Is the distinction between panopticism and synopticism that Mathieson makes a valid one?

Illustrate
your response with reference to examples drawn from the genre of reality television.

Prima Facie, the purpose of this essay is to answer the above question, that is, to analyse Mathiesons’
distinction between synopticism and panopticism, and then pass careful judgement on its validity.
However the above question is posed within a more significant and notable context. Mathiesons’
distinction is developed under the ambit of three fundamental concepts; modernity, power and media &
communications. Thus in answering the above question, we perhaps get closer to what may be
considered a more substantiative purpose of this essay, which is to shed some light on the interplay
between these three fundamental concepts. However we must be wary; in dealing with concepts which
are as theoretical and abstract as these, all to often our basic reason for enquiry becomes over-
complicated. As we twist and turn with subtle arguments, exotic opinions and the constant threat of
entirely new considerations, the simple question with which we started is inevitably left contorted,
complex and unrecognisable (and for the most part, completely unanswered). Therefore, the underlying
and central aim of this essay is to pose a very important and very basic question regarding modernity,
power and media & communications, and then answer it. The question I wish to pose is as follows:
what is the nature of power in modernity, and what role do media and communications play in how
power is structured in modernity? To answer this question three views will be considered. Two of these
views; panopticism, expressed by Foucault, and synopticism, expressed by Mathieson, will be
canvassed by analysing Mathiesons’ synopticism-panopticism distinction 1. While the third view,
omnopticism is illustrated using a brief case study of the reality television program Big Brother. This
third view is put forward as a response to the inadequacies of Mathiesons’ distinction, and is argued to
be the best explanation of how power operates in modernity.

Before expounding the theories of panopticism and synopticism, and in order to ensure that our basic
question is answered, it is important that we carefully define and restrict the scope of the concepts
under which we are working 2. Modernity may be understood in two different senses; either as concrete
period in human history, or as a concept. Both Foucault and Mathieson treat modernity in a similar
fashion. In a historical sense, both the authors mark modernity as spanning from 1800 till the 'present'.
So for Foucault, modernity spans from 1800 to 1975 (when he publishes his work), and for Mathieson
modernity spans from 1800 till 2000 when he is writing. As a concept, modernity is best understood as
the 'modernising' shift that takes place when society passes from being pre-modern to modern. For
some authors this fundamental shift is an empirical event; for instance technological advancements
such as the printing press and the industrial revolution, or the change in political organisation from

I
I will be analysing Mathieson’s distinction as it is presented in his work The Viewer Society: Michel
Foucault’s Panopticon Revisited (see references). It must be noted that the panoptic viewpoint which is
attributed to Foucault is taken from this reference and not Foucault’s original text.
2
Of course by narrowing the scope of such significant concepts, many important and relevant ideas are
inevitably left out; however this is necessary if we are committed to reaching a concrete and relevant
answer.
feudal states to nation states (Held: 72). For other authors the shift is more abstract; for instance
Bauman, who marks the emergence of modernity as the shift from a natural or divine social order he
describes as wild culture to a man made and ‘liquid’ social order he describes as garden culture
(Bauman: 51, 54), or Frankfurt School theorists who point to the capitalisation and commodification of
society as the mark of modernity. For most authors however, the modernisation of society is rooted in
an overlapping multitude of both abstract and empirical shifts.

For Foucault and Mathieson the heart of the conceptual shift to modernity is a shift in the way power is
structured. Although Foucault talks of power in term of discipline and punishment, and Mathieson in
terms of 'control functions', as Mathieson points out their understandings are synonymous (Mathieson:
228). Both broadly conceive of power as being the ability to coerce, or better still, form normative
subjects who behave in accordance with dominant values. In contemporary western societies this
involves 'disciplining subjects to fit into a democratic capitalist society' (Mathieson:217). Panopticism
and synopticism are two viewpoints which seek to explain how such power is structured. The first step
in answering the central question posed above then, will be to describe and then evaluate panoptic and
synoptic power structures. There is however a second aspect we must consider in order to decide the
nature of power in modernity. This aspect is the age-old distinction dating back to Descartes’
Meditations On First Philosophy published in 1641 between a subject’s body and a subject’s soul. Both
Foucault and Mathieson maintain this Cartesian distinction in their critiques of power in modernity.
They both make claims on how power is exercised over subjects. So in answering the posed question
we will also want to say whether power in modernity targets a subject’s body or his soul.

