Foucault and self-policing

[Pappa]

I heard something on the radio today about Michel Foucault and his ideas relating to the Panopticon. In short, the Panopticon is a round prison with cells around the perimeter and lots of windows. The Panopticon allows a guard sitting at the centre to have the ability to observe any inmate at any time. Foucault used the Panopticon as a metaphor for our society and governance, suggesting that like the prisoners, we are aware that we can be observed at any time. So, rather than a powerful government controlling and policing us directly, we control and police ourselves because we are aware that we could be under scrutiny at any time. Foucault was writing this in a very different time. While people could be observed and spied on then, today being under (potential) scrutiny is the norm. We have CCTV cameras all over the place and our emails and internet usage is monitored by the authorities, so in some ways Foucault's ideas are perhaps more relevant now than when he was writing them.

In other respects though, Foucault's ideas about self-policing strike me as similar to the Christian fundamentalist notion that we'd all be raping and murdering if God wasn't watching. I don't accept the idea that the only reason we don't murder is because we might be caught (whether that be by God or the police). I'm sure more people would murder if they though they could get away with it, but I think that's not the main reason people refrain from killing. There are many and varied evolutionary and cultural reasons for our moral and ethical responses to the word.

But anyway, Foucault... what do you think about his ideas that we are self-policing? How does that fit in with other explanations of our behaviours?

[Svartalf]

WTFoucault? the panopticon was a mind child of Jeremy Bentham.

and the concept remains similar whether the Eye is that of a prison guard, that of society (remember those old little towns where everybody knew your every move and it was "conform and keep up appearances or else..."?), you own conscience or an omniscient sin punishing Dawg.

[Pappa]

WTFoucault? the panopticon was a mind child of Jeremy Bentham.

I know, but Foucault used the Panopticon as a metaphor in his own writing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon ... s_metaphor

and the concept remains similar whether the Eye is that of a prison guard, that of society (remember those old little towns where everybody knew your every move and it was "conform and keep up appearances or else..."?), you own conscience or an omniscient sin punishing Dawg.

Yes of course. In many ways we're much freer nowadays than we were in the past because our communities lack that.

[Svartalf]

But the State is trying to change that, and put Privacy back in the trashbin .

[Animavore]

In other respects though, Foucault's ideas about self-policing strike me as similar to the Christian fundamentalist notion that we'd all be raping and murdering if God wasn't watching. I don't accept the idea that the only reason we don't murder is because we might be caught (whether that be by God or the police). I'm sure more people would murder if they though they could get away with it, but I think that's not the main reason people refrain from killing. There are many and varied evolutionary and cultural reasons for our moral and ethical responses to the word.

I don't think any creature which was into murder as standard would last very long evolutionary wise. And even if just a few were murderous fucks the ones which could learn to co-operate and bandy together could protect themselves from the nut-jobs (just like in The Road Warrior). If we do police each other it probably is by bandying together and appointing some of our people as guardians against those who want to harm us. That is to say I think if we are self-policing, or probably more accurately self-regulating we do it from the bottom up, not from the top down (from perceived watcher down to the individual). I think the idea of people watching over us might come after the fact and stemming from observations of society objectively but mistakingly.

I hope that makes sense

[Svartalf]

Damn, I remember Foucault now, read that in college... never cared to have my policing done by an outside watcher, and I don't care for the guy's concepts any more now than I did them...

[Pappa]

Damn, I remember Foucault now, read that in college... never cared to have my policing done by an outside watcher, and I don't care for the guy's concepts any more now than I did them...

I know very little. Just what I heard on the radio today and a bit more from Wikipedia. It just sounded interesting and worth comparing with other ideas about how we behave.

[Pappa]

In other respects though, Foucault's ideas about self-policing strike me as similar to the Christian fundamentalist notion that we'd all be raping and murdering if God wasn't watching. I don't accept the idea that the only reason we don't murder is because we might be caught (whether that be by God or the police). I'm sure more people would murder if they though they could get away with it, but I think that's not the main reason people refrain from killing. There are many and varied evolutionary and cultural reasons for our moral and ethical responses to the word.

