Metaphor Of The Panopticon
Introduction
The panopticon is a highly discussed topic in organisations today due to the effects it has brought (Simon 2005). This essay will be examining it as a metaphor for life today. Given the limit, the structure is to identify the panopticon and identify areas in organisations (3 of the 5 organisations as identified by Henry Mintzberg 1988) and society today where is fits as a metaphor. This will be followed by a discussion in relation to Michel Foucault’s work whilst drawing upon various examples within contemporary organisations and society to conclude on whether it is a good metaphor or not.
The Panopticon
This is a model proposed by Jeremy Bentham in the late 19th century. The model represented the prison and its structure. The …show more content…
building was a circular one with multiple cells in which the prisoners were locked up. The individuals in the cells could not interact with each other. They were constantly confronted by a tall structure in the centre. In the structure the observers could see all the cells and the prisoners at any time, but they were not seen by the prisoners. The prisoners were watched without being seen (Burrell 1988).
The model proposed a power of disciplining through knowledge. The fact that one knew that someone was watching them and had the ability to intervene and alter or in this case punish created a self-conscious environment and led the prisoners to behave and maintain discipline without being forced or brutally beaten to follow it. The prisoners were self-conscious and self-aware, thus making them change their actions to do the appropriate and right things.
The organisations/societies and their structure
To better understand the organisation today one can look at the work of Henry Mintzberg (1980) who identified 5 types of organisations structures that exist today with different elements and coordinating methods, as well as varying power levels. The combinations created 5 structures which were: Simple structure, Machine bureaucracy, Professional bureaucracy, Divisionalised form and the Ad hoc. All of these represent the various organisations that exist today though only the first three shall be looked at.
In addition to these different structures, the organisations as well as the society, have advanced and adopted a technological structure, process and life. The work of Zuboff (1988), though done long before internet came into existence, had identified that the smart machines i.e. internet and gadgets have become the basis of knowledge as well as power. She pointed out the implications of the developments on the use of power that the panopticon had. She identified the changes in how societies work and relate to the individuals today through the use of the smart machines.
Enter Foucault- Panopticon for Michel Foucault
The panopticon was a metaphor of disciplinary power for Foucault. He saw this as an ideal structure and system that would keep an organisation in order and would prevent actions going out of the ‘norm’. Here the norm represents the ideal behaviour, action that is supposed to exist for the given organisation/society (Burrell 1988). For him this was the dominant disciplinary mode which had various implications on the structures of organisations, architectural. It was a structure in which power worked through visual and knowledge. For him this was the mark in the change from the traditional disciplining method (Sia and Neo, 2008). This was the power such as monarchs etc. had and used: violence and punished the one who disobeyed in public. This was to showcase its strength and power by eventually dismembering the body.
The panopticon, however, is about training the body and disciplining it in a nonviolent way. The power of disciplining has become subtle and it affects every action as everything begins to get measured and studied (Burrell, 1988). Power of disciplining through knowledge has become regular and generalised and much uninterrupted. It is built into the heart and soul of every individual.
In addition to this, the second part of the panopticon was the story of the supervisors in the tower. They were to ones with the ‘bio-political’ power over the population. This is mainly in regards to the techniques of observation and management as compared to the prisoner’s side of self-disciplining (Simon 2005)
Self- management is the result of the power and he sees this everywhere. Wherever there is a management, the structure of the panopticon is present and hence the metaphor describes the life in such organisations well. He also emphasised that power lied not in constant watching but in the knowledge that you may always be watched. This is different from direct supervision as one would know when they are being observed and when they are not being observed. He saw the Panopticon as a machine for the power to work.
The panopticon: as a good metaphor for life in contemporary organisations and societies today.
Michel Foucault saw power of disciplining evolve to become increasingly subtle to the point that the difference of it taking place is not seen. He also identifies that the power has led to life being measured and controlled and trained in the minutest details. It has become a constant process and is now internalised. Thus, surveillance and self-disciplining, both work together to form the power. Applying this to the organisations and society today, one can identify areas where the panopticon exists largely and thus draw conclusion on the matter.
