Surveillance has always been a contentious subject. In Foucault’s Discipline and Punish, he talks of The Panopticon where its inmates are vulnerable to constant visibility and manipulated into obediency. It is a metaphorical representation of a totalitarian society where the watchers, governmental bodies or organizations, are assured absolute power. (Foucault 1977) While I agree that panoptic surveillance can lead to disciplinary control, but Foucault’s arguement assumes that it is definitely oppressive and fails to address the beneficial roles of surveillance itself. Panoptic surveillance is not solely an instrument to obtain obedience from the population, its use is justifiable as it has other redeeming purposes. This essay will discuss the
…show more content…
Surveillance is merely a process of collecting information and storage for administrative and bureacratic purposes. Examples like documentation of individuals’ birth, health, economic, education, marriage and criminal records. Such surveillances are not necessarily negative or “insidious”; they are necessary for civic life and constitutes what it means to be a “state”. (Rule 2007, 14, cited in Allmer 2011, 4) Conversely to what Foucault thinks, these surveillances existed to form the state even before the idea of Panopticism emerged. The starting point is not to “obtain obedience”, but to allow progress of a civic contemporary society. Without surveillance, it is impossible for states and organizations to rely solely on trust in people to function. (Tække 2011, 3) Rather than take the unneccessary risk that will lead to unproductivity, the most efficient and straigtht forward solution is to surveil …show more content…
Surveillance is mutualistic, not parasitic
Much of the surveillance in contemporary society is no longer as Foucault argues, a sly and subtle power control where privacies are being violated and people are coerced by the paranoia of being watched. The implication made is that panoptic surveillance benefits only the watcher. However, the fact is that in our contemporary society, privacy is becoming increasingly obsolete and people are less afraid of their information being gathered and monitored. We even volutarily participate in this surveillance and give up information about ourselves.
For instance, in Singapore and many other urban cities, there is a widespread use of loyalty programs in retail sectors, public transport smart cards, credit cards and other similar forms of services. Surveilling their users through such systems, retailers and organizations are able to record the users’ lifestyle patterns and use it to build their business and customer base. Users are rewarded with convenience and efficient savings – they engage despite knowing the possibility of their information reaching the higher authorities. Surveillance has commonized and become a mutual benefit, it is unlike how Foucault depicts the inmates as suppressed prisoners of the dominant
Surveillance is merely a process of collecting information and storage for administrative and bureacratic purposes. Examples like documentation of individuals’ birth, health, economic, education, marriage and criminal records. Such surveillances are not necessarily negative or “insidious”; they are necessary for civic life and constitutes what it means to be a “state”. (Rule 2007, 14, cited in Allmer 2011, 4) Conversely to what Foucault thinks, these surveillances existed to form the state even before the idea of Panopticism emerged. The starting point is not to “obtain obedience”, but to allow progress of a civic contemporary society. Without surveillance, it is impossible for states and organizations to rely solely on trust in people to function. (Tække 2011, 3) Rather than take the unneccessary risk that will lead to unproductivity, the most efficient and straigtht forward solution is to surveil …show more content…
Surveillance is mutualistic, not parasitic
Much of the surveillance in contemporary society is no longer as Foucault argues, a sly and subtle power control where privacies are being violated and people are coerced by the paranoia of being watched. The implication made is that panoptic surveillance benefits only the watcher. However, the fact is that in our contemporary society, privacy is becoming increasingly obsolete and people are less afraid of their information being gathered and monitored. We even volutarily participate in this surveillance and give up information about ourselves.
For instance, in Singapore and many other urban cities, there is a widespread use of loyalty programs in retail sectors, public transport smart cards, credit cards and other similar forms of services. Surveilling their users through such systems, retailers and organizations are able to record the users’ lifestyle patterns and use it to build their business and customer base. Users are rewarded with convenience and efficient savings – they engage despite knowing the possibility of their information reaching the higher authorities. Surveillance has commonized and become a mutual benefit, it is unlike how Foucault depicts the inmates as suppressed prisoners of the dominant