
Ethics Explainer: The Panopticon
ArticleBig Thinkers + Explainers
BY The Ethics Centre 18 JUL 2017
The panopticon is a disciplinary concept brought to life in the form of a central observation tower placed within a circle of prison cells.
From the tower, a guard can see every cell and inmate but the inmates can’t see into the tower. Prisoners will never know whether or not they are being watched.
This was introduced by English philosopher Jeremy Bentham. It was a manifestation of his belief that power should be visible and unverifiable. Through this seemingly constant surveillance, Bentham believed all groups of society could be altered. Morals would be reformed, health preserved, industry invigorated, and so on – they were all subject to observation.
Think of the last time you were at work and your boss walked in the room. Did you straighten up and work harder in their presence? Now imagine they were always in the room. They wouldn’t be watching you all the time, but you’d know they were there. This is the power of constant surveillance – and the power of the panopticon.
Foucault on the panopticon
French philosopher, Michel Foucault, was an outspoken critic of the panopticon. He argued the panopticon’s ultimate goal is to induce in the inmates a state of conscious visibility. This assures the automatic functioning of power. To him, this form of incarceration is a “cruel, ingenious cage”.
Foucault also compares this disciplinary observation to a medieval village under quarantine. In order to stamp out the plague, officials must strictly separate everyone and patrol the streets to ensure villagers don’t leave their homes and become sick. If villagers are caught outside, the punishment is death.
In Foucault’s village, constant surveillance – or the idea of constant surveillance – creates regulation in even the smallest details of everyday life. Foucault calls this a “discipline blockade”. Similar to a dungeon where each inmate is sequestered, administered discipline can be absolute in matters of life or death.
On the other hand, Bentham highlights the panopticon’s power as being a “new mode of obtaining mind over mind”. By discarding this isolation within a blockade, the discipline becomes a self-propagating mental mechanism through visibility.
The panopticon today: data
Today, we are more likely to identify the panopticon effect in new technologies than in prison towers. Philosopher and psychologist Shoshanna Zuboff highlights what she calls “surveillance capitalism”. While Foucault argued the “ingenious” panoptic method of surveillance can be used for disciplinary methods, Zuboff suggests it can also be used for marketing.
Concerns over this sort of monitoring date back to the beginning of the rise of personal computers in the late 80s. Zuboff outlined the PC’s role as an “information panopticon” which can monitor the amount of work being completed by an individual.
Today this seems more applicable. Employers can get programs to covertly track keystrokes of staff working from home to make sure they really are putting in their hours. Parents can get software to monitor their children’s mobile phone use. Governments around the world are passing laws so they can collect internet data on people suspected of planning terror attacks. Even public transport cards can be used to monitor physical movements of citizens.
This sort of monitoring and data collection is particularly analogous with the panopticon because it’s a one-way information avenue. When you’re sitting in front of your computer, browsing the web, scrolling down your newsfeed and watching videos, information is being compiled and sent off to your ISP.
In this scenario, the computer is Bentham’s panopticon tower, and you are the subject from which information is being extracted. On the other end of the line, nothing is being communicated, no information divulged. Your online behaviour and actions can always be seen but you never see the observer.
The European Union has responded to this with a new regulation, known as “the right to an explanation”. It states users are entitled to ask for an explanation about how algorithms make decisions. This way, they can challenge the decision made or make an informed choice to opt out.
In these new ways, Bentham’s panopticon continues to operate and influence our society. Lack of transparency and one-way communication is often disconcerting, especially when thought about through a lens of control.
Then again, you might also argue to ensure a society functions, it’s useful to monitor and influence people to do what is deemed good and right.
Ethics in your inbox.
Get the latest inspiration, intelligence, events & more.
By signing up you agree to our privacy policy
MOST POPULAR
ArticleLifestyle + Health
Vaccines: compulsory or conditional?
ArticleLaw + Human Rights
He said, she said: Investigating the Christian Porter Case
ArticleBeing Human
Free speech has failed us
ArticleBig Thinkers + Explainers
Ethics Explainer: Ethics, morality & law

BY The Ethics Centre
The Ethics Centre is a not-for-profit organisation developing innovative programs, services and experiences, designed to bring ethics to the centre of professional and personal life.
6 Comments
[…] can’t see into the tower. Prisoners will never know whether or not they are being watched” (Ethics, 2017). Hence, prisoners tended to act in the best way possible anytime because they were afraid, […]
ReplyKilling Joke’s song Panopticon brought me here.
Children shouldn’t have mobile phones.
When I was growing up, a telephone was like a car…It was something only an adult could afford & only they were allowed to use. If I used the phone it was under supervision.
Phones aren’t toys, not entertainment devices. They are tracking chips, and a perfect way for others to get access to & influence your kids (not just predators…advertisers, bullies, you name it.
Looking into the phone constantly makes them demented, antisocial and depressed. The blue light stops them getting proper sleep at night. The low level radiation causes health problems up to and including cancer and sterility.
My children can have a phone when they are working to earn their own money and can afford to buy & top up their own device.
If you think that’s naive or cruel, then you’re abdicating your responsibility as a parent & teaching your kids to cave to peer pressure.
I was originally not going to put a reply after reading the first part of you comment, I think what you said is true to an extent at the beginning even if it is a little bit of an olden way of looking at it. (although phones were not really like cars first of all many kids (people under the age of 18) did actually have them, and the main difference being that cars can kill people while phones are virtually harmless. Also I am sorry that you had such a controlling household that monotoned your conversations with others.) However then I read your health part which on the light it which in reality only really make an influence if is within a short period of sleeping (which you can prevent your kid from using it then) (additionally this affect is honestly pretty minor and as someone who has experienced it myself as well as discussed it with many others I have found that most people do not even feel little if any difference from the light(additionally there is a night shift mode to limit this)). Although after this exaggeration of light their came the largest of exaggerations of the whole thing the cancer and sterility part. First mobile phones do give off electromagnetic radiation in the same range as microwaves. While some people believe that such low-intensity waves induce DNA mutations, there is no consistent evidence that cell phones cause cancer. Second while having a phone within 5cm of testicles constantly for many hours at a time can result in a small loss in sperm count, motility, viability and morphology it is not enough to make any notable difference and cannot actually lead to full salinity(additionally this affect is becoming even more null as new phones come out). Next I the main reason for kids wanting phones is not pear pressure, it is the ability to communicate over long distances with there peers (which is actually a healthy thing especially during this time of the pandemic). Lastly the thing that pushed me over the edge to write this reply, your closing statement. You should not claim that other people are bad parents because they don’t agree with your opinions everyone has a right to raise their children as they see fit your way could be better, or it could be worse who knows, just don’t judge people because they may hold different values than you.
ReplyThat is interesting. It is also possible to do a parallel with panopticon and the physical configuration of offices. Open-plan offices are often seen as integrators of people but they can also provide bosses with a platform to constantly watch their employees. It is possible to see profound changes in the social dynamics when an organization decide to change from one spatial configuration to the other.
ReplyYes, to some extent:
You should monitor your children but should not monitor them every second of there lives because they need freedom, you should make guideline with your children so if you do not tell me to where you are I will track you and the child should have a say on whether they are tracked or not.
[…] French philosopher Michel Foucault’s 1975 book ‘Discipline and Punish’ visit the ideas of the panopticon, which permits a watchman to observe others without them being aware that they are being […]
Reply
Join the conversation
Is it okay to monitor your children’s phones?