Mõnele võib tunduda, et panoptikonist on räägitud liiga palju. Võib-olla. Kuid sellest mõtlemisest ei saa vist kunagi küllastuda, sest aines on tuumakas. Lisaks tundub mulle, et nii valitsemise praktikad üldisemalt kui praktikad mitmetes avalikes organisatsioonides keerlevad üsna ümber nende põhimõtete, mida M. Foucault panoptikoni näitel kuulsaks kirjutas. Siinviidatu ongi seetõttu hästi kasulik lugemine, et viib lugeja tagasi nii Benthami esialgsete tekstide juurde kui juhatab edasi ning just esialgsed ideed võivad olla midagi sellist, mis kutsuvad esile värskeid mõtteid.
Resembling nothing so much as the shell of some phantasmagorical mollusk, Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon (Figure 1) has become one of the icons of modernity, the emblem of a social order defined by surveillance and discipline (Boyne, 2000; Brunon-Ernst, 2012a). For this we can thank Michel Foucault, whose Discipline and Punish established the Panopticon as “the diagram of a mechanism of power reduced to its ideal form” and “a figure of political technology” ramifying far beyond crime and punishment (1995: 205). Now, a legion of critics tell us, panopticons are everywhere: schools and barracks, but also online retail and reality shows, personal fitness and self-help programs.
Yet Foucault’s Panopticon and Bentham’s Panopticon are not the same thing, the former a somewhat selective reading of the latter.
Vähe tähelepanu saanud aspekt:
Bentham was uncharacteristically straightforward on this point—“I would do the whole by contract” (1843b: 47)—and it was a point to which he accorded the utmost importance.2 Janet Semple calls the contract “the heart of the panopticon project,” because it yokes the jailer’s duty to their self-interest, for Bentham the only way to ensure that duties were fulfilled
This essay reintegrates the contract-Panopticon into the account of “neoliberal penality” developed by Loı¨c Wacquant and especially Bernard E. Harcourt: a dualism of the market, whose natural order must be allowed to function undisturbed, and the penal sphere, where aggressive state intervention is required.
Nii see algas:
In 1791, Jeremy Bentham published a pamphlet entitled Panopticon, modestly promising “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!”
Midagi keskkonnakriminoloogidele ja institutsiooniteooriate mõtestajatele:
the simple idea was not Jeremy’s, but belonged to his younger brother, Samuel Bentham. An engineer and architect then in the service of the Russian statesman Grigory Potemkin, Samuel designed a factory to maximize control over workers not by explicit rules but by an architecture of constant surveillance.
Panoptikoni mõtestamisel võiks meeles pidada:
punishments and rewards are “the only certain inducements by which one man can influence the conduct of another.” The effectiveness of any law depends entirely upon aligning individuals’ self-interest with what is demanded of them (Bentham, 1843b: 12). Think of the Panopticon’s death tax: a jailer’s duty is to keep his prisoners alive, but fines give the contractor “a positive inducement” to do so
Kontroll vabaduse kaudu:
The prisoner of the Panopticon, like the neoliberal subject, is “controlled through their freedom,” through inscribing the range of that freedom within a greater hegemony, but also through the “moralization of the consequences of this freedom”
The immense carceral apparatus of the neoliberal state is merely its most overtly coercive dimension – its economic interventions concealed by the fictions of “neoliberal penality” […] The Panopticon was never built, but the Panopticon has never been demolished.
Weinreich, S. J. (2021). Panopticon, Inc.: Jeremy Bentham, contract management, and (neo) liberal penality. Punishment & Society, 14624745211023457.