Bareaa Joudi | Staff Writer

The panopticon is a prison model that consists of a multi-tiered circular building with individual cells around the circumference where in the middle stands a watcher that observes the prisoner. Its main function is as a method of deterring inmates from doing undesirable activities, part of the integral reason for such a function is the power of constant surveillance on individuals creating a sort of self-regulated behavior to appease the invisible and omnipotent power of the panopticon system. In a sense, according to Bentham, the reason this is an ideal design for a prison is because the only reasonable thing the prisoners can do in a prison that’s designed this way is to behave every second of every day as though they’re being watched because they can never know when or when it’s not happening. The life of the prisoner becomes, once again, constant surveillance through cameras or armed guards, and strict adherence to a normalized way a good prisoner behaves. 

Part of its integral design power of constant surveillance of individuals creates a sort of self-regulated behavior to appease the invisible and omnipotent power of the panopticon system. You turn the prisoners themselves into mechanisms that imprison them. Grounded in the principle of utility, the constant self-surveillance creates another actor in this punishment, thus making punishment, according to the principle of utility -more effective. In our contemporary age, where activism operates within a metaphorical panopticon, a crucial question arises. How does activism function and operate under the scrutiny of digital panopticon and does it inadvertently serve as a tool for oppression?

The digital panopticon is a phenomenon in which a prison-like system is established through the constant state of digital surveillance. The potency of the digital panopticon lies in the asymmetry of knowledge and power, efficiently controlling people’s behavior. As we hand off our information voluntarily, as our digital fingerprint is being cataloged and recorded, the observer, whoever is watching, knows everything down to the small details. In this modern panopticon where every idea and information individuals have access to is controlled and fabricated which in turn limits our ability to think critically and with nuance. So the means of surveillance becomes data and information. In an internet tailored to individual preferences, an echo chamber is present, where opposing opinions are rarely encountered and no personal nor moral development is established removing any nuance from conversations.

As social norms control behavior and the panopticon constantly disciplines and shapes the condemned to become what is deemed to be good citizens and people become conformist and compliant when they believe they are being observed. The digital panopticon is thus an architecture of social control, reminiscent of living under an Orwellian surveillance state dictating what one must be and how to act.

When one knows everything is being recorded and under the scrutiny of this omnipresent spectator, one becomes less likely to speak freely and act individually. When the constant threat of judgement, criticism for our actions looms over us thus a pervasive fear of the data we generate might resurrect us in the future to incriminate us. One loses their individuality. Moreover, Thus power is not questioned or challenged. We refrain from doing or engaging in anything unconventional and thus we become obedient to the system. Michel Foucault, in his book Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison(1975), delves into the relationship between power and knowledge focusing on how it is used to create social control, and how this relationship creates a mechanism that constricts individuals. The goal becomes, through surveillance, normalization, and examination, to produce harmless, non-rebellious, working, tax-paying, productive citizens who follow the rules and are satisfied with the life of conforming to the normalized standard of what it is to be a person handed down to them from above — in other words, docile, useful subjects that carry out the vision for what the future should hold given to them by the people in power.

So what does this mean to activists and activism? Well, these considerations become critical and pivotal. The fear of repercussions may deter individuals from participating in movements that challenge established norms or power structures. As activists constantly operate under the scrutiny of the digital panopticon, trying to avoid the pitfall of self-censorship becomes harder and more crucial. They must outsmart the systems designed to curb their dissent. In essence, the act of activism becomes simultaneously an act of defiance and an act of assimilating. It requires a delicate interplay between challenging the status quo and navigating the constraints imposed by the digital panopticon. However, such activism can become a double-edged sword, which paradoxically puts up a new status quo that one must adhere to.