Mathieson argues for his account of how power operates in modern societies by critiquing and then
amending an historical and influential account put forward by Foucault.
In 1975 Foucault’s Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Modern Prison is published in English. In it
Foucault adopts Jeremy Bentham’s ‘panopticon’ to explain and act as a metaphor for the nature of
power in modern society. Bentham’s panopticon, conceived in 1791, was a design for a modern prison
system where a central guard tower is surrounded by a ring of divided prison cells. Through the effect
of backlighting the cells, a viewer situated in the central tower can observe each individual cell and its
occupant without every being seen (Sheridan 200). This panoptic mechanism ensures that ‘each
individual is seen but does not see; he is the object of information, but never a subject in
communication’ (Sheridan:200). The notion of a panopticon is further clarified by the ancient Greek
origins of the term. As Mathieson explains, pan means 'all' while opticon represents the visual
(Mathieson:217). Together ‘pan-opticon’ identifies a system in which everything or all may be viewed
from some vantage point. Contemporary examples of panopticons include surveillance cameras, red
light cameras, even central databases where a single viewpoint can see, or have direct access to
information on, many people.
This panoptic structure, where the few see the many, is a power structure because it causes those who
are seen to self-regulate their own behaviour and adopt the values of the dominating or viewing power.
The panopticon works to normalise its subjects. According to Foucault the process of isolating
individuals and subjecting them to permanent the visibility of those in power causes the subjects to
internalise that power structure. Subjects believe that there is always the possibility that they are being
watched, and thus believe that they are always subject to the threat of discipline and punishment if they
do not behave in the prescribed manner. As a consequence subjects assume a disciplinary outcome for
deviant behaviour and internalise the power relation. Subjects will begin to regulate their own
behaviour and discipline themselves in accordance with the values dictated by the dominating and ever
present power structure. Here the subject becomes an instrument of his own 'normalisation'.

This panoptic power structure is the basis of panopticism: the theory articulated by Foucault to explain
the nature of power in modernity. Panopticism claims that the transformation of pre-modern society to
modern society is a fundamental shift to a situation where the few see the many (Mathieson: 217).
Foucault illustrates this panoptic shift by contrasting it to the pre-modern social structure of the
spectacle, where the many viewed the few. In pre-modern times power was exercised by overt and
brutal punishment, coercing a subject’s behaviour was simple; it involved the total domination of their
body. For instance to ensure the people behaved according to the normative values of the Monarchy,
the King would hold a public 'drawing and quartering', where a deviant citizen would be torn in four
directions by horses (Mathieson:216). In modernity however power is exercised by the panoptic gaze
of the few. Social institutions including prisons, schools, hospitals, and most importantly the
government, all adopt a panoptic power structure. They gather information and maintain visibility on
the many. Under this normalising gaze citizens are transformed in to self-disciplining subjects and are
normalised to fit into the dominating value system, which for Foucault writing on modern western
societies is a system of democratic capitalism. The key point Foucault is making here is that in
modernity subjects are not normalised by the coercion of their body as was the case in pre-modern
society, rather subjects are normalised by the manipulation of their soul. This point is aptly described
by Mathieson:

‘Gone [are the days of] open brutality and the uncontrolled infliction of physical pain…;
instead, there is a carefully developed system of rules regulating life in full and complete
detail (Mathiesen:216).’

So in answering the question of the nature of power in modernity, panopticism, as it is attributed to

Foucault argues that a) modern society and the structure of power are characterised by a fundamental
shift ‘from the situation where the many see the few to the situation where the few see the many’
(Mathieson: 217), and b) within this structure power is exercised to normalise subjects by manipulating
their souls.

Mathieson rejects the notion that only panopticism explains the nature of power in modernity, he
presents his own view in contrast to Foucault’s account of modernity.
Mathieson agrees that modern society is a society in which the few see the many, it is panoptical.
Schooling, medical and criminal institutions are all good examples of modern social institutions which
function as panopticons (Mathieson: 218). However he rejects panopticism on the grounds that it does
not tell the whole story of the nature of power in modern society.

