Inherent Imbalance of Power

 Foucault's Panopticism essay analyzes and explains the social, political, and economic implications of the Panopticon and its Disciplinary Mechanism. By comparing the mechanism to the Plague-stricken communities, Foucault presents the concept of a political utopia of complete informational and visible control. I find the political aspect of Panopticism as a utopian ideal very fascinating and controversial. While this disciplinary mechanism is supposed to manifest total democracy and internalized discipline rather than external force, I struggle with the inherent imbalance of power suggested by this ideal. Panopticism prides itself on the more democratic nature of discipline. As a contrast to previous systems of discipline as an esoteric, violent, and dark system of punishment, the visibility and transparency of Panopticism appears as an improvement. Similarly, it is established that since anyone can run the panoptic structure, unlike the King or Lord who would be on top of Medieval systems of punishment, there is a less heirearchal and classist distribution of control. Additionally, even the ones doing the watching or controlling in the Panopticon are subject to those who can come and observe their behavior, therefore, in essence, the ones with the most control are still subject to the approval and observation of the general public. Does this mean that the general public, however, are the ones with the most power? In theory, this system is a utopia-where power is not concentrated anywhere, and yet, everyone has the internalized incentive to act properly and improve their behavior, for fear of merely being discovered.
Nevertheless, this utopia, in my opinion, cannot function in realistic terms of human nature and conduct. The observers have the advantage of information control and anonymity. The fact that they can see everyone, and have information on everyone, is what keeps Panopticism in effect, as the observed do not know who is watching them or when and everything they do is recorded efficiently, so they want to maximize their positive potential. Nevertheless, the fact that, while they could be anyone, the observers have extreme control and an intimidating affect on the rest of the population, is an inherent imbalance of power, which could have highly un-democratic consequences. In more practical terms, the is the disciplinary mechanism described truly for the benefit of an overall society, or for the idealized political system of total control, as described by the Plague-struck communities. Furthermore, when in a position of this control, is the average person likely to abuse the imbalance and take advantage of the system, or will they uphold the purely productive means promoted? Additionally, it is difficult to ignore these imbalances as a hinderance to individual liberties and freedoms--why is it necessary for people to be observed, to be disciplined, to be molded into a certain norm, and does this truly benefit a society or stifle diversity and creativity?
 To present a radical extreme of the possible abuses of such a system, the totalitarian structure created by Orwell in 1984 of the Oceania government depicts a system where surveillance, and the control if information, allow for the complete manipulation of an entire society. "Big Brother" is, similarly, an unknown figure who could be anyone, similar to the observer in the Panopticon tower,  who has the power to watch the population at all times, and the individuals never really know at what moment they are being watched. Nevertheless, the fear of being observed keeps most people away from acting illicitly in any way. Additionally, Oceania's ability to secure complete control and access to all information--eliminating records of the past, and allowing people access to only what they produce--allows them to control what truth really is. While this is certainly an extreme representation of certain characteristics apparent in the Panopticon structure, and would need a centralized version of the structure rather than the various decentralized ones presented, it offers an opportunity to view the possible consequences of such an imbalance. The people in the "towers" can easily expand the norming process of the system to make obedient subjects, of whom they can take complete advantage and incorporate physical force. While the idealized utopia does not call for this being necessary, the inevitabilities of the human desire for power and control could always evolve into a disciplinary mechanism which incorporates the most lethal aspects of surveillance and information hoarding with the violent physical punishment of the past.
While Panopticism, in its essence, especially if functioning in smaller-scale, decentralized manners, does represent a democratic way of enforcing discipline and maximizing productivity. However, the imbalance of power and control that is unavoidable in such a system, if used on a larger, more political scale, could not only have un-democratic results, but prove to be a truly frightening system of oppression.