Escalating U.S. Police Surveillance After 9/11, Essay Example

In his book “Discipline and Punish,” Michel Foucault spends considerable time and effort on a discussion about the architectural design of the Panopticon. As envisioned by Jeremy Bentham, the design of the Panopticon could be fitted around a variety of purposes; among these were prisons, asylums, schools, and hospitals. The deceptively simple design allows a central figure to observe a large number of individuals at any given time, while each individual has no way of knowing if or when he or she is under observation. This has the effect of projecting a sense of omnipresent power of those who are subject to such potential observation; if there is no way to know if one is currently under observation, there is no subjective difference between that and being under constant observation.  As Foucault traces the evolution of how power is projected in societies, it becomes clear that the Panopticon is not just a metaphor for such projection; it is a literal model. In the four decades that have passed since Foucault’s book was published, the advent of the Internet and other forms of digital technology have allowed the Panopticon-as-model to emerge as a global expression of, and extension of, power and control.

Foucault was not the first, of course, to give consideration to the centralization of political power and control. While Foucault’s work spans several centuries, there is no question that the scope and scale of the “panoptic” expression of power increased exponentially in the 20^th century. In the aftermath of World War II, George Orwell released his landmark novel 1984, set in a dystopian near-future in which every citizen was constantly reminded that “Big Brother” was “watching” them. Seen through the eyes of the central character of Winston Smith, it became clear that no one really knew if or when they were being monitored and observed; what mattered was that they might be under surveillance at any given moment, and so they lived as if they were always under surveillance. Although Orwell never uses the word “Panopticon” in his novel, it is impossible to read Foucault’s descriptions of the Panopticon, and the ways in which it has predicated the contemporary expression and exertion of state power and control, without thinking of Big Brother gazing down on each and every citizen of Oceania.

In a sense, the power inherent in the Panopticon model is paradoxical. The subjects being held in the outer ring of the Panopticon cannot see their observers, or ever know if they are being observed. The potential observers are utterly and permanently invisible to those who are potentially observed. It is this invisibility that –paradoxically- makes the potential observers constantly and utterly visible. Simply by knowing that they might be under observation, the subjects in the Panopticon behave as if they are always under observation; as such, the power of the “potential” observer is magnified into that of a permanent, ceaseless, unblinking observer. In 1984, Big Brother was never seen, either by the citizens of Oceania, or by the novel’s readers. In the literal Panopticon, the jailers or teachers or supervisors are also unseen, yet the subjects are always aware of their presence. The power of the Panopticon lies in the relationship the subjects have to the expression of power; it is each individual’s subjective awareness of the inherent potential of the Panopticon that both reinforces and magnifies its power. As Foucault describes it, “the major effect of the Panopticon (is) to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power…so to arrange things that the surveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its action.” Whether the overseer (or, more to the point, the potential overseer) is a jailer, or a political ruler, or a Big-Brother-style metaphorical expression of political and social power, the effect is the same.

Bentham envisioned the use of Panopticons in a variety of settings, believing, as Foucault put it, that they would underpin “a network of mechanisms that would be everywhere and always alert, running through society without interruption in space or in time.” While Bentham likely framed the Panopticon as a literal component (or interdependent series of components) of his vision for an orderly society, the “panopticism” described by Foucault is largely figurative. Foucault dissects how power can be and is expressed through metaphorical Panopticons, though they are no less powerful or effective for their lack of tangibility. It is not its physical qualities that make the Panopticon useful and now ubiquitous; it is the way it balances power between authority and subject that gives it power. It is “the diagram of a mechanism of power reduced to its ideal form,” writes Foucault; it is the mechanistic manner in which the Panopticon functions that makes it duplicable across a seemingly-endless number of different platforms.

As contextualized by Foucault, discipline and disciplinary power emerged as the means by which modern institutions shaped their functions. From schools to factories to military organizations, disciplinary power constrained and motivated the functions of the individuals within these bodies and assured their effective operations. The maintenance of such discipline required that individuals be subject to observation, and the panoptic model of surveillance allowed for an ever-greater ability for such observation –and thus, discipline and order, to be established and maintained. As Foucault asserts, the panoptic model “can reduce the number of those who exercise (power), while increasing the number of those on whom it is exercised.” Panopticism does not require overwhelming force in order to function; its very nature serves to amplify its power and solidify its permanence. Foucault contrasts this unerring constant discipline with the “sudden, violent, discontinuous forms that are bound up with the exercise of sovereignty;” sovereign power is subject to the whims of those who hold and wiled it, while the power of panopticism is steady, ceaseless, and all-pervasive.