I don't think any creature which was into murder as standard would last very long evolutionary wise. And even if just a few were murderous fucks the ones which could learn to co-operate and bandy together could protect themselves from the nut-jobs (just like in The Road Warrior). If we do police each other it probably is by bandying together and appointing some of our people as guardians against those who want to harm us. That is to say I think if we are self-policing, or probably more accurately self-regulating we do it from the bottom up, not from the top down (from perceived watcher down to the individual). I think the idea of people watching over us might come after the fact and stemming from observations of society objectively but mistakingly.

I hope that makes sense

Yes, I get your point, though we've not done the appointing guardians thing for very long, just since the advent of agriculture.

[Svartalf]

Damn, I remember Foucault now, read that in college... never cared to have my policing done by an outside watcher, and I don't care for the guy's concepts any more now than I did them...

I know very little. Just what I heard on the radio today and a bit more from Wikipedia. It just sounded interesting and worth comparing with other ideas about how we behave.

IIRC, his book Watch and Punish was all about carceral systems, and how society reflects those, and came out like he found it either a good thing, or at least an unavoidable necessity that our modern societies should become jail like... the philosophical aspect of everybody policing themselves out of fear of Big Brother was not pleasant either...

I was hoping for perspectives on how to make our societies worthy of the Enlightenment from which they are descended and more respectuous of the individual who respects his fellow citizen, but I don't remember finding such aspects in the work.

[Animavore]

In other respects though, Foucault's ideas about self-policing strike me as similar to the Christian fundamentalist notion that we'd all be raping and murdering if God wasn't watching. I don't accept the idea that the only reason we don't murder is because we might be caught (whether that be by God or the police). I'm sure more people would murder if they though they could get away with it, but I think that's not the main reason people refrain from killing. There are many and varied evolutionary and cultural reasons for our moral and ethical responses to the word.

I don't think any creature which was into murder as standard would last very long evolutionary wise. And even if just a few were murderous fucks the ones which could learn to co-operate and bandy together could protect themselves from the nut-jobs (just like in The Road Warrior). If we do police each other it probably is by bandying together and appointing some of our people as guardians against those who want to harm us. That is to say I think if we are self-policing, or probably more accurately self-regulating we do it from the bottom up, not from the top down (from perceived watcher down to the individual). I think the idea of people watching over us might come after the fact and stemming from observations of society objectively but mistakingly.

I hope that makes sense

Yes, I get your point, though we've not done the appointing guardians thing for very long, just since the advent of agriculture.

I suppose guardians don't have to be appointed in a tribe. The more dominant, competent (for fighting/defending) males might've led excursions etc. with the weaker ones told to get behind. Sort of like when you see a child's soccer team. Dominant ones find their place while weaker players are often put in positions where they're tacitly being put out of the way while the menz do their thang. Like soccer teams can self-organise I don't see why tribes can't either. In either case it happens from the bottom up.

[Svartalf]

They should guard the tribe from outside threats, not turn into inquisitors and the enemies of their fellow tribesmen.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I remember a BBC news item about posters with huge eyes on them stuck up at known trouble spots for teenage gangs - the gangs moved elsewhere - or else stayed but were less likely to commit anti-social behaviour.

[pErvinalia]

I remember a BBC news item about posters with huge eyes on them stuck up at known trouble spots for teenage gangs - the gangs moved elsewhere - or else stayed but were less likely to commit anti-social behaviour.

Same with classical music (although, that wouldn't work with poor old Clockwork Orange guy).

On the topic, we undoubtedly self-police under the concepts of the panopticon. The question is, where does the proper balance lie between the trade off between privacy and crime reduction.

[Clinton Huxley]

I remember a BBC news item about posters with huge eyes on them stuck up at known trouble spots for teenage gangs - the gangs moved elsewhere - or else stayed but were less likely to commit anti-social behaviour.

Aye, also works with things like honesty boxes - if you put a poster of eyes above them, people are more likely to pay up. We should change the Rationalia banner to a big pair of eyes....

[Mysturji]