Wednesday, December 25, 2013

Facebook: The Panopticon of Modern Age

Fig. 1. Grigoryan, Sona. “Facebook: The Panopticon of Modern Age.” Online Image. Flickr. Flickr Creative Commons, 9 March 2014. Web. 2 Feb 2014.
    In 2004, a Harvard university undergraduate Mark Zuckerberg invented Facebook — a small social network for Harvard students to help to identify each other. Gradually, it spread to other universities, and eventually became popular among all colleges, universities, schools, the military, companies in the United States and in the whole world (Westlake 24). Nowadays, Facebook has about 1.19 billion active users who share and post personal information, photos, videos, personal thoughts, and “stay connected with their friends and family” (Navratil 51). By voluntary posting personal or general information Facebook users participate in collaborative creation of a giant database of information (qtd. in Keen). This information is under the constant surveillance not only by their friends and family, but also by Facebook that uses it for its own profit; this surveillance also generates sorted information about users and their preferences to be sold to advertising companies (Navratil 52). Facebook changes the ways of communication and interaction of users by simply keeping them under the constant surveillance. Consideration of Facebook’s surveillance will be interesting to look from panoptic perspective invented by Jeremy Bentham in 1791. The Panopticon was a design of a perfect prison, architecture of which allowed “to see constantly and recognize immediately” (Foucault 200). Furthermore, the Panopticon gave the rise of the disciplinary societies; the transformation of mechanisms that allows exercising power not only on a small enclosed institution, but also on bigger social bodies (Foucault 217). In this research paper, I will argue that there is the relevance between surveillance of Facebook and the surveillance in the Panopticon model, and although the concept of the Panopticon is an old phenomenon, it is still applicable in our digital century.
In order to show the relevance between surveillance of Facebook and the surveillance in the Panopticon, I will first introduce the main physical architecture of Panopticon and its purpose. I will then draw parallels between the elements of the design of the Panopticon and Facebook (see fig. 1). I will show that despite the fact that the Panopticon was meant to be an actual real building and Facebook is a virtual digital entity, they have many similarities. Next, I will introduce the idea of Facebook having a technique of disciplining the users, as well as mechanism of shaping their subjectivities, and I will argue that this is based on the panoptic gaze of surveillance and it comes from the roots of Panopticism. And lastly, I will depict that Facebook itself is a platform that collects knowledge from user posts and information for capitalistic purposes, effective performance of work, and increase of productivity, which in their turn are the criteria for tactics of power in economic process of formation of the disciplinary society.


