Interrogating Panopticon: From Bentham to Foucault, From Foucault to Latour, and Deleuze

by Junbin Yang

Michel Foucault’s intellectual influences across various academic fields are difficult to precisely determine, but studying surveillance closely connects with one of his more popular ideas—the panopticon (Elmer, 2012). Already well-known, Foucault drew inspiration for this concept from Jeremy Bentham, which means he restructured Bentham’s essential ideas. Given the panopticon’s widespread academic reputation, it may be too clichéd to explain what it contains here; yet several key issues remain worth discussing. As a social reformer in the eighteenth century, Bentham presented an idealistic plan for what prisons should look like (Haggerty & Ericson, 2000). According to his proposal, optimal monitoring of prisoners is possible by minimizing the direct involvement of the guards because the “hierarchical observation” (Wood, 2007, p. 247) arrangement between the guards (at the top of the hierarchy) and the prisoners can maximize the guards’ visibility (Haggerty & Ericson, 2000; Sherman, 2023). Although unable to notice whether the guards keep monitoring them, the prisoners cultivate “the illusion of continuous watching” (Sherman, 2023, p. 1211) due to the prison’s unique structure (Kerr & Kerr, 2020). Consequently, “the internalization of institutional power by its subjects” (Sherman, 2023, p. 1211) is key in panoptic surveillance, even without visible guards directly overseeing prisoners (Albrechtslund & Lauritsen, 2013). 

Thus, it is commonly believed that Foucault’s idea of the panopticon highlighted a shift in the nature and content of punishment—from explicit corporeal torment to a more unseen, subtler discipline (Mathiesen, 1997). However, as Elmer (2012) pointed out, the intellectual interpretation of panoptic surveillance heavily relied on Foucault but diminished Bentham’s original view. Elmer (2012) related the differences between the two as follows:

What distinguishes Foucault’s and Bentham’s definition of the panopticon is perspective, meaning that the view outward from the residence, the tower—in Bentham’s terms is a site and mode of “seeing without being seen” (ibid.: 43). Conversely, for Foucault the panopticon could not be reduced or framed by a unidirectional gaze from the centre, tower or singular managerial gaze. Conceptually, for Foucault, the prisoners, not the tower, are at the centre of the panopticon. (p. 23, italics in the original)

Despite its attention to “automated” surveillance (Elmer, 2012, p. 23), Bentham’s panopticon emphasized the position of the inspector at the top observing the prisoners below, demonstrating the inherent, unequal, and linear power dynamics between the two parties. In contrast, Foucault’s approach did not simply follow the one-directional movement of watching. Although his panoptic surveillance started with the prisoners instead of the inspector, the normalization of individual self-control led to a simultaneous internalization of surveillance between the two (Mathiesen, 1997). Consequently, Bentham devised his utopian version of prison for “a patriarchal regime of surveillance” (Elmer, 2012, p. 23). Foucault, on the other hand, reinterpreted it as an “inverted panopticon” (Elmer, 2012, p. 24), considering surveillance as “a logic and process” (Elmer, 2012, p. 23) that went beyond a formulaic watching mechanism between the few and the many.  

After Foucault, several scholars (re)interpreted the panopticon concept. In exploring the relationship between sport, physical culture, and panoptic surveillance, three notions are arguably the most prominent: (1) Mathiesen’s (1997) synopticon, (2) Bigo’s (2005, 2008) banopticon, and (3) Latour’s (2007) oligopticon (e.g., Kerr & Kerr, 2020; Manley & Silk, 2014). First, Mathiesen’s (1997) synopticon pointed out the rapid advancement of media systems and the modified surveillance relationship between the few and the many. As Mathiesen (1997) noted: 

The concept is composed of the Greek word syn which stands for ‘together’ or ‘at the same time’, and opticon, which, again, has to do with the visual. It may be used to represent the situation where a large number focuses on something in common which is condensed. In other words, it may stand for the opposite of the situation where the few see the many. (p. 219, italics in the original)

In other words, the concept of the synopticon exemplifies the surveillance of the many while observing the few. However, accepting that an “intimate interaction, even fusion, with each other” exists (Mathiesen, 1997, p. 223), the emergence of synoptic surveillance does not signal the panopticon’s downfall. Rather, the two function in tandem in most cases. Additionally, the synopticon highlights the transition of management from the body to the soul in that it “directs and controls or disciplines our consciousness” (Mathiesen, 1997, p. 230) through constant exposure to different media forms, such as television and radio. In short, synoptic surveillance causes an individual to inspect themselves in response to the sophisticated regulatory effects of the media.     

