Criminology: Discipline and Punish

Criminology: Discipline and Punish

            Michel Foucault’s concept of panopticism bases on a utilitarian concept that was coined by Jeremy Bentham as he explored panopticon. Bentham came up with the idea of prison using an increasingly efficient framework that is branded the panopticon. The panopticon is constructed strategically with a watchtower at its central part. Around frame that which demarcates the cells that circle the structure. The design of the cells is done in such a way that the incarcerated individual cannot communicate with each other. Also, the prisoners cannot know that they are being monitored. Based on Bentham, the framework is so efficient that only one administrator is needed for manning the cells. Indeed no guard can be a solution because each prisoner is engaged in autonomous actions because they think that they are always being monitored. The paper aims to analyze the idea of panopticism with a focus on comprehending how Edward Snowden’s 2013 insights fit into it.

The panoptic approach offers an excellent opportunity for government and discipline authorities to handle crime related issues.  Based on Michel Foucault, the western world has undergone a period of transformation towards becoming a disciplinary community. Panopticism prescribes how power functions. In the exploration of discipline and solution to crimes, Foulcault envisions that strategy of making discipline to perform in the direction of causing people to operate within the interest of power as they pursue their endeavors. An example of an area where panopticism has been working is in the military. In the armed forces, for instance, those of America, there are distinct ranks and soldiers. Therefore, one soldier isn’t equivalent to another (Foucault 16).

In this case, we have command and levels, and underlying operations must ensure that these unique features are safeguarded. Roles aren’t overlapping. However, the assessment criterion embraces a set form of judgment to judge the army personnel on the same scale. Therefore, any department or facet that is focused on delivering under high-efficiency levels finds panopticism inevitable. Furthermore, in contemporary society, we have money as another illustration. Individuals are assessed based on relative amounts of money that they possess, but at the same time, they are equalized by being subjected to the same objective scale of numeracy. This posits that individuals respond to the interests of money, who disciplines them towards hard work to attain their ambitions. In Foucault’s work, discipline is regarded as a force that resides insides bodies and space and makes them work in a specific direction.

The contention of individual efficiency is ensured by discipline. In such a perspective, discipline is made to be extra productive while simultaneously remaining docile and obedient. Disciplining is a process that is managed not by the utilization of violence or thought but rather complex procedures of learning and administration. Discipline, based on Foucault, isn’t found in one facet (like a prison that is a fundamental topic of the “discipline and punishes” work”). Still, it should be viewed as a technology of power applied in various areas such as learning institutions, industries, correctional departments, and so on. Control and discipline aren’t reflected as aspects that one has, but instead, they indicate what one undertakes, wields, and pursues (Gane 24). Discipline perceived by Foucault as a facet that doesn’t stand on its own but instead constitutes a comprehensive set of practices and initiatives which intersect to form a framework. In panopticism, power isn’t embodied only in the administration and legislation. Power prevails naturally, and it allows entire life processes encompassing the most intimate ones. Thus Michel offers a more distributive perception of control. Energy is a force, a motivation, and makes individuals continue acting towards the direction of their aspirations. Power creates a person who is subject to decision making and a sense of selection, and a sense of autonomy that is controlled by power.

Additionally, Foucault is attracted to the format in which discipline works on a person’s body, which is a power object. The panopticism exploration is an account that subordinates a person’s body to a process that renders insights on it, partitions it, analyzes, and remodels it into an obedient object. Based on Foucault, discipline attains this end via various mechanisms. The first step for discipline to work is to rank individuals on multiple levels. Secondly, discipline creates various sub-practices from the primary role to strengthen control. Thirdly, time for action is broken down into schedules to tighten management. In the fourth process, discipline checks isolated bodies and recruits them into a great force. Lastly, discipline works on a group of people by singling them out of the crowd, placing them in the hierarchy, delegating roles, and assigning tasks.

Foucault did a lot to discover the strategies of domination over or the use of “power over.” His exploration of the technologies of the self is a crucial dimension of contemporary society. From panoptic, we reflect that individuals can end up exercising control over themselves in contexts that involve power and configuration allied to knowledge, even without being coerced to do so. Newly invented communication technologies have created a framework that may be perceived as panoptic. From the empirical work of Edward Snowden’s in 2013, we can comprehend recent innovations of self-restraint as well as self-censorship that innovations, surveillance technologies, and how they have been applied in contemporary society (Simon 34). Edward’s revelations are classic depictions of the working of panoptic affiliated ideas as learned from Michel Foucault. Also, Foucault’s concept of the panopticon is relevant and essential I research of self-discipline and restraint in the face of emerging surveillance technologies.

The prevalence of digital media and tools has changed how people conduct themselves. This is in response to the self-restraint and self-censorship idea that was reflected by Michel Foucault. He had the idea that people would act based on the demands when they are aware that they were monitored. Social media constitutes a lot of platforms that gather and house a gigantic quantity of data. For instance, Facebook has been at the forefront in harnessing data of billions of individuals.

Additionally, it tracks the way users conduct themselves online. We should comprehend that other corporate and pro-business entities tap data as an essential input in the generation of profit. This encompasses agencies such as government security departments and private business security agencies. Data collection creates an incentive for those organizations to benefit by liaising with platforms that house gigantic data amounts. In some instances, such an approach leads in the utilization of covert mechanisms, for instance, in the case of America security association (NSA) as unearthed by Edward Snowden in 2013 which made an extensive tapping of Facebook insights encompassing data that isn’t publicly accessible on the Facebook profiles of owners.

Modern surveillance has also brought technologies that create facial identification databases to recognize faces of individuals that are extracted from online platforms. The revelation by Edward Snowden in the year 2013 revealed such initiatives of surveillance and use of technology to monitor individual behavior and initiatives. This brought about a significant issue of publicity, thus escalating social attention and awareness of the nature of innovative surveillance in the modern-day. This led to the generation of panoptic impact, whereby people became aware that they were being surveyed and monitored in their pursuits (Wood 12). The panoptic effect also entails that personal insights are extracted and stored by organizations and that the online track they follow is noted and assessed in mechanisms and for the intends that they lack knowledge of and at specific points that they don’t comprehend. The panoptic effect of the 2013 revelation resulted in people beginning the exercise of self-discipline as well as self-restraint without being coerced, as reflected from Michel Foucault’s account of discipline and punishment. Various empirical assessments on the impacts of Edward Snowden’s insights have discovered that there was a panoptic effect as a result of the revelation.

In conclusion, there are cases of organizational collaborations in areas that involve public data. Some entities in contemporary society may opt to utilize covert methods in harnessing information concerning individuals, groups, or the community at large. In such cases, people don’t assume their normal behavior but alter conduct in the face of knowledge that they are being traced or monitored in their initiatives. The Israeli company known as Terrogence has been identified as a surveillance firm that traces faces of people from data collected from digital platforms. This and many more cases that may have already happened or currently unfolding (e.g., the Cambridge Analytica-Facebook case) reinforce the reflection of the real-world existence of panopticism. The government can implement a panoptic structure in the society by making provisions in data privacy laws to allow government agencies such as the security department to collaborate digital platforms and share data within that ecosystem where necessary.

Bibliography

Foucault, Michel. “Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison, trans. Alan Sheridan.” (1977).

Gane, Nicholas. “The governmentalities of neoliberalism: panopticism, post-panopticism, and        beyond.” The Sociological Review 60.4 (2012): 611-634.

Simon, Bart. “The return of panopticism: Supervision, subjection, and the new       surveillance.” Surveillance & Society 3.1 (2005).

Wood, David. “Foucault and panopticism revisited.” Surveillance & Society 1.3 (2003): 234-239.