December 13, 2007

Panopticon vs. What Not to Wear

Jaya- I was particularly interested in your presentation when you began to speak about the panopticon. I have never actually seen an episode of What Not to Wear, but I think you described it well enough for me to get a sense of its tone. Are you trying to say that our society as a whole has become its own panopticon? Class, do you think that panopticon can actually relate to anywhere you feel entrapped and scrutinized? Maybe we have created our own panopticon by constantly policing ourselves on what we say and wear, how we carry ourselves, and how we measure our status. I guess I can see the American society as its own panopticon because we have created it amongst ourselves. Certain things are accepted and certain things are not accepted. Granted, we may not necessarily be thrown in jail for crossing the "fashion police" but society still finds a way to punish those who go against the norm. The threat of surveliance certainly is a factor in our everyday lives and not only influences our behavior when it comes to the judiciary system, but also the laws of our culture and what is and what is not accepted and awarded as the "correct" way to talk, walk, and dress.

4 comments:

Meg said...

Can I just tell you that my sister wants to put me on this show and I refuse because I would probably be made a spectacle of, $5,000 or not and start crying. how humiliating. and if I had sparkly fun shoes in my closet I would want them to stay there.

Jaya said...

I wish I could take credit for applying the panopticon to society as a whole, but that's way beyond my level of brilliance. According to Foucault (1977), "the Panopticon ... must be understood as a generalizable model of functioning; a way of defining power relations in terms of the everyday life of men" (205). You're right -- it's because society finds ways to punish individuals for going against its norms that the panopticon can be a generalizable model. This is why Spitzack is able to use the panopticon to flesh out the implications of dieting discourse in terms of scrutiny. In my paper, I intend to simply follow the model Spitzack provides, using Foucault, to interrogate the implications of "What Not to Wear".

JK said...

I need to see this show...

Medea said...

I guess in our present world, the panoptic gaze is internalized. We create several objective gazes by ourselves to look and scrutinize ourselves...With the world being webbed with security cameras, watching each and every move of yours, it is not the gaze of the camera that we see that bothers us; neither is it the gaze of someone else in the streets...it pertains more to the way we would ideally like to see ourselves watched...in this sense we can borrow some of the ideas we learnt from berger and the ways of seeing...imagine all the contestents of what not to wear 3 months after their makeover...poor people....everytime they go out to the grocery, they would be critically viewing themselves through different gazes before stepping out of their doors...