clear idea of the way in which the
surveillance is practiced. In fact, any panoptic institution, even as
rigorously closed as a penitentiary, may without difficulty be subjected to
such irregular and constant inspections: and not only by the appointed
inspectors, but also by the public; any member of society will have the
right to come and see with his own eyes how the schools, hospitals, prisons
function. There is no risk, therefore, that the increase of power created
by the panoptic machine may degenerate into tyranny; the disciplinary
mechanism will be democratically controlled . This Panopticon, subtly
arranged so that the observer may observe, at a glance, so many different
individuals, also enables everyone to come and observe any of the observers.
The seeing machine . has become a transparent building in which the exercise
of power may be supervised by society as a whole." Michel Foucault,
Discipline and Punish
I didn't write down the page number on the powerpoint, sorry. The point
here is that the panopticon displaces the problem of 'tyrrany' or
'despotism' only via the guarantee provided by public opinion, inspection.
This presumes a certain type of public opinion of course, a properly sober
and utilitarian one, rather than one that dehumanizes the 'criminal', but it
also suggests that Foucault recognised that Bentham saw the power of the
warden as potentially 'despotic'. It also suggests that claims that James
Mill wanted to turn India into a giant panopticon, as is often claimed,
based on a reading of his account of the Cornwallis judicial and police
reforms in Book VI of _The History of British India_, is directly related to
his claim that 'public opinion' exercised little force in India. In
'civilized' societies, we might conclude, public opinion might work as a
panopticon for most people (i.e., Althusser's 'good subjects'), while the
panopticon in its various forms might serve to discipline the other, 'bad'
subjects.
While Bentham was always keen for projects to pay for themselves, especially
in earning a profit, I doubt that he would have been a supporter of the
project of displaying the mad for amusement, if only because it might debase
the viewing public.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Thorpe" <S.Thorpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: Panopticon Reversed
> It is not often discussed that Bentham's design included an elaborate
> tunnel system whereby people from society could come into the structure
> and emerge in the central tower to watch the prisoners and also the guards
> watching the prisoners). Not sure whether this connects functionally with
> the ritual display of the mad for profit that Foucault talks about in
> chapter 2 of Madness and Civilization, but my sense is that the gaze was
> never understood to be unidimensional (hence "panopticon reversed"
> doesn't work for me as a descriptor). I like Lynn Fendler's concept of the
> "ricochet of the gaze" here as a way of underscoring that Bentham's plan
> was to govern *all* of society through architectural technology, not
> merely the imprisoned. Does this mean that the new 'feral' media forms
> that evade politico-military censorship and give possibility to new
> economies of gaze are a sign of post- or retro-panoptic society, or maybe
> rather a sign of panoptic work par excellence?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "max neill" <meneilu2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent by: owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 10/05/2004 05:34 AM
> Please respond to foucault
>
>
> To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> cc:
> Subject: Panopticon Reversed
>
>
>
> Any opinions on the apparent reversal of the 'Panopticon Effect' at Abu
> Ghraib, where now the gaze of the world is focussed on the jailers?
>
> "We speak and the word goes beyond us to consequences and ends which we
> had
> not conceived of" Gadamer
>
>
>
>
>
> --- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
> This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
>
> Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/alternative
> text/plain (text body -- kept)
> text/html
> ---