Mathieson thinks that there is another important development that parallels the panoptic shift of
modern society. The development of synopticons and the phenomenon of synopticism have been even
more instrumental in shaping the nature of power in modernity. Like panopticism, the term synopticism
also has its roots in the ancient Greek language. Contrasting pan, syn stands for 'together' or 'at the
same time'. A syn-opticon is thus a system where a few are viewed by many, at the same time, or in
common (Mathieson: 219). Undeniably the most influential synopticon in modern times, and
Mathieson's archetypical case, is the mass media. Television, radio and news papers are all synoptical
in that a mass audience views and consumes few channels of information. Accordingly, synopticism is
the view that the principal shift to modern society is the transformation to a situation where the many
view the few.

In describing how synopticism may be considered as a power structure, Mathieson gives what is
perhaps the most widely canvassed argument in regards to the mass media. Synoptic structures are
characterised as being hierarchical or master-slave architectures (Gilder:40); few producers of
broadcast messages send information and symbols ‘down’ to a large mass of receivers (Holmes:84).
Producers are in a position of power because they have enormous control over the dissemination of
symbols and information, they have the ability set the agenda and manipulate the consciousness of
receivers who are considered voiceless and passive. For Mathieson the few who wield this power
include; celebrities, V.I.Ps, politicians and news reporters. Of course Foucault would reject this
argument; he would insist that the symbolic power of the celebrity, V.I.P’s, politicians and news
reporter is analogous to the power of the Monarch, and in modernity that power has yielded to the
permeating gaze of the panopticon (Mathieson: 226). However as Mathiesion points out, it is important
when looking at the power of synopticism, that we go ‘beyond the effects of isolated, single messages’
or public displays. The real power of synopticism lies in its capacity to induce a broad enculturation
and cultivate the consciousness of subjects through a whole system of messages (Mathieson: 228).

Despite emphasising the kind of power structure synopticism forms in modernity, Mathieson is not
arguing that synoptic structures are the only power structures in modernity. He believes that there has
been a parallel in the development of synopticism and panopticism in modernity, and that both models
must be emphasised in order to understand the nature of power in modernity. He indicates three
specific ways in which these two structures have developed in common. Firstly, both panoptic and
synoptic systems have experienced an accelerated rate of growth throughout modern times. Between
1750 – 1830 when panopticism was developing through the inception of modern prisons and criminal
surveillance techniques, at the same time there was ‘enormous and extensive development of systems
that enable the many to see the few’ (Mathieson: 220). Of course Mathieson speaks of the printing
press and the circulation of newspapers, this development was followed by three more waves of
synoptic media in film, radio and television. Secondly Mathieson argues that both structures have
historical roots in social and political institutions (Mathieson: 233). While, thirdly, both structures have
developed in intimate interaction with each other, and dominant institutions have often been both
panoptical as well as synoptical. Mathieson illustrates this third parallel by giving an example of the
Catholic church (Mathiesion:223) , however the parallel is better demonstrated by considering the dual
structure of a ‘fifth wave3’ of media, now uniformly known as new media. For instance an ordinary
internet website may be synoptic in that it can be viewed by many, but it is also panoptic in that it can
view or track the behaviour and information of users.

Mathieson clearly thinks that both synopticism and panopticism characterise power in modernity, and
that the omission of the synopticism is critical in Foucault’s account. As a result, Mathieson rejects
Foucault’s solely panoptical view as inadequate in so far as it emphasises the role of the panopticon
and ignores the role of the synopticon. In emphasising each of these dual systems of power in
modernity, Mathieson draws entirely different conclusions about the nature of power in modernity.

First of all Mathieson thinks that modernity is ‘in a two way, and significant double sense… a viewer
society’ (Mathieson: 219). We are both the viewed and the viewers. On the one hand, under the gaze of
the panopticon, we live in permanent visibility and face the perpetual prospect of discipline and
punishment. On the other hand, we remain focused on the synopticon, where our consciousnesses
remain vulnerable to the influence of the few powerful producers. Secondly Mathieson thinks that
disciplining of the soul and the formation of self-regulating subjects is performed by the modern
synopticon, not the panopticon (Mathieson: 215). He argues that the intersecting and veiled gazes of
panopticism discipline our behaviour, but not our attitude. Modern subjects may order their affairs
according to the gaze of the panopticon, but they do not change their core beliefs or attitudes. His
primary example is of the extensive surveillance on American communists in the 1950’s (Mathieson:
229). While intense surveillance forced communists in America to become cautious and secretive and
even use cover names, it did not impact on their core attitudes and beliefs about communism; it did not
discipline their soul4. The disciplining of the soul, and the formation of self-regulating subjects that fit
neatly into modernity is performed by synopticons (Mathieson: 230). Powerful synoptic systems such
as the mass media are responsible for controlling and disciplining our consciousness. Mathieson thinks
that ultimately we are in a much worse position than that described by Foucault. Instead of facing
discipline and control from a single panoptic system, we have to muster a dual resistance; not only is
our behaviour constrained and coerced by the panopticon, but our attitudes and our collective
consciousness are subject to manipulation and control from the synopticon (Mathieson: 231).

