Panoptic Mediation: From Bentham's Panopticon to the P-Chip
Robert Craig
continued . . .
From the Greek panoptos (seen by all) and panoptes (all-seeing), panoptic means to show or see the whole all at one view. The principle elements of Bentham's Panopticon and the Panoptic Cinema are the same. The main purpose of each machine is to inculcate a state of mind and visibility that guarantees a self-operating power. Foucault describes it this way:
So to arrange things that the surveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its action; that the perfection of power should tend to render its actual exercise unnecessary; that this architectural apparatus should be a machine for creating and sustaining a power relation independent of the person who exercises it; in short, that the inmates should be caught up in a situation in which they are themselves the bearers. (Discipline 201)
As with Bentham's central observation tower, power is visible and represented in the Panoptic Cinema by way of the projected eye. It is impossible to verify because the spectator can never know when the camera is turned on and pointed at them. For that matter they can never know if anyone is watching at any given moment.
There is a telling moment in Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange when protagonist Alex pushes his face into that of one of his victims. This is a writer who Alex's gang has gagged and bound. A phallic clown nose attached to his face, Alex has this to say to the helpless man before raping his wife: "Videy well brother, videy well." Kubrick's point of view shot transports the spectator into the position of the powerless writer. The message seems obvious. To videy well, in other words to be in the position of the good spectator, implies submission and silence in the face of power. The model spectator and model prisoner are not so different as they seem.
In Bentham's Panopticon there is a guarantee of order anchored in architecture and the separation of bodies. In the Panoptic Cinema there is a different guarantee of order anchored in the arrangement of bodies and the practice of bienseance. The seating arrangement in the Panoptic Cinema (as with all cinemas) is like a table: 1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, etc. Each spectator faces forward, thus discouraging interaction, while encouraging the time-honored practice of sitting mute and motionless, staring respectfully at the all-powerful screen. The camera and its projections of the isolated bodies onto the screen are a further form of control. Each spectator becomes, in effect, the guardian's eye, gazing at the image of their neighbor and their own. Barriers could be constructed between spectators so that they cannot be sure of the presence or absence of the spectators around them. They would not know the physical location of the others, if the others were actually there being recorded, or if the machine were projecting the images onto the screen from another time. Short of trying to speak through these barriers or perhaps tapping coded messages to their immediate neighbors, space understood as place would be obscured for the isolated spectator. However, these barriers are probably not necessary. Habit, repetitive behavior and the disciplinary influence of the gaze would probably guarantee order within the structure of the Panoptic Cinema space. In Bentham's Panopticon, the exercise of power in space is maximized and the potential for disruption minimized. This is achieved in part by walls that separate inmates and by bars that segregate prisoner from prisoner and separate prisoners from the guardian in the tower. The Panoptic Cinema could be lighter, exerting control through a forward seating arrangement, bienseance and surveillance. At the heart of this application of power in space is visibility.
