Panopticon

[HeavenDuff]

Here's a little thread, hoping I can get to practice my english in political and sociological debates. I would like to get Newgrounds views on the Panopticon from sociological, philosophical and politico-philosophical points of view.

If you do not know what the Panopticon is...

[TheMason]

At 3/1/13 11:47 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: Here's a little thread, hoping I can get to practice my english in political and sociological debates. I would like to get Newgrounds views on the Panopticon from sociological, philosophical and politico-philosophical points of view.

If you do not know what the Panopticon is...

Interesting topic. I'm doing a career change from active duty military to social studies teacher and so I'm interested in educational topics at the moment.

Bentham wanted to apply the principle to schools and I totally, vehementally disagree. As he said it is about mind exerting control/power over other minds. In an educational setting this would grind out creative, original, and individual thought. This would create a society of drones that would stop questioning authority.

This could suppress the Einsteins and Renaissance Men & Woman who move society and humanity forward, as well as trampling individual freedom.

But as a prison...yeah...might be a good idea.

====

On a side note as friendly advice, try and state what you believe first rather than just solicit our opinions. I understand it may be difficult if English is not your native language. But we'll cut you some slack...even though you may need to remind us from time to time! :)

I see you've been a NG member for awhile now...but if you're new to the politics forum: welcome to the debate!

[HeavenDuff]

At 3/2/13 01:31 AM, TheMason wrote: Bentham wanted to apply the principle to schools and I totally, vehementally disagree. As he said it is about mind exerting control/power over other minds. In an educational setting this would grind out creative, original, and individual thought. This would create a society of drones that would stop questioning authority.

Not only would it create drones, it would creat problems in psychological and sociopsychological aspects of life. Being watched by someone you can see and that you can watch two is something. Looking at a tinted window or looking at at tower in which somebody COULD be watching you is something else. I see a psychological problem here, as it creates a relationship of total mind submission toward the watcher. Like Foucault said : "...it is the diagram of a mechanism of power reduced to its ideal form." And coming from the mouth of Bentham himself (it's in the Wiki page) "a new mode of obtaining power of mind over mind, in a quantity hitherto without example."

You could see it as an Adam Bomb for the mind. The easiest, most efficient and rational way to dominate one's mind. Which also implies problems on a psychosociological scale, as a category or group of individuals with a group identity could soon perceive themselves as inferior or dominated.

But as a prison...yeah...might be a good idea.

I'm not too sure about it either. At first, it could look like a good idea. I mean, it would most likely reduce violence and problems inside the prison in itself. But on the longrun... the ultimate goal of a prison is to hopefuly be able to reinsert these individuals in the society. The same problems stated above could occur here, and we wouldn't be helping ourselves, nor would we be helping the prisoners.

======

On a side note as friendly advice, try and state what you believe first rather than just solicit our opinions. I understand it may be difficult if English is not your native language. But we'll cut you some slack...even though you may need to remind us from time to time! :)

I didn'want to open the thread with my opinion as I didn't wanted it to be an "for or against OP's opinion" kind of discussion.

I see you've been a NG member for awhile now...but if you're new to the politics forum: welcome to the debate!

Thanks :)

[Camarohusky]

I don't see a problem with this at all. I see Mason taking a logical jump, albeit a very easy one to make. He jumps from oversight immediatly to control. It's understandable as oversight and control are so often tied. However, I think is becoming less and less true today with the ubiquity of oversight, thanks to technology.

So long as those watching don't overstep their respective bounds for the type of institution, I don't mind an overwatch. That is a big level of trust, so it is quite understandable why some would be uncomfortable with it. I, personally, just don't believe that mere sight, which most of these places already have pretty darn good coverage even without a Panopticon layout, or the modern panopticon (CCTV). I see very little extra that could be done harmful by adding just a little bit extra sight to the formerly dark corners of these places.

[Warforger]

At 3/2/13 01:31 AM, TheMason wrote: This could suppress the Einsteins and Renaissance Men & Woman who move society and humanity forward, as well as trampling individual freedom.

Einstein actually grew up in a very militarized and authoritative school system which he hated and dropped out of. This would've probably done little but further fuel his hatred for authority (although he was a Socialist and was pretty supportive of the USSR). As for the Renaissance, although better yet the people who did what the Renaissance took credit for the Scholastics and their like were part of the authority and revived ancient philosophy to justify it. Besides there were plenty of authoritative philosophers, like say Plato who condemned Democracy and called for essentially a Theological Fascist Dictatorship.

[Feoric]

At 3/2/13 12:37 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I don't see a problem with this at all. I see Mason taking a logical jump, albeit a very easy one to make. He jumps from oversight immediatly to control. It's understandable as oversight and control are so often tied. However, I think is becoming less and less true today with the ubiquity of oversight, thanks to technology.

