Episode #186 ... Are we heading for a digital prison? - Panopticon (Foucault, Bentham, Cave)

For everybody who enjoyed this episode, I highly recommend a short text by Gilles Deleuze titled Postscript on the Societies of Control. I also hope Deleuze's take on this matter will find its way into the next episode.

I wrote my final assignment about surveillance capitalism and referenced Foucault, Bentham and thereby the panopticon thanks to your first episode on Foucault. I got the Highest grade Denmark allows... 12. I'm excited to hear how you're going to frame it today.

Ok notes for this time, this time is a bit different cause I have some extra notes in: Panopticon: Bentham’s Panopticon is the architectural figure of this composition. We know the principle on which it was based: at the periphery, an annular building; at the centre, a tower; this tower is pierced with wide windows that open onto the inner side of the ring; the peripheric building is divided into cells, each of which extends the whole width of the building; they have two windows, one on the inside, corresponding to the windows of the tower; the other, on the outside, allows the light to cross the cell from one end to the other. All that is needed, then, is to place a supervisor in a central tower and to shut up in each cell a madman, a patient, a condemned man, a worker or a schoolboy. By the effect of backlighting, one can observe from the tower, standing out precisely against the light, the small captive shadows in the cells of the periphery. The tower shines bright light so that the watchman is able to see everyone in the cells. The people in the cells, however, aren’t able to see the watchman, and therefore have to assume that they are always under observation. […] He is seen, but he does not see; he is the object of information, never a subject in communication. Michel Foucault, “Panopticism”: - Panopticism: the watcher is no longer external to the watched, but internal - Permanent visibility leads to self-surveillance and self-enforcement - The Gaze (ie. power) regulates us into socially accepted behaviour - Motivation for actions and behaviour is extrinsic, but held intrinsically - Useful background for explaining behavioural psychology of societies - Particular attention to technology and structure in shaping societies - Michel Foucault is also known for discourse analysis and Death of the Author State Surveillance: - Fear of being watched moderates our actions even when this fear is irrational - Deterrence of crime, crime-like behaviour, and “thoughtcrime” - Self-incrimination leads to self-suppression - Public power can interfere in private life without invading privacy - Information asymmetry makes us fear free speech in safe areas - Whistleblowers are feared because it “removes the backlighting”. It wasn’t until the Snowden leaks that the scale of NSA and GCHQ operations became known. This arguably makes the system more panoptic post-Snowden, when we are aware of it, but it hasn’t been the official rhetoric. The original emphasis, and still the emphasis today, hasn’t been on correcting behaviour but on providing security, namely from terrorists. - Accountability limits power because power is psychological - Asymmetry relationship between knowledge and power: - People in power define norms and what is normal and abnormal. For example, American history 70 years ago was taught to be a narrative of we fought the Britain courageously, then we fought a Civil War to end slavery, and we stayed away from WW2 but had to retaliate out of self defence to save the world. But a more recent narrative of American history is focusing on the details of experiences of the natives, slaves, and women. Regardless of which one of these narrative is correct, the point is that education isn't objective and the people of power designs curriculum in a way that shapes what we believe is normal. When you deviate from the political norm, you are a terrorist. When you deviate from society's psychological norm, you are mentally ill. Go to far out of the sexual norms, you become a pervert. Just like the panopticon where inmates regulate normative behaviors onto themselves, who wants to be called a failure and receive the social backlash for breaking social norms. Steven Cave: Intelligence is used to justify abuse. When we say someone is stupid or has less mental faculty, we are not making a neutral or factual statement. Intelligence usually entails how much rights one deserves. We have a culture where we reward the smartest persons to rule our country. This means that women who were seen as more sentimental were thought to be more suited for other roles in society. This also divides along race, black people are thought to be mentally incapable but bodily capable so they should use their labour to contribute to society. This is called a hierarchy of rationality. Colonialism was justified bc the less intelligence need our cultures. People are sterilized and taken away of their bodily autonomy because of lower intelligence. Intelligence test and eugenics were born together and thousands of women who score low on the tests were sterilized. So when you are saying someone is stupid, this isn't just an evaluative claim but also a claim but also a host of other claims for what this person deserves. Why are we worried about AI? Bc given the history of rewarding more rights to more intelligent beings, the worry is justified Before diving into digital panopticon, how do we measure people's freedom? If there is IQ and EQ, why don't we have FQ as in Freedom Quotient. This is why judges do in court all the time, they use philosophical and psychological tools to evaluate how free were the criminal making certain actions. Why can't we have a more scientific measurement of behavioral freedom? Free Will has three primary components one the ability to generate options for oneself two the ability to choose and three the ability to pursue one or more of those options after choosing. Prison is designed in a way that the low stimulation environment discourages prisoners to work on FQ. It might benefit society greater if we nurture prisoners and populations of their FQ skill. Government limits people's options all the time by barring people from education in the same way that abusive people in general limit the information of the people that they're abusing. You don't want your abused spouse to have friends and talk through the issue. Years ago Edward Snowden leaked the US program of Prism tracking emails and phone calls and flag people as threats. This is still ongoing, think of the advancement of AI and the deep learning and the neutral networks meaning that people flagged as dangerous will be far more granular. Think of how China and Russia would use these technologies. Surveillance impact people's moral development because of the chilling effects. People in China wouldn't have private conservations about topic that might seem irresponsible in public because of a fear of monitoring. People are on drugs in the modern panopticon, because generative AI feeds the most distracting games and reels that you never even consider the pain you are feeling. Powerful Gods and Religious Authority: - Omnipotent and panoptical authority enforces moral behaviour - Desire of reward or fear of retribution, particularly unobservable afterlife - The Gaze can be god, leaders in hierarchy, or both - Authorities justify abusive behaviour because they open themselves to the Gaze of God, which is not ultimately observable - Leaving religion is difficult because the internal Gaze cannot be cut out - Religion can offer relief from competing Gazes, eg. state, male, etc. Productivity Culture: - “Productivity” is both economic and individual behaviour and thought - Homework in K-12 education conditions children to feel the urge to be productive beyond school/work setting and into personal sphere - The Gaze values looking productive, even at the cost of economic productivity - Middle management observes worker productivity, but itself is inherently unproductive and therefore managers cannot be “observed” by workers - Cubicles, loft offices, remote mouse/keylog monitoring craft panopticism Free Speech: - The Gaze leads to self-correction by shaping language choice, conceptions of identity, permissible critiques, etc. - Fear of carceral repercussions (eg. cancelling, death threats, backlash) lead to self-censorship even if the state does not externally censor speech - Does cancel culture apply? Who is the Gaze? Who is in power? - Overton Window - discourse shapes where we see and centre “the debate” - This happens regardless of left or right, good or bad Male Gaze: - Women moderate femininity based on perception by others - Enforcers of patriarchal belief can be both male and female - Objectification leads to self-objectification (panopticism) - Male gaze also enforces heteropatriarchy - Implicit in male gaze to women is heterosexuality and relational roles - What’s the female gaze? Female enforcement of masculinity or hyperfemininity? - How do queer people fit into either gaze? Nonbinary people?

