September 25, 2007
on cameras and privacy
Just a short thought, but as infringing as cameras may be on one's privacy, and in some cases people don't pay attention to them, don't you think they serve some good in terms of catching thieves or the like? Look at the case of the Chicago cop who beat up that bartender for not serving him..it was caught on camera..
The range of Panoptic view
Bentham’s Panopticon, Foucault tells us is an arrangement where the very idea of visibility is a trap. The inmates in the peripheral building are secluded from each other, their vision is tunneled; the eyes can only see the central tower of power. Foucault’s description of the hapless prisoner conjures up the image of a man with blinkers, his vision forced only and only in one direction. The Tower. The central tower on the other hand has a 360 degrees of vision. In a way this constriction in the degree of perceptibility also reinforces the idea of power. Restricted vision defines the suppressed, extended vision defines the suppressor.
What is very interesting is how such definitions get blurred when such an idea is put to the modern day context. Spitzack contextualizes the idea of the panopticon when she writes about women being trapped under a constant vigilance. They are being inspected all the time. What interests me here is the range of visibility that might define the position of power. A woman, according to Spitzack is at once the surveyor and the surveyed. She is surveyed by others, she surveys herself according to others; also she surveys others just the way she was surveyed. In that sense then, she is at once the power and the prisoner. She ‘does’ to everyone what everyone ‘does’ to her.
This I think is applicable to everyone who intends to be acknowledged in the human society. It is in our instinct to be acknowledged. And so almost unconsciously we assume the position of the power and the captivated. We critically view others and decide whether they are to be acknowledged or not. We also see ourselves being objectified in the same way. The range of vision for each human being therefore is at once restricted and extended. The position of power and that of the suppressed gets blurred- almost like a modern day painting with a riot of colors all forcefully blended into one another.
What is very interesting is how such definitions get blurred when such an idea is put to the modern day context. Spitzack contextualizes the idea of the panopticon when she writes about women being trapped under a constant vigilance. They are being inspected all the time. What interests me here is the range of visibility that might define the position of power. A woman, according to Spitzack is at once the surveyor and the surveyed. She is surveyed by others, she surveys herself according to others; also she surveys others just the way she was surveyed. In that sense then, she is at once the power and the prisoner. She ‘does’ to everyone what everyone ‘does’ to her.
This I think is applicable to everyone who intends to be acknowledged in the human society. It is in our instinct to be acknowledged. And so almost unconsciously we assume the position of the power and the captivated. We critically view others and decide whether they are to be acknowledged or not. We also see ourselves being objectified in the same way. The range of vision for each human being therefore is at once restricted and extended. The position of power and that of the suppressed gets blurred- almost like a modern day painting with a riot of colors all forcefully blended into one another.
September 19, 2007
panoptic musings
To what extent do modern forms of surveillance exhibit panoptic effects? Within our own lifetimes, we have witnessed the introduction, adoption, and now widespread use of video and digital surveillance cameras. Do surveillance cameras provide the panoptic effect that Foucault identified was a result of certain forms of disciplinary architecture? In the panopticon, individuals were physically and visually separated from one another, but were constantly visible by an unseen seer. The panopticon disrupted the normal see/being seen dyad. Individuals within the panoption are aware that they may always be seen, even if they themselves cannot see who is looking at them. This was the genus of the panopticon's design.
The design of the panopticon conveys
power and serves as a disciplinary
mechanism. Those within the
panopticon are always visible, can
always be seen, every action may be
observed, and there is no privacyfrom the unseen looker. Even though
they cannot see who sees them, individuals are fully aware of theirvisibility. You better be good, cause "they're watching."
Foucault stated that the major effect of the panopticon was to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the functinoing of power (p. 201).
Do modern forms of public surveillance induce panoptic effects?