Mathieson has argued that the nature of power in modernity is a result of both panopticism and
synopticism. The strength and validity of his account may be demonstrated by a simplistic analysis of
the influential reality television program Big Brother.

3
Mathieson’s term
4
Take for instance a more mundane example: road users will not speed when they know they are
‘being watched’ by a speed camera, regardless of their personal attitude to speeding (the same may be
said for drink driving and being spotted by a booze bus or running red light camera).
Reality television is the newest and most profitable television genre. The central tenant of programs in
the genre is that they represent reality. Although individual shows such as Cops (1989) and even
Candid Camera (1948) clearly operate on this theme, it was the development of programs such as Big
Brother and Survivor in early 2000 that led to the reality phenomenon being recognised as a genre in
itself. Big Brother is a program about 14 ordinary people who live together in an isolated ‘Big
Brother House’, run by the invisible Big Brother character who can see every aspect of the house and
the contestants. The housemates’ daily lives are recorded 24 hours a day by numerous cameras, edited
and then packaged into a drama-game-show each night. The public votes out contestants and the final
housemate is declared the winner. The original creator of the Big Brother format describes the program
in contrast to traditional television programs:

“traditional television [programs] show the way we think you should behave, even though we
know you don't behave this way at all. Reality TV shows the way things are... it's the lives of
your neighbours. It's direct and unmediated.” (BBC Media Monitoring:1)

The production set of Big Brother gives us the first indication of how it may be considered a synoptical
system. Micheal Beck (a father of three) describes the Australian Big Brother house, also a tourist
attraction at Dreamworld in Queensland, on a recent visit there:

“The Big Brother compound is surrounded by 4 giant prison like concrete walls. Inside the
four compound walls is the Big Brother house and garden. Between the house and the
compound walls there is a studio which surrounds the house. The studio is set up with
cameras and one way glass. From the studio, every single centimetre of the house is visible,
even at night, when the cameras go into night vision mode. The house itself is small and
cramped and surrounded by mirrors [the one way glass from the studio].”

The Big Brother set itself resembles the modern day synoptic parallel to Foucalt’s panopticon; a group
of housemates are confined in a small tight compound for over three months, where they are constantly
visible by many unseen cameras who beam back pictures to every Australian household. Furthermore,
there are other ways the Big Brother program, or system, represents both the panoptic and synoptic
elements of Mathieson’s account of power in modernity.

On the one hand Big Brother shows us how panopticism operates in modernity. Here Big Brother may
be understood as a microcosm of modern society. The many contestants who are considered to be
representative of ordinary people are under the constant gaze of Big Brother, who is representative of
the dominant institutions in society. Big Brother disciplines their behaviour, decides when they leave
the compound, whether or not they have hot showers, what brand name’s they can wear, what music
they may sing, and what tasks they must complete. As Foucault might of said in regards to Big Brother;
‘The life of the young [housemates] is regulated by rules down to the most minute details, from the first
drum roll in the morning’ (Mathieson: 59).

