Father General of Piarists: Young people reflect the problems of adult s...

Panopticon: The Ever Watchful Eye

By Archie R. Magarao

                Michel Foucault, a French social philosopher, is one of the key philosophers of the modern time. His critical philosophy is so wide-ranging that it includes psychology, sociology, jurisprudence, ethics, politics, philosophy, history, and natural sciences. No wonder why his thoughts are much talked about in the academe. In this very brief philosophical reflection on Foucault, allow me to introduce to you one of his key concepts namely the panopticon. Although the philosopher Jeremy Bentham generally coined the term, it was Foucault who took the matter seriously. Foucault argues that modern society is similar to penal colonies. What makes this resemblance possible is the existence of the ubiquitous and ever watchful faceless panopticon.

                The term panopticon is of Greek origin which simply means all-seeing. Technically, it is the prison’s central tower where the guards stay and watch over the prisoners. The guards, eventually, see all activities of the prisoners from their privilege post. Contrarily, prisoners, though conscious that somebody is looking at them, cannot see the guards. Foucault evaluates that this causes an almost absolute control over the behavior of inmates. Having known that somebody watches them perpetually produces in the inmates the regulation of their own behavior. Prisoners, consequently, become the police of their own selves. Even if nobody watches over them from the tower, they will continue behaving properly because their geographical location does not allow them to know if somebody really watches over them or not. Simply put, the panopticon induces control over the behavior but more importantly it exercises its greatest power in the mind. It, moreover, caters less labor to guard the prison nevertheless with an almost complete control on every individual prisoner. Just by becoming their own police, the inmates are transformed into self-regulating individuals.

                How then is modern society similar to penal colonies? Foucault contends that despite the physical absence of the panopticon in the society, it still exists indeterminately. Unlike the panopticon in prisons, the panopticon in the society is faceless. You cannot see it but it sees you. Few examples of the faceless panopticons in modern societies are cctv/surveillance cameras, medical and school records, police power of the state, laws, traffic signs, etc. Foucault believes that these faceless yet pervasive panopticons exhibit control over individuals, likewise, it has power over them. Moreover, the panopticon is translatable into power and Foucault intimates at this point that power is everywhere and nowhere. It is everywhere because it is how things are: things around us exhibit varying degrees of control or influence over us. The control or influence is either conscious or unconscious. Simultaneously, it is nowhere because in spite of its utter presence it is faceless. It cannot be easily located geographically and physically.

                If the panopticon is everywhere, can we escape from it? Can we resist its power over us? Foucault at his point does not offer us a clear answer. In fact, Foucault’s rigorous discussion of the panopticon in his book Discipline and Punish is purely genealogical and archeological. The paradox, however, is despite our possibility of escape from the panopticon we will be surprise to find our selves in yet another panopticon. Does this mean that we are condemned to be imprisoned or controlled? Foucault’s hint might be both yes and no. On the other hand, this panopticon has a positive side too, that is, it rehabilitates our identity and selves. Is it not that one good aspect of imprisonment is the rehabilitation of its inmates? For what is existence if though absolutely free (of any panopticon), yet absolutely meaningless and chaotic (because nobody is in control). Should we call that existence at all? Foucault offers us the critical possibilities and it is up to us to decide. Nevertheless, he hints us that our decisions to do otherwise might be possible but debilitating and, worst, self-defeating. The challenge, however, of Foucault to us is this:

There are times in life when the question of knowing if one can think differently than one thinks, and perceive differently than one sees, is absolutely necessary if one is to go on looking and reflecting at all….What is philosophy today – philosophical activity, I mean  - if it is not the critical work that thought brings to bear upon itself? In what does it consist, if not in the endeavor to know how and to what extent it might be possible to think differently, instead of legitimating what is already known? (Michel Foucault, The Use of Pleasure, 8-9)