In order to see the connection between Facebook’s surveillance and the surveillance in the Panopticon, first it is important to consider the architectural design of the Panopticon and draw parallels with Facebook. Having in mind the physical design of the Panopticon will help to understand the main elements of Facebook that come from the Panopticon model. As Foucault describes in his book called “Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison,” the Panopticon was designed to have an annular building in periphery and a tower at the center; the building in periphery was divided into separated cells with two windows, one of which was facing the tower and the other one was facing the Sun (Foucault 200). This structure would allow the light to cross from one window of the cell to the other, going exactly into the window of the guard in tower. This architecture creates perfect conditions for the guard to keep inhabitants under the surveillance; guard has an ability to see everything without being seen and the inhabitants get a notion of being constantly watched, even if it is not really constant (Foucault 200). In such a manner, using the Panopticon model, we can link the surveillance made in the Panopticon system and virtual structure of Facebook. Facebook does not have walls that separate the users of every profile — “inhabitants” of every virtual cell. Every user in Facebook shares information about himself or herself, and so instead of the cells and the Sun helping, every user participates in his or her own surveillance by providing the information about himself or herself through sharing. “Facebook’s Newsfeed offers the type of illumination necessary for the Panopticon to function” says Placzek (12). In addition, Facebook does not have a physical tower for constant surveillance either: the metaphorical role of the guard is in hands of Facebook. As Westlake describes, the whole Internet and Facebook are under the “panoptic gaze;” every person who operates in Internet or more specifically in Facebook is “watched or potentially watched” (Westlake 34). The role of the guard  — Facebook, is  to gather and save every post, thought, or other information posted on the walls of users in the huge database of user information in order to constantly analyze and sort those with programed patterns (Navratil 53). Thus, the architectural elements of the Panopticon are implemented in Facebook, but the way it can work in virtual environment. This explains structural similarities; in order to understand how the surveillance in Facebook —  modern invention for entertainment and communication, can be similar to the surveillance in Panopticon and what are the intentions of it, the ideas beyond the Panopticon’s physical building and the concepts acquired from it should be explored.
The constant “gaze” of Facebook that implements a complex mechanism of surveillance over its users works as a technique of disciplining these users. The interface of user interactions in Facebook is amazingly structured in a way that not only Facebook itself can monitor all interactions and posted information, but also the friends and family with whom the users are in connection; as a result the behavior of the users changes. This comes from the ideas of Foucault telling that “anyone may come and exercise in the central tower the function of surveillance,” and so every Facebook user can be a guard “in the tower” (qtd. in Westlake 34). But this feature of Facebook seems more complex than the concept of a guard in the Panopticon. If the hierarchy of surveillance in the Panopticon is vertical – “the watcher is positioned over the watched”, in Facebook in addition to vertical practice of surveillance there is a horizontal or mutual practice of surveillance —  “watcher controls the watcher” (Albrechtslund). By being friends with others, every user in friend groups has a chance to see what others are posting. So, they can be the metaphorical guards who “police Facebook deviants by reporting inappropriate photographs, fake profiles, and vulgar Wall posts. Facebook has an elaborate Code of Conduct and encourages users to click on ‘Report Abuse’ links on every page” as Westlake describes in his article (34). In another example presented by Placzek, a couple complains how it is hard to communicate on Facebook after they added their friends there; they know that they are now watched by their friends and they need to think what they are posting and sharing (8). So, this feature of multiple and complex surveillance is an advanced representation of the concept of surveillance in the Panopticon. This is what Foucault was trying to explain when saying that despite the fact that Bentham’s Panopticon was never built, it was an important point for future formation of disciplinary society; it was a transformation from enclosed disciplines to limitless generalizable mechanisms of Panopticism (217). In this case, Facebook is a representative of a Facebook society and the surveillance over this society acts as a disciplining machine.
Hidden disciplinary techniques of Facebook not only monitor behaviors of users, but together with constant surveillance, they change and shape the forms of users’ subjectivity in the way that is desirable for people in control — in this case Facebook. Due to constant surveillance, Facebook gets ability to exercises its power on the users for its own favor: this power is the one that Facebook acquires from the knowledge that it gathers and analyzes from users’ posts and which in result of this analysis and sorting creates and ingrains new knowledge in the users’ minds. For example, features of Facebook such as “the ‘Like’ button amounts to vote,” by which it makes it possible to consider the shared content popular if it has many likes; thus, “[Facebook] provides the system with a strong tool for social grooming, helping to reinforce popular opinion” by which it changes the way people thought before (Placzek 7). In this case, by doing so, Facebook exercises power on its users by providing a well-designed model to effectively change users by feeding them the new knowledge generated by their collective action, and which in its turn strengthens and expands the exercised power. As Foucault generalizes his ideas, he says that our society is a one of surveillance; due to this surveillance people invest themselves into the process of “accumulation and centralization of knowledge,” which creates a base for power that will be exercised on the same people that were invested in this process (218). This analysis can be transformed to Facebook context; by keeping the users under the constant surveillance and analyzing, Facebook uses its sorted data to gradually train users to like what is popular, what is desirable for Facebook itself. The users get “fabricated” in this Facebook society to turn their entertainment into benefits for the economic conditions of the company.
The surveillance techniques used by Facebook change users subjectivity, making them to be a part of the system that generates capitalistic relations by gathering and using information for their economic benefits (Navratil 28). The knowledge that comes from the constant surveillance and analyzing the information provided voluntarily by users allows Facebook to organize their work efficiently and increase their productivity. As Foucault explains, the evolution of disciplinary society was connected to several historical processes one of which is the economic process; in this process the power needs to be exercised at the lowest cost and the effects of it should be maximized (220). The first criterion of power being exercised at the lower cost is satisfied in the case of Facebook. It turns out that panoptic gaze of Facebook, with its surveillance and information gathering, provides a platform for a successful economic conditions; without hiring employees and paying them for collecting data from surveys or other information gathering technologies, “[Facebook] is basically profiting from somebody else’s volunteer work ” (Navratil 29). So, the knowledge that fosters the power is free, thus the exercise of power is at the lowest cost (low cost of doing the analysis and sorting). But on the other hand, this free content gets analyzed and branded into packages to be sold to third party advertisers, or used by Facebook’s own business activities (Keen). Selling these packages brings a big amount of profit — maximized effects of exercised power (qtd. Navratil 29). Accordingly, the important concept of the Panopticon to increase productivity and economy through exercising power on “inmates” can be transformed and managed in the modern environment of virtual interactions such as Facebook.
In the result of this research, I conclude that the concept of the Panopticon – the perfect prison created by Jeremy Bentham long time ago, is broadened, modified, and still is used in our reality of information age. One of the giant companies – Facebook, practices the panoptic surveillance on its users to gather the knowledge —  posts, personal information, thought, etc., that is analyzed afterward for disciplining the users in the way it is desired. Facebook also is able to change and shape the subjectivities of users; this creates the opportunity for Facebook to gather the content that is more profitable for its own advertising purposes, as well as for further realization of it to third party advertisers. Although the Panopticon had specific physically existing architectural design that was helping to conduct the surveillance, it is still applicable to use its model in information age by transforming its ideas and functions into virtual world using the further ideas of disciplined societies that developed based on the model of the Panopticon. “At the dusk of the industrial and the dawn of the digital age, Bentham’s simple idea of architecture has returned. But history never repeats itself, not identically, at least. What we once saw as a prison is now considered a playground; what was considered pain is today viewed as pleasure” (Keen). Being based on the research made in this paper, it is possible to conclude that we are living in the age of panoptic surveillance and the panoptic control, and that Facebook is very much a representation of the modern Panopticon.
Works Cited
Albrechtslund, Albert. “Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance.” First Monday 13.3 (2008): n. pag. Web. 9 March 2014.
Foucault, Michel. Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Trans. Alan Sheridan. New York: Vintage Books, 1995. Print.
Keen, Andrew. “Your Life Torn Open, essay 1: Sharing is a trap.” Wired. Wired, 3 Feb. 2011. Web. 2 March 2014.
Navratil, Martin. “Panopticon 2.0?Social Sorting Online.” Diss. Masaryk University. 2014. Print.
Placzek, Richard. “The Social Network: Panopticism 2.0.” Academia. PDF file.
Westlake, E. J. “Friend Me if You Facebook: Generation Y and Performative Surveillance.” The MIT Press 52.4 (2008): 21-41. Print.

No comments:

Post a Comment