Year 1, GMD student - Contextual and Theoretical Studies final essay.

1. 1
In class, we introduced and discussed the idea of the
Panopticon. How good is it as a model for discussing
contemporary surveillance in the city?
With reference to key ideas, theorists and examples, consider
the strengths and weaknesses of the Panoptic model.

2. 2 3
Fig. 1 Elevation, section and plan of Jeremy Bentham’s
Panopticon penitentiary, drawn by Willey Reveley, (1791)
In class, we introduced and discussed the idea of the Panopticon. How good
is it as a model for discussing contemporary surveillance in the city?
With reference to key ideas, theorists and examples, consider the strengths
and weaknesses of the Panoptic model.
Surveillance is, of course, nothing new, but rather an unavoidable feature in the
contemporary society. This paper invites a comparison between the panoptic model
and the new techniques proposed through the new departure for surveillance.
With further exploration, there is in no doubt a relation between technological
change and social change, which will both importantly acknowledge the analytical
and theoretical aspects of the subject matter, without dismissing the concept and
the practice of surveillance. Furthermore, in relations to the fundamental aspects of
the Panoptic model, the paradox of punishment suggested by Bethnam's utilitarian
theory invites comparison with the effects of contemporary surveillance-saturated
environment/cities. It is relatively vital to consider the effects of both surveillance in
order to arguably construct a comparison. In Bethnam's eyes, the idea of punishment(or
apparent punishment) relatively acts upon the mind where the spectacle effortlessly
involves 'achieving the greatest apparent suffering with the least real suffering' with
the 'least inflicted pain' (Bozovic, 2010, p. 5). Such spectacle enables us to question
the accuracy and precision of the model in discussing contemporary surveillance in
'cyberspace.' Panopticon, in the means of contemporary surveillance, also known as
digital surveillance in society today, draws a line between invisible omnipresence, where
it plays a mode of 'obtaining power of mind over mind' (Bozovic, 1995, p.1).
In no doubt, both positioning of surveillance concerns primarily in the interchange
of 'privacy' and 'freedom' (Lyon, 2002), thus promoting social constraints amongst
individuals in society, as a matter of fact, endlessly destroying one's capability of
fulfilling their basis of individual differences, through constantly making attempts to
fulfilling the governmental wants and needs. Consequently, it is relatively important
to not be fixated on a particular argument, and thus should not judge in advance
'using vulgar assumptions' upon panopticism and the negative effects of technological
surveillance (Lyon, 2002, p. 3).
The surveillance system of the panopticon model and contemporary surveillance
today, unavoidably consist of its inadequacy or weaknesses which may consequentially
be damaging for particular individuals. Through examination of the Panoptic model,
it invites a comparison between fiction and reality. Theory within theory, or theory
within fiction undeniably depreciates the presence of reality, neglecting the concept of
'how things are' in the real world, thus, the panoptic model may likely to unqualifiedly
succeed in the field of practice. Although panopticon drives a powerful imagery, it
fails to overcome the epistemological obstacle of sociological complexities, thus, fails
to account for the future long term consequences in the society. For instance, in the
writing of 'Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates',
it presents real-life examples of the members in 'total institutions', which arguably holds
an extent of equivalency to those who were in the Panoptic cells, and after released
when approached with real-life situations, one similarly experience a prison cell, but
'without a wall.' For some individuals, they may have learned their lesson to behave
appropriately, however, in no doubt for others, the problem would not have been
solve, leaving issues to be impaired, which may exhale back into the society. Similarly,
contemporary surveillance in developed countries retains some rudimentary and
unsatisfactory aspects which, as mentioned, does not emphasise or account for human
sociological complexities. What primarily fails for the modern surveillance system is the
lack of perplexing and detailing identification amongst individuals where, for instance,
the functionality of 'mass' social sorting through technological advancement. Although,
to some extent, the functionality of social sorting does foster significant considerations
to the human race. However, such do not prudently emphasise on delivering specific
solutions for individuals, but rather sorting individuals into categories that determines
whether one should or is under target or in suspicion (Lyon, 2002). In relations to the
points mentioned related to the panopticon model above, the activities arranged by
authorities are nothing more than 'a single rational plan purportedly designed to fulfil
the official aims of the institution' (Goffman and Goggman, 1991, p. 17).

