Santavicca 1

Sam Santavicca

ENGCMP 200

Amy Flick

11 October 2019

The Prison and Modern Society: An Analysis of Foucault’s Panopticism

Humans are a naturally social species. We derive many things from being in groups, such

as social stimulation, production efficiency, and most of all, security. In the early days, humans

were pack hunters that could take down prey much larger than they were. In modern times, the

adage “safety in numbers” still applies. People form nations and support groups so as to have a

place where they feel safe and secure. Becoming civilized came with a price though. Laws and

rules restrict the freedoms of those who choose to participate. People no longer are able to kill

indiscriminately, they must pay taxes, and they are not allowed to say everything that they

want to. Safety and security come with rules, and to be more safe and secure, one must abide

by more rules and relinquish their freedoms until they ultimately have nothing left.

Foucault begins by discussing the way in which plague-ridden towns during the Dark

Ages were quarantined to prevent the spread of disease. The homes of plague victims, as well

as the clean citizens, were boarded up with the families inside to prevent contamination. They

were watched by the town magistrate and soldiers, who also delivered supplies (329). To be

safe from the plague, the people had to give up the freedom to leave their homes. In times of

crisis, martial law like this was used as a last resort and temporary measure. People were willing

to relinquish some of their freedoms because they were confident that they would eventually
 Santavicca 2

be returned to them. Foucault then discusses the plight of lepers from ancient times. They were

branded as filthy and disease ridden, and so they were constantly surveilled and excluded from

society. This started the binary division of normal vs abnormal, and what must be done to

correct the abnormal, that still permeates our society today (331). People who are deemed

“different” tend to be ostracized simply because they are not the same as the socially

acceptable standard. He then goes into discussing Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon, the prison

that allows guards to have constant surveillance of its prisoners. This begins his segue into the

central point of his essay: observation. Foucault begins by talking about state-controlled

surveillance and the creation of a state police force (344). Police served as an arm of the

monarch to extend their reaches and observation powers over their state. He then transitions

his dialogue of observation to discipline. Foucault surmises that if one is under observation,

then they will behave in a disciplined way so as not to face repercussions from the system

(346). He then translates this kind of passive subservience into other aspects of modern life,

namely economics, politics, and science (348). Foucault asserts through his rhetorical

comparisons of prisons and modern life and flow of diction that surveillance and discipline have

become an unfortunate byproduct of our society.

Following World War 2 and into the Cold War, enemies became less concrete in what

exactly they were. “The enemy” tended to no longer refer to another state, but instead a

militant group that had no defined government or borders. In Foucault’s time, this was very

apparent with the Viet Cong, who were technically separate from the North Vietnamese Army,

or the NVA. The Viet Cong hid in the jungles and fought alongside the NVA, but they did not

have a proper nation that was considered theirs. The 1972 Munich Olympics marked a turning
 Santavicca 3

point in how the West viewed conflicts. After a Palestinian terrorist organization took hostage

and killed 11 Israeli Olympians, many European nations formed new counter terrorism units to

combat this new threat. Foucault’s publication of Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison

in 1975 was a response to the increase in security that many nations believed was necessary to

prevent terrorist attacks. His critique of state control over the lives of its citizens extends far

back from the acts of Black September. “The organization of a centralized police had long been

regarded, even by cotemporaries, as the most direct expression of royal absolutism…” (344)

shows that the creation of a police force has long been used as a way to maintain control over a

monarch’s subjects. Foucault extends the totalitarian nature of the kings and queens of old to

the leaders of the modern world, as well as the wealthy ruling class. This class, which had

created the police force to protect their own wealth and power, was becoming more wealthy

and powerful during Foucault’s time. “[Police supervision] had to correspond, by manipulating

the machinery of justice, to the immediate wishes of the king…” (345) is Foucault giving

historical context to the use of supervision by police to aid the will of the monarch. By keeping

his subjects under constant surveillance, the king could keep them in line and could better carry

out his wishes. Foucault’s timing of his essay comes at a point in history when civil liberties are

being challenged and slowly eroded away in the name of security. By using monarchs as an

example, Foucault is able to equate medieval totalitarian dictators with “democratically

elected” modern officials. This diminishes the ability of readers to believe that democracy is

what keeps them from being surveilled and protects their rights. In reality, Foucault is saying

that any ruler will limit rights to retain power under the veil of security.
 Santavicca 4