Organisations
Firstly looking at Simple structure (Mintzberg, 1980), it is clear that in entrepreneurial organisation, disciplining power is hardly used as the organisation requires workers to be dynamic and innovative. An example of such an organisation would be a family business of a garage/ convenient store/ catering or even real estate. For this structure, typically there are few workers and have informal power and informal communications. This reduces the space for a panopticon gaze as the work is not standardised.
Looking at Foucault, in the panopticon, self-management comes as the prisoner is given a defined space of his own for which he takes responsibility. The large prison is made up of many individual cells and because of the individuals in each cell, power of disciplining becomes inherent as they become the guard for their own actions, the boundary of the room tells them what they can and cannot do (Farinosi M, 2011). The simple structure also has such features as the entrepreneur becomes the self-manager and knows the boundaries due to the business environment. He/she takes risks according to the boundaries in terms of available cash, outlook of the economy etc. even though they are not being watched. Hence the Panopticon is a good metaphor as it accurately reflects life in a simple organic organisation that exists today.
Farinosi (2011) and Zuboff (1988) have shown that what seems to be a change in work progress through the use of technology for example CCTV, increased meetings, report taking, analysis, etc.
is in reality methods of monitoring. Methods of monitoring bring back the self-assessment and self-evaluation within the individuals. It becomes a routine for them. Continuous practices on the job, ongoing quantification of production etc. all behave as the gaze in the panopticon (Simon 2005). Each individual in this case would behave according to the rules and guideline knowing that if they don’t, it will show up in one of the technological methods of monitoring. Thus the panopticon proves to be a good metaphor as it accurately displays the power of knowledge.
More importantly Foucault would be most concerned by Machine Bureaucracy because the structure consists of highly formalised works and therefore power takes form through monitoring. The workers are monitored according to the set tasks and standard designs. Everything is done according to the requirements even though the workers have empowerment over how they get it done most efficiently (Sia and Neo, 2008). The clarified work tasks and defined processes of work make the control and disciplining process simpler. This is widely seen in many organisations
today.
Call centres are clearly organisations which make the panopticon a good metaphor as everything in this organisation is strict to the script and monitored and recorded. Everything is timed and listened upon. This process of work has incorporated the panopticon and the workers do feel the power of the gaze as they follow the script to each line and do not waste any second in discussing anything else. More of such examples are school where students have timetables, fixed grading system, report cards, rewards, student ID etc.
Similarly, in factories the use of Just In Time lean production, make process of work strict and thus it reduces the autonomy of workers in effect disciplining them as they have no space to make mistakes (Sia and Neo, 2008). The use of assembly line and telephone and many other technical factors help keep track of the progress of workers hence keep them disciplined (Zuboff , 1988). It becomes a general rule, something that fits like invisible glue; they don’t realise it is there but effects are present.
Even within the tertiary sector where Professional Bureaucracies exist the power of disciplining through knowledge exists. They monitor the work of the workers with set markers and hire and fire those who don’t fit. Everything is, analysed, studied and improved upon (Simon 2005). Law firms, textile industries, accounting firms, all of them have predetermined behaviours and set guidelines. They are watched over by superiors to them and through the use the use of emails, meetings and other technological devices, monitoring becomes of ease. This is because the information produced through the technological devices allows record and analyse and inspect all aspects of the work being done.
Society
Surveillance takes various forms and methods and currently we have the technological surveillance society. Mobile phones, social networking sites, GPS system, report cards, progress reports, business annual reports, cameras, sensors and alarms, justice system etc. all enforce and encourage the existence of the panopticon in our current world.
Life today is based around information processing technology and increasingly surveillance takes place through these various mediums (Zuboff, 1988). For example, the families keep track of their children and friends through various social media sites which show when they were last online, what they are up and other various data (Castells. 2001).The neighbourhood also uses these to keep security from known offenders, potential threats locally and passing tracking information for various objects/people. The presence of technology leads to children being cautious on their use of time and how they behave. This also deters breaks in security within the community thus disciplining the society to keep in harmony.