I don't really agree. Foucault is always talking about power/knowledge, the will to knowledge, the totalizing efforts of oppressive state systems, etc., so I assume you have a different perspective on this than most since you're studying law. The way I see it is, instead of a single Big Brother looking down on you, examination and judgement of your behavior is happening everywhere. Power is now dispersed, meaning that it isn't just the coercive arm of the state that makes you obey social norms, but your relationships with everyone and everything around you. Teachers, doctors, social workers, your friends, your family, firms that want to sell you things, bosses, etc. create a variety of different influences on you. The thing is that those influences can be very heterogeneous, giving rise to power struggles and explaining why we don't have an ordered and regular world. I think this is especially true with the internet:

"Still, Foucault's use of the Panopticon metaphor has been enormously influential in media and cultural studies -- especially with the rise of new media technologies such as the Internet. Cyberspace guru Howard Rheingold notes "that the machinery of the worldwide communications network constitutes a kind of camouflaged Panopticon" (Rheingold, 1999, p. 285) where the prying eyes and ears of not only the state but also innumerable individuals are brought into your home.

As Rheingold recognized back in 1994, and as we all now realize, the same cables that bring so much information into our homes also sends out information about us to others, instantly. "TomorrowâEUTMs version of Panoptic machinery could make very effective use of the same communications infrastructure that enables one-room schoolhouses in Montana to communicate with MIT professor, and enable citizens to disseminate news and organize resistance to totalitarian rule. With so much of our intimate data and more and more of our private behavior moving into cyberspace, the potential for totalitarian abuse of that information web is significant and the cautions of the critics are worth a careful hearing" (Rheingold, 1999, p. 285)." [source]

[Camarohusky]

At 3/2/13 01:50 PM, Feoric wrote: potential for totalitarian abuse

I have no idea what you're on about. First you say that it isn't the state that controls you, it's society. Well, welcome to 2000 BC. Society has always controlled people's actions and thoughts more than any state has.

The you go on about potential, yet we've been under ever increasing overwatch for my entire life, yet no totalitarian actions have happened.

The reason I am not afraid is not based in legal studies. It's based in reality. We're already very much under overwatch. People fear what would happen the minute the state can watch us and monitor us almost every second. Well, the State has had that power for well over a decade (if not much longer) and I'm still waiting for the Gespacho (joke) to come knocking on my door. I know some very opinionated and fringe (well they could be considered so) and they have still yet to be contacted by the State Cold TomatoSoup Police.

I see two reasons why people don't like panopticon style cirsumstances. First is some fake and overblown sense of privacy. For example "what I do in PUBLIC is PRIVATE!!" (read: I am stupid and paranoid). Second is the logical jump I mentioned before, that information = control. Couldn't be farther from the truth. Information is a part of control, but the mass of information is NOT control without an affirmative controlling act. It's like looking at a baseball and immediately saying that the existence of a baseball means that location is actively engaged in a game of baseball.

[Feoric]

At 3/2/13 03:18 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I have no idea what you're on about. First you say that it isn't the state that controls you, it's society. Well, welcome to 2000 BC. Society has always controlled people's actions and thoughts more than any state has.

The you go on about potential, yet we've been under ever increasing overwatch for my entire life, yet no totalitarian actions have happened.

The reason I am not afraid is not based in legal studies. It's based in reality. We're already very much under overwatch. People fear what would happen the minute the state can watch us and monitor us almost every second. Well, the State has had that power for well over a decade (if not much longer) and I'm still waiting for the Gespacho (joke) to come knocking on my door. I know some very opinionated and fringe (well they could be considered so) and they have still yet to be contacted by the State Cold TomatoSoup Police.

I see two reasons why people don't like panopticon style cirsumstances. First is some fake and overblown sense of privacy. For example "what I do in PUBLIC is PRIVATE!!" (read: I am stupid and paranoid). Second is the logical jump I mentioned before, that information = control. Couldn't be farther from the truth. Information is a part of control, but the mass of information is NOT control without an affirmative controlling act. It's like looking at a baseball and immediately saying that the existence of a baseball means that location is actively engaged in a game of baseball.

And that's fine, but for the purpose of the discussion that's not Foucault's point. For me, I like to be aware when someone is attempting to exert control through imperceptible, but implicitly understood observation. When I hear about corporate, personal, or political policies around me that involve construction of any variation of a surveillance system, I just like to reflect on Bentham's and Foucault's ideas. I'm not a conspiracy theorist nor am I paranoid, I'm just critical surveillance systems that allows a large amount of potential control over me because I personally am skeptical of authority. Not because I think the black helicopters are coming after me, but because a) it's an interesting thought experiment and b) it's naive to think these power structures really have your best interests at heart 100% of the time. This has nothing to do with FEMA death camps or whatever.

