The Panopticon in the Digital Age: Facebook, Instagram and Agency

This essay delves into the concept of the digital panopticon, focusing on how social media platforms, particularly Facebook and Instagram, both empower and suppress personal expression and agency. Drawing upon Michael Foucault's theories, the essay examines the ways in which these platforms facilitate surveillance and influence individual behavior. The discussion includes an analysis of how governmental bodies utilize social media to monitor populations, and the impact of this surveillance on freedom of speech and expression. The essay uses examples like the 2016 US presidential election to illustrate the effects of the digital panopticon on the ability of individuals to discern truth from misinformation and the potential for censorship. Ultimately, the essay concludes that while social media offers avenues for expression, it also subjects individuals to a form of digital control, which has significant implications for personal liberty and freedom.

Running head: PANOPTICON IN THE DIGITAL AGE
Panopticon in the digital age
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1PANOPTICON IN THE DIGITAL AGE
Introduction
The various forms of art express the real situations as prevailing in the society at the
particular moment. The twenty first century has seen a rise in the form of digital media whereby
the individuals have tried to use such virtual platforms in order to showcase various different
issues to the world (Mitrou et al. 2014). One of the important features of the digital media is that
it has allowed the individuals of the society to utilize it for their own personal and professional
uses. One of the most influential virtual platforms which are used in the present day order are
those of Facebook and Instagram (Reiman 2017). The purpose of this essay is to understand how
the social media platforms of Facebook and Instagram empower and also suppress personal
expression and agency. In this context, the concepts advocated by Michael Foucault have been
taken in to consideration which have talked about the moderation of our behavior.
Michael Foucault’s concept of panopticon
Panopticon is a terminology used in the field of architecture. It refers to the situation
whereby a watchman has the liberty to observe the occupants of a particular building or society
without the occupants being aware that they are being kept a vigilant eye on (Kietzmann and
Angell 2014). According to Foucault, the people of the society are subjected to the different
modalities of the power and authority since they are a part of the disciplinary system of the
society (Berner, Graupner and Maedche 2014). In other words, those individual ho exercise their
authority within the state, have the power to ensure that the activities and behavior of the
individuals of the community are kept under surveillance (Arvanitakis 2014).
This idea of panopticon is considered to be significant in the context of the behavior of
the individuals of the society. When a person is kept under surveillance, there is a potential

2PANOPTICON IN THE DIGITAL AGE
chance when their behaviors and attitudes would be moderated. In other words, such individuals
would not be able to behave and act in a manner of their choosing (Galič, Timan and Koops
2017). Their personal liberty and freedom would be hampered in the sense that they would not
have the opportunity to behave in a manner as they want to. In the event that they do not comply
with the wishes of the state and behave in a way which is in direct opposition to the demands of
the state, then there is a likelihood that the concerned individual would be punished (Leclercq-
Vandelannoitte, Isaac and Kalika 2014). As a result of this fear arising out of a potential
punishment, often times it can be seen that the individuals choose to forfeit their own happiness
and freedom for the wishes of the state (Arvanitakis 2014). In this regard, the idea of panopticon
holds an essential position within the societal boundary of the contemporary society.
Social media platforms and their impact on the lives of the individuals
The various social media platforms such as that of Facebook and Instagram, are relatively
newer virtual forums which allows people to share their thoughts on the online platform. In the
modern age of liberalism and capitalism, it is widely believed that the governments of the
various nation states of the world do not interfere in the working of the private individuals of the
society (Crowley, Payne and Kennedy 2014). In other words, there is a minimal level of
interference which can be observed from the various governmental bodies.
However, while this is true from a theoretical perspective, it is not so from a practical
point of view. In the present scenario, it can be seen that the various governmental bodies have
devised many measures and means with the aid of which they are able to keep a vigilant eye on
the activities of their own population (Elden and Crampton 2016). One of the most effective
ways of doing this is with the aid of the various social media platforms. For instance, people
have the freedom and the liberty to share their thoughts and expressions on such platforms,

3PANOPTICON IN THE DIGITAL AGE
believing that they are free to do so (Mutereko 2018). However, this is not the case. In the
present world scenario, it can be seen that the governmental bodies have access to the posts as
made by the people on such websites. The government is able to regulate them and remove those
posts which they consider to be harmful for their own image or which threatens the unity and
integrity of the nation (Arvanitakis 2014). Furthermore, the governments of such countries, also
have the mechanism to put forth their own views and opinions on such digital media platforms,
without the realization of the individuals (Cardozo 2017). The vulnerable people of the society
are affected by this to a significant extent as they can now o longer differentiate between the
truth and the lies.
One of the significant examples which can be elaborated in this context is that of the
interference of the government during the times of election (Kimball, 2019). The days of election
are some of the most crucial times within any nation state of the globe. It decides who would
come to power and the significant framework of the state in the consequent days (Kimball,
2019). In this context, an attempt is made by the office of the opposing contestants to reach out
to public in many ways as possible. The aim is to ensure their approval of the manifesto of the
party and to vote accordingly during the days if the election (McMullan, 2015).
In this context, one of the most controversial form of vigilance that occurred in the
history of the world was that of the interference of the government of the United States of
America in Facebook during the period of election. In the year of 2016, one of the most historic
elections took place in the United States whereby Donald Trump came to power (Kimball, 2019).
It was alleged that many individuals from Russia tried to interfere in the elections of the
President of the United Sates by spreading many hate speeches against the contestants. The hate