Digital and video surveillance is everywhere - in stores, on campus, on public roads and streets, in parking lots, in restaurants, at home... it is not uncommon to see many digital and video ca
meras during the course of a regular day. My apartment complex has its surveillance system broadcast to all its residents on television cable channel 87. There are over a dozen cameras in and around my aparment residence, and, if i am interested, i can watch any one of them while laying on my couch sipping whiskey. Driving around my neighborhood, I notice cameras on almost every streetlight. My favorite bar has at least 3 visible cameras. On campus, I notice cameras outside buildings, and as I enter, I see more. I grab some lunch and sit down, and as I pray to God that my professor may grant me grace, I see another camera above my head. Our lives are saturated with the presence of digital and video surveillance cameras.
http://www.communitywalk.com/map/19256
Here is a portion of a surveillance camera map of downtown Philadelphia near univeristy city. An undergraduate class at the University of Pennsylvania documented over 500 cameras in thier neighborhood! They gave up trying to continue documentation: they couldn't keep up.
Does the presence of such a great density of surveillance cameras assure the automatic functioning of power that Foucault stated was a major effect of the panopticon? Surveillance cameras indicate the obviousness of our visibility. Cameras are for LOOKING, WATCHING, OBSERVING. We can't see who's looking at us. We are in a disrupted dyad of seeing/being seen. We know we are visible, yet we are not able to see our observer.
Has the obviousness of our visibility affected our behavior? In my own life, I have largely stopped noticing the cameras; they have largely become invisible. I pass them, paying little attention. They are so prevalent, they have become camoflaged; they have become installed in the urban landscape.
Perhaps there is something not compatable with public surveillance and Foucault's addressed panoptic effects. In the panopticon, individuals are enclosed, partitioned, segmented, and distributed, often into spaces that are small and easily manageable. Originally it was essential to panoptic power that individuals be separated from each other. Public surveillance fails to display this form. Surveillance cameras often observe open spaces, large spaces with many people. Perhaps panoptic effects can be generalizeable, or even extended - certainly as Spitzack demonstrates, all that is required for panoptic effects is that the individual internalize the its logic, and if this happens, we can exibit separation, even from our own selves, regardless of where we are.
September 16, 2007
Panoptic Images
I really like the second image Dan posted, but not probably for the obvious reason.
The image shows the ideal subject of the panoptic prison: a prisoner, penitent, on his knees, examining his own soul in solitude. He has internalized, to his very core, the panoptic gaze, the I/eye that watches from the center but is itself unwatched. He watches himself inwardly just as he is watched (from the center and by you and I) from the outside.
It is eloquent in this way. But what I find interesting is the way the viewer is positioned. The view which we are offered - of the penitent prisoner, of the central tower where the I/eye of power hides - is a view that cannot exist. There is no position behind the prisoner from which to see his conformity with the processes of subjection at work within and without.
This position is fictional, but where does it place us within the scene?
I think even though we are behind him, we are the penitent. Or better, we are witnesses, called by the image to testify to the efficacy of panoptic power - whether we like it or not.
So, what other images can people find that shed some light on contemporary panopticism?
The image shows the ideal subject of the panoptic prison: a prisoner, penitent, on his knees, examining his own soul in solitude. He has internalized, to his very core, the panoptic gaze, the I/eye that watches from the center but is itself unwatched. He watches himself inwardly just as he is watched (from the center and by you and I) from the outside.
It is eloquent in this way. But what I find interesting is the way the viewer is positioned. The view which we are offered - of the penitent prisoner, of the central tower where the I/eye of power hides - is a view that cannot exist. There is no position behind the prisoner from which to see his conformity with the processes of subjection at work within and without.
This position is fictional, but where does it place us within the scene?
I think even though we are behind him, we are the penitent. Or better, we are witnesses, called by the image to testify to the efficacy of panoptic power - whether we like it or not.
So, what other images can people find that shed some light on contemporary panopticism?
Panopticon
Just so you all have an idea of what this structure would look like, see the posted photos. The blue-print like sketch is from Jeremy Bentham, the building's creator. Keep these images in mind for this weeks readings.
