Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
Panopticon and surveillance explain in bentham and panopticon, panopticon, surveillance and modernity and ethical requalification of surveillance and panopticon.
Typology: Study notes
1 / 53
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Introduction The main subject of this dissertation is the formulation of the most known project of Jeremy Bentham, the Panopticon penitentiary, and its relation to modern surveillance. In the first chapter, we will analyse how the panopticon was originally conceived by taking into account both its structure and its ideological basis. Indeed, we will consider the most significant changes that the penitentiary had undergone during the years, with particular attention to issues such as the infliction of punishment, solitary confinement and the value of economy. Secondly, there will be an account of how scholars responded to the Benthamite project, since the reactions were different and each one highlighted a different facet of the panopticon; in particular, Foucault’s interpretation will be thoroughly discussed, as he deeply influenced the image that the panoptic prison assumed in light of modernity and hidden relations of power. Indeed, the panopticon has become the synonym of surveillance and social control. This leads us to explore and define the main elements that compose surveillance. In the second chapter, the contribution of new information and communication technologies is taken into consideration in order to explain the deep changes in society: indeed, surveillance is a product of this latest process. Since modern technologies help monitoring most of the people and gaining personal information about them, modern societies are defined not only as information societies but also as surveillance societies. Thus, scholars have tried to get a complete understanding to this newfound phenomenon by giving different accounts about networks, databases, information and so on. Moreover, in order to analyse surveillance practices in an exhaustive way, the concept of privacy is discussed and its extent verified for confirming whether it is an effective countermeasure to surveillance. In conclusion, privacy will not turn out to be the best means to confront surveillance and, as a consequence, there will be the need to take into account a different perspective: this entails reshaping surveillance to reconcile its Janus-faced nature characterised by both care and control. Eventually, the last considerations will lead us to underline Bentham’s ethics, mainly consisting in his interpretation of pain and pleasure, his definition of interests and his desire to implement social reforms. Indeed, the utilitarian philosopher can contribute to contemporary surveillance in the form of a model that expresses ethical and democratic considerations, since surveillance and the panopticon are being increasingly interrelated. Since surveillance must not necessarily be linked to social control and abuse, the aim of this dissertation is to purpose an innovative and sustainable panopticon, which can positively influence surveillance societies without underestimating their risks and promote a dialogue between institutions and persons through the reintroduction of an ethical stance.
CHAPTER I Bentham and the Panopticon In this first chapter, the object of analysis will principally be the Panopticon prison as Jeremy Bentham envisioned it; consequently, the dissertation will also include the further modifications and changes that Inspection House underwent, since the Panopticon was a life-long project and it evolved in terms of scope and values. After describing the functioning of the panoptical penitentiary, we shall turn to the different perspectives that scholars have reserved to the Benthamite architectural work: first of all, Himmelfarb’s interpretation, which is deeply linked to the philosopher’s personality; secondly, the Panopticon’s shift to being the centre of bureaucracy, as Hume underlines; finally, Foucault’s vision of the Panopticon as the pinnacle of modernity and modern social control. With the latter interpretation, the Benthamite project will be connected to a darker twist of everyday life and will become the synonym of surveillance.
1. Jeremy Bentham and the origins of the Panopticon Jeremy Bentham has undoubtedly been one of the most significant philosophers throughout the XVIII century, with noteworthy contributions in several fields. Contemporary scholars recognize him as the father of utilitarianism and pioneer of legal positivism. Nevertheless, the Panopticon or The Inspection House is the Benthamite opus that elicited the largest number of dissenting opinions and it is still considered full of controversy and ambiguity. Indeed, the project can be interpreted either as an architectonic concept leaving no room for human dignity or an attempt to reform prisons and establish a universally-recognized educational model. Following the last assumption, this penitentiary model reveals an innovative purpose in favour of prisoners’ rehabilitation, which was a ground- breaking notion for the penal justice of that time. Thus, the panopticon is a multifaceted subject which fully expresses a utilitarian attitude in terms of maximization of happiness and avoidance of pain. When elaborating the invention, the philosopher found a means to apply previous considerations that had long been in his mind, the principles of utility as criteria for institutions and government. At the same time, the climate of thoughts and assumptions dominating the Enlightenment severely influenced Bentham in the elaboration of his work. In his framework, all individuals were responsible for their own actions and were assumed to be potentially rational, not subject to invisible or subconscious laws. Consequently, according to Janet Semple
2. The Panopticon’s structure In this section, the content of both the Letters and the Postscripts will be analysed; firstly, the physical changes in the panopticon’s architectural structure will be reported, in order to shed light on ‘the prison-keeper’s dilemma’. Thus, since the penitentiary’s design needed to express the Benthamite ideological stance, it will be noticed how the project was modified not only on a structural level but also on a conceptual one. Indeed, Bentham explicated his main ideas through physical and concrete means such as the walls, the windows, the number of convicts, the activities that had to be done etc. within the panopticon penitentiary. Finally, a specific vision regarding issues such as the infliction of punishment, the notion of criminal mind, solitary confinement and economy emerges.
