From the panopticon to the playground : disciplinary practices

It is easy to take many of the practices that constitute the contemporary school for granted. Timetables, academic records, rows of desks, playgrounds, guidance counsellors now all seem a natural and inevitable part of an optimal learning environment. However, the evidence suggests that they did not appear by chance. Instead, they were put in place, albeit often in a piecemeal and haphazard way, as part of the process by which a new type of institution was constructed. By understanding the school as a disciplinary society, constituted through a variety of diverse practices, it becomes possible to re-interpret the way we have come to educate ourselves. No longer is the modern school some kind of pedagogic inevitability—simply the best and most obvious way to educate, the end result of two thousand years of trying to finally get it right. Rather, mass schooling, as we know it, is an historical by-product of changes in the way society was organised. It is a contingent collection of particular forms of government, deployed at different historical moments, often for quite different administrative and educational reasons.

Surviving the electronic panopticon: New lessons in democracy, surveillance, and community in young adult fiction

The ability of new information and communication technologies to pierce previously impenetrable physical, personal, and social boundaries has particular relevance to contemporary society and young people as there is now more information that can be collected, accessed, and distributed about individuals and groups. The ability to know about each other has become a central feature of many young people’s lives. The need to know is further complicated by other questions – Who knows? What do they know? What are the implications of this knowledge?. These questions are a consequence of society having become more mobile and networked enabling increased surveillance, tracking, and spreading of dis/information. With the acceleration of new pervasive and immersive technologies, these questions have taken on a new urgency and significance that go beyond an Orwellian Big Brother scenario. This chapter extends Foucault’s notion of the panopticon to take account of the challenges of an AmI environment of smart networked devices. By drawing on examples of recent young adult fiction, I examine some of the ways in which these texts invite their readers to reflect and speculate on the uneasy relationship between surveillance and democracy and what this means for individual rights and freedom, and a sense of place and belonging.

Sovereignty, surveillance and speeding: Considering the Panopticon as a method of policing

This paper argues that the Panopticon is an accurate model for and illustration of policing and security methods in the modern society. Initially, I overview the theoretical concept of the Panopticon as a structure of perceived universal surveillance which facilitates automatic obedience in its subjects as identified by the theorists Jeremy Bentham and Michel Foucault. The paper subsequently moves to identify how the Panopticon, despite being a theoretical construct, is nevertheless instantiated to an extent through the prevalence of security cameras as a means of sovereignly regulating human conduct; speeding is an ordinary example. It could even be contended that increasing surveillance according to the model of the Panopticon would reduce the frequency of offences. However, in the final analysis the paper considers that even if adopting an approach based on the Panopticon is a more effective method of policing, it is not necessarily a more desirable one.

Foreword

In 1978, three years after the publication of Foucault’s book Discipline and Punish, which famously introduced Bentham’s notion of the Panopticon to a wide audience, the French historian Jacques Léonard remarked that ‘it would need a squadron of competent historians to sort out the mass of interpretations’ offered by Foucault’s work. In response, Foucault said that he wanted his work to provide a workshop which would allow both himself and others to undertake further work and experiment with different approaches. He also cheerfully noted that he was encouraged by the ‘irritating effect’ that his work produced on others. The present book, which comprehensively treats the work of Bentham both in the wake of and against Foucault’s work, is a cogent testimony to the continued currency of these observations.

The subject and architecture

Invited Presentation on my book Architecture for a Free Subjectivity. In March of 1982, Skyline, the Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies serial, published the landmark interview between Paul Rabinow, an American anthropologist, and Michel Foucault, which would only appear two years later under the title “Space, Knowledge, and Power,” in Rabinow’s edited book The Foucault Reader. Foucault said that in the spatialization of knowledge and power beginning in the 18th century, architecture is not a signifier or metaphor for power, it is rather the “technique for practising social organization.” The role of the IAUS in the architectural dissemination of Foucault’s ideas on the subject and space in the North American academy – such as the concept “heterotopia,” and Foucault’s writing on surveillance and Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon, subsequently analysed by Georges Teyssot, who was teaching at the Venice School – is well known. Teyssot’s work is part of the historical canalization of Foucauldianism, and French subjectivity more broadly, along its dizzying path, via Italy, to American architecture schools, where it solidified in the 1980s paradigm that would come to be known as American architecture theory. Foucault was already writing on incarceration and prisons, from the 1970s. (In the 1975 lectures he said “architecture was responsible for the invention of madness.”) But this work was not properly incorporated into architectural discussion until the early ’80s. What is not immediately apparent, what this history suggests to me is that subjectivity was not a marginal topic within “theory”, but was perhaps a platform and entry point for architecture theory. One of the ideas that I’m working on is that “theory” can be viewed, historically, as the making of architectural subjectivity, something that can be traced back to the Frankfurt School critique which begins with the modern subject...

UbiOpticon : participatory sousveillance with urban screens and mobile phone cameras

In many cities around the world, surveillance by a pervasive net of CCTV cameras is a common phenomenon in an attempt to uphold safety and security across the urban environment. Video footage is being recorded and stored, sometimes live feeds are being watched in control rooms hidden from public access and view. In this study, we were inspired by Steve Mann’s original work on sousveillance (surveillance from below) to examine how a network of camera equipped urban screens could allow the residents of Oulu in Finland to collaborate on the safekeeping of their city. An agile, rapid prototyping process led to the design, implementation and ‘in the wild’ deployment of the UbiOpticon screen application. Live video streams captured by web cams integrated at the top of 12 distributed urban screens were broadcast and displayed in a matrix arrangement on all screens. The matrix also included live video streams of two roaming mobile phone cameras. In our field study we explored the reactions of passers-by and users of this screen application that seeks to inverse Bentham’s original panopticon by allowing the watched to be watchers at the same time. In addition to the original goal of participatory sousveillance, the system’s live video feature sparked fun and novel user-led apprlopriations.