Second, with a primary focus on border control, Bigo’s (2008) concept of the banopticon provides insight into surveillance at the international level. The banopticon, which was initially inspired by Giorgio Agamben’s reorganization of Jean Luc Nancy and, of course, Foucault’s panopticon, emphasizes three fundamental ideas: (1) exceptionalism, (2) exclusion, and (3) normalization (Bigo, 2005, 2008; MacDonald & Hunter, 2019, p. 157). As Bigo (2008) noted: 

The ban-opticon is then characterized by the exceptionalism of power (rules of emergency and their tendency to become permanent), by the way it excludes certain groups in the name of their future potential behaviour (profiling) and by the way it normalizes the non-excluded through its production of normative imperatives, the most important of which is free movement (the so-called four freedoms of circulation of the EU: concerning goods, capital, information, services and persons). (p. 32) 

In other words, banoptic surveillance is a precautionary inspection of boundaries in the name of freedom and prevention; it pertains to policing the future to oversee the present by focusing on particular groups perceived as threatening to the dominant one—even before these target populations are aware of this supervision (Bigo, 2005). However, it is vital to note that the banopticon is more than just a two-pronged approach to exclusion and inclusion. The ultimate focus is “the normalization of the majority of the population, and a focus on the surveillance of a minority” (MacDonald & Hunter, 2019, p. 158). In short, it is “the surveillance of the few” (MacDonald & Hunter, 2019, p. 156) used to manage unforeseen problems. Nonetheless, the majority-minority relationship is dynamic rather than static. 

Third, Latour’s (2007) concept of the oligopticon rejects “the all-seeing ‘utopian’ panoptic gaze” (Albrechtslund & Lauritsen, 2013, p. 311) occurring between guards and prisoners during institutional or structural inspections in places like prisons (Little, 2022). Instead, while embracing “the networked character of surveillance” (Lauritsen, 2016, p. 207), it focuses more on an intricate arrangement of numerous overlapping individuals and entities by moving beyond the anthropocentric approach (Little, 2022). In other words, the oligopticon exposes both the multiplicity and fragility of surveillance because even the inorganic or inconsequential, such as “the tiniest bug” (Latour, 2007, p. 181), can change an entire order, disrupting the complex associations found within the formalized surveillance system (Albrechtslund & Lauritsen, 2013; Lauritsen, 2016). Thus, oligoptic surveillance does more than represent direct humanist supervision (Albrechtslund & Lauritsen, 2013; Lauritsen, 2016; Little, 2022). Instead, the emphasis is on “identifying subjects” (Lauritsen, 2016, p. 214), recognizing that what humans can observe is always “much too little” (Latour, 2007, p. 181) due to their pre-existing perspectives. Hence, the idea of the oligopticon illustrates that surveillance operates within a “situated, specific, and limited” framework (Lauritsen, 2016, p. 214). It is subject to “an open-ended series of tracings and interactions” (Little, 2022, p. 63) between humans and inanimate objects, resulting in constant modification. 