The basic purpose of the Panopticon was to allow an efficient observation of the inmates: this task was enabled by the well-known structure. In the Letters , the shape was to be circular, with cells all divided from one another that extended around the circumference and towards the centre. The height of the building was variable, depending on the number of convicts. At the core, there would be an inspection area of galleries and lodge, disjoined from the main building and linked to the outer perimeter only by stairways, none of the ceilings or floors coinciding. Between the inspector’s lodge and the cells there would have been vacant space, defined the annular area (Bentham and Božovič 1995, 35). The peculiar feature was that, from the central tower, the contractor could easily watch over the prisoners while remaining invisible. Furthermore, in each cell there would have been a large window facing the outward circumference in order to light the whole structure, whereas the inward circumference would have been structured by an iron grating so as to cut off each prisoner from the view of the other inmates. In fact, the partitions were to be carried on a few feet beyond the grating into the intermediate area: in this way, the gaoler was able to see the convicts, but not vice versa. Lastly, while communication between prisoners was eliminated, inspector and criminals were able to talk through ‘conversation tubes’ reaching the governor’s lodge. Yet, assuming that the omnipresent governor was always exercising surveillance on them, Bentham expected that this “new mode of obtaining power of mind over mind, in a quantity hitherto without example” (Bentham and Božovič 1995 , 31) would grant an efficient production and the rectification of criminals’ misbehaviour in order to avoid punishment. Thus, the Letters ’ main contribution had been to bring about Bentham’s ideas on social reformation and utilitarian principles into a concrete project, defined by a precise type of structural project. Its development was dictated by the inefficiency and inhumane conditions in Britain’s penal regime, so
that the panopticon penitentiary could substitute the current penal system and allow for a decrease in the cost of prisons; in this way, the convicted criminals would be subject to a disciplinary regime based on the maxim that the more strictly we are watched, the better we behave. However, since the Letters were written during Bentham’s stay in Russia, they were revised once the philosopher came back to England and were followed by two Postscripts , where one can witness an evolution in Bentham’s thought.
The first architectural sketch was modified in a subsequent moment in order to further elaborate the details of the building and transmit the core of Bentham’s ideas and change of opinion regarding a series of pressing issues. Indeed, considering a structural point of view, the main adjustment regarded the governor’s habitation: while in the Letters the central lodge would be occupied by the inspector’s family, in the Postscripts there was the introduction of living quarters per suggestion of architect Willey Reveley: as a consequence, a central area would be opened out to light and air, originating a “dead part” in the building which would be employed for passages and staircases, a vestry, an organ, a clock tower and a belfry (Semple 2003, 118). Nevertheless, as an all-seeing building, the gaze wat to be of paramount importance and its effect was guaranteed by the “inspection-lantern”. Since the prison-keeper was also the book-keeper, Bentham faced the so-called “prison-keeper dilemma”: if there was enough light in the lodge for the inspector to manage the books, this would inevitably end up in the convicts being able to see him from the cells; vice versa, if the light was not sufficient, the governor would be unable to keep his books even if inspection would be successfully granted. The dilemma was resolved by resorting to a lantern in the Postscripts : according to Bentham’s scheme, the lantern was to be shaped like two short-necked funnels joined together at their necks, it was pierced in certain places and pieces of smoked glass, through which the inspector looks, are inserted in the wholes. Consequently, there was sufficient light in the lantern for the inspector to keep the book, but inspection was still granted, as prisoners could not perceive and determine when they were actually watched (Bentham and Božovič 1995 , 15-16). Indeed, the central inspection lodge remained the pivotal feature both architecturally and administratively. Architecturally, along with the lodge’s alterations to solve the “prison-keeper dilemma”, the top sloping walls screened the interior from the view of the upper cells, while the bottom formed the room screened from the lower cells. Bentham also envisioned a system of numerous galleries, stairs and passageways that had a double purpose: keep the prisoners under constant observation and protect the wanderers from the inmates (Semple 2003, 118-119); in fact, the
that the greater the apparent evil of the penalty, the less the real evil needed be (Semple 2003, 31) in virtue of the maximization of happiness through less pain possible. Furthermore, in Principles of Penal Law , Bentham already suggests that productive prisoners in the panopticon would only be encouraged by the prospect of reward, since “the labour obtained by the force of fear is never equal to that which is obtained by the hope of reward” (cited in Semple 2003, 27). The idea was to automate a disciplinary system. Nevertheless, the panopticon was not taken in consideration solely as a project expressing utilitarian principles, but had also stirred apprehension and suggested a lack of humanity when Bentham defined it “a mill for grinding rogues honest” (cited in Semple 2003, 152). This contrasting image is further fostered by the structure of the panopticon itself, which was studied and revised relentlessly by Bentham in the years between the Letters and the Postscripts , along with a Proposal to the government in order to implement the project. Apart from the general structure, the philosopher also envisioned the convicts’ routine, labour and future expectations in an extreme detailed way, from their state of cleanliness up to their management and spiritual redemption. Bentham gave attention and put effort on every single element that was going to form the greater picture, the Inspection House.
