Panopticism by Michel Foucault Addresses

Panopticism by Michel Foucault addresses many topics in a brief space-Foucault examines subjects from the balance of power in medieval society to methods of law enforcement in modern times. The essay discusses the ways that power is distributed and enforced in societies; Foucault relies heavily on the theory of Jeremy Bentham's Panoption, an architectural structure that distributes power among many individuals, as in an institution like a hospital or prison, where the structure itself holds significantly more control over the individuals than does any one official or individual.

Foucault's essay is fairly straightforward and easy to comprehend for the first half; this explanation centers on the functions that the institutional nature of the Panopticon serves. He compares this Panopticon as similar to the institutionalization necessary to regulate the Plague in the seventeenth century: strict separation of individuals and animals, the destruction of anything suspected of infection, and the job of "monitors," individuals who were responsible for observing the institutional inhabitants and for enforcing the regulations regarding potential contact with infectious diseases.

Foucault notes that this model, implemented as a way to monitor large numbers of individuals during the Plague, became the accepted model for institutions such as hospitals, prisons, and other structures where individuals are separated from one another and monitored by someone whose identity is not important. The focus, Foucault says, is not on a certain person with power, but on the fact that the "monitor" maintains the order and discipline of the structure. Foucault notes that this structure "automatizes and disindividualizes power. Power has its principle not so much in a person as in a certain concerted distribution" (paragraph 11). This "disindividualization" allows the perpetration of the structure of power without the need of a single individual in control, like a king or military leader.

This section of Foucault's essay is relatively straightforward and understandable; the comparison of control mechanisms with a large, institutional building is an easy one to make, and Foucault does a good job of explaining the similarities and how any individual may fill the position of power, instead of one particular individual. Unfortunately, all of the essay is not so well-explained. Near the midpoint of his work, Foucault notes a comparison of Bentham's Panopticon with Le Vaux's menagerie; this menagerie is not a generally known point of reference and confuses readers who do not know the reference. This is only the first in a long series of obscure-to the general reader, at least-references made by Foucault which do more to confuse the reader than to cement the assertions regarding the Panoptic mechanism and its adoption into general society.

At this point, when Foucault begins his deeper examination of the Panoptic theory of architecture as applied to society as a whole, the essay becomes much more difficult to comprehend; from the citation of obscure references such as "Fourier" and "Phalanstery" to jumping around amidst historical eras (Foucault discusses medieval times, ancient Greece, the 18th century and the "modern era" as if they were easily comparable by all readers). While one can discern the major points that Foucault is making-namely, that a panoptic structure in education, the military, hospitals, and other groupings of individuals allows them to be disciplined without ceding power to one or a few other individuals-it is difficult to understand the finer points of his argument if one is not an expert in a number of specialized historical and sociological subjects.

Despite these difficulties in understanding the specifics of Foucault's argument, his overall points are relatively easy to understand-that society is moving toward a generalized power structure that may be imposed with very little individual involvement, similar to that of an institutionalized population such as a prison or hospital or boarding school. These overall ideas, of reducing "the number of those who exercise [power] while increasing the number of those on whom it is exercised," and the prediction that this type of discipline and social structure "was destined to spread throughout the social body" recur throughout the essay, even when Foucault's specific arguments confuse the reader. His examples of these structured organizations -- the military, educational system, etc.-changing their main purpose from negative (i.e., schools taking in orphans or delinquents) to the positive (i.e., schools teaching certain methods to all school-aged children as well as their families) demonstrates how this theory spread through society and infiltrated everyday life.

Foucault's essay is difficult because of his obscure references and details which are not readily recognizable to the lay reader. He assumes a certain level of knowledge regarding subjects on which he is an expert, and does not fully explain these subjects for anyone who is not.