The concept of ‘panopticism’ was originally developed by Michael Foucault from his book Discipline and Punishment (1977) pp195-228, Foucault describe panopticon as “mechanism that coerces by means of observation”(pp:195), at the time of writing his theory, there was a lot that was going on around Foucault such as the disband of the soviet union in china had led to a rethinking of socialism, changes in term of the nature of production as well as the industrialisation all of these led to a rethinking of theory of discipline and punishment.
In the book, Foucault offers theory of punishment in modern society, he offers two revolution types of punishment: the sovereign power, this is associated with the monarch, this is associated with punishment of the body. The second punishment is the disciplinary power, this type is punishment involved training and supervising the individual. The main different between these two powers for Foucault is that the sovereign power is visible however the disciplinary power is and must be unseen.
Foucault idea brings forward the idea that full surveillance allows to full control over the masses and therefore more power for those in power. Foucault uses Jeremy Bentham’s panopticon (1791) as an example of the move to disciplinary power. Bentham panopticon involved a building with a watch tower at the centre with a supervisor and inmate, this building has no bars or chains, the inmates then act in accordance as they believe they are being watched at all times. For Foucault the panopticon is an example of how power works, social control in a modern society no longer comes from up above rather by discipline people.
Foucault looked at the seventh century and how the town dealt when a plague appeared in a town and saw how families and residents were sanctioned in their house, without communicating with other residents and identified how the surveillance of this town was based on a system of permanent registration, “at the beginning of the lock up, the role of each of the inhabitants present in the town is laid down, one by one this documents bears ‘the name, age, sex of everyone, not withstanding his conditions”(pp:196) a move to a more documented society.
Foucault argues that in the that town individuals moves and where monitored and restriction were put on regarding on where to go, he therefore identified a place where individuals freedom was strip from them “Every day the intendants visit the quarter… Inquires whether the syndics have carried out their tasks” (p196). Foucault built on Bentham’s idea of disciplinary action such as prison can function as apparatus of power. For Bentham panopticon becomes a design figure tower that allowed all hours surveillance.
The observed would not have any form of privacy Bentham proposed this design to a number of institutions such as the prison, schools, and metal asylums. Mainly Bentham’s takes of panopticon used in a prison, “the major effect of the panotpticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic function of power” (p201). The effectiveness of this model is uncertainty, the inmate cannot see the observer.
Bentham argues that this uncertainty is to always be in effect, and so the bring forward the question of power in a panopticon, for Bentham power can be either of the two visible and unverifiable. Visible power referring to the inmate know that they are being watched and where they are watched from, whereas unverifiable power Bentham referred to inmates not being aware they are being watched. For Bentham power always resided with those observing the inmates. Foucault saw Bentham model of panopticon as a mode of subjection.
For Foucault panopticon took away the identity of the individual, the constant surveillance meant that resistance or being an exteriority is seen as impossible. Foucault concept of panopticism was used to describe a place in time where the body was segregated from its identity and rather became a registries report, the body then became a system of collected information, “he is seen, but does not see; he is the object of information, never a subject in communication” p201. Foucault there as well describe the inmate as being isolated from other humans, it becomes then a form of torture.
John Thompson (1995) argues that Foucault view of visibility, he questioned the extent to which panopticon works as a generalizable model for the exercise of power in modern society. Foucault used the plague in showing that when there is crises individuals are quick in giving out their rights and privacy in hopes of safety, this can also be seen when looking at actions that followed the 9/11, the increasing levels of surveillance and constant monitoring of daily life was inserted in hopes of catching terrorist.
Foucault view point of panopticon brings then bases of the criticism of surveillance and the growing concern over the C. C. T. V cameras. Lyon (2001) found that the everyday life of the masses is continually checked by various means of surveillance. “Everyday life is subjected to monitoring, checking and scrutiny” (pp1). Britain today has been described as a surveillance society. Norris and Mcahill (2006) found that in the U. K has an estimation of 4. 2 million surveillance camera. Norris and Armstrong (1999) saw great relation between Foucault panopticism and the rise of C. C. T. V. , CCTV being the unverifiable model, with the unseen observer.
The growing numbers of cctv cameras in the British street has meant that the individual is at the uncertainty of whether they are being watched or not, and thus behave in a way that conform to the regulation (for some), self-monitoring and self-reflective has become a characteristic of the modern individual, looking at one self and knowing someone is watching and so abiding by the regulation, Becoming identical to what Foucault noted “permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power” this meant individual acting in ways that they know they are always being watched .