All these considerations regarding inspection can be summarized in five main principles: first, the prisoners were watched by authority to ensure discipline and good behaviour; secondly, the governor would watch the actions of his subordinates; thirdly, these subordinates would watch the governor; fourthly, the inmates would spy on each other; and fifthly, the whole structure would be thrown open to the public (Semple 2003, 140). In other words, the principle of inspection worked on multiple levels, channelling a profound desire for a transparent management within the structure. In order to achieve these principles, the panopticon had to accommodate three fundamentals: lenity, severity and economy; only through these propositions the panopticon could reach its essential objectives, namely imprisonment, deterrence and reformation. Lenity suggests a more humane approach to the prisoners’ detainment, according to which criminals should not be starved, overworked, chained, beaten, and in general suffer from the governor’s mistreatment. This was granted through various means, such as sanctions on the gaoler for every actual death of convicts under his custody per a specific insurance scheme. By the second rule, severity, a felon’s condition should not to be made more suitable than that of the poorest class of
subjects in terms of freedom and living conditions. Finally, the third principle, economy, was considered the primary rule and in Postscript II Bentham stated that: Saving the regard due to life, health, bodily ease, proper instruction, and future provision, economy ought, in every point of management, to be the prevalent consideration. No public expense ought to be incurred, or profit or saving rejected, for the sake either of punishment or of indulgence (Bentham and Bowring 1843, 123). Thus, for the utilitarian philosopher, economy was the key feature of the panopticon, since it was the necessary prerequisite for the profits that would make the prison viable. In consideration of the fact that the whole system depended on it, economy was seen as the cardinal virtue of all administration. In light of such accounts, the panopticon had to be financially viable and the key to economy lay in contract management, that Bentham devised in order to grant security and connect interest with duty, the pillars of the whole project. The governor was also defined as contractor in this type of arrangement, in which he would be motivated by “the principles of reward and punishment”, for whatever he gained in profit would be his reward, and whatever loss he suffered would be his punishment. Thus, the contractor would be motivated by something more reliable than love of power or love of reputation, namely love of money. The contractor’s reward would reflect the success of his management: the more successful, the more money he would make. In this way, duty and interest are indissolubly linked (Schofield 2009, 78). Consequently, contract management was the very heart of the panopticon and demonstrates Bentham’s insistence in applying modern free-market ideology. As he writes in the Letters : I would do the whole by contract. I would farm out the profits…to him who, being in other respects unexceptionable, offered the best terms (Bentham and Božovič 1995, 51). The settlement envisioned a governor/contractor who would appoint all subordinates and decide on the details of the prisoners’ regime, regulating their work and imposing discipline. Moreover, he would choose the trades he considered to be most lucrative (Schofield 2009, 78). Following this scheme, Bentham argued in favour of “interest” management on three grounds: it would be more economical; it would avoid creating a new pyramid of salaried places; but, above all, it would be more critically scrutinized (Semple 2003, 137). Consequently, the panopticon’s success would depend principally on the profitability of prisoners’ hard labour, which would be ensured by the contractor: the convicts would be involved in laborious employments for the most part of the day. Thus, work was the source of profit of the governor as well as the starting point for reformation.
