Summer 2020 Sociology Essay: Social Media and the Panopticon Analysis

This essay explores the application of Michel Foucault's Panopticon theory to contemporary social media platforms. It argues that social media functions as a virtual panopticon, where users are constantly under surveillance, mirroring the disciplinary structures of Bentham's original prison design. The essay discusses how social media's architecture, algorithms, and user behaviors contribute to this phenomenon, leading to self-regulation, conformity, and the loss of privacy. It examines the ways in which individuals internalize the awareness of being watched, shaping their online interactions and identity formation. Furthermore, it investigates how corporations leverage user data for marketing purposes, reinforcing the power dynamics inherent in this digital panopticon. The essay concludes by emphasizing the far-reaching effects of this surveillance, potentially creating a dystopian environment where actions are constantly monitored, and the potential for political and social manipulation is amplified. References to key sociological concepts and theories are included to support the analysis.

Running head: SOCIOLOGY
Contemporary Society
Name of the Student:
Name of University:
Author Note

2
SOCIAL MEDIA AND PANOPTICON
Michel Foucault had developed the concept of Panopticism from the idea of Panopticon,
as put forward by Jeremy Bentham. Foucault borrowed the idea to construct a model for disciple
of what exists in the modern system. Foucault strongly advocated freedom for all people and that
reaction of people, to situations differ vastly. He also believed that knowledge was a form of
power which could also be gained. The basic idea behind Panopticon is to keep the inmates
under a surveillance, on which there will be conformity to power (Caluya, 2010). He viewed this
almost as an incarceration which is cruel and cage like. Social media in the digital modern world
operate in the same manner. Foucault passed away before the internet emerged as an addictive
force but it is still very relevant in the modern world due to the advent of social media and digital
platforms.
According to Foucault, power permeates through the society and makes people conform
to the framework with or without their knowledge (Kelsey & Bennett, 2014). He viewed the
regulation and surveillance to be operating in an architectural design, which was proposed by
Jeremy Bentham for prisons and asylums in mid nineteenth century (McKinlay & Starkey,
1998). The framework of Panopticon is powerful which constantly observes the subjects from a
vantage point, which is often unknown by the subjects themselves. The mechanism to observe
the subjects were only to control them. Thus, Foucault used the concept to describe the system of
control which is carried out in a disciplinary situation (Caluya, 2010). The intention is to achieve
docility of the subjects and compliance to norms and codes of conduct through discipline.
Foucault identified the dangers associated with such a framework as individuals were carefully
accorded to it. The power relations associated with such a structure is that people are aware that

3
SOCIAL MEDIA AND PANOPTICON
they are being watched by the big other (Caluya, 2010). This is very much applicable in the
world today as people live within a virtual panopticon, that is the world of social media.
The mechanism of control is achieved with the help of constant observation. The process
is internalized by the subject’s knowledge of surveillance in a disciplinary situation. Foucault has
been one of the most prominent theoretical inspiration for his approaches, however, he is also
relevant outside theoretical framework as well. The world has evolved over time and the work is
quite different from the world which was lived by Foucault himself. However, the digital society
has been revolutionary in terms of the dynamics of social networking (Waycott, Thompson,
Sheard & Clerehan, 2017). The prison tower concept on which the theory of Foucault was
developed has evolved into new technologies and digital spaces (Caluya, 2010). Everything that
is posted by people on social media is monitored and data are extracted. Social media has
emerged as a force which plays a great role in the process of identity formation. The perspectives
can be applied to assess how social media functions. People share their personal information and
thoughts on social media. This can be viewed as if they are like the actors on stage while they are
being watched by a greater audience (Caluya, 2010). The idea behind such an expression on a
public forum is to exchange ideas and gain acceptance through pleasing the people with whom
the information are shared. The act is performative as it is become the basic culture of internet.
Being constantly visible and has its own detriments such as the privacy is lost (Kandias,
Mitrou, Mitrou & Gritzalis, 2013). Their actions and behaviors are monitored by the big other
like a panapticon. The users on social media are aware that they are being watched and judged by
the viewers. There panapticon in such a virtual space is devoid of physical surveillance whereas,
the inmates are conscious about their permanent visibility (Kandias, Mitrou, Mitrou & Gritzalis,
2013). People, on sharing their thoughts and concern subject themselves to the virtual

4
SOCIAL MEDIA AND PANOPTICON
panopticon, on which the activities get recorded by service providers. There are no guards who
survey actions of the inmates on Instagram and Facebook, whereas, they are exposed to a large
audience who in return, take part in the process as well.
Facebook and Instagram are corporations which have their basic earnings coming from
data. These information and data are very important for marketing and advertising activity.
These social media platforms do not steal data, but are provided to them, by the users, such as
person al information in exchange of free access and usage of the platforms (Waycott,
Thompson, Sheard & Clerehan, 2017). The virtual social media platforms allow people to wither
be watchmen to others’ activities as well as provide information to others to get scrutinized. The
audience consume the content which is presented by users itself. This is how these firms have
gained monopolistic functionality. There are more than two billion people sharing their
information on social media, such as facebook which gives it the power to propagate with
surveillance. The supervision which is carried out by Facebook goes beyond the simple process
of observing inmates. It is capable of tracking behavior of the users as well as keep record of the
activities (Kandias, Mitrou, Mitrou & Gritzalis, 2013). These social media platforms have
managed to gather more power of surveillance than has ever existed in history. This power
translates information into money for the service providers and digital media platform owners,
such as Mark Zuckerberg.
These social media platforms have evolved as places which are sensitized due to
opinions. Information are often extorted and are used for harmful determinations. The space has
enabled people to use these information for their advantages, which often are used negatively for
their perusal. The network is strengthened as people link with each other and engage in active
communication (Waycott, Thompson, Sheard & Clerehan, 2017). The process gives scope for