4PANOPTICON IN THE DIGITAL AGE
speeches had a significant impact on the lives of the people of the United States as it had the
potential to influence their thought process (Kimball, 2019).
One of the concerning issues that can be noticed in this context is that although the
governments of both the countries were aware of the activities that were taking place within the
United States of America, they could not control the flow of human emotions (Kimball, 2019).
Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive officer of Facebook, stated that Facebook would have been
more effective if the regulations were able to create a common standards for determining and
verifying the various political actors (Kimball, 2019).
This had an empowering effect on the issue of personal expression and agency. The
Russians had the ability to express their thoughts and expression on the issues of the American
presidential elections. However, this also severely restricted the personal expression and agency
of the citizens of America. They were unable to decide which news were fake or made up and
which were true. They could not comment on them or hold a view since the entire issue was
being monitored by their own government. Speaking against one of the candidates held the fear
of prosecution by the office of that candidate.
As a result of this, it needs to be noted that the issue of panopticon has a significant
impact on the society at large. The freedom of speech and expression which is provided to the
individuals of the society are not granted to them absolutely in a society where vigilance and
surveillance is carried out. The government plats a preponderant role within the lives of the
people and this severely obstructs the kind of activity they are allowed to indulge in. The modern
digital age is meant to increase the transparency of the governmental bodies and to hold them
accountable for their activities. However, instead, it can be seen that it is the individuals who are
kept under surveillance.

5PANOPTICON IN THE DIGITAL AGE
Conclusion
In conclusion, it can be observed that the issue of social media has occupied a significant
place within the lives of the people of the contemporary society. The instances which are
showcased on such media platforms are considered to be true or just a rumor by the opinions
passed by the people. As a result of this, such platforms have a way of both empowering and
suppressing the opinions of the people and other institutions of the society. For instance, if an
individual talks about a particular incident which is socially and morally wrong but finds a
support system within the online group of individuals, then it would empower such people to
spread the information. However, in the event that the individual talks about or makes a
comment which is not in accordance with the popular opinion fo the online community, then
there is a high potential for his or her personal liberty of expression to be abridged in the form of
suppression.

6PANOPTICON IN THE DIGITAL AGE
References:
Berner, M., Graupner, E. and Maedche, A., 2014. The information panopticon in the big data
era. Journal of Organization Design, 3(1), pp.14-19.
Cardozo, E., 2017. Panoptic Pranksters: Power, Space and Visibility in the Information
Panopticon in Scare Campaign. CINEJ Cinema Journal, 6(2), pp.112-128.
Crowley, M., Payne, J.C. and Kennedy, E., 2014. Working better together? Empowerment,
panopticon and conflict approaches to teamwork. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 35(3),
pp.483-506.
Elden, S. and Crampton, J.W., 2016. Introduction Space, knowledge and power: Foucault and
geography. In Space, Knowledge and Power (pp. 13-28). Routledge.
Galič, M., Timan, T. and Koops, B.J., 2017. Bentham, Deleuze and beyond: An overview of
surveillance theories from the panopticon to participation. Philosophy & Technology, 30(1),
pp.9-37.
Kietzmann, J. and Angell, I., 2014. Panopticon revisited. Kietzmann, J., & Angell, I.(2010).
Panopticon Revisited. Communications of the ACM, 53(6), pp.135-138.
Kimball, S. (2019). Zuckerberg backs stronger Internet privacy and election laws: 'We need a
more active role for governments'. [online] CNBC. Available at:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/30/mark-zuckerberg-calls-for-tighter-internet-regulations-we-
need-a-more-active-role-for-governments.html [Accessed 13 Dec. 2019].

7PANOPTICON IN THE DIGITAL AGE
Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, A., Isaac, H. and Kalika, M., 2014. Mobile information systems and
organisational control: beyond the panopticon metaphor?. European Journal of Information
Systems, 23(5), pp.543-557.
McMullan, T. (2015). What does the panopticon mean in the age of digital surveillance?.
[online] the Guardian. Available at:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/23/panopticon-digital-surveillance-jeremy-
bentham [Accessed 13 Dec. 2019].
Mitrou, L., Kandias, M., Stavrou, V. and Gritzalis, D., 2014, April. Social media profiling: A
Panopticon or Omniopticon tool?. In Proc. of the 6th Conference of the Surveillance Studies
Network.
Mutereko, S., 2018. Analysing the accreditation of engineering education in South Africa
through Foucault’s panopticon and governmentality lenses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 43(2), pp.235-247.
Reiman, J.H., 2017. Driving to the panopticon: A philosophical exploration of the risks to
privacy posed by the highway technology of the future. In Privacy (pp. 159-176). Routledge.
Arvanitakis, J., 2014 Contemporary Society: A Sociological Analysis of Everyday Life (Oxford
University Press, 2008). Adelaide Law Review, 35, p.45.