Foucault takes concepts, that we as a modern society consider archaic and defunct,

from previous time periods and shows us how those same ideas still permeate our society

today. He compares the current ruling class to the rulers of European monarchies. Foucault also

uses examples of rulers restricting rights in the middle ages to highlight how the same practices

are still performed today. For example, Foucault begins his essay with a description of how the

Black Plague was handled. People were quarantined in their homes and surveilled for

symptoms of the plague. “Everyone locked up in his cage, everyone at his window, answering

to his name and showing himself when asked – it is the great review of the living and the dead”

(329) gives a good idea of how the town was set up in times of plague. Foucault’s rhetoric and

diction in that statement is notable. Instead of “house”, he used “cage”. Can one really call a

place that they are prohibited from leaving a house or a home? Or rather, does the location or

building not matter, but the reasons that one is in that place instead? That was Foucault’s

point: that no matter where you are, if you are under any type of threat or surveillance, you are

caged. You have lost the freedoms that make living free. Knowing that you are being surveilled

seriously impacts your freedom. Foucault then goes on to explain how surveillance impacts a

person’s actions. “He who is subjected to a field of visibility, and who knows it, assumes

responsibility for the constraints of power” (336) shows that a person who is surveilled is

limited in what they can do. The things they want to do may not be illegal, but anything taboo

or questionable is limited due to the perceived judgement from the police or others that have

any kind of authority. In a time when religious heresy was punishable by death, the kingdom’s

police force was used to root out nonbelievers. In modern society, freedom of speech is

considered a fundamental right. But take the concept of “Thoughtcrime” from George Orwell’s
 Santavicca 5

1984. Winston, the protagonist, is constantly surveilled, and although he can technically do

what he chooses, because of his fear of arrest, he has no freedom. He cannot think the things

he wants to, he cannot love who he wants to, and he cannot speak his mind. Although these

freedoms certainly exist in his dystopian future, his surveillance makes it impossible for him to

exercise them. Foucault takes this idea of totalitarian control and shows how that, even though

it seems preposterous that a society would be oriented in this way, Orwell is not too far from

the truth. He explains how the traditional idea of police is being adapted into ways of

surveillance that are not as apparent. “One also sees the spread of disciplinary procedures, not

in the form of enclosed institutions, but as centers of observation disseminated throughout

society” (343) is Foucault addressing the situation of Orwell’s 1984. Surveillance exists outside

of a literal prison, and no matter where you are in society, you are always being watched. A

person is always disciplined when they believe that any minute actions could be met with

apprehension, punishment, or even ostracization by their peers. Just like in 1984, the ruling

class of today’s world uses observation as a form of discipline control, albeit not as direct as a

camera placed in a massive television screen, but as a corrupt and plutocratic system that

punishes deviations from the perceived norm. Foucault’s audience most likely believes that

they have come far enough as a society that this kind of thing would not happen to them. By

giving examples that conflict with the common perception of life, he is able to open his

audience up to accepting a new viewpoint.

On the surface, Foucault has some rather radical ideas about how he feels society treats

its members. But digging deeper, his ideas echo those that have been made for centuries. His

rhetoric especially contributes to the way in which his ideas are received. The timing of his
 Santavicca 6

essay following the Munich Massacre and the beginning of an age marked by rising terrorism is

no accident. His reactionary style of writing provides a stark contrast to the preconceived ideas

of state sponsored police. The way he compares current totalitarian surveillance to that of the

Black Plague and lepers in ancient times is a fundamental aspect of his writing. By introducing

ideas that are archaic and seem outdated and then giving modern day examples helps compel

people to his way of thinking. It is unfortunate that Foucault did not live long enough to see the

USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, as it allowed increased government surveillance, wiretapping of

phone lines, indefinite stays in prison for terrorists, and allowed torture to be conducted by

America in offshore prisons such as Guantanamo Bay. I’m sure he would’ve had a lot to say

about this massive infringement on human rights and freedom.