5
SOCIAL MEDIA AND PANOPTICON
self-affirmation of people and creation of an identity which is curated only in the virtual space
through the information which are shared. For many people, this is process by which they
empower themselves to have a voice. However, they associate themselves with a process which
is monitored and viewed from a vantage point by more powerful entities, who are not visible.
This is of great concern how the expressions are monitored on the digital platforms. In a
panopticon structure, the inmates are posited in such a manner that they are always in the view of
the guards and are restricted within walls, which can be related with the modern day codes of
conduct which are followed by the users on social media, in order to gain acceptance.
Actions which are done on social media also lead to real life consequences. As much as
the inmates are reported for their activities, by guards as well as other prisoners, users on social
media can also get reported for their actions, by regulatory forces as well as other users, when
one find oppositional perception or offensive content being circulated by one (De Saulles &
Horner, 2011). This can also be falsely used for personal benefits. Various social media
platforms have integrated with one another, which allows access to information shared on
different virtual spaces into one. Out beyond the physical structure of panopticon view, people
are conforming to the virtual and social framework, in which people are expected to comply with
the disciplinary and relational power which are laid out (Kelsey & Bennett, 2014). Unlike the
architectural structure, the design of social media panopticon is discreet but have similar effects,
sometime far graver. Social media is has taken shape of a vast network which is laid across the
globe which makes its effectiveness far intense (Waycott, Thompson, Sheard & Clerehan, 2017).
The social media tactics can actually track activities of users, such as the websites which are
visited and get recorded for further usages of the companies and generate money. The picture can
be categorized as dystopian as we were alarmed by George Orwell (De Saulles & Horner, 2011).

6
SOCIAL MEDIA AND PANOPTICON
This quite supervision has proved to be far more effective as people are sometimes hardly aware
if their simplest actions are getting recorded or not.
It is not unknown by the users that their actions are being monitored by units who can be
regarded as The Big Brother. This awareness makes Foucault’s idea of panopticon more
prevalent. However, it is for this reason that people constantly try to be cautious of their actions
because they fear the consequences which they might have to face for disobeying the ways to
follow. Sometimes, the virtual spaces are politically sensitized when people express ideas and
concerns about politically charged events and issues. The tactics of social media follows
‘continuous functioning, and its automatic mechanisms’ (McKinlay & Starkey, 1998). Therefore,
it can be asserted that social media platforms are capable of disindividualizing power of the user
(Kelsey & Bennett, 2014). The information which are gathered by these platforms are often used
by the providers to affect their services and develop strategies to enhance the procedures. Social
media gets integrated with peoples’ daily lives which ensures a panoptic view in an organized
manner. Therefore, social media is a great force which is capable of developing trends to follow
and gave them shape of social and cultural capitalism which influence contemporary societies
(De Saulles & Horner, 2011). Sometimes, people are bullied by others who are at advantageous
position or greater in number with opposing views. These are more possible because people are
not compelled to engage in communication face to face. Panopticon involves indefinite
discipline, according to Foucault, which makes people aware that they might lead to
consequences for diverting from the rules which are already set (De Saulles & Horner, 2011).
Unlike physical surveillance, social media panopticon gives provision to the users to enhance
their experience as well as social media tactics.

7
SOCIAL MEDIA AND PANOPTICON
It can thus be concluded by saying that social media operates like a surveillance as people
are subjected to being scrutiny while their information is traded by the corporation for money.
These data are very important to them for their operation as they come of usage to affect the
services and products. Social media spaces such as Facebook, Instragram and Twitter operate as
virtual panopticon where information shared make people vulnerable to how they are used.
Therefore, the privacy is lost, as users give permission to these corporation to have access to the
personal data, with much awareness on the same.

8
SOCIAL MEDIA AND PANOPTICON
References
Caluya, G. (2010). The post-panoptic society? Reassessing Foucault in surveillance
studies. Social Identities, 16(5), 621-633.
De Saulles, M., & Horner, D. S. (2011). The portable panopticon: morality and mobile
technologies. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 9(3), 206-
216.
Kandias, M., Mitrou, L., Stavrou, V., & Gritzalis, D. (2013, July). Which side are you on? A new
Panopticon vs. privacy. In 2013 International Conference on Security and Cryptography
(SECRYPT) (pp. 1-13). IEEE.
Kelsey, D., & Bennett, L. (2014). Discipline and resistance on social media: Discourse, power
and context in the Paul Chambers ‘Twitter Joke Trial’. Discourse, Context & Media, 3,
37-45.
McKinlay, A., & Starkey, K. (Eds.). (1998). Foucault, management and organization theory:
From panopticon to technologies of self. Sage.
Waycott, J., Thompson, C., Sheard, J., & Clerehan, R. (2017). A virtual panopticon in the
community of practice: Students' experiences of being visible on social media. The
Internet and Higher Education, 35, 12-20.