Likewise, schools have cameras and the attendance sheet followed by report cards which all monitor the student. These are based on norms set by professional bodies such as psychologists, managers, directors etc. Universities are increasingly rum by managers. They set the defined parameters of disciplining and have them enforced through various form of monitoring (Simon, 2005). The constant assessments and meetings with parents enforce the power of discipline which, to an extent, recreates the panopticon. Foucault’s analysis is correct here as the system resembles the prison. The students are normalised and managed as are the teachers who normalise them. This has been possible through increase in information and communication technology.
Panopticon as a metaphor is falling short
Mark Poster (1990) has identified that the surveillance which is the key element in the Panopticon, falls short in for the surveillance that exists today. Especially in terms of technology. He suggests the Superponoticon modal to be a better metaphor. He argues that the wall of the structure has been extended over space and time and made invisible. Thus the original structure of the panopticon falls short to describe lives today. He argues that the surveillance is brought out of the structure and that it takes form as such that surveillance is enabled by knowledge rather than surveillance creating the knowledge.
Similarly various writers (Albrechtslund, 2008, Poster 1990) have pointed out the inadequacy of the panopticon as it fails to recognise the shift in power. Surveillance is no longer restricted to the few. Rather, a huge audience has this power. This is seen where citizens watch over the movements of the rich, the celebrity through television and online newspapers or social website.
Furthermore the society is not forced under surveillance like it is in the panopticon for Foucault. This is clear with the number of users of social media sites where they publicise their lives openly to be watched by the mass audience (Albrechtslund, A. 2008). This no longer acts as a method of disciplining but rather a method of overcoming the fear of the gaze. Surveillance is no longer restricted from top to bottom. Rather surveillance of the higher societies takes place by the common citizens. This is the opposite of Foucault’s version where few watched the many (Mason M, 2014). Therefore, in this case, it is not a good metaphor.
Conclusion
The panopticon is a metaphor that falls short in capturing all elements in relation and thus requires a hybrid version of the panopticon as many authors have suggested. However it largely correlates with the life in many organisations and societies that exist today as seen from the various examples. If the prisoner’s part of the panopticon doesn’t exist as strongly, the surveillance part definitely does and this is due to technology. Because of this I think the Panopticon is a good metaphor for life in contemporary organisations and societies with regards to the work of Michel Foucault.
The panopticon is a highly discussed topic in organisations today due to the effects it has brought (Simon 2005). This essay will be examining it as a metaphor for life today. Given the limit, the structure is to identify the panopticon and identify areas in organisations (3 of the 5 organisations as identified by Henry Mintzberg 1988) and society today where is fits as a metaphor. This will be followed by a discussion in relation to Michel Foucault’s work whilst drawing upon various examples within contemporary organisations and society to conclude on whether it is a good metaphor or not.
The Panopticon
This is a model proposed by Jeremy Bentham in the late 19th century. The model represented the prison and its structure. The …show more content…
building was a circular one with multiple cells in which the prisoners were locked up. The individuals in the cells could not interact with each other. They were constantly confronted by a tall structure in the centre. In the structure the observers could see all the cells and the prisoners at any time, but they were not seen by the prisoners. The prisoners were watched without being seen (Burrell 1988).
The model proposed a power of disciplining through knowledge. The fact that one knew that someone was watching them and had the ability to intervene and alter or in this case punish created a self-conscious environment and led the prisoners to behave and maintain discipline without being forced or brutally beaten to follow it. The prisoners were self-conscious and self-aware, thus making them change their actions to do the appropriate and right things.
The organisations/societies and their structure
To better understand the organisation today one can look at the work of Henry Mintzberg (1980) who identified 5 types of organisations structures that exist today with different elements and coordinating methods, as well as varying power levels. The combinations created 5 structures which were: Simple structure, Machine bureaucracy, Professional bureaucracy, Divisionalised form and the Ad hoc. All of these represent the various organisations that exist today though only the first three shall be looked at.
In addition to these different structures, the organisations as well as the society, have advanced and adopted a technological structure, process and life. The work of Zuboff (1988), though done long before internet came into existence, had identified that the smart machines i.e. internet and gadgets have become the basis of knowledge as well as power. She pointed out the implications of the developments on the use of power that the panopticon had. She identified the changes in how societies work and relate to the individuals today through the use of the smart machines.