The main principle of having CCTV camera is that cctv “may prevent crimes because potential offenders are deterred by their increased subjective probability of being detected, (Welsh and Farrington 2009, 36). It has been argued that surveillance has been able to deter some types of crime, such as thrill seeking crime however does not work on other type of crime or criminality. Giddens (1981) agues Foucault doesn’t take account the dominant individual, rather sees the individual as a passive.
Giddens argues that the individual in a modern society have had a choice of having C. C. T. V and has allowed it into their daily lives and if and when it becomes unwanted, individuals can rally together against it. “Foucault…does not adequately acknowledge those subjected to the power of dominant groups themselves are knowledgeable agents, who resist…the conditions of life that… thrust upon them” (1981: 172). For Karl Marx (cited on Lyon, surveillance society, 2007, pp7) however looked at surveillance as a method of suppression of resistance, for Marx overseeing and monitoring workers or the masses is a way of maintain control over the masses.
However for Marx this control is done so for the benefit of the capital for the ruling class. Max weber (cited in Lyon 1994) argue that the use of surveillance is a concept that is strongly apart of western society, he argues that the western society use of technology in everyday life maintains bureaucratic regime when looking at the way modern ways of storing information. “Max Weber… concentrated on the way that all modern organisation developed a means of storing and retrieving data” (Lyon: 1994:7) When looking at looking t the society in general, this idea of constantly being watched has brings in the 1984 idea of “big brother is watching you”.
The idea is that it constant surveillance keeps the individual in check, Rose and miller (1992) argue that the surveillance of the public is one the benefit of the government rather than crime control, they argue “that the state rules at a distance and so the government set out agendas that implemented to the local people and so the government has a steering role rather than a continual and intervention” for some such as Hudson (1988) the state is having a growth of power in the field of crime.
And therefore overstepping their role. Surveillance by governmental agencies has a strong impact on how we live our lives and how society views criminal justice bodies. Mclean, Worden and Kim (2013) found at the impact of 11 c. c. t. v in Baltimore within 150 and 300 foot radius to find if the mere presents of the CCTV cameras deter any criminal activity, the research found that there was a reduction of drug related behaviours and as much as 66. 9% of reduction in drug crimes. Showing that the increase of surveillance means the reduction of crime.
However the question arise whether there is an increase of fear of being caught. It is also important to note that the increase of surveillance does not always mean the reduction of crime, David Farrington argues that in some areas it gives potential victim of crime a false sense of security and more venerable to when a crime occurs, these circumstance might even lead to an increase of crime in that area, Farrington argues that there should be an increase of community rather than cameras, as increase social movement deter some crimes more than a camera would. Henry A.
Giroux (2014) agues surveillance in the modern term feeds on fear and the uncertainty of the masses, it serves the government/ state and beneficial to the co-operation. “Surveillance feeds on the titillating elements of fear and self- delusion in the interests of producing particular subjects mode of identification and desires that accepts the security state as an overarching power” Giroux identifies the dangers of surveillance, Orwell (1984) argues that the modern society has become a dystopia and argues that right to privacy should be on the fore front of change. The issue of privacy has become a moral and political principle by which to assess the nature, power and severity of the emerging totalitarian state. ”
Zurawski and Czerwinski (2008) research found individual felt safer with CCTV in their soundings, they found as well that interviewers wanted more cameras at crime hot spots. Therefore this research found that people do not mind sacrificing their privacy in the name of safety. However Kemp, Towell and pike (1997) found that there has low success rate when it comes to identifying individual, there has been 15%-30% of success identification, that including close capturing.
Therefore what would the point of cctv in the surrounding if it has a low success rate in identifying individuals. In conclusion Bentham’s utopia brought on by panopticon becomes underfired when looking at what comes in exchange of full surveillance such as privacy, Bentham’s idea of panopticon was rejected by the British government, It brought in a feeling of playing God, Foucault contribution on the power of surveillance, with the ever growing information society, Britain has come under question of whether surveillance is really that important.
The answer being what can replace CCTV camera and still give individual a sense of privacy. The use and the effects of CCTV have been simplified and used in our daily live (Lyon 2001 and Berger and Luckman 2003) they have infected into society daily lives so much so we become unaware that they are there. The idea of CCTV will deter individuals from taking the risk of committing a crime. Roger, Clarke (2006) argues that CCTV may remove the opportunity of committing a crime at that place. So it simply it does not stop crime rather it moves it to a different location.