September 11, 2007
The Falling Man
http://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ0903-SEP_FALLINGMAN#story
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Falling_Man
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1404525
The above are some web sites re the falling man. I attended the talk tonight at campus. Tom Junod discussed how his own Catholicism came into play when he wrote this article and comes across in his work. He said that this photograph is how we take another look at what we thought we understood...He refers to Susan Sontag's book "Regarding the pain of others" and said that he had been critisized for describing the photo as beautiful/perfect. He read us a passge from Sontag's book, "looking at images of suffering is a moral obligation." What he meant about describing this photo as "beautiful" though was how this person, was symmetrically lined up right between the north and south towers, and how he looked to be falling so peacefully, when in fact he was not, it was "chaos theory in action." In some ways he says the picture is an illusion, which corresponds to our readings. The photo then seemed to have disappeared from the pages of newspapers and journals for people to review. He was told that there were no "jumpers" just people who were "blown" out of the window by impact. He said that on some level this was a blatant untruth. The images of people were considered taboo. He touched on photographer Richard Drew's philosophy's about how he viewed himself as a historical witness and how anything less is not acceptable (as if he would put his camera down to stop a shot) because the minute he would do that, he would be comprimising his own work. The man in the photo was at first believed to be Roberto Hernandez, a man of great faith from a very Catholic family. The family through interviews made it was clear that they did not believe that this was in fact Hernandez, for jumping would have been seen as suicidal, against the Catholic religion. (the "easy way out.") It was later discovered that this man was someone else, the son of a preacher, a father, a husband. Junod wrote about why this picture made people so uncomfortable. He showed us other photos and discussed the thought that there would be "no war without photos." For the Falling Man, people diverted their eyes on purpose. He discussed how this man was all alone, and how it forces us to think about the question, what would we have done? Could that have been me? "Clearly this was the result of an attack." I interpreted Junod to mean that we too have "a moral obligation" to view such images and that was part of the reason why he was compelled to write his story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Falling_Man
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1404525
The above are some web sites re the falling man. I attended the talk tonight at campus. Tom Junod discussed how his own Catholicism came into play when he wrote this article and comes across in his work. He said that this photograph is how we take another look at what we thought we understood...He refers to Susan Sontag's book "Regarding the pain of others" and said that he had been critisized for describing the photo as beautiful/perfect. He read us a passge from Sontag's book, "looking at images of suffering is a moral obligation." What he meant about describing this photo as "beautiful" though was how this person, was symmetrically lined up right between the north and south towers, and how he looked to be falling so peacefully, when in fact he was not, it was "chaos theory in action." In some ways he says the picture is an illusion, which corresponds to our readings. The photo then seemed to have disappeared from the pages of newspapers and journals for people to review. He was told that there were no "jumpers" just people who were "blown" out of the window by impact. He said that on some level this was a blatant untruth. The images of people were considered taboo. He touched on photographer Richard Drew's philosophy's about how he viewed himself as a historical witness and how anything less is not acceptable (as if he would put his camera down to stop a shot) because the minute he would do that, he would be comprimising his own work. The man in the photo was at first believed to be Roberto Hernandez, a man of great faith from a very Catholic family. The family through interviews made it was clear that they did not believe that this was in fact Hernandez, for jumping would have been seen as suicidal, against the Catholic religion. (the "easy way out.") It was later discovered that this man was someone else, the son of a preacher, a father, a husband. Junod wrote about why this picture made people so uncomfortable. He showed us other photos and discussed the thought that there would be "no war without photos." For the Falling Man, people diverted their eyes on purpose. He discussed how this man was all alone, and how it forces us to think about the question, what would we have done? Could that have been me? "Clearly this was the result of an attack." I interpreted Junod to mean that we too have "a moral obligation" to view such images and that was part of the reason why he was compelled to write his story.
September 9, 2007
Castration complex
This idea is a prominent one in this week's reading and something that I felt was worth a little discussion. What is probably the most interesting is how this idea is portrayed in a rather phallocentric society. Althusser's description of the little girl's transition on page 214 provides a great example of this when he states "when the little girl lives and assumes the tragic and beneficial situation of castration." This passage personally stuck me as it appears to create this horrible picture of the status of women. I understand that we live in a male dominated world, but I find it hard to believe that there exists a time in every kids life where they come to the understanding that their phallus (or lack there of) will dictate their societal roles. Especially by today's standards, even though the idea of separate spheres exists, I feel that they are not as clear cut as past generations. I guess, for the sake of created some discussion, how would Althusser feel about Hilary's run for the white house? Also, is the castration complex something that is a big problem in the US, especially when compared to other countries?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)