Identity Not Lost
(essay based on Michel Foucault's Panopticism)

by Don Rey

     In a society with as many expectations as there are today, the individual may be lost in the routine of daily life and become a robot of sorts, functioning according to rules and guidelines alone. Whether self-imposed or enforced by a "higher" authority, these rules and routines may begin to drive our life and leech the very identity from us or weave their own powerful influence in us. This is what Michel Foucault argues in his controversial essay Panopticism. According to Foucault, this loss of individuality begins with discipline. He suggests it is discipline that erases the identity of peoples in a society, through the separation of people from each other, and the loss of an interactive community. I disagree with this claim, and believe that society today still has its sense of individualism, and individuals still have their identity.

     From the beginning of his essay, Foucault shows his disapproval of discipline overpowering society. He describes the procedures performed in a town when the plague attacked. He writes that the citizens of the town were locked up in their houses, and supervised by authorities, who in turn reported to a higher set of authorities, and so on. If the system were interrupted, consequences would be hefty. This system was put into place in response to the black plague, which killed more than half the population of Europe. It was implemented in fear of, and for protection from the disease, much like the exile of lepers (around the same time). Before the plague, lepers were exiled to "colonies" where they lived in community with each other. This was not a life people strove for, but, according to Foucault it was better than the sentence a town was automatically given when the plague struck. Lepers were allowed to interact and maintain an identity even after exile. The individual was not stifled by the authorities, but merely moved. I agree with Foucault in this respect. The procedures put forth at the time of the plague were cruel, although maybe necessary considering the consequences. However, this lack of interaction and fellowship was not healthy, and destroys a community, disguising members as numbers and mere components. He compares this to today’s society, to support his claim that we are losing our individualism and identity. I do not believe that we have become or are becoming insignificant parts of a collective in this society.

     Foucault also describes a structure designed by Jeremy Bentham for the secure and disciplined detention of its inmates. This Panopticon was designed so that every single one of its unfortunate prisoners could be seen by a single overseer, but was not permitted to see his or her watcher (318). Foucault writes that an inmate, imprisoned alone in his or her cell, could be "a madman, a patient, a condemned man, a worker, or a schoolboy" (319). From this statement, in how he gathers these vastly different types of people, and from his general description and explanation of the Panopticon, his opinion of the solitary confinement of individuals is clear. He strongly feels that it is this lack of interaction with other individuals that brings the demise of a person’s identity. Without it, one begins to lose sanity. This is what he argues is happening to today’s society; people are becoming too antisocial and this becomes harmful to the identity and to one’s mind. I partially agree with this argument, in that there is danger of people today becoming too antisocial. I agree that this behavior leads to loss of identity and sanity, but I do not believe it has happened.

     The author also refers to Le Vaux’s menagerie at Versailles (323). Foucault explains that this menagerie is one somewhat similar to the Panopticon, but built with the intent of keeping animals. The animals were kept separate from each other, and from the observing king or other watchers. Foucault compares this menagerie of animals to the Panopticon when he writes,

But one finds in the program of the Panopticon a similar concern with individualizing observation, with characterization and classification, with the analytical arrangement of space. The Panopticon is a royal menagerie; the animal is replaced by man, individual distribution by specific grouping, and the king by the machinery of a furtive power. (323)

By this, he clearly displays his dislike of Bentham’s Panopticon. He uses the words "characterization and classification" as they would be used in a zoo, and compares the inmates of the Panopticon to animals. Here, he is displaying the system in which humans are stripped of their identity and assigned a number or several of them, in today’s society. The government and other institutions of discipline no longer look at the individual, but the statistics that include many individuals. Foucault sees this, and so uses it as defense to his claim. I believe that as individuals in this society, we still retain our identity. Although there are statistics that look at us collectively, the statistics that make up our individual identity are still visible and prominent.

     Foucault displays his dislike of too much discipline which as become to powerful when he describes local disciplines as "a sort of ‘quarantine,’" and discipline on a larger scale as a "mechanism of ‘panopticism’" (333). The first connection he makes, between discipline and quarantine, shows very well his view on this overpowering discipline explained to enhance his definition of discipline, but also, I believe, to be related to each of the societies and ideas he writes about in Panopticism, including today’s society. Quarantine is naturally a word with negative connotations and feelings behind it. Especially when referring to the time of the plague does this word have severe meaning. He expects the reader to see it and relate it with negativity to today’s society. In this same sentence, Foucault also relates discipline to panopticism, which he has previously granted a negative sense.