3. 4 5
(Zuboff, 1989, p. 320). In comparison to contemporary surveillance in the cities, data
collection is most likely to be 'automated' by the machines, rather than operationalised
by humans (Marx, 2002), therefore, without needing the presence of the observer,
unlike the Panopticon system. The capability of both form of surveillance is more than
a simple matter of convenience as the alteration or differences, perhaps, can place a
major impact on the quality of the data received. Given the nature of 'technological'
surveillance, the system advantageously is capable of providing great amount of real-
time data which not only provides solutions to problems that are 'apparent', but also to
achieve better control and 'higher levels of reliability', which in turns primarily satisfy
governmental and authoritarian certainty and control (Zuboff, 1989, p. 324).
The highly influential work of Zuboff(1989), delivers multiple of scenarios or case
studies in work settings, which are primarily associated with information panopticon.
The Cedar Bluff's Overview System for instance, mentioned in 'In The Age of the Smart
Machine, The Future of Work and Power' by Soshana Zuboff, regarded the management
as a system that had been developed as a 'solution to problems that were pragmatic,
immediate, and technical', which allowed tremendous amount of information/data to
be gathered; allowing 'better process control' (Zuboff, 1989, p. 324). It is no surprise
that technologies will continue to develop and push boundaries, thus would limitlessly
outweigh the capability of Bethnam's Panoptic model, thus questioning the potency of
the Panoptic model in discussing contemporary surveillance. Beyond any doubt, the
information systems of contemporary surveillance unquestionably exceeds Bentham's
fictitious Panoptic-inspection house, however, both to some degree, consist of
universal transparency that are continuously transmitted through the panoptic vision.
While contemporary surveillance in the city eliminates the necessity of face-to-face
engagement, the act or process of the 'computerised' information collection in the cities
or urban space highly recognises the disciplinary potential of surveillance (Gray, 2003),
which in turn undoubtedly reflects on the disciplinary influence and potency proposed
by the Panoptic model.
In conclusion, Bentham's 'panoptic' tradition of thought generally place focus upon the
concept of provoking disciplinary power, and which in relations to the contemporary
surveillance systems, the functionality of facial recognition in the cities for instance;
similarly highlights the matter of disciplinary power, due to the technological ability
of providing limitless amount of gaze over the urban spaces, which in turns evidently
reflects on the disciplinary influence by the Panoptic model. Moreover, the weakness of
the Panoptic model arguably involves the demands acquired to meet the requirements
of the panopticon; as it is relatively complex and multitudinous, of which it employs
endless amount of psychological effort to produce control and disciplinary technique.
Although the methodology of panopticon was deliberately criticised when compared
with the contemporary methods for conducting surveillance, it is relatively prejudiced
and immoderate to downgrade the model merely based on what was available at the
time. Thus, the model should not undeservingly receive inadequate treatment, rather,
Fig. 2 VeriLook Surveillance biometric face
recognition technology (no date)
This dismantling similar subject of 'weakness' and criticism draws a path between
the Panoptic model and modern surveillance, thus portraying a wider picture of the
evolution and influence of Jeremy Bethnam's empowering utilitarian philosophy, which
today, are adopted for effectuating governmental powering and needs. Although both
systems from different centuries neglects the purpose of sustaining lifelong solutions
amongst individuals in society, it is in no doubt that technological development
heightened the significant boundaries proposed by the initial mechanism of the
Panoptic model. However for both, it is essential to account for the inabilities of model/
system for future practical application.
In ‘The Panopticon Writings’ by professor of Early Modern Philosophy, Miran Bozovic,
accentuates the predominant characteristics of the panopticon as ‘the apparent
omnipresence of the inspector’ integrated with ‘the extreme facility of his real presence’.
