The Panopticon as the Unexpected Business Model
- Ismael K.G.
- Oct 26, 2019
- 7 min read
This is the fourth of my series of articles relating concepts from two of my top passions: Business and Philosophy. In this post, we’ll discover how a XIX century prison system that never came to fruition has been taken as the paradigm of today’s society and could be that of today’s businesses.
Have you ever been to one of those talks trying to foresee the future of humanity or propose uses for not-yet developed technologies on the improvement of human productivity? If you have (and some can be pragmatic and insightful), there will always be a moment when the atmosphere in the room becomes slightly thicker and denser, as everybody comes to the shared realisation that we might actually be living aspects of those dystopic novels we are told to categorise as fiction. That’s when the trained presenter signals for a basket of kittens to be brought onto stage and the debate can be brought to a positive close. Okay, maybe that last bit doesn’t happen, but, when considering the future, we do wonder about the rise of robotics and artificial intelligence (AI), the effect of social media platforms on real social issues through misinformation, the possibility of technology taking our jobs, the access of third parties to our most personal data. The thing is that robotics and AI have been developing for decades, social media was used as a key tool in the 2016 Vote Leave campaign in the UK, Walmart is already bringing in robots to take on certain jobs, and your personal data, well, once it’s online, it’s up for grabs for advertisers using more sophisticated forms of “micro targeting”. Technology is indeed taking up a growing portion of our lives. Much like the public only noticing now (apparently) that plastic is everywhere, thinking about the future makes us realise just how much of our lives is affected by technology, from calling for a cab and booking a family vacation, to ordering pizza and finding your soulmate. What is being brought to light here is the complex network of, well, stuff surrounding us and being brought closer by technology. It’s the Internet of Things (IoT). It’s this great web of interconnected nodes of reality we cannot grasp or control but which feeds back into our lives through algorithms recommending who to follow to see photos we like, and what jobs to apply for.
The belief that there could exist a force greater than individuals has always been about. Let us not go into ancient mythologies or modern religions, but consider Hobbes’ Leviathan or Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand. Philosophers and thinkers have always tried to understand the role of individuals within the larger context of society and some have focused more on the social contract, giving views of justice and human harmony (more on this in my next post). However, one thinker in particular offers a practical solution that fits within his own much wider and more complex philosophical framework: Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832).
Bentham is the father of Utilitarianism, the moral philosophy whereby actions can be deemed good or bad depending on whether their positive consequences outweigh their negative consequences for the majority of people, or not. It is a more socially conscious form of hedonism – one of the founders of which was Epicurus (341-270 B.C.) – and basically calls for people to think about maximising others’ wellbeing before they act. Lovely. Now, Bentham also came up with a neat idea whereby one central party would be able to monitor and even influence the movements of all those around them through complex communication networks that kept this party hidden from those they watch and order about. As conflicting as Utilitarianism and this notion of an all-seeing and commanding power seem, Bentham was not crazy (not any more than most philosophers). Bentham proposed this approach as a system to manage his prison design called the Inspection House or Panopticon. The idea was simply a tower (“inspection tower”) erected in the middle of a circular wall inside of which would be several stories of prison cells that the warden on duty could watch. The complexity was then in Bentham’s description of “communication tubes” that allowed the prison warden to communicate with the inmates without them seeing the warden. What Bentham expected to happen was for the prisoners to work harder (he thought prisons could be made profitable) and behave better without the need for whips as they would assume that they were being watched at all times (a bit like you behaving online in case your dream employer sees what you share, or George Orwell’s Thought Police, or not using social media to compare large corporations with George Orwell’s Thought Police). It is worth noting the applicability of Bentham’s work, as he proposed an actual architectural design for a specific use – a kind reminder that Philosophy is not always “just” armchair philosophy.
