Bentham's Arguments Of Panopticism

The proctors’ job is perhaps the most important element in what allows this space to function as a panopticon without the architectural qualities of one. Panopticism works when authority is perceived to possibly be watching at any given moment by ‘the inmates’ but ‘the inmates’ cannot verify whether or not the authorities actually are watching. Because of the combinatory factors of the proctors’ watching the students, and the students – as a rule – not being able to watch the proctors (because they are meant to not be looking around during the test), the students can always be sure that they could be watched at any moment, while not always being able to be sure whether they actually are or not. It satisfies Bentham’s principle, which is that
For instance, one aspect of Panopticism that he argued was favorable to other realizations of power, in particular more arbitrary and discontinuous sovereign power, was the decentralized nature of power. Decentralized not in the sense that power is spread out (which it certainly is not in a panopticon) but in the sense that power is not concentrated into one individual, but rather whoever is occupying the role of the ‘watchtower’ at a given moment. He argued: “It does not matter who exercises power. Any individual almost at random, can operate the machine.” This is the case here, as the qualifications for being an SAT proctor includes simply “unquestionable integrity”, “fluency in English”, and no current relationship to the exam (i.e. has not taken it in the last 6 month nor has a family member). The inclusive nature of the criteria is supportive of Foucault’s argument that anybody could do it, so long as it is agreed that they do
Arguing that Panopticism, on the other hand, by engendering unprotesting discipline in its subjects “has a role of amplification”, which can be assured only if power “can be exercised continuously in the very foundations of society, in the subtlest possible way”, and if “it functions outside of these sudden, violent, discontinuous forms that are bound up with the exercise of sovereignty.”

Ultimately, Foucault argues, the “panoptic schema” makes it possible to “perfect the exercise of power”. However, given all of these advantages and how well it works in examples of panoptic spaces such as SAT testing centers, why, then, is society not, as Jeremy Bentham envisioned “penetrated through and through with disciplinary mechanisms” with panopticons as its building