An exploration of panopticism and popular ideas of disciplinary control in one of my favorite stories, Bartleby: The Scrivner. Bartleby is the disobedient copywriter whose mysterious apathetic repose both confuses and intrigues his boss, the narrator. In applying both Foucault’s panopticism to the spatial organization of the room, and his notions of inequality found in The History of Sexuality, it becomes apparent that Bartleby’s disobedience serves two functions: (1) to enforce the disciplinary structure of the workplace; and (2) to act as a source of pleasure for his persecutor, the narrator.

1. (SAMPLE ONLY)
Gilian Ortillan
ENGL 3300-S50
Romy Kozak
December 14, 2007
Foucault’s Creed in Bartleby: The Scrivener
Philosopher Michel Foucault famously analogizes his beliefs about the nature of
power and subordination with a description of the Panopticon. Rather than taking the
conventional approach of examining how power is acted upon people, Foucault uses the
architecture of the Panopticon to disseminate how power is internalized, naturalized and
even enjoyed by those who are regulated by it. The characters in Bartleby, The Scrivener
perfectly demonstrate how this occurs. In this narrative, a naive, unassertive lawyer
somehow maintains his position as the boss of three scriveners, all of whom exhibit
peculiar behavioral patterns. The narrator becomes preoccupied in his observations of
one scrivener in particular: Bartleby, who coolly resists all of his commands. Although
Bartleby commits numerous offences that would normally result in termination of one’s
job, his boss continues to employ him and tries to unravel the enigmatic Bartleby. In
applying both Foucault’s panopticism to the spatial organization of the room, and his
notions of inequality found in “The History of Sexuality,” it becomes apparent that
Bartleby’s disobedience serves two functions: (1) to enforce the disciplinary structure of
the workplace; and (2) to act as a source of pleasure for his persecutor, the narrator.
Panopticism is a system of discipline and social control in which the subjects not
only internalize control, but also gain pleasure from their roles in subordinate positions.
The Panopticon was a prison design by English philosopher Jeremy Bentham that
allowed for prisoners to be monitored with little manpower and little effort. The structure
consists of rings of individual prison cells encompassing a central tower, which serves as

2. an observatory. Because of the distance of the central tower from the cells, the watchmen
act as an omniscient, invisible force that observes the inmates. The cells are also divided
laterally, so that the inhabitants are dissociated and cannot conspire with one another.
The inhabitants are always aware that they are being observed, which assures the
“automatic functioning of power” (Foucault, 554). In this prison design, architecture is
imperative to gaining immediate, automatic control. However, in Bartleby’s narrator’s
layout of his office, he unwittingly sabotages some of the vital architectural features of
the Panopticon which allows Bartleby to deter from the workplace’s Panoptical system of
social control.
Firstly, Turkey and Nippers, the other two scriveners, share a workspace without
Bartleby. According to principles of the Panopticon design, the separation of individuals
through cells, disciplinary partitioning, implies a lateral invisibility that ensures order
and prevents conspiracy (Foucault, 554). Thus, because Turkey and Nippers are not
separated, they are able to peacefully coexist, and even form a dichotic relationship.
Despite their union, they are still subordinated by the workplace’s mechanism of social
control: they are viewable through folding glass doors, have invested in the power the
central authority and perform agreeably. As for Bartleby, a screen shields him from the
view of the authority, and a glass door isolates him from the other scriveners. Bartleby
allocates an undefined space: he is neither observed by the authority nor associated with
the other scriveners, so he is virtually invisible among everyone else. His space is
isolated and does not fit in the mechanical structure of the office; therefore he is an
anomaly in the workplace and behaves so.
2

3. Foucault also states that “perfection of power should tend to render its actions of exercise
unnecessary” (Foucault, 554). In other words, the presence of the central authority (the
narrator) is irrelevant in the Panoptical system of social control. Because the discipline
has been internalized, the physical presence of the power becomes irrelevant. In
Bartleby, the narrator does not exercise forceful control over Turkey and Nippers, and
they do not resist his commands. For instance, when Turkey addresses his boss, he
frequently begins with the phrase “with submission” (Melville, 21), openly expressing his
assent to being inferior. Bartleby, in contrast, continuously refuses the requests of his
boss with the phrase, “I would prefer not to.” Another example of how Turkey and
Nippers differ from Bartleby is when the narrator is given a large amount of documents
to review. He requires the help of all of his employees for this task, and when he calls
upon his scriveners to be seated in a row at a table, and they peacefully comply (26). The
protocol that is used mirrors one described by Foucault. When the plague struck in the
17th century, strict procedures were implemented to regulate the town and ensure that the
disease did not spread. A syndic would call upon all of the citizens to the windows to be
sure that not only are they accounted for, but that they are healthy, productive peoples
(Foucault, 551). Likewise in Bartleby, when the narrator calls upon all the scriveners to
be seated in a row to examine documents together, Turkey and Nippers, who internalized
into their own bodies the power over them, make themselves accounted for. (557)
“General principle…discipline.”
(sample only)
3

4. Works Cited
Foucault, Michel. “Discipline and Punish.” Literary Theory: An Anthology. Ed. Julie
Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. 549-565.
Foucault, Michel. “The History of Sexuality.” Literary Theory: An Anthology. Ed. Julie
Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. 892-899.
Melville, Herman. Bartleby, The Scrivener. Malden, MA: Kessinger, 2004.
4