Revised Essay - 'To what extent is contemporary CCTV culture an example of Panopticism?'

To what extent is contemporary CCTV culture an example of Panopticism?

Michel Foucault’s  ‘Discipline and Punish’ (1977)  depicts his views on creating a ‘disciplined society’ and included in this analysis is what you could call the ‘heart of the book’, his views on Bentham’s Panopticon and how it represents the way in which discipline and punishment work in contemporary society. In this essay I intend to look into Panopticism in great detail and the way that it is conveyed in modern contemporary culture through CCTV and surveillance in urban areas.

‘Discipline and Punish’ focuses on the history of our modern penal system and how it evolved from the 17^th century into what it is today, looking at the shift in power, which changed how we operate as a society. Foucault starts by looking at the regulation enforced at the time of the plague, where people were completely regulated and controlled by a higher power, which watched them constantly.

‘Inspection functions ceaselessly. The gaze is alert everywhere: 'A considerable body of militia, commanded by good officers and men of substance', guards at the gates, at the town hall and in every quarter to ensure the prompt obedience of the people and the most absolute authority of the magistrates, 'as also to observe all disorder, theft and extortion'. At each of the town gates there will be an observation post; at the end of each street sentinels.’ –(Foucault, 1977), These measures started off an entirely new way of supervising ‘abnormal’ human beings, by constant surveillance, which sets the bench mark for all future, similar mechanisms.

‘The plague that gave rise to disciplinary projects’ (Foucault in Thomas, J, 2000, p.62)

Before the use of surveillance as a form of discipline, ‘socially useless’ people (vagabonds, the mad, the unemployed, drunks, criminals and un-married pregnant women, etc…) were hidden from the rest in the vain hope of an untarnished society. This is shown in the great confinement in the late 1600’s. Huge houses of correction were built to curb unemployment and idleness and all people who did not play a significant role in society were thrown in together. This was eventually seen as a grave error as people started to corrupt each other. The criminals and the innocents, the mad and the sane, all together en masse, being made to work.

Punishment shifted from spectacular physical control, in which society was governed by fear of pain and physical torture/execution. Public execution was rife, for example the gruesome punishment of ‘hanging, drawing and quartering’ was used for hundreds of years to make an example of criminals convicted of high treason. ‘That you be drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution where you shall be hanged by the neck and being alive cut down, your privy members cut off and your bowels taken out and burned before you, your head severed from your body and your body divided into four quarters to be disposed of at the King’s pleasure’. (Maggs, M (2009) Bonfire Night in a Working Class area in the 1950’s)  To punishment and control governed by the mind as new forms of knowledge started to emerge.

Foucault was fascinated by these advances in psychiatry, biology and medicine and the way they legitimised asylums, hospitals and schools and the way that each of these alter human consciousness and how they internalise our responsibility.  These experts are essentially the ones who can differentiate between what is normal and what is abnormal.

From the mechanisms put into place at the start by the people in power during the time of the plague, the idea of discipline evolved from a form of punishment to a way of controlling society.

‘Discipline is a ‘technology’ [aimed at] ‘how to keep someone under surveillance, how to control his conduct, his behaviour, his aptitudes, how to improve his performance, multiply his capacities, how to put him where he is most useful: that is discipline in my sense’  (Foucault in Thomas, J (2000) p65)

This is where Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon comes into focus; it is an architectural depiction of discipline in Foucault’s eyes.

The Panopticon itself was proposed in 1791, a large circular building, cells circling in layers, each and every single one totally visible by the guards who were positioned in a tower at the centre of the structure.  Each cell had two windows, one positioned in line with the guard tower, and one in the wall, essentially backlighting the prisoner/madman/patient or schoolboy. ‘Visibility is a trap.’ (Foucault in Thomas, J. 2000. P64)

This shows the Panopticon to be the polar opposite to the traditional dungeon and its function “to enclose, to deprive of light and to hide” essentially locking away and forgetting about, it focuses on the first and opposes the following two. The whole idea of the structure is to ensure that each inmate is entirely visible at every point in time, without exception, making sure that every one of them knows they are being constantly surveyed and observed.

Another key point to the Panopticon is that each cell and inmate is completely isolated, with thick walls between each, completely halting any sort of communication.

“He is seen, but he does not see; he is the object of information, never a subject in communication” (Foucault in Thomas, J, 2000: 65). The idea behind this was that it would install order, which was never possible in houses of correction.

‘This invisibility is a guarantee of order. If the inmates are convicts, there is no danger of a plot, an attempt at collective escape, the planning of new crimes for the future, bad reciprocal influences; if they are patients, there is no danger of contagion; if they are madmen there is no risk of their committing violence upon one another; if they are schoolchildren, there is no copying, no noise, no chatter, no waste of time; if they are workers, there are no disorders, no theft, no coalitions, none of those distractions that slow down the rate of work, make it less perfect or cause accidents.’ (Foucault in Thomas, J, 2000:)

The idea behind Foucault’s theories on discipline, using the Panopticon as a symbol, is that, eventually, with the knowledge that every move is watched, individuals would self-regulate and the actual need for surveillance would cease to exist, turning inmates into what he called ‘docile bodies’, which are self-regulating, self-correcting, obedient bodies.