     Another case of Foucault’s worry that society is becoming too separated from each other is when, after referencing "modern age," he writes,

In a society in which the principal elements are no longer the community and public life, but, on the one hand, private individuals, and on the other, the state, relations can be regulated only in a form that is the exact reverse of the spectacle… (333)

He uses the word society in reference to "modern age." Also, by "spectacle," he means (and continues on to explain) that today’s society is made up of a series of buildings analyzing the actions and activities of people in the society, as opposed to N. H. Julius’ thought that people in this society are the observers. This statement sums up the two major sources of discipline in society today that, according to Foucault, is so damaging society. First, he notes self-discipline and the want humans have to be "private" and antisocial. Second he suggests that the state is also to blame for excessive discipline today, and this leads ultimately to the erasure of the individual, according to Foucault’s claim. By this he is suggesting that governing authorities today are too powerful, but have also placed rules, guidelines, and expectations on society, and on each individual, which makes that individual a small, predictable, and expendable part of a collectivity of individuals. It is not enough to merely say or suggest that the government is too powerful, but also that with its power, it is causing erosion and destruction of the identity of the individual human.

     All of this, of course, is the argument put forth by Michel Foucault in his essay Panopticism, that society today is losing its sense of individuality and identity. I agree that there is supporting evidence of his claim, but I disagree with the claim itself. Today, many people do become bogged down by routine and the expectations other people have on them, or expectations they form for themselves. These self-expectations may come from upbringing, experiences, or rules. Foucault argues that this is discipline that has become too powerful, and has begun to create a utopia. In the essay, he compares the idea of the leper’s exile and the procedures put in place during the plague to utopia. In this he separates the leper’s exile from the plague, calling only the plague situation a utopia. He argues that the authorities had too much power when they separated the town and allowed nearly nobody to leave a confined space (317). In this, he enhances the negativity of the word utopia, itself, for later reference. This reference occurs when he compares the Panopticon to utopia (325). He argues that because the inmates have no contact with anyone, whether visual, audible, or otherwise. In addition, they can be watched, but do not know when or by whom, and cannot see their watcher.

     In this comparison, he also compares today’s society to utopia, because he has already compared the Panopticon to society through his writing about panopticism. He describes utopias as "perfectly closed in upon themselves" (325), therefore considering the Panopticon and today’s society closed in. I resist this idea of society being a utopia in the terms Foucault describes. I like to see limited government control, and I believe that is what exists today, rather than total control, or too much control suggested by Foucault’s explanations of utopia.

     If today we lived in a utopian society according to Foucault, we would have no or little interaction with each other, the individual would be nearly meaningless, and governmental or authoritative control would rule predominantly over society. I do not believe this is the case. Foucault’s essay may be a fair warning of this, as today, with the Internet, electronic communication, and other substitutes taking the place of person to person interaction, we may be in slight danger of losing touch with our identities. However, I do not agree that it has happened, or that there is severe danger of it. On this campus alone, it is clear that social life is very important to the community. Social life gives every individual part of his identity. This is possibly the most noticeable part of one’s identity. Academics, as long as the intentions are not based entirely or mostly on rules set forth by authorities or those higher than oneself, are also very important to the identity and enhance it.

     I believe identity is established through personal experiences, and to take these away, or to make them like that of others would be to erase or mask one’s identity. Foucault argues that this has happened, or has begun to happen in today’s society. I disagree, and believe that experience and interaction with others is very important in society, even today. However, it may be wise to take Foucault’s essay as a warning. In such a regulated society, it is possible to maintain individualism, but it is also possible to lose that and become part of a collectivity of non-individuals. I understand and believe that too much government control can enforce too much discipline. This discipline may become harmful and limit individuality. I disagree that it has begun to happen yet.

Reference:

Foucault, Michel. Panopticism. Ways of Reading. Ed. David Bartholomae and Anthony Petrosky. 4^th ed. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1999. 314-42