paparazzi panopticism.
Communication Theory 101: Foucault and the Panopticon. The general idea, skipping past the actual specifics and the path to the point, is that people who know they may be watched, without being certain WHEN they are watched, police themselves.
This is, at core, the major principle behind law enforcement. Punishment is an issue of deterrent, rather than justice. In short, we don’t commit crimes not only because it would be wrong to do so, but out of fear of getting caught.
Enter the modern era’s obsession with celebrity personal lives.
I was watching Lionel Ritchie on CBC’s The Hour, and one of the questions he was asked was whether or not his daughter, Nicole of Simple Life and drunk driving fame, was ‘okay’.
His answer is irrelevant.
The point of Foucault’s ideas was that people policing themselves, a society that polices itself, is the end result of a watched society. If you look at any one of the pre-eminent gossip blogs, you’ll see that the exact opposite is in effect,
When Britney, or Paris, or Lindsay finally accepted that privacy no longer existed for them, that paparazzi were ALWAYS watching, whether or not they could see them, they had to make a choice. It was either to live their entire lives as though the entire world was watching (because, most of the time, it was) or to live as though no one was watching at all.
So we get upskirt shots as they come out of limos, and celebrity sextapes, photographic evidence of idiotic behaviour, whether neglecting the safety of a child, or neglecting standards of decency.
Foucault, apparently, was wrong. When faced with a panoptic reality, societal norms aren’t reinforced; they’re demolished. This is the same reason constant surveillance is the hallmark of an unjust state – if watched closely enough, everyone is a criminal, is a failure, an embarrassment. Ergo, if you’re equally despised whether you do something small wrong, or live like a hedonist hero, you might as well have the fun.
The interesting thing about this is that it can be read one of two ways; either they have decided to own up to their behaviour, radical transparency style, and not care what people say, or they’ve simply decided that any behaviour will be derided, so why bother behaving.
In no way am I excusing the current rash of drunk driving celebutantes. I’m just looking at the impact this has on theory, because everyone else just seems to focus on the decision to either mock or pity them.
3 comments:
Foucault wasn't wrong, those chicks are just retarded. They can't deal with the consequences that living 'appropriately' in a Panoptic reality mean (although few can, entirely), so they've just abandoned ship on the matter.
The fact that all of the above are massive drug addicts, alcohol abusers, and in general, 80s, doesn't help matters.
Case in point, and the reason I find this theory interesting: Religion. The entire point of a religion is to convince you that you live in a Panoptic reality because God sees everything. It's even worse than the Paparazzi, because God knows what you're thinking, and according to most religions, if you thought it, it's the same deal. This is an even worst Panopticisism because you now have to police your own thoughts as well. And the fun part about a society that is convinced it is in a thought-level Panoptic reality is that they become meathead little sheep who barely know they're alive.
The end result of that is that if you're the one setting the rules of that Panoptic reality, you just got yourself 500 million cannon fodder.
I agree, to a point.
Yes, the examples given have larger problems than most. But, at the same time, if someone had spent the last four years taking pictures of you every time you got trashed, everyone would assume you were an alcoholic too.
I actually had the same religion conversation with my father, and came to a different conclusion; as much as belief in god is the ultimate panoptic reality, there's no actual enforcement. The theory falls apart because much religion is based on the concept of guilt and forgiveness, not a hard social contract.
After that comes the question of how many religious people actually live pious lives - if the hardline christian right is any example, 1 in 5 male religious leaders is hiding a huge infatuation with cock behind all the hellfire and damnation threats.
Even if people are convinced that they live in a world where their thoughts are monitored, no enforcement, whether police action or public shaming, means no real self-denial is necessary.
Your example largely draws from Modern day North America where those conditions hold (mostly).
And it ignores the big trick, God doesn't need to intervene now, he'll get you in the end.
I think that everyone polices themselves regarding certain things, independent of religion, however I think Religious authorities can use the framework to make people police themselves about things they need not police themselves about, to the advantage of the church.
This is probably more apparent in countries where church and state haven't been separated.
Post a Comment