Note: I've been working on this prompt all weekend, and I'm still not finished with it. In fact, it's likely I might use this as the basis for a paper. Therefore, if my ideas seem to lack a certain finality, it's because I'm not settled on any of this, and what follows is only a sketch of my ideas for using Foucault's Panopticism in some published fashion. Also, some of you may recognize some of these ideas from previous conversations--I've been mulling them over for about two years now.
Foucault's allegory of the panopticon as a system of control both problematizes and illuminates issues in Ohmann's "Literacy, Technology, and Monopoly Capitalism." In one fashion (certainly the dominant interpretation I've come to understand), panopticism demonstrates how technology can serve to extend and reinforce the values, beliefs, and systems of power of a culture (Ohmann 26, Foucault "Eye of Power" 148-150). As Ohmann observes, "literacy is an activity of social groups, and a necessary feature of some kinds of social organization. Like every other human activity or product, it embeds social relations within it;" however, Ohmann also recognizes that technology and literacy "[are] malleable; [they do] have liberatory potential" (29-30). While panopticism (as an ideological system of control) is focused in Foucault on surveillance and the application of power, Ohmann's argument can still be applied: in short, panopticism can be just as much a liberatory system as it is a disciplinary system; panopticism can be used to further democratic goals and extend power to the historically disenfranchised.
I prefer to distinguish these two systems of control as tyrannical panopticism, where a culture of surveillance serves the traditional or hegemonic interests of those in power, and democratic panopticism, where a culture of surveillance instead serves the interests of minorities and those without power. The former is often regarded as altogether a bad thing (and relatively unpopular), especially in the humanities, while the latter is enjoying a surge of popularity and is often thought to be a good thing, even when it goes largely unrecognized. For example, I enjoy watching Jon Stewart every night on the Daily Show, where the first segment of the show usually consists of video clips that expose a lie or contradiction by forces in power; I equally enjoy Stephen Colbert's occasional spotlighting of police abuse of the Taser (a supposedly nonlethal technology that allows police to subdue suspects with a 22 volt burst of electricity). Both of these examples can be attributed to democratic panopticism, where the focus of surveillance is on the elite and powerful and serves the interests of everyday citizens.
To illustrate these examples further, go to YouTube and search for both of these terms: "police abuse" and "fox news caught lying" (other search strings come to mind, but for the sake of simplicity I'll stick to these). The "caught on camera" phenomenon has already had an impact on the way police respond to crimes in public (by means of an awareness that others may see their actions replayed on video), and while twenty years ago it was possible to confiscate the lone cameraman filming acts of repression or abuse, the widespread availability of recording (in high definition!) virtually any event and computer software that can edit video clips of mainstream news events to highlight contradictions makes repression of this sort of democratic panopticism difficult at best (example: Iran's elections and subsequent protests in 2009).
The technological capability to record video, edit video clips, and publish to the world without traditional means of filtration (news editors, lawyers, censors, bureaucrats and police, etc.) allows everyone a chance to become the guard in the panopticon. Whereas surveillance cameras, news cameras, and other means of surveillance that Western society has grudgingly become accustomed to have traditionally served the interests of governments and powerful organizations, democratic panopticism can shift the power of surveillance into the hands of the people, therefore constituting one of Ohmann's literacies of liberation.
I agree with you, Deome, but...,
ReplyDeleteThere is no absolute freedom. Power is always there. We, with or without technology, are always bound up with either state power or potential power ( society's codes) All the TV programs you mentioned work within the periphery of these two "powers". They can not violate laws.
In addition, you did not clarify the relationship between power and technology in classrooms. In my point of view, given the allegory of panopticism, teachers, whether they are teaching with or without technology, still represent the tower since they teach what they want and their students are required to submit!!!
I want to hear more about your visualization from class today. It intrigued me and made me wonder if it helped you in any way work through some of these questions.
ReplyDeleteI like the way in which you're thinking of surveillance playing out in our daily lives, and I'm curious if you think they cause us to become guards (as you say) or maybe just cause us to become even more self-monitoring. Someone may film me at any moment!!! But, at the same time, I might film you!!! What does it mean that both of these can be at play at the same time? How might this change or alter power and agency? I'm not sure exactly, but I think many of our students are entrenched in this world of simultaneous guard/prisoner.
I'm actually comforted by the thought of constant surveillance, as long as the power runs both ways. Watchdogs keep us from falling into bad habits, from complacency, and destructive behavior. For example, people who are in long term relationships (and live together) tend to be a bit more tempered and balanced than people who live alone; just having a partner around to tell you what you need to hear can help you be more well-adjusted ("Take a shower, you smell like shit." "No, we can't afford an Xbox." "Stop playing WoW. You look like one of the humans from Wall-E." "Honey, suck it up and go to the boring company dinner; it'll help your career.").
ReplyDeleteBut, of course, this has larger ramifications for society as a whole; imagine, for example, that parents had a camera into their kids' 3rd grade classroom, posted live to YouTube. The teacher might do a bit more self-monitoring about both discipline and lessons ("Should I really show an out-of-date movie again for the fifth time this month?"), but the kids might also behave a bit better if their parents could be tuning in to their classes from work. Power and agency would be shifted to the parent. But if there was also a camera in the home, uploaded live to YouTube, the teacher might also know if the parents are taking any interest in the child's education (reminding or helping with homework, for example). Power and agency would be shifted to the teacher. And, just like in any other society, the kids would get the shaft.
The drawing I made in class showed two intersecting spheres of surveillance (power and agency), where one has equal power to the other and equal knowledge of the other. The above example is a great example of this--power and agency would be equally divided by two parties who control two different spaces, and there would be a common ground for any discussion of their interests. And yeah, it'd suck for the kids--but being a kid sucks anyway, and we already attempt to keep kids in a panoptic prison (when God isn't watching the bad things they do, Santa is).