Damn my Philosophy dude dropping some Philosophical Truth Bombs 💣

Free will is mostly a scam. Our minds are made from whatever other people tell us. Only in rare instances does someone have a strong will to come out with his own narrative which counts everyone around him. Usually, it will only happen to smart people who have gone through a life worth of disappointment and suffering. Most people just take the easy path in life and try not to think of anything too deep. They are afraid to be lonely, and they may be right. The more I learn, the more I wish I didn't learn.

This episode was so good (like always) but it literally terrified me 😖

Long time "silent" subbie of your podcasts Mr West ;) I have to say, you really put an effort into your work and I have a learned a lot over the years thanks to you. It is very much appreciated.. wishing you a happy and fun filled life.

"Freedom is the knowledge of the size and shape of one's cage." -Allen Andrews

the biggest panopticon is the corporate workplace or so-called "job market"

I had never heard of a panopticon before I saw this title. What a fascinating thing. I completely agree that that is where we are headed.

An interesting thing with the idea of Freedom Quotients is those people who have high perception of options, yet the inability to enact them not due to any outside constraints, but internal anxiety or fear. We have people like the Underground Man, or Kierkegaard paralyzed by freedom. How would that be examined I wonder?

This episode is FIRE 🔥

Fantastic episode. No need for the dig at omnivores around the halfway mark, however 😉

Man, I'm already trapped on this series of episodes, can't wait to see the next! Wait a sec...

Maybe this is part of the reason that I continue to read physical books, as challenging as they may be. I don't know. I just don't know. (Currently reading "Foucault's Pendulum", but have never read Foucault.)

U rock!!

I wrote my final using this to question 10 minute cities, police sidewalk cameras and the current state of online hegemony

Thanks Mr West

"They're trying to build a prison For you and me to live in" -"Prison Song," System of a Down The idea of the Panopticon is a very powerful one. However, as should be expected, Foucault's analysis is sociological and not anthropological. The modern nation state is not the originator of a Panopticon that guides behaviors. It is in fact something much more fundamental. "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains," Rousseau once wrote. Who is it that fashioned and clasped these chains on us? Our fellow man. We are eager to chain ourselves up in seemingly flowery bindings as long as we hook ourselves to the fellows of our species. We are dependent on others, and this is our slavery. This is our natural state, something that Rousseau did not see. Humans, just like our primate relatives and so many other species, are fundamentally social animals. Even Aristotle noted that if one could exist outside of the bounds of society, they must be either a beast or a god. As social animals, there are certain values and behaviors that are instilled or enculturated through our youth about proper behaviors conducive to group cohesion. It is these norms and mores that form our Panopticon, where we must act out these roles under the scrutiny of our fellow men, our group or society. The eyes of our comrades are constantly upon us within that tower, and we, in our cells, must act according to the rules or else we face their ire. My problem with what Mr. West formulated here in terms of a digital Panopticon is the unanswered question of why someone should care that they are being observed. The very reason that the Panopticon is functional in prison settings is still the same as in the classical prison system: fear of punishment. There has to be a background of beatings or other painful punishments for one to he concerned about being watched. If there is no sense of repercussions to actions, why should anyone care if the jailer is peeping? Thus, for the classical state perspective of the Pantopicon, those who break the rules are sentenced by the state to prison or execution or whatever else for subversion or treason. Even with stateless societies (and still within all societies but especially with democracies), the people who were observed deviating from expected social norms were usually punished by ostracism or exile (we can see something very similar today with cancel culture; thus is the threat of majority tyranny and the court of public opinion). Within the digital Panopticon though, what exactly is the repercussion at stake? If an algorithm, AI, or tech giant watches you Google something abnormal, not download Tiktok, or whatever, what are the potential outcomes? Will they give out specific ads that differ from the rest of the crowd? When the Pantopticon is applied to prisons, states, or societies, there are dire consequences to deviancy; what is there to lose in the case of a digital one?

Keep it up, great show.