relationship between master and convict was mutually advantageous. According to Bentham’s arrangement in Postscript II , the ex-convict could either be enlisted in military service in the army, the navy or the East India Company; an alternative would rely on some responsible householder willing to put up £50 as surety for good behaviour (Semple 2003, 161). Despite the favourable conditions and future benefits that the panopticon assured, the convicts were deprived of one of the most absolute goods for a human being, namely freedom. So, while convicts would enjoy a series of ‘luxuries’ for that time, Bentham himself recognized the deep amount of suffering this situation implied: Should I like to be in their case? What man at liberty could answer otherwise than in negative. They are in health. They suffer neither hunger thirst nor cold; true; but not a moment of their time is at their own disposal (…) there is not a moment of their time during which they are not either at work or under discipline (Semple 2003, 114). Furthermore, the lack of freedom would be aggravated and ensured by the absolute inspection of prisoners. The feeling of being constantly observed by a presence who could see without being seen is represented by the central lodge, that is “the heart which gives life and motion to the artificial body” (Bentham and Božovič 1995 , 109). In other words, the governor is not only the constant gaze dominating the project, but it is the entity that triggers an educational and reformative system (Welzbacher 2016, 77). By its very definition, the term “panopticon” recalls a tool that “sees everything”: instead of investigating natural phenomena of the outside world, Bentham takes this device and points it toward men. As a result, the emblem of the inspection house is an ever-open eye encircled by the words “Mercy, Justice, Vigilance”. This symbol soon represented men’s self- determination, the middle-class individual’s emancipation and overcoming the old system (Welzbacher 2016, 72). In sum, the panopticon was structured in such a way that Bentham’s ideas could be instantly visualized with the building. In other words, the Inspection House incarnated the philosopher’s Weltanschauung, an architectural project and the very embodiment of his own ideology at the same time. Although he lavished attention on structural detail, the building itself would result of second importance with respect to the scheme of management (Semple 2003, 116). Thus, Bentham deeply desired to transmit that management was the main aim, while the construction of the building per se was among one of the main means to reach this end. In order to implement this scheme, men were stripped of all privacy. Whereas the idea of constant surveillance could certainly be unsettling, and Bentham was aware of it, the panopticon and its central inspection principle would have multifarious benefits:
Morals reformed—health preserved—industry invigorated—instruction diffused—public burthens lightened—Economy seated, as it were, upon a rock—the Gordian knot of the Poor-Laws not cut, but untied—all by a simple idea in Architecture! (Bentham and Božovič 1995, 31). Despite the revolutionary character of the Benthamite project during that particular period, following interpretations took into account other facets of the panopticon and its creator so as to allocate the penitentiary within a wider picture.
3. Scholarship on Bentham In this section, a number of scholars’ thoughts are summarised to give a complete analytical background on Bentham’s panopticon. In fact, there are several interpretations of the Benthamite opus, such as Himmelfarb’s account of the panopticon which revolves around the philosopher’s personality and his personal crave for economic gain; still, authors like Hume focused more on the panopticon as the centre of bureaucracy, considering the modern mechanisms of administration; finally, authors such as Ignatieff fostered a rather worrying image of the panopticon penitentiary, which becomes the centre of modernity itself. The latter interpretation was popularized in particular due to Foucault’s contribution in “ Discipline and Punish ”, where the panopticon is described as the exemplary mechanism to spread power in capillary trend throughout major institutions and business. Nevertheless, scholars like Semple challenged this view and claimed that Foucault deeply underestimated the humanitarian attempt that was in place during Bentham’s time.