On the other hand Big Brother represents Mathieson’s account of synopticism’s influence over subjects
in modernity. The synoptic power of television shows such as Big Brother, as Mathieson has argued,
lies in their ability to induce a false consciousness amongst the many viewers. Reality television
however is an especially powerful synopticon. Programs like Big Brother intensify televisions
underlying status ‘as our privileged access point to social reality’ (Couldry:106). In traditional genre’s
of television it is understood that central media figures (host’s, celebrities, politicians etc.) mediate
social reality according to vested interests. For instance a politician will give a favourable account of
his parties public policies, a celebrity will use and endorse products that they are sponsored by and
television hosts will emphasise the ‘money shot’ of a performance. As Mathieson argues central figures
in the mass media act as gate keepers between social reality and the mediated social reality that is
presented to many impressionable viewers. Reality television programs like Big Brother purport to
strip back this mediated and skewed representation of reality and instead show the world ordinary
subjects as they really are; or as the creator of Big Brother puts it: ‘direct and unmediated’
(Couldry:106). Here reality television shows hold a unique status of presenting a transparent account of
the normative subject, against which the many may be judged and judge themselves. Of course we
know that Big Brother is like any other television genre in that its primary purpose is to link a market
of many viewers to advertisers and producers5.

If however we apply a more rigorous analysis to the program Big Brother and its underlying structure,
it becomes apparent that Mathieson’s synoptical – panoptical distinction fails to fully describe how the
system operates as a power structure in modernity. Systems that exert power over subjects in
modernity, and form them into neat capitalist subjects cannot be seen as partially synoptical and
partially panoptical. Modern systems of control, represented by Big Brother, are systems in which there
are comprehensive and mult-directional flows of information and visibility. Modern systems of power
are ‘omnioptical’, and the nature of power in modernity is best explained by ‘omniopticism’.
The idea of an ‘omniopticon’ is based on the Latin meaning of the term omni, which stands for ‘in all
ways or places’, and thus expresses the idea that a visual or information structure may be
omnidirectional: i.e. it may receive or transmit (or view) in all directions (Oxford Dictionary).
Omniopticism claims that in modernity the formation of subjects that fit into the overarching capitalist
framework is achieved by systems which receive, transmit and view information in all directions.

Mathieson hints at the omnioptical nature of power in modernity when he says that we have seen the
‘tendencies’ of panoptical and synoptical systems to merge into one. Mathieson says that new
technologies enable a ‘large number of consumers to synoptically watch television perform economic
transactions with advertisers, while the producers panoptically survey the consumers’ ability to pay

5
Many critics make this argument by pointing to the controlled environment and staged nature of
reality television programs.
(Mathieson: 224). In what follows, we can show how Big Brother enabled by new media and the
convergence of digital technologies, is an archetypical example of a power structure that is essentially
omnoptical.

Big Brother is owned and produced by Southern Star, Australia's largest independent television
production and distribution group (Southern Star: Online). They produce Big Brother content for a
variety of media channels including; the television program Big Brother for Channel Ten, the Big
Brother internet website [www.bigbrother.com.au], mobile streaming in partnership with 3 Mobile, and the
Big Brother House a tourist attraction in partnership with Dreamworld.
Each of these alternative channels allows the Big Brother audience to view (or consumer) content in a
variety of ways. As a result there are multiple structures of visibility from the audiences point of view.
Firstly a mass audience (or many) view content disseminated from a single production company
through television. Channel Ten's chief executive officer states that Big Brother attracts an unrivalled
mass of viewers under 40 years old (Southern Star: Online). Secondly audience members who interact
with content through the Big Brother website may view a variety of online localities or services. For
instance audiences may view or use: a single production companies output (ie. News, Online Shopping
[see: http://www.bbstore.com.au/], Games and competitions); a small group of contestants (ie. Live video
streams of the house), other individual users or many website users (ie. Chatrooms, Discussion Forums
and Buddy System). Furthermore Big Brother audiences may view each of these localities/services
synchronously as a mass audience (for instance when many view a live eviction show online), or
asynchronously as individual audience members (for instance when a single user purchases a product
online from the Big Brother store). In this way the flow of visibility between audiences to producers in
regards to reality television (and in modernity) must be seen not only as many-viewing-few. The
utilisation of new media by systems such as Big Brother mean that flows of visibility may also be
constituted as many-to-many, many-to-few, many-to-one, one-to-many, one-to-few or one-to-one.

