Talk:Panopticism

message: I removed the paragraph which stated that certain NYC MTA ad campaigns were and are the embodiment of Panopticism. The "If you see something, say something" and "There are 16 million eyes in the city.  We're counting on all of them," were not panoptic.  These campaigns are founded upon the premise that the state cannot be all-seeing.  It is the very essence of limited government that the government    seeks to remain small while relying upon a vigilant citizenry to report violations of reasonable and duly enacted law.  The MTA ad campaign would have been panoptic if it said, "We will pay 1 million New Yorkers a monthly stipend to become informers to the MTA.  If you see      questionable activity, report it and we will reward you."  But that is not the case.  The MTA campaign is saying that if any citizen or rider of the MTA sees a potential bomb or terrorist activity, please report it because the government does not have the resources to replace a vigilant population, nor is it desirable.  In fact, when the population is vigilant regarding the enforcement of reasonable and duly enacted laws, the police forces can remain relatively small and limited- there is no need for surveillance cameras and nor for a "police state."  Such a situation is the exact opposite of Panopticism.
Removed:
Also, the MTA recently introduced a new ad campaign that is essentially the embodiment of all that Foucault finds wrong with the ideology of Panopticism. In one of the “Eyes of New York” ads, close up photographs of several different sets of eyes are juxtaposed while underneath reads in bold print, “There are 16 million eyes in the city. We’re counting on all of them.” This a continuation of the “If You See Something, Say Something” concept first launched in March of 1993. MTA Director of Security William A. Morange says, “It is impossible for the police departments to be everywhere and see everything. Our passengers extend our reach and-by sharing their information-make the system safer." http://www.mta.info/mta/news/newsroom/eyesecurity.htm
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
This man appears to be editing this page based upon his own conservative views. And I agree with the man below me, he/she has very little understanding of social theory in general.
It is worth noting that Foucault at some length discusses the use of (as one example) students to teach and observe other students. In this way those being observed are also observing. It seems to me the use of citizens to observe possible criminals fits within this framework. 
He also quotes someone who says catching a vagabond should be rewarded just as killing a wolf is rewarded. This system offers no incentive other than that of 'civic duty' but I'm not sure this is a fundamental difference.
 Broswald (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: something someone did and was very dumb for doing

message: I don't know what the person above removed, but his understanding of panopticism seems to be seriously flawed.(174.6.173.189 (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Error defining panopticism as a opposed to panopticon

message: I think this section should clarify that the panopticon can be a metaphor.  The significance of the panopticon is not limited to its literal, architectural aspects. Ivan.fyodorovich.karamazov (talk) 03:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Panopticism in Foucault's Discipline and Punish

message: Eh, this whole sections reads like an essay. Kind of interesting, but not encyclopedic. I think the word I'm looking for is argumentative. But I'm not a deletionist, so someone else can swing the axe.  206.196.158.130 (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Argree, flagged it as POV and then saw your post here. Some of the capitalism statements are probably Foucault's, but they should then be marked as such. --Manscher (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

text: And it's tangentially related to capitalism at best. Whoever put it there clearly dislikes capitalism, but there are other articles that are about capitalism where that may be relevant. Let's by all means swing the axe at our earliest convenience. Rōnin (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

text: I've removed the most irrelevant bits and moved a quote. Rōnin (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks like this issue is resolved so I've removed the NPOV tag. Mmyotis (^^o^^) 19:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Panopticism and Capitalism

message: Looking for feedback as I changed the name of the "Summary" section to "Background," and moved everything related to Foucault to the second paragraph; I edited minimally without deleting anything.   What do you guys think?  Should we add an extra lead sentence?  I sort of felt Bentham should make an appearance in the "Background" section but didn't want to alter the meaning of that section...    Eagleton89 (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure of page, where to put Bentham/Foucault

message: I would appreciate any feedback on this new section.  It needs some polishing, and I'd like feedback as to what needs to be done/what value this section adds.  I should note that I'm doing this for a course at school, and your comments will improve the quality of my final documentation of this process :) Ivan.fyodorovich.karamazov (talk) 03:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-Panopticism

message: Should there be mention of Juan Cole's article "The Baha’i Faith in America as Panopticon, 1963-1997," within Panopticism  A35821361 (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Should there be mention of Juan Cole's article "The Baha’i Faith in America as Panopticon, 1963-1997," within [[Panopticism]]