According to Bentham, such combination forms a whole to sustain perfect discipline
that utterly discourages the prisoners from carrying particular actions through
persistently instilling doubt or fear of the consequences produced (Bozovic, 2010,
pp. 8-9). The inculcation comparably corresponds with the element of surveillance
today, evidently through technological development and achievement. For instance,
the usage of cameras and its advanced face-recognition system(see fig. 2.) on streets
allows reliable monitoring of individual citizen. Thus, in no doubt adversely draws a
relation between the subject matter of privacy and surveillance, where, unsurprisingly,
leading to a discouragement of freedom upon citizens. Such circumstances echoes the
conception of omnipresence by the Panoptic model, as it equivalently infects people
today to relentlessly ‘rethink’ their actions in public with the fear and conscious of
being ‘targeted for exclusions’ or the hesitation of whether their identity are being
‘confirmed or rejected’ (Lyon, 2002, p.8). As a result, giving a judgement concerning
such matter, the Panoptic model and contemporary surveillance similarly drives the
principles of omnipresence, whereby in both structure, one does not know whether
they are being seen, therefore self- presumptuously presume that they are being brought
into attention (Bozovic, 2010). On the other hand, further exploration of the existence
of omnipresence in surveillance today remains doubtful, where the philosophical
concept of ‘I think therefore I am’ by Rene Descartes or the new mantra of ‘I am seen
and I see that I am seen’ predictably driven by the operations of power in the subject of
panopticism(Mirzoeff, 1998, p. 10) may arguably lack traceability in surveillance today.
Nonetheless, the ultimate and fictitious result(omnipresence) stirred by the Panoptic
model can be criticised for its reductionist approach, where Clive Norris, the author
of ‘The Maximum Surveillance Society: The Rise of CCTV’, highlights the unseen
observer is ‘less obvious than it might at first seem’, thus leading to a reduction in the
reliability of the model as an establishment or discussion in modern surveillance as an
object of controlling or modifying behaviour. In addition, data collection conducted
through contemporary surveillance is likely to be integrated into routine activity,
with exceptionally low visibility in comparison with the Panoptic model, thus raising
the concern of the Hawthorne effect. On the basis of Hawthorne effect(driven by
omnipresence), the panopticon model steer inmates to modify their behaviour, whereas
the modern surveilling system considerably undertakes an approach where the ‘gaze’
is invisible or not immediately apparent, which in turns, encourages more truthfulness
and natural behaviour among citizens. Thus overall, indicating a differentiation between
their means, and rather, questioning the ability of the Panoptic model in explaining
contemporary surveillance today.
Moreover, in terms of methodology, it is important to direct attention to the techniques
of control in relations to the general operated system of the Panoptic model and
contemporary surveillance. While it is certain that both can conceivably differ from one
another, it is important to raise the matter of techniques and elements that both ‘new’
and ‘old’ surveillance acquire, as they are the main source which drives the surveilling
activity, the central component of the surveilling activity. For instance, Bethnam’s
panopticon, although never built, was an ingenious architectural plan (see fig. 1), a
prison administered by ‘invisible overseers’ which are governed by both gaze and
voice. The philosophical implication in no doubt, placed emphasis on the independent
observer, thus the operator(person) is at its prominence of operating and regulating,
which the Associate Professor Shoshana Zuboff, at Harvard Business School, described
the sustaining Panoptic power is in independence of the ‘person who exercises it’

4. 6 7
Bibliography
Barnard-Wills, D. (2011) Surveillance and identity: Discourse, subjectivity and the
state. United Kingdom: Ashgate Publishing.
Bauman, Z. (2000) Liquid modernity. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Bentham, J., Božovič, M. and Bozovic, M. (2010) The Panopticon writings: (wo Es
war). 2nd edn. London: Verso Books.
Dear, M.J. and Wolch, J.R. (1987) Landscapes of despair: From
deinstitutionalization to homelessness. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Descartes: ‘I think therefore I am’ (no date) Available at: http://newlearningonline.
com/new-learning/chapter-7/descartes-i-think-therefore-i-am (Accessed: 29 April
2016).
Goffman, E. and Goggman, E. (1991) Asylums: Essays on the social situation of
mental patients and other inmates (Penguin social sciences). London: Penguin
Books.
Gray, M. (2003) ‘Urban surveillance and Panopticism: Will we recognize the facial
recognition society? *’, Surveillance & Society, 1(3), pp. 314–330.
Knowles, C. (2000) Bedlam on the streets. Routledge.
LaBossiere, M. and Nelson, B. (2015) Free will, materialism & dualism. Available at:
http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?tag=rene-descartes (Accessed: 12 April 2016).
Lyon, D. (ed.) (2002) Surveillance as social sorting: Privacy, risk and automated
discrimination. New York: Taylor & Francis Books.
Marvin, C. (1990) When old technologies were new: Thinking about electric
communication in the late nineteenth century. 10th edn. New York: Oxford
University Press, USA.