Considering these three representative panopticon-related concepts, it is apparent that the scholars mentioned above did not introduce their distinctive notions to merely insist that “‘Foucault missed X’” (Wood, 2007, p. 251) or “the panoptic example was no longer relevant” (Doyle, 2011; Wood, 2007). Rather, I believe their ultimate aim was “historically bound” (Wood, 2007, p. 251) to better comprehend the contextually specific issues in front of them, including the increasing significance of the media (Mathiesen), globalization as it pertains to international relations, border control, and free movement (Bigo), and the complex networks between (non)humans (Latour). Furthermore, while the three concepts—synopticon, banopticon, and oligopticon—shed more light on historically bound, contextual issues, they also recognize technological advancement as an important factor for understanding surveillance. For example, Mathiesen (1997, p. 218) indicated that “organized computerized surveillance” and, thereby, its categorization and evaluation of the population became conspicuous. Bigo (2005, p. 86) also stated that “computer data bases” were a vital factor in grasping “how a network of heterogeneous and transversal practices” (Bigo, 2008, p. 32) regarding banoptic surveillance operates. In other words, it is crucial to pinpoint that these surveillance-related notions were influenced by not only Bentham and Foucault but also by Gilles Deleuze’s (1992) reading of panoptic surveillance—the societies of control. Surveillance can readily transcend both spatial and temporal perimeters in conjunction with new technologies, meaning adding technological aspects to surveillance can facilitate not necessarily a direct inspection but a remote control (Bigo, 2005; Mathiesen, 1997). As control seeks “the regulation of behaviour or attitude which may follow for example from surveillance” (Mathiesen, 1997, p. 228), Deleuze’s understanding of surveillance primarily through control can encompass diverse contributing elements for its proper application, including “multi-sited, fluid” (Kerr & Kerr, 2020, p. 99), “networked computing and other digitalized forms of communication and information management” (Elmer, 2012, p. 26) by broadening the concept of surveillance from social to “sociotechnical” (Albrechtslund & Lauritsen, 2013, p. 315). Thus, the concepts of synopticon, banopticon, and oligopticon retain possibilities to analyze both surveillance and control in alignment with growing attention to nonhumans, particularly concerning advanced technological forces (Albrechtslund & Lauritsen, 2013).

References

Albrechtslund, A., & Lauritsen, P. (2013). Spaces of everyday surveillance: Unfolding an analytical concept of participation. Geoforum, 49, 310–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.04.016

Bigo, D. (2005). Frontier controls in the European Union: Who is in control? In D. Bigo & E. Guild (Eds.), Controlling frontiers: Free movement into and within Europe (pp. 49–99). Routledge.

Bigo, D. (2008). Globalized (in)security: The field and the Ban-opticon. In D. Bigo & A. Tsoukala (Eds.), Terror, insecurity and liberty: Illiberal practices of liberal regimes after 9/11 (pp. 10–48). Routledge.

Bigo, D., & Guild, E. (2005). Introduction: Policing in the name of freedom. In D. Bigo & E. Guild (Eds.), Controlling frontiers: Free movement into and within Europe (pp. 1–13). Routledge.

Deleuze, G. (1992). Postscript on the societies of control. October, 59, 3–7. https://www.jstor.org/stable/778828

Doyle, A. (2011). Revisiting the synopticon: Reconsidering Mathiesen’s ‘the viewer society’ in the age of Web 2.0. Theoretical Criminology, 15(3), 283–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480610396645

Elmer, G. (2012). a. panopticon-discipline-control. In K. Ball, K. Haggerty & D. Lyon (Eds.), Routledge handbook of surveillance studies (pp. 21–29). Routledge.

Haggerty, K. D., & Ericson, R. V. (2000). The surveillant assemblage. The British Journal of Sociology, 51(4), 605–622. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071310020015280

Kerr, R., & Kerr, G. (2020). Promoting athlete welfare: A proposal for an international surveillance system. Sport Management Review, 23(1), 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2019.05.005

Latour, B. (2007). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press.

Lauritsen, P. (2016). Identifying the perpetrator: An ethnographic study of CCTV in police work in Denmark. In I. Van der Ploeg & J. Pridmore (Eds.), Digitizing identities: Doing identity in a networked world (pp. 206–217). Routledge. 

Little, D. (2022). Paris, Latour, and Calvino. In B. Linder (Ed.), “Invisible cities” and the urban imagination (pp. 59–67). Palgrave Macmillan Cham.

MacDonald, M. N., & Hunter, D. (2019). The discourse of security: Language, illiberalism and governmentality. Palgrave Macmillan Cham.

Manley, A., & Silk, M. (2014). Liquid London: Sporting spectacle, Britishness & ban-optic surveillance. Surveillance & Society, 11(4), 360–376. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v11i4.4740

 Mathiesen, T. (1997). The viewer society: Michel Foucault’s ‘panopticon’ revisited. Theoretical Criminology, 1(2), 215–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480697001002003

Sherman, S. (2023). The polyopticon: A diagram for urban artificial intelligences. AI & SOCIETY, 38(3), 1209–1222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01501-3

Wood, D., M. (2007). Beyond the panopticon? Foucault and surveillance studies. In S. Elden & J. W. Crampton (Eds,). Space, knowledge and power: Foucault and geography (pp. 245–263). Routledge.