‘So to arrange things that the surveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its action; that the perfection of power should tend to render its actual exercise unnecessary’ (Foucault in Thomas, J (2000) p.65)

Essentially, his entire argument is based around the relationship between power, knowledge and the body.

“[The Panopticon] is a diagram of power reduced to its ideal form”.

In our modern world, surveillance is everywhere, sometimes completely un-detectable and unknown to the person being watched. However, in urban spaces, if you have the feeling of being watched… you usually are. The Principality of Monaco is a perfect example of this, the small city of only 500,000 inhabitants, known to be the “the most secure mile on Earth” is also the one with the most cameras. It is monitored 24 hours a day by cameras mounted on buildings, street poles and rooftops. It is said that there is nowhere in the city of Monte-Carlo where you are unseen by a camera (apart from in residential properties). A police spokesperson commented, “that if a crime is committed in Monaco and is not caught on camera, then the police are not doing their job. Ideally, video surveillance allows a crime to be prevented before it can be accomplished”. This, essentially, is the idea of Panopticism and a perfect example of its context in modern society. The knowledge of being watched is everywhere in the city, on posters and signs, the police are on every corner, and it works, street crime is close to being non-existing. Both citizens and visitors self-regulate due to the widely known knowledge of the square mile city being completely monitored.

Contemporary CCTV culture is forever evolving. “Why settle for cameras that see people, when cameras could recognize the people they see?”  Facial recognition cameras are starting to emerge in urban areas worldwide as increasing fear of terrorism and crime evolves. With this arise privacy issues, but not only this, it could change the way we operate as people, bodies. The realization of being watched not only changes our mental state, but our physical one too. If one knows they are being watched, they adapt their bodies to the way they think the observer wants them to look and behave. This brings us back to the theory on the ‘docile body’, perfectly adapted for modern society.

Although modern technology and the way in which we are being supervised are far more advanced than those of Bentham’s time, the principle is the same, to deter people from offending or being ‘abnormal’ through the threat of surveillance and being caught on CCTV. A brilliant example of modern-day Panopticism is that of a shopping centre. They are traditionally very well lit and built in a gallery-shape, all floors viewable to all, through both CCTV and the general eye of the security patrolling the area.

“Clive Norris and Gary Armstrong (1998:7) list three types of power created by surveillance. First is a direct, authoritative response seen, for example, when a security guard using CCTV observes a person behaving inappropriately and asks the person to cease the behaviour. The second form is deterrence, exemplified by an individual who refrains from inappropriate behaviour due to a fear of being caught based in the perceived ability of CCTV monitors to identify him. The third form is not meant to punish or deter, but to “abolish the potential for deviance.” This requires an internalisation of the power of surveillance that transforms those under its gaze.”

The third example listed here from the journal ‘Surveillance and Society’ is the direct link to Foucault’s views on Panopticism into contemporary CCTV culture.

However, after looking into CCTV and its effect on modern civilization, it is arguable that Foucault’s ideas are not passing through into the future. However more panoptic the world is getting, as crime and subsequently security increases, along with the common fear of increasing terrorism. Nothing much goes undetected now in urban areas due to the sheer amount of closed circuit cameras, however, this doesn’t seem to appease crime. Will recognition cameras change this? It is taking the modern Panopticon into whole new realms of control.

‘To capture personal data triggered by human bodies and to use these abstractions to place people in new social classes of income, attributes, habits, preferences, or offences, in order to influence, manage, or control them’ David Lyon  (2002)

In many ways, I feel that CCTV culture of the modern age has direct parallels with Foucault’s theories on panopticism. The exercise of control and power through constant surveillance in an attempt to render the public ‘docile’ is present in every urban area worldwide, however crime still exists, despite the ever-increasing amount of cameras. This portrays Foucault’s statement that “where there is power, there is resistance”. In effect, power cannot exist without it’s opposite, which raises the questions ‘is it possible to have a ‘docile’ society?’ and ‘will power ever exist without the urge for resistance?’

BIBLIOGRAPHY (to be revised)

Foucault in Thomas, J (2000)

Lyon, D (2006) Theorising Surveillance: The Panopticon and Beyond, Willan

Foucault, M (1991) Discipline & Punish, Penguin Social Sciences

Maggs, M (2009) Bonfire Night in a Working Class area in the 1950’s - http://www.staffs.ac.uk/uniservices/infoservices/library/find/references/harvard/index.php#website

Koskela, H (2007) http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/articles1(3)/camera.pdf, Cam Era - The Contemporary Urban Panopticon


Gray, M (2008) http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/articles1(3)/facial.pdf, Urban Surveillance and Panopticism: Will we recognise the facial recognition society?