Marx, G.T. (2002) ‘What’s New about the “ new surveillance ” ? Classifying for
change and continuity *’, Surveillance & Society, 1(1), pp. 9–29.
McMullan, T. (2015) What does the panopticon mean in the age of digital
surveillance? Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/23/
panopticon-digital-surveillance-jeremy-bentham (Accessed: 29 April 2016).
Mirzoeff, N. (ed.) (1998) The visual cultural reader. 2nd edn. New York: Routledge.
Norris, C. and Armstrong, G. (1999) The maximum surveillance society: The rise of
CCTV. New York: Berg Publishers.
Nunes, M. (2006) Cyberspaces of everyday life. Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota Press.
Wacks, R. (2015) Privacy: A very short introduction. United Kingdom: Oxford
University Press.
Wise, M.J. and Wise, J.M. (1997) Exploring technology and social space:
Communications and agency at the end of the 20th century. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications (CA).
Zuboff, S. (1989) In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power.
Butterworth-Heinemann.
List of Illustration
Figure 1.Elevation, section and plan of Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon penitentiary,
drawn by Willey Reveley, (1791) [online] At: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Panopticon#/media/File:Panopticon.jpg(Accessed on 25.04.16)
Figure 2. VeriLook Surveillance biometric face recognition technology (no date)
[online] At: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-fbis-nationwide-facial-recognition-
system-2012-9?IR=T(Accessed on 25.04.16)
one should acknowledge the powering principles and mechanism of power proposed
through the visualisation of the architectural structure. With such acknowledgement,
one should in no doubt realise that the principles of the Panoptic model is applied
technologically in contemporary surveillance in the city. In addition, as noted above,
the pace of technological development will continuously increase surveillance
in the cities. Thus, the saturation of developed systems in the 'cyberspace' would
significantly enhance the mechanism of observation as well as enforcing disciplinary
control/power over the increasing years; heightening the potentiality of surveillance,
permitting higher levels of efficiency (Lyon, 2002, p. 18). Furthermore, in relations
to the arguments explored for the strengths and weaknesses of the Panoptic model,
it unquestionably relates to contemporary surveillance in the city, which for instance,
both aspect of surveillance addresses ways to achieve a balance between privacy and
security. Without doubt, contemporary surveillance exceedingly absorbed some
prominent characteristic and ideology proposed by the metaphorical/fictitious
principle of panopticism. Nevertheless, both remarkably brought attention and
debate in great reform in philosophy.

5. 8 9
Miran Bozovic, a Professor
of Early Modern Philosophy,
and has written on many
controversial subjects.
Overall, the book on a whole,
explains panopticism, ranging
from explaining the general
architectural structure to taking
fascinating accounts for its
fictitious aspects. Throughout
the entire book, it continuously
questions the boundaries of
the panoptic model, addtionally
with the various inclusions
of reliable cites.
Reference list (Annotated version)
Bentham, J., Božovič, M. and Bozovic, M. (2010) The
Panopticon writings: (wo Es war). 2nd edn. London: Verso
Books.
(Bentham, Božovič, and Bozovic, 2010, pp. 3–9)
Gray, M. (2003) ‘Urban surveillance and Panopticism: Will we
recognize the facial recognition society? *’, Surveillance &
Society, 1(3), pp. 314–330.
(Gray, 2003)
Goffman, E. and Goggman, E. (1991) Asylums: Essays on the
social situation of mental patients and other inmates (Penguin
social sciences). London: Penguin Books.
(Goffman and Goggman, 1991, p. 17)
Lyon, D. (ed.) (2002) Surveillance as social sorting: Privacy,
risk and automated discrimination. New York: Taylor &
Francis Books.
(Lyon, 2002, pp. 1–21)
Marx, G.T. (2002) ‘What’s N ew about the “ new surveillance
” ? Classifying for change and continuity *’, Surveillance &
Society, 1(1), pp. 9–29.
(Marx, 2002)
Mirzoeff, N. (ed.) (1998) The visual cultural reader. 2nd edn.
New York: Routledge.
(Mirzoeff, 1998, p. 10)
Zuboff, S. (1989) In the age of the smart machine: The future
of work and power. Butterworth-Heinemann.