In “ The Haunted House of Jeremy Bentham ”, Gertrude Himmelfarb examines the Panopticon according to the philosopher’s personality and the central importance of the penitentiary in his life. Indeed, Bentham is described as obsessed towards his most cherished project: this was demonstrated by the fact that the philosopher fought with the Parliament for decades to realize the inspection house plan and establish it in a more concrete way with respect to his writings. Thus, Himmelfarb’s starting point for her critique is the scheme devised by Bentham and the presence of a contract manager, who was the absolute and omniscient figure within the project; the scholar underlines the fact that the utilitarian philosopher would have played himself this role. Even if this touch were lacking, “one would be tempted to assume psychological identification” (Himmelfarb 1968, 58). According to Himmelfarb, the panopticon is the best means to implement economic exploitation of restricted groups for the monetary advancement of society in general and of the keeper in particular. Thus, following this interpretation, economy is the sine qua non and the Inspection House constitutes a rather ruthless get-rich-quick scheme: Himmelfarb bases these assumptions on the Postscripts ’
One can safely argue that Bentham recognized the dynamic character of bureaucracy and, for this reason, he is considered to be one of the fathers of modern science of public administration. Thus, Hume’s work in “ Bentham and Bureaucracy ” facilitates comprehending that Bentham rejected the notion of government as an organic characteristic of society, closely related to a population’s particular history and culture; on the contrary, for Bentham, government was a machine to calculate and obtain the greatest happiness for those involved in the governmental process in the most reliable way. From this account, governmental institutions should be organised in order to grant maximum efficiency in terms of economic gains even though it was not the sole motive; consequently, according to Hume, the only method for accomplishing such a system was the “absolute supremacy of the legislature over the executive” (Semple 2003, 242-243). Taking into account these conceptions, the panopticon becomes the pivotal point in Bentham’s philosophy, since it summarises and materialises his main thoughts regarding administration, the role of government and the construction of a democratic and rational society. Moreover, the panopticon encompasses a theory of organization that anticipates XX century’s ideas of scientific management, since it introduces notions such as reward, production economics, inspection and the connexion between duty and interest. Nevertheless, Hume argues that when “the executive, in defiance of Parliament’s wishes had deliberately blocked the scheme” (Hume 1974, 36-54) Bentham started his more hostile criticism on misrule, influence, despotism and the administrative power of the executive. Thus, Hume reconciles Bentham’s perseverance on contract management in the panopticon plan with his later view that government might become an efficient administrative instrument, since contract was suitable for that stage in social progress (Semple 2003, 6). However, despite the effort to give a consistent interpretation of the panopticon as the centre of modern bureaucracy, Hume underestimates the radical character that Bentham developed later on in life: in fact, the scholar takes into sole consideration the early writings of the philosopher, leaving a void for a complete understanding. Thus, Hume’s study of the development of Bentham’s ideas on administration fails to fully deal with the scope of the later theory of democracy (Rosen 2006, 578). A more comprehensive account of the panopticon in relation to Bentham’s ideology was given by Ignatieff and Foucault, who deeply influenced and changed the contemporary conception of the inspection house.
In “ A Just Measure of Pain ”, Michael Ignatieff allocates the panopticon within the history of British penal history and agrees with the majority of commentators that Bentham’s architectural project
constituted a new form of power in the late XVIII century. The scholar reports that the Panopticon represents a clear rupture between an ancient and a modern regime of power: the former is follows a paternalistic trend, characterised by a weak state and reliance on physical terror to maintain order, while the latter consists of a strong state, controlling society through discipline of the mind rather than body (Werrett 1999, 2). According to Ignatieff, the panopticon becomes the emblem of modern power because it is “the most haunting symbol of the disciplinary enthusiasm of the age” (Ignatieff 1978, 109). The scholar carries on an analysis through a dispassionate point of view, which describes Bentham as one of the most prominent exponents of this new thinking; he was one of the commentators who fostered a vision of the panopticon as the centre not only of bureaucracy, but of modernity itself. Thus, Bentham’s project becomes a suitable mechanism to imprison and to spread a new type of power: indeed, Ignatieff strongly believes that there is an interdependent relation between Benthamite democracy and social control; as he underlines: Bentham’s two personae – the advocate of parliamentary reform, and the publicist for the Panopticon – were not contradictory, but complementary (Ignatieff 1978, 109). However, Ignatieff was not the only academic who attributed a negative connotation to this “mill”, which resembled a technological device to subjugate men in a silent way (Semple 2003, 152). In the XX century, Michel Foucault popularized the idea of the panopticon as the epitome of social control in modern times: what was an innovative and influential approach to prison architecture in the XVIII century, became the seed of biopolitics. The panopticon was not just considered for its original structure and utility, but, for Foucault, principles of surveillance, observation and correcting unwanted behaviour did not stop at the prison gates; discipline run throughout modern life, into the organization of schools, hospitals, and businesses, making for a “carceral society” under a managerial gaze (Giddens & Sutton 2013, 835-36). In Discipline and Punish (1975), Foucault writes a genealogical study of the history of punishment, concerned with the emergence of the discipline of penology and the associated predominance of prison as an instrument for punishment. In his account, he dedicates a whole chapter on “Panopticism”, since Foucault recognized the Benthamite project as the prototype for a menacing instrument in a new physics of power: he notices that during the XVIII century there was a shift from punishment of the body to discipline directed at the mind; consequently, power had become invisible and the subjects constituted the spectacle of rulers. The panopticon is the emblem of a new type of power, which makes possible to mechanically create a real subjection from a fictitious relation. As the French author underlines:
Consequently, many scholars were influenced by Foucault’s account of the panopticon and Bentham’s legacy was somewhat regarded as the embodiment of social control through institutions in order to manipulate and discipline the deviant individual. Because it is not possible to know when the eye of inspection would be upon the subject, discipline is fully internalized: the subject contributes to his own subjection. In the Foucauldian world, subjects become objects of a pitiless examination and manipulation to such a degree that they themselves have been persuaded to become the agents of their own subjection (Semple 2003, 9, 144).
