Photo by Alejandro de Roa on Pexels
In the 18th century, Jeremy Bentham designed a prison surveillance system with architectural intelligence. In this design, rings of the prison were built around a central watchtower that emitted light outwards. This allowed a single guard to observe all inmates without the inmates knowing they were being watched. His system predicted that the possibility of being watched improved and changed behavior.
In the 20th century, Michel Foucault reinterpreted this conception as a metaphor for social, internalized surveillance that no longer requires a tower. He stated that in modern life, apps, platforms, and institutions observe without constant visibility. So, people are always putting on a facade because they feel as if they are always watched. Foucault hypothesized that if people were to act truly without putting on a front for viewers, they would act much worse. A guard is no longer external or needed because individuals monitor themselves.
Modern society has recreated Bentham’s Panopticon without walls and no longer for criminals alone. It disciplines everyone. The cost is not just privacy, but authenticity, mental health, and democratic freedom.
This surveillance became invisible as we transformed from prison to phone. We shifted from physical observation, such as guards, watchtowers, and cameras, to algorithmic observations, like likes, views, and data collection. For instance, social media metrics shape user behavior and self-presentation in order to be portrayed as what the creator wants. Additionally, school, workplace, and government monitoring have become increasingly normalized. In all, this expresses how visibility is asymmetric—platforms see users, and users rarely ever see who is watching them.
However, the panopticon extends past social media. Just walking down the street, people move through performative motions. The presence of others causes people to want to be seen in a certain light and will adjust their behavior to fit that desired image. Actions are adjusted not because they are natural, but because they are being seen.
People curate versions of themselves based on imagined audiences. Their fear of judgment leads them into conformity, silence, and performative morality. Relating to Bentham’s Panopticon, this demonstrates how power is most effective when it’s internalized. Society, as individuals, have become both the prisoners and the guards.
But does surveillance make us better, as Foucault hypothesized, or smaller? While Foucault thought that without observation, people would behave much worse, constant monitoring suppresses experimentation, dissent, and vulnerability. Moral behavior driven by fear is not ethical, and it hinders our full potential. Physically, withholding these standards can lead to anxiety, burnout, and even loss of stress. To avoid judgment, people take fewer risks and lose creativity.
Yet, who controls the tower? The modern watchtower is not neutral. Platforms, corporations, and institutions set norms and incentives. Also, on a more personal level, the social groups, peers, and colleagues around you cultivate a specific limiting environment. A lack of transparency appears, and algorithms and social circles decide visibility and punishment. This sort of power without accountability mirrors Bentham’s original imbalance.
We must reclaim this privacy as a civic value, not a luxury. Cultural resistance can take the form of valuing offline spaces, ejecting performative outrage, and constant visibility. Structural solutions include data regulation, algorithm transparency, and digital literacy as a form of self-defense.
We were not meant to live under constant observation. A society that never looks away cannot truly see. But really, who are you when no one is watching, and do you still get to be that person?
Be First to Comment