Enter Foucault- Panopticon for Michel Foucault
The panopticon was a metaphor of disciplinary power for Foucault. He saw this as an ideal structure and system that would keep an organisation in order and would prevent actions going out of the ‘norm’. Here the norm represents the ideal behaviour, action that is supposed to exist for the given organisation/society (Burrell 1988). For him this was the dominant disciplinary mode which had various implications on the structures of organisations, architectural. It was a structure in which power worked through visual and knowledge. For him this was the mark in the change from the traditional disciplining method (Sia and Neo, 2008). This was the power such as monarchs etc. had and used: violence and punished the one who disobeyed in public. This was to showcase its strength and power by eventually dismembering the body.
The panopticon, however, is about training the body and disciplining it in a nonviolent way. The power of disciplining has become subtle and it affects every action as everything begins to get measured and studied (Burrell, 1988). Power of disciplining through knowledge has become regular and generalised and much uninterrupted. It is built into the heart and soul of every individual.
In addition to this, the second part of the panopticon was the story of the supervisors in the tower. They were to ones with the ‘bio-political’ power over the population. This is mainly in regards to the techniques of observation and management as compared to the prisoner’s side of self-disciplining (Simon 2005)
Self- management is the result of the power and he sees this everywhere. Wherever there is a management, the structure of the panopticon is present and hence the metaphor describes the life in such organisations well. He also emphasised that power lied not in constant watching but in the knowledge that you may always be watched. This is different from direct supervision as one would know when they are being observed and when they are not being observed. He saw the Panopticon as a machine for the power to work.
The panopticon: as a good metaphor for life in contemporary organisations and societies today.
Michel Foucault saw power of disciplining evolve to become increasingly subtle to the point that the difference of it taking place is not seen. He also identifies that the power has led to life being measured and controlled and trained in the minutest details. It has become a constant process and is now internalised. Thus, surveillance and self-disciplining, both work together to form the power. Applying this to the organisations and society today, one can identify areas where the panopticon exists largely and thus draw conclusion on the matter.
Organisations
Firstly looking at Simple structure (Mintzberg, 1980), it is clear that in entrepreneurial organisation, disciplining power is hardly used as the organisation requires workers to be dynamic and innovative. An example of such an organisation would be a family business of a garage/ convenient store/ catering or even real estate. For this structure, typically there are few workers and have informal power and informal communications. This reduces the space for a panopticon gaze as the work is not standardised.
Looking at Foucault, in the panopticon, self-management comes as the prisoner is given a defined space of his own for which he takes responsibility. The large prison is made up of many individual cells and because of the individuals in each cell, power of disciplining becomes inherent as they become the guard for their own actions, the boundary of the room tells them what they can and cannot do (Farinosi M, 2011). The simple structure also has such features as the entrepreneur becomes the self-manager and knows the boundaries due to the business environment. He/she takes risks according to the boundaries in terms of available cash, outlook of the economy etc. even though they are not being watched. Hence the Panopticon is a good metaphor as it accurately reflects life in a simple organic organisation that exists today.
Farinosi (2011) and Zuboff (1988) have shown that what seems to be a change in work progress through the use of technology for example CCTV, increased meetings, report taking, analysis, etc.
is in reality methods of monitoring. Methods of monitoring bring back the self-assessment and self-evaluation within the individuals. It becomes a routine for them. Continuous practices on the job, ongoing quantification of production etc. all behave as the gaze in the panopticon (Simon 2005). Each individual in this case would behave according to the rules and guideline knowing that if they don’t, it will show up in one of the technological methods of monitoring. Thus the panopticon proves to be a good metaphor as it accurately displays the power of knowledge.
More importantly Foucault would be most concerned by Machine Bureaucracy because the structure consists of highly formalised works and therefore power takes form through monitoring. The workers are monitored according to the set tasks and standard designs. Everything is done according to the requirements even though the workers have empowerment over how they get it done most efficiently (Sia and Neo, 2008). The clarified work tasks and defined processes of work make the control and disciplining process simpler. This is widely seen in many organisations
today.