Fast-forward a century and meet Michel Foucault (1926-1984), French philosopher best known for his views on the inseparability of knowledge and power. You know the adage: “knowledge is power.” Foucault did not invent it, but he expanded on it with Bentham’s Panopticon. Foucault thought that the Panopticon was an embodiment of the social structures that govern us today. By watching us and gathering our data, governments gain knowledge, put policies in motion, affect reality and produce new truths. This is the circular view Foucault proposes regarding knowledge and power: applied knowledge is exerted power that confirms we are observed, a thought which ultimately affects how we behave. What we can see in Foucault’s use of the Panopticon as a metaphor is a simplified approach to his much more nuanced conception of power, which he did not find simply came from the top, but which needs to be analysed from the bottom up, considering its diverse sources throughout the intricate networks that abound in human society. Thus, society has an ability to self-regulate, almost, by normalising certain behaviours and practices; and the inspection tower becomes secondary in that the guard no longer exerts all the power Bentham attributed to them. Despite the Panopticon’s intended reason for being and Foucault’s use of it, a crucial aspect of Foucault’s philosophy is that power is constructive and positive, not destructive and negative. This conception arises from his study of the genealogy of societies, through which he finds an evolution from oppressive means of power (e.g.: slavery, death penalties) to a more positive use of power that no longer exerts violence, but supports life. This is what Foucault calls Biopower. And it is the second part of our modern business models.
So, we have seen two major aspects of the Panopticon: its use as a form of surveillance and imposed control, and its interpretation as a social paradigm whereby power is exerted positively on others. Now, let us turn our attention to the modern conception of businesses; particularly, large and established corporations. They gather data on potential customers that is readily available online and analyse it to build more robust and sophisticated marketing strategies. This is such a normal practice that we name it Big Data and see a pretty penny paid for the “Analyst” job title. Even staff can be closely monitored by having electronic badges to badge in and out of work, and sensors to monitor their every move. This is certainly not a new thing, but organisations can now also access the emails and communications sent out by staff from their corporate emails or their desktops, as well as log key strokes – track exactly what you type, no matter the site. This is not as outlandish as it may first seem – the simplest example is financial services providers where compliance is absolutely fundamental. There is a difference between the Panopticon and business here, however – one that makes modern businesses even more sinister – and it lies in the inspection tower. Whilst the Panopticon’s inspection tower clearly showed that somebody at any point could be monitoring you, it is not so with modern technology – there is no enormous Eye or Sauron in the distance that we cannot hide from, but a cloud, a database that gathers data points based on your every motion. The reason may indeed be for legal compliance, but once our eyes are open to this, we cannot help but feel watched both in our professional and personal lives. But as Foucault said, it’s all about power and knowledge, and power is positive.
Legal businesses do not exert power through forms of slavery, and “punishing staff,” thankfully, sounds like an anachronism. Businesses pay their employees for their work, there are rules and regulations set out by the law to protect workers, and benefit packages are there to offer staff something beyond just money – from childcare options to dental care and life insurance, car allowance and discounts of all sorts. Modern employers exert their power – they discipline and normalise certain behaviours – by facilitating and encouraging those behavioural patterns that will result in the most productive workforce possible. And Foucault’s view that power has become more positive throughout time still holds true, as we see wellbeing initiatives to raise awareness about mental health in the workplace or the offer of employee assistance programmes and gym membership discounts to staff gain traction. And through the analysis of that Big Data – from market trends and staff surveys –, employers can gain an understanding of what their staff find most motivating and increase their influence on employees for the betterment of business outcomes and, through evolving approaches to industry, as it learns its role in the wider world, for the improvement of society at large.
From the architectural design of a prison, we have discovered an unexpected model for modern society and business. We have seen how an XVIII-XIX century philosopher practically proposed the structures for dystopian societies and we have noted the similarities between that Panopticon and the modern world through Foucault. But, beyond the lack of control over our personal information and the intangible, invisible network of “communication tubes” that carry our data to unidentifiable analysts, we have found the compromise in more people-centric business models. And I use the word “compromise” because paying through personal data – our own privacy – can only be counteracted by compromise, as it is a great price to pay. We could alternatively speak of hope in organisations taking on even more social responsibilities. However, we might be too aware of the current state of affairs to think of that happening any time soon…
Anyway, here’s a lovely basket of kittens for you to enjoy! Thanks for reading!
For a brilliant introduction to Epicurus’ philosophy, have a listen to episode 10 of the Philosophize This! podcast
In my search for inspiration for this article, I came across this humorous piece comparing Jeremy Bentham’s original Utilitarianism to John Stuart Mill’s approach. Do have a read!
Comments