(Zuboff, 1989, pp. 320–325)
This source specifically focuses
on the technological facial
recognition mechanisms in
surveillane. This is related to
my question of surveillance
in the city. It also explores the
reactions to perception
of insecurity in urban spaces.
Bibliography (Annotated version)
Barnard-Wills, D. (2011) Surveillance and identity: Discourse,
subjectivity and the state. United Kingdom: Ashgate Publishing.
Bauman, Z. (2000) Liquid modernity. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Bentham, J., Božovič, M. and Bozovic, M. (2010) The Panopticon
writings: (wo Es war). 2nd edn. London: Verso Books.
Dear, M.J. and Wolch, J.R. (1987) Landscapes of despair: From
deinstitutionalization to homelessness. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Descartes: ‘I think therefore I am’ (no date) Available at: http://
newlearningonline.com/new-learning/chapter-7/descartes-i-think-
therefore-i-am (Accessed: 29 April 2016).
Goffman, E. and Goggman, E. (1991) Asylums: Essays on the social
situation of mental patients and other inmates (Penguin social
sciences). London: Penguin Books.
Gray, M. (2003) ‘Urban surveillance and Panopticism: Will we recognize
the facial recognition society? *’, Surveillance & Society, 1(3), pp.
314–330.
Knowles, C. (2000) Bedlam on the streets. Routledge.
LaBossiere, M. and Nelson, B. (2015) Free will, materialism & dualism.
Available at: http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?tag=rene-descartes
(Accessed: 12 April 2016).
Lyon, D. (ed.) (2002) Surveillance as social sorting: Privacy, risk and
automated discrimination. New York: Taylor & Francis Books.
Marvin, C. (1990) When old technologies were new: Thinking about
electric communication in the late nineteenth century. 10th edn. New
York: Oxford University Press, USA.
Marx, G.T. (2002) ‘What’s New about the “ new surveillance ” ?
Classifying for change and continuity *’, Surveillance & Society, 1(1),
pp. 9–29.
McMullan, T. (2015) What does the panopticon mean in the age of
digital surveillance? Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/
technology/2015/jul/23/panopticon-digital-surveillance-jeremy-
bentham (Accessed: 29 April 2016).
Mirzoeff, N. (ed.) (1998) The visual cultural reader. 2nd edn. New York:
Routledge.
Norris, C. and Armstrong, G. (1999) The maximum surveillance society:
The rise of CCTV. New York: Berg Publishers.
Nunes, M. (2006) Cyberspaces of everyday life. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
Wacks, R. (2015) Privacy: A very short introduction. United Kingdom:
Oxford University Press.
Wise, M.J. and Wise, J.M. (1997) Exploring technology and social
space: Communications and agency at the end of the 20th century.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications (CA).
Zuboff, S. (1989) In the age of the smart machine: The future of work
and power. Butterworth-Heinemann.
Specifically focused on conducting analysis
on contemporary surveillance in the UK.
Includes many fascinating ‘real-life’ case
studies which draws strong valid connections
between new technologies, governmental
projects, and in general, significantly linked
to surveillance throughout.
Heavily focused on the reactions of inmates
of institutions. Provides great/substantial
amount of results from survey, which the
author takes into account of; by interpreting
their experiences and finding ways to justify
the system.
Written by Professor of Sociology at Queen’s
University. Lyon has attracted may authors
in producing writings related to privacy
and surveillance. The book offers various
approaches related to the interation between
societies and technologies.
Zuboff, Professor at the Harvard Business
School, published numerous writings on
information technology, widely in United
States and Europe. The book draws detailed
information on the surveillane, as well as in
the workplace, furthermore supported by
philosophical significance.
Gary T. Marx is Professor Emeritus from
M.I.T. His work has appeared or been
reprinted in over 300 books and articles
in over a dozen languages.
Providing detailed case studies of
several cities in the United States and
Canada. And examines the concept of
'deinstitutionalization' and how it has placed
a burden on community services.
Written by a Professor in the Department of
Media, Culture and Communication at New
York University. He is known for his work in
developing the field of visual culture and also
his widely used textbook on the subject.
Raymond Wacks is an expert on the legal
protection of privacy and how this protection
varies in different countries. Examines our
need for privacy and why it is valued so
highly, as well as what the sociolgical and
psychological impacts on people. In addition
with what constitutes an invasion of privacy.