Call centres are clearly organisations which make the panopticon a good metaphor as everything in this organisation is strict to the script and monitored and recorded. Everything is timed and listened upon. This process of work has incorporated the panopticon and the workers do feel the power of the gaze as they follow the script to each line and do not waste any second in discussing anything else. More of such examples are school where students have timetables, fixed grading system, report cards, rewards, student ID etc.
Similarly, in factories the use of Just In Time lean production, make process of work strict and thus it reduces the autonomy of workers in effect disciplining them as they have no space to make mistakes (Sia and Neo, 2008). The use of assembly line and telephone and many other technical factors help keep track of the progress of workers hence keep them disciplined (Zuboff , 1988). It becomes a general rule, something that fits like invisible glue; they don’t realise it is there but effects are present.
Even within the tertiary sector where Professional Bureaucracies exist the power of disciplining through knowledge exists. They monitor the work of the workers with set markers and hire and fire those who don’t fit. Everything is, analysed, studied and improved upon (Simon 2005). Law firms, textile industries, accounting firms, all of them have predetermined behaviours and set guidelines. They are watched over by superiors to them and through the use the use of emails, meetings and other technological devices, monitoring becomes of ease. This is because the information produced through the technological devices allows record and analyse and inspect all aspects of the work being done.
Society
Surveillance takes various forms and methods and currently we have the technological surveillance society. Mobile phones, social networking sites, GPS system, report cards, progress reports, business annual reports, cameras, sensors and alarms, justice system etc. all enforce and encourage the existence of the panopticon in our current world.
Life today is based around information processing technology and increasingly surveillance takes place through these various mediums (Zuboff, 1988). For example, the families keep track of their children and friends through various social media sites which show when they were last online, what they are up and other various data (Castells. 2001).The neighbourhood also uses these to keep security from known offenders, potential threats locally and passing tracking information for various objects/people. The presence of technology leads to children being cautious on their use of time and how they behave. This also deters breaks in security within the community thus disciplining the society to keep in harmony.
Likewise, schools have cameras and the attendance sheet followed by report cards which all monitor the student. These are based on norms set by professional bodies such as psychologists, managers, directors etc. Universities are increasingly rum by managers. They set the defined parameters of disciplining and have them enforced through various form of monitoring (Simon, 2005). The constant assessments and meetings with parents enforce the power of discipline which, to an extent, recreates the panopticon. Foucault’s analysis is correct here as the system resembles the prison. The students are normalised and managed as are the teachers who normalise them. This has been possible through increase in information and communication technology.
Panopticon as a metaphor is falling short
Mark Poster (1990) has identified that the surveillance which is the key element in the Panopticon, falls short in for the surveillance that exists today. Especially in terms of technology. He suggests the Superponoticon modal to be a better metaphor. He argues that the wall of the structure has been extended over space and time and made invisible. Thus the original structure of the panopticon falls short to describe lives today. He argues that the surveillance is brought out of the structure and that it takes form as such that surveillance is enabled by knowledge rather than surveillance creating the knowledge.
Similarly various writers (Albrechtslund, 2008, Poster 1990) have pointed out the inadequacy of the panopticon as it fails to recognise the shift in power. Surveillance is no longer restricted to the few. Rather, a huge audience has this power. This is seen where citizens watch over the movements of the rich, the celebrity through television and online newspapers or social website.
Furthermore the society is not forced under surveillance like it is in the panopticon for Foucault. This is clear with the number of users of social media sites where they publicise their lives openly to be watched by the mass audience (Albrechtslund, A. 2008). This no longer acts as a method of disciplining but rather a method of overcoming the fear of the gaze. Surveillance is no longer restricted from top to bottom. Rather surveillance of the higher societies takes place by the common citizens. This is the opposite of Foucault’s version where few watched the many (Mason M, 2014). Therefore, in this case, it is not a good metaphor.
Conclusion
The panopticon is a metaphor that falls short in capturing all elements in relation and thus requires a hybrid version of the panopticon as many authors have suggested. However it largely correlates with the life in many organisations and societies that exist today as seen from the various examples. If the prisoner’s part of the panopticon doesn’t exist as strongly, the surveillance part definitely does and this is due to technology. Because of this I think the Panopticon is a good metaphor for life in contemporary organisations and societies with regards to the work of Michel Foucault.