[HeavenDuff]

At 3/2/13 03:18 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I see two reasons why people don't like panopticon style cirsumstances. First is some fake and overblown sense of privacy. For example "what I do in PUBLIC is PRIVATE!!" (read: I am stupid and paranoid). Second is the logical jump I mentioned before, that information = control. Couldn't be farther from the truth. Information is a part of control, but the mass of information is NOT control without an affirmative controlling act. It's like looking at a baseball and immediately saying that the existence of a baseball means that location is actively engaged in a game of baseball.

Information is the first step to control. Plus, the Panopticon does involve a total lack of intimacy.

At 3/2/13 12:37 PM, Camarohusky wrote: So long as those watching don't overstep their respective bounds for the type of institution, I don't mind an overwatch. That is a big level of trust, so it is quite understandable why some would be uncomfortable with it. I, personally, just don't believe that mere sight, which most of these places already have pretty darn good coverage even without a Panopticon layout, or the modern panopticon (CCTV). I see very little extra that could be done harmful by adding just a little bit extra sight to the formerly dark corners of these places.

Wisful thinking. The idea of Bentham is one of instrumental rationality. It's inserting capitalism in the carceral system. It's about getting the best productivity, the best output. So basically what Bentham wished to create is a mind-domination system that would be efficient. Putting te least amount of effort possible for the best control. Giving so much power, and a power that is so easy to use an abuse of is pretty much destroying these "bounds" you are talking about, right from the start.

You also have to consider all the politicophilosophical and psychosociological elements tied to a s system like the Panopticon, I have mentionned before.

[TheMason]

At 3/2/13 01:25 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 3/2/13 01:31 AM, TheMason wrote: This could suppress the Einsteins and Renaissance Men & Woman who move society and humanity forward, as well as trampling individual freedom.

Einstein actually grew up in a very militarized and authoritative school system which he hated and dropped out of. This would've probably done little but further fuel his hatred for authority (although he was a Socialist and was pretty supportive of the USSR).

And that is evidence of what I'm saying. Back then Einstein had the ability to sit for exams for university. Nowadays that is rare, although thankfully becoming more common.

As for the Renaissance, although better yet the people who did what the Renaissance took credit for the Scholastics and their like were part of the authority and revived ancient philosophy to justify it.

I was not speaking of them, but rather Polymaths. Secondly, revise history much? These people, while yes part of the upper and ruling classes, did revive ancient philosophy. But in what universe is restoring lost knowledge a bad thing? They were attempting to reverse mistakes made by an overzealous Church destroying non-Christian Western Thought. They opened up learning to a broader base which allowed for more people to get educated.

Besides there were plenty of authoritative philosophers, like say Plato who condemned Democracy and called for essentially a Theological Fascist Dictatorship.

I think we should be teaching our children that Democracy is a utopian ideal: good on paper but horrible in practice (much like Communism/Socialism). What Plato was observing was that Democracy is a degenerative form of government which leads to all sorts of anarchy (moral, social, political, economic, etc) which will give way to tyranny.

What he was really advocating for were rulers who sought wisdom and knowledge. Lovers of truth, who would actually be guardians of freedom. All while recognizing that there must be a balance between freedom and authority. Hence the title: The Republic. We kind of had that at our founding. The Founding Fathers were not perfect, they were human after all, but they were wise learned men. Today, the idea of a Polymath is anethma to how we want to raise our kids. We want them studying the one or two things that will get them good, well-paying jobs. We don't care whether or not they are good citizens...but what their earnings potential will be.

Also nowadays we have idiots in our political class who are worth nothing outside of politics. You had Clinton who went straight into politics (with a brief stop as a law prof) after graduating Law school. Then you Bush the Younger who couldn't do anything in the civilian sector...pretty much failed at everything. And now you've got Obama whose career path followed Clinton's only he came into office lacking Clinton's governing skills.

So I don't think Plato is excessively authoritarian...although as Stalin and numerous other dictators have shone...it is possible to pervert him thusly.

[TheMason]

At 3/2/13 12:37 PM, Camarohusky wrote: So long as those watching don't overstep their respective bounds for the type of institution, I don't mind an overwatch. That is a big level of trust, so it is quite understandable why some would be uncomfortable with it. I, personally, just don't believe that mere sight, which most of these places already have pretty darn good coverage even without a Panopticon layout, or the modern panopticon (CCTV). I see very little extra that could be done harmful by adding just a little bit extra sight to the formerly dark corners of these places.

Look at recent history: Stanford Prison Experiment, the watchers overstepped their bounds...and the watched went along with it.

As for education...I know many educators who do not want their classes being recorded (audio or video). It is their experience that it shuts students up. They are even less inclined to participate when they are being recorded. I think in schools it would be a huge mistake. Also, I think the teacher needs to be able to relax in order to best deliver instruction...knowing that at anytime an administrator could be looking at you would just make anxiety worse.

Also, why do we need this? Why tempt further violation of civil rights?