This however is only the tip of the iceberg, not only do audiences view Big Brother in a multitude of
overlapping ways, but audiences are viewed by; the production company Southern Star, businesses
associated or owned by Southern Star, agencies and advertisers. Southern Star employs several
agencies to view and gather information about their audiences. Agencies typically collect information
such as; demographical information, viewing habits, spending habits, personal preferences and
information on the audience’s behaviour in general. This information is collected about both audiences
that are constituted as 'many' or about individual audience members. OzTam is the official agency for
gathering information on television audiences throughout Australia (OzTam: Online). OzTam provides
information about the viewing habits of different socio-economic groups. They can for instance, even
analyse information according to the viewing habits of different occupational groups (OzTam: Online).
While Southern Star collects information on Big Brother website users through the internet information
agency 3D Stats (Quiz TV: Online). Southern Star collects information primarily through the use of
cookies, which act as unique identifiers. Cookies are pieces of data that are stored on the users
computer and then track and record the users movements. While Southern Star describes the
information it collects as ‘aggregate’ information, 3D Stats can build an extensive profile for each user
of the Big Brother website6. For each website customer 3D Stats can provide the following
information: the users I.P address, the city, region and country of the user, the date and time of each
visit, what other websites the user has accessed, what advertising the user has consumed or viewed,
which pages have been accessed within the website and how the user reached the site (i.e what search
engine term they used, or which website they came from) 7.

Furthermore, production companies like Southern Star are not the only entities that use this information
to maintain visibility over audiences. Advertisers also maintain visibility over audiences. Oztam for
instance sells the information it collects about television audiences to any advertiser willing to pay for
it, while Southern Star ‘reserves the right to share information with partners including Network ten,
sponsors and advertisers' (QuizTV: Online). This information is then used by advertisers to target
subjects both directly and indirectly. Straightforwardly, advertisers use demographical information to
directly target mass audiences through television advertising. In 2006 Big Brother was sponsored by
products such as KFC, Pringles and Cadbury, these companies directly influence many viewers using
the synoptic process that Mathieson talks about; by saturating viewers consciousness with television
commercials and program sponsorship. This specific flow of visibility, where the many view numerous
advertisers, may however, be more surreptitious. This occurs when advertising is indirectly
incorporated in to program content through product placement. The Australian Big Brother is notorious
for advertising alcohol brands in this way (in 2006 every housemate drank Coopers), while over 100
products in the UK Big Brother were used as part of an advertising and sponsorship deal (See:
[http://www.channel4.com/bigbrother/about/suppliers.html]). Website advertisements on the other hand may target
individual audience members. They do this by accessing information about specific user’s preferences
and browsing habits that are stored by cookies. For instance a user that has clicked on gambling
advertisements will find that they are targeted by similar advertisements when they return to the
website. Southern Star for instance, uses the advertising agency Acciptor to deliver advertising to
internet users (Acciptor: Online).

In this way modern systems like Big Brother involve two more flows of visibility. On the one hand
many groups, constituted by production companies, associated businesses, information agencies and
advertisers, view many audience members and individual audience members. On the other hand the
content that is produced as a result of information gleamed from this surveillance, for instance
advertising, is disseminated back to the audience. Here the audience, constituted as individuals and as
many view many advertisers and businesses.

This structure of flows becomes even more complex if we consider how Southern Star fits into the
wider media industry. Southern Star is owned by Southern Cross Broadcasting, and is just one branch
of an even larger system of interconnected information and visibility flows. Southern Cross

6
Or any website for that matter.
7
For a 3D Stats database see: http://www.3dstats.com/cgi-bin/showuni1.cgi?usr=00000001P000
Broadcasting owns, and has interests in a diverse network of radio and television operations,
telecommunications infrastructure, music retailers, and news syndicates (which package and sell news
to radio and television stations). Here the visibility Southern Star has over audiences may be shared
with other companies that are owned by Southern Cross Broadcasting, such as Channel Nine Adelaide
(television), 2UE in Sydney (radio) and 3AW in Melbourne (radio) (Southern Cross Broadcasting:
Online).

(Please See Appendix 1 for a diagrammatic explanation of omniopticism)

