Have you ever wondered how you control yourself because of the possibility
that others might be watching you? You feel almost like a "free prisoner"
in the sense that you are not physically incapacitated but mentally in
private practice some of your fundamental freedoms, such as the first
amendment (or equivalent constitutions in Europe ), and some things you may
say or write would have disastrous consequences for your career and private
life?
In any case, welcome to the "mental prison" which is the panoptic version
of 2017. I will guide you through some historical principles and current
features.
Pantopticon as a concrete way to monitor people
The panoptic model was designed by the British utilitarian philosopher
Jeremy Bentham in the late 18th century. The construction implies that all
detainees (Pan) can be viewed (opticon) by a single officer.
As the scientist left leaning French Michel Foucault points out in a
chapter of his book Discipline and Punish (1975), the process has been
linked to the economic and material efficiency. It is cheaper if one person
can simultaneously monitor almost all detainees instead of having several
guards on duty.
Thus, the model was indeed a building in the very concrete prison with
concrete dimensions of monitoring, but few prisons were actually built in
that particular way. Instead, it was the case that much of modern prisons
and mental institutions, were influenced by the model pantopicon some
extent, but most were built without a circular center in a horizontal and
decentralized map mode with symmetric corridors where inmates live.
But some were in fact more or less copied Bentham s contours and still
(while others were demolished). Koepelgevangenis [of the dome prison] in
Arnhem, the Netherlands, was built in 1886. An American example is
Stateville Penitentiary near Joliet, Illinois, built between 1916-1924.
& Nbsp;
Pantopticon as a symbol for the actual control and self-control
After the birth of more complex control systems, such as surveillance
cameras, physical dimension of the panopticon has become obsolete. we can
speak instead of a general trend of "panopticism" in modern Western
society. What happened in parallel with the birth of the so-called
bio-politics, the desire to control the way a population of thinking and
acting in a greater extent than in the early days. This is not because
human nature has changed, but because of modernity comes with improved
technology, together with the processing of information faster and faster
human migration.
Modern man is more free indeed in some respects. It can go to another
country and start a new business and even become a foreign citizen. With
more disposable income and standards of living, it increased a lot of real
estate agency.
However, it is also really or potentially controlled by others and himself
in a greater extent. modern ideologies like fascism and communism, which
restricted individual freedom (at least in wartime), have disappeared,
while supporters of liberalism, neoconservatism and the cultural Marxism
continued to control people through the digital surveillance and subtle
self-control mechanisms in the post-modern era.
Therefore, we can say that the control occurs in two main ways: monitoring
the state (police and army), and self-control by the citizen himself.
If you are a real threat, the state will intervene (which is often a good
thing). As German law professor Carl Schmitt, describes in his book
Politische Theologie (1922), and the Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben in
his State of exception Book (2005), a truly sovereign state dictates the
exception of the common law times of crisis policy. The term "legal civil
war" includes this particular dimension of law and politics.
After the USA Patriot Act was implemented October 26, 2001, while General
Counsel have a legitimate right to anyone "take care" which seems to
endanger US security.
If you are not an existential real threat, and therefore a real enemy
according to political distinction and terminology of Carl Schmitt, but
said or written something that goes against the current ideology and the
media, social media or their assistants within the population intervene do
the job.
Thus, the "panopticon" of today is not necessarily a centralized unit, but
rather a piecemeal supervision (more or less related to the establishment),
which uses digital platforms and punish their political opponents.
As ROK has covered extensively, verbal dissent can lead to what I would
describe as almost ostracism, which means people are deprived of their
livelihoods, at least in the middle to higher professions such as law,
journalism, academia and education, to be & # racists, 8221; & # 8221
sexists; or even anti-globalization. Even small private companies can take
a shot after responding to their learning masters conditioning rhetoric
Pavlov watchdogs.
It is like a soft totalitarian ideology. Instead of sending them to gulags
or expel citizens (eg real ostracism), the fear of being deprived of income
and / or social status are the main incentives to keep in check.
For this reason, the wise man does not say all that he has on his mind
public & # 8221; (The distinction between public and private are fuzzy
effect in current times). Self-control is generally a good thing, but when
it becomes a tool to serve an ideology that we do not necessarily agree it
is a bad end and is problematic in itself and in flagrant opposition to the
First Amendment. It is about assessing the consequences, but regardless of
how you choose to act, you are still a prisoner free in the world, or at
least national panopticon.
Conclusion
Monitoring and self-control can be good things in many ways, and I
encourage anyone to say, write or do something stupid just to make a point,
but these processes have taken a strong position on an important part
of 'West.
More: Beware of oversight from state
No comments:
Post a Comment