Just as it is possible to use Foucault’s work as a lens to look back over the rise of totalitarian power in the mid-20^thcentury (not just as imagined by Orwell, but as seen in the political systems of national governments), it also presages the contemporary surveillance state that was so unceremoniously uncovered by Edward Snowden in 2013. Snowden, a former contractor for The National Security Agency (NSA), notoriously revealed to the world the extent to which the NSA engaged in surveillance of U.S. citizens, foreign governments, and other individuals and organizations. Snowden confirmed the existence of a panoptic surveillance system the scope and scale of which was more massive than many might have believed possible. Much of the justification for the growth of the U.S. surveillance state was predicated on the attacks of 9/11; despite constant assurances from government officials that such surveillance would be used as selectively and sparingly as possible, the very nature of such panopticism rendered such assurances entirely hollow.

While Bentham envisioned a system wherein Panopticons would work in conjunction to create a more orderly and healthy society, the practical implications of such panoptic networks have been, in many cases, far less benevolent.  Bloss (2007) addresses the rising use of surveillance by U.S. police forces in recent decades, asserting that they “have been given greater surveillance powers in response to perceived threats from crime, drugs, and terrorism.”  It is worth noting that Bloss –who is hardly unique in this respect- contextualizes the increasing use of surveillance in what he calls “the post 9/11 era,” as if that phrase alone both explains and excuses the exponential growth of the surveillance state.  Regardless of the uses for which surveillance is being wielded, the general explanation offered by those using it is that “public safety” is at stake. The specific threats may be ascribed to drug trafficking, violent crime, terrorism, or other concerns, but the response to these presumed dangers is the same: an increase in the amount and pervasiveness of surveillance.

Snowden’s revelations may have confirmed the extent to which the NSA concerned itself with the minutiae of the activities of ordinary citizens, but such revelations should hardly be surprising. If Orwell got anything wrong in 1984, it was his belief that the shadowy powers hiding behind the face of Big Brother would have to force the surveillance state upon the citizens of Oceania. What he did not predict was the extent to which people willingly relinquish their privacy. In 1984, Winston Smith was subject to observation by the telescreen whether he wished it or not. In 2014, people gladly pay hundreds of dollars to purchase their own telescreens –in the form of cell phones, tablets, and computers- and fill up social media sites with endless amounts of information about their personal lives. Despite the previously-known dangers of hackers and identity thieves (and the now-known scope of NSA surveillance), billions of people expose every aspect of their lives not just to surveillance by the government, but by each other.  The power and reach of the panoptic networks has made it virtually impossible to avoid being observed at any moment, and even at every moment.

As Foucault noted in “Discipline and Punish,” the Panopticon can be arranged so that it “also enables everyone to come and observe any of the observers.” This idealized vision for the Panopticon is precluded when those that construct it do not allow outside observers such access. As we have seen in recent decades, however, the “digital Panopticon” of the Internet has made all of us both observers and the observed. The sovereign power of the state has become, in a practical sense, irrelevant to the expression of power running through the panoptic networks that frame our lives. George Orwell believed that Big Brother would be a necessity in s future surveillance state; in truth, we are all Big Brother.

Works Cited

Bloss, William. ‘Escalating U.S. Police Surveillance After 9/11: An Examination Of Causes And Effects*’.Surveillance & Society 4.3 (2007): n. pag. Print.

Foucault, Michel. Discipline And Punish. 1st ed. New York: Pantheon Books, 1977. Print.

Greenwald, Glenn, Ewen MacAskill, and Laura Poitras. ‘Edward Snowden: The Whistleblower Behind The NSA Surveillance Revelations’. the Guardian. N. p., 2013. Web. 14 May. 2014.

Orwell, George. ‘George Orwell – 1984’. George-orwell.org. N. p., 2014. Web. 14 May. 2014.