Therefore, according to Foucault, mechanism-discipline is enforced with the support of complex systems of surveillance. But commentators such as Janet Semple argue that surveillance is a tool of administration like any other; condemnation, implied or explicit, of Bentham must rest on his ideas, not on the spectres raised by the sinister resonances in minds sensitized by the horrors of the XX century events (Semple 2003, 144). Foucault denounces, in ethical terms, individuals like Bentham who struggled to reform the gaol, because the outcome was a carceral institution of total control: as a consequence, they are inevitably blamed for the consequences of their actions, not for their expressed intentions. Despite these harsh considerations, in the context of the ruthless brutality of its time the panopticon was essentially humanitarian (Semple 2003, 132-33, 314). Thus, in Bentham’s Prison , Semple strongly argues that Foucault’s concerning depiction of the panopticon as a mechanism to subjugate humans has led him to underestimate the sincerity of Bentham’s intentions: the panopticon is best seen as an instrumented invented by a “realistic, kindly man looking for ways to ameliorate the lot of the poor and the outcast in his own time” (Semple 2003, 314 - 315). By means of the inspection principle, the philosopher fostered the concept of a philanthropic prison where the rules of utility and efficiency would dominate and ensure the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Thus, it is no surprise that Semple underlines that Foucault was not able to comprehend Bentham’s theory of government and “in making him an exemplar of modern subjection he has done hum a grave injustice” (Semple 2003, 321); indeed, she goes on and adds that: By an odd irony, Bentham shared many of Foucault’s fears; fear of secret, furtive power, fear of oppression, and fear of delusive language. He also shared his insight that people might collaborate in their own subjection. Foucault attempted to turn transparency itself against Bentham (Semple 2003, 321). Finally, Foucault’s contribution has been undeniable and added a new twist to our understanding of what modern life implies: his work still remains significant with regards to a darker side of modernity that has always accompanied its progressive face. Because of this, Bentham’s panopticon has been
taken as an example in formulating concepts such as “surveillance society” and suggesting an enhanced type of surveillance, with the aid of new technologies. Nevertheless, most of the times these accounts inspire fear and revulsion, while disregarding Bentham’s original intent of moral reformation and only focusing on images of ceaseless vigilance. But is not there a way to reconcile the innovations of the XXI century with the intent of co-operation between “rulers” and “ruled” of the XVIII century?
4. Conclusion: Bentham’s contribution to contemporary thought Thus, Bentham’s project had been a pioneering idea during his time and it also influenced contemporary thought: the possibility of building a structure that could be used as a template to reform society is certainly alluring. The panopticon had undergone a gradual change on both physical and ideological grounds, since the philosopher modified it in order to fulfil at best the principles of utility. Thus, the panopticon’s scope and values, such as maximization of overall happiness and avoidance of pain, were settled in such a way as to also grant a more humane approach toward the convicts and optimize costs at the same time. Indeed, Bentham devised a building which could channel his thoughts and considerations about institutions and government in a concrete way. Indeed, the utilitarian plan epitomises both a compliance to Enlightenment assumptions and willingness to deeply revolutionize the dominant thought: hence, human beings are responsible for their actions and do not lose their status as members of society, in the case that they become criminals. Despite the interpretations given to the panopticon during the XVIII century and the leverage of Bentham’s psyche on the penitentiary, the panopticon addresses issues that had not been previously tackled in such a solid way, like the extent of punishment and contract management. Still, later analyses on the subject revealed a more worrying aspect of the panopticon: among these, Foucault’s interpretation is certainly the most popular and powerfully resonates across contemporary society. With the contributions of following scholars, the panopticon has become the synonym of surveillance: nowadays surveillance is principally linked to modern technologies which help monitoring most of the people and gaining personal information about them. Regardless of the numerous benefits to which innovative technologies lead, surveillance is thought only as means to achieve an Orwellian government dominated by unprincipled control. In conclusion, in order to merge and harmonise Bentham’s reformative considerations with this unsettling perspective, we need to analyse first the relationship between surveillance, technologies and society itself and, eventually, turn to the philosopher’s ethical reflections.