This case study of Big Brother illustrates why modern systems of power should be considered
omnioptical; rather than being considered part panoptical and part synoptical. To describe the way that
power works in modern communication systems we must explain the whole system of flows. A typical
Big Brother audience member is not influenced just by the 60 minute television show he watches, or
the online discussion forum he participates in, he is influenced by the extended network of groups that
are viewing his activities and then targeting him. His media consumption habits will permeate through
to what products are incorporated in the content he views, what advertising he receives when he visits a
website, even what news and information he receives when he turns on a radio station that caters to his
demographic. As Mathieson would say, it is the ‘Gesalt’ of flows which is essential to the systems
structure of power. If we were to describe components of the system, for instance, only how the few
advertisers view the many viewers panoptically via oz-tam ratings, or how viewers synoptically access
the big brother web-streams, we would not get to the heart of how this system forms subjects. The real
power of this system lies in the ability to fully integrate subjects into a complete system of flows
influenced by advertisers, production companies and agencies. Just as Mathieson rejects Foucault’s
solely panoptical account of power in modernity as inadequate in so far as it ignores synopticism,
Mathieson’s account of dual systems of power in modernity, of synopticism and panopticism, must
also be rejected as inadequate in so far as it ignores the way in which these two systems have become
entirely integrated into the comprehensive ‘all seeing’ system expressed by omniopticism.

This essay has drawn strongly on Mathieson’s panopticism-synopticism distinction to elucidate three
alternative critiques of the nature of power in modernity; synopticism, panopticism and omnopticism.
In doing so it has highlighted the contrasts between the three structures and the points of contention
between each author: Foucault represented modern power as being panoptical, where the few surveyed
the many and formed subjects by the manipulation of their souls; Mathieson argued that modern power
was both panoptical and synoptical, in addition to panopticism the many viewed the few, and it was
this synoptical system which was responsible for the formation of a subjects soul; while omnopticism
expressed the view that modern power was exercised over subjects through a comprehensive and multi-
directional flow of information and visibility. It is important however that we do not overstate and mis-
represent the conflict between these three views. Much of the conflict between Foucault’s panopticism,
Mathieson’s synopticism, and the author’s omnopticism is not an essential disagreement about how
power operates in modernity. Rather the conflict must be partially understood as symptomatic of, or at
least influenced by the era of media & communications in which they are expressed. Mathieson’s
synopticism departs from Foucault’s panopticism primarily because it fails to take into account the
dominance of mass media, while omniopticism departs from Mathieson’s synopticism primarily
because it fails to take into account the capacity of new media. Perhaps if the three views were re-
formulated in the same era of media and communications, we would be charged with analysing their
similarities rather than their distinctions.

REFERENCES:
Bauman, Z., 'Gamekeepers Turned Gardeners', Legislators and Interpreters: On Modernity, Post-
Modernity and Intellectuals, Cambridge, Polity Press, 1987.

BBC Monitoring Media, Analysis: Reality TV sweeps the world, BBC Monitoring Media, London, May
31, 2001.

Couldry, N., ‘Live reality and the future of surveillance’, in Media rituals: a critical approach,
Routledge, 2003

Gilder, G., 'The Rise and Fall of Television' in Life after Television. New York, Norton, 1992.

Held, D,. The Development of the Modern State, in Hall, S., ‘Formations of Modernity’, Cambridge,
Polity Press, 1992.

Holmes, D., ‘Communication Theory: Media, Technology, Society’ London, Sage, 2005.

Mathieson, T., 'The Viewer Society: Michel Foucault's 'Panopticon' Revisited' , Theoretical
Criminology, 1(2), 1997.

Sheridan, A., Panopticism in “Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison", Vintage Books, 1995.

Sinclair, J., ‘Media and communications: theoretical traditions’, in Cunningham, S. and Turner, G. The
Media & Communications in Australian, Sydney, Allen & Unwin, 2002.

Van Dijk, J., 'Introduction', in The Network Society, London, Sage, 1999.

Oxford English Reference Dictionary (second edition revised: ed. Pearsall, J. & Trumble, B.), Oxford
University Press, London, 2002.

ONLINE REFERENCES:
3D Stats, http://www.3dstats.com, Accessed 22/10/2006

Acciptor, http://www.accipiter.com/press/051606endemol.php, 22/10/2006

Oztam, http://www.oztam.com.au/pdf/tv_ratings/ratingsprocess.pdf, 22/10/2006

Quiz TV, http://www.quiztv.com.au/webterms.aspx, Accessed: 22/10/2006

Southern Cross Broadcasting, http://www.southerncrossbroadcasting.com.au/, 22/10/2006

Southern Star, http://www.southernstargroup.com/corporatehome.aspx?cid=13&d=2, Accessed:

22/10/2006

SMA (Satellite Music Australia), http://www.sma.net.au/, 22/10/2006

UK Big Brother, http://www.channel4.com/bigbrother/about/suppliers.html, 22/10/2006