Talk:Panopticon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Date in introduction

In reading this quickly it would have been very useful to me to have a date or at least a century mentioned in the 1st sentence. e.g. 'The Panopticon is a type of prison building designed by the philosopher Jeremy Bentham in the Xth century.'

This has been edited to include the proper dates.

Original Research?

I can't dispute that call centers use panoptic principles, though it might be overstating to say that they "realise" the panopticon. In any case, statements such as these need to be credited to their source. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Good citations help verify information and improve the quality of the work. Dystopos 28 June 2005 16:32 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Merge

Proposed merge from Panoptic mechanism

It has been suggested that Panoptic mechanism be merged into this article. The tag was added on 31 December 2005. Any comments/objections? - N (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge. Agreed, nothing links to this neglected entry. - Shiftchange 20:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge. Agreed, and thanks for pointing it out, otherwise it my have been missed. -- Solipsist 21:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have performed the merge. I'll leave you guys to do what you like with it. - Nzd (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Panoptic mechanisms

A panoptic mechanism is a mechanism of social control based on Foucault’s ideas of the Panopticon and the exertion of discipline onto the body, i.e. biopower. In other words, any apparatus for control that is based on the "inspecting gaze" may qualify as a panoptic mechanism.   Moved —Dogears 15:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

How does it work?

I wish the article said how the Panopticon achieves its objectives. It is easy to envisage how having a circular structure could allow the guards at the center to view the prisioners at the perifery, but it is not clear to me how the prisoners might be prevented from seeing the guards and thus whether they are being watched or not. Two way mirrors? Prisioners chained to desks facing outwards? --Timtak 13:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see that there is..."Bentham envisioned not only venetian blinds on the tower observation ports but also maze-like connections among tower rooms to avoid glints of light or noise that might betray the presence of an observer." There would be venetian blinds on the observation rooms. I can understand how that would make the observer a bit more difficult to observe. It would be nice to know what is meant by the "maze-like connections."--Timtak 05:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that in the original Bentham scheme, that the warden would house his family in full view of the prisoners so while he was watching them, they would also have a model of decent behavior. --Dystopos 16:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh? But then they would know that they are not being watched some of the time, because they could see the observer. Perhaps you are joking.--Timtak 03:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Millbank Prison

Millbank Prison wasn't a panopticon either —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.46.136.83 (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Which Country?

It isn't really clear to a casual reader which country the originator comes from. Also the King of which country? Perhaps mention of where Bentham comes from early in the article would help. You only really get an idea of a potential country when you read mention of British place names and the British Empire. I assume Bentham came from Britian? Ozdaren 22:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This has been edited to include the proper country in the first line.

Confusing wording

I find the last bit of the section "Panoptic prison design" confusing. If you know what is intended, please revise the parts marked here in italics:

"... No true panopticons were built in Britain, and very few anywhere in the British Empire. Although not a Bentham design, Millbank Prison was not a direct application of the Panopticon. It was not a success, nor was it an option." Thanks --Fitzhugh 00:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This section has been deleted.

biopower

I think that there is a large omission in this entry. There needs to be a section addressing how Michael Foucault used the theory of the panopticon to create his idea of biopower. it's the major use of this theory in 20th century literature, and it really needs to be in here. (Impaler2g19 21:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC))

burthen

"lighten burthens on society". should this be "burden" instead?

Jeremy Benthan was a late 1700's philosopher that wrote and spoke in an older form of English. The quote is correct. Cf Tennyson, "the vapors weep their burthen to the ground...." Profhum 14:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible contradictions

I tagged the article as contradictory because of the apparent conflict between the statements made in section 2, and the information presented in section 2.1

If I am misreading this, please, anyone, remove the tag. But as I see it, claiming that "No true panopticons were built in Britain, and very few anywhere in the British Empire," and then listing panoptic prisons as existing in Australia, India, and the United Kingdom - this is at best misleading, and at worst wrong. - Sam 11:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Edited to include "during Bentham's lifetime". Removed contradiction tag.

A similar contradiction cropped up again, this time crediting Bentham with building a panopticon in India. Because the account of the India episode incorporated details that actually happened in England (as accurately described in earlier versions of this article), I went ahead and reverted it to the earlier version. JudiciousH (talk) 09:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

...in popular culture

Since most of the points in this section are one-sentence blurbs revolving around the entries at Panopticon (disambiguation), I am replacing it all with a simple link to the dab page, and moving the content here to keep in case it is decided that it should be put back.

• Panopticon is an album by the band Isis. It suggests the entire world is now a panopticon, due to the seemingly endless number of satellites surveying the entire globe.

• Silent Hill 4, a survival horror video game, relies heavily on the theme of surveillance and features a panopticon-like structure referred to simply as "Water Prison World."

• Panopticon is used as a literary device to describe how the 'Brethren' control the population in John Twelve Hawks "The Traveller", first book in a trilogy, 2005.

• The Panopticon is a recurring theme in David Mitchell's book number9dream, whose protagonist watches a film of this name about a ricketty prison run by a 'Governer Bentham.'

• The Panopticon is the moon-based headquarters of DC Comics' Ultraman, an evil counterpart of Superman residing in an anti-matter parallel universe.

• Panopticon is the tower where Memnarch, warden of the plane Mirrodin, resides, in the Mirrodin storyline of Magic: The Gathering. It is there that he keeps watch on all of the inhabitants of the plane.

• A Technocratic internal security organisation in the role-playing game Mage: The Ascension is named Panopticon.

• In Doctor Who, the Eye of Harmony is located on the planet Gallifrey beneath a structure called the Panopticon.

• The Panopticon allows the congress of scientists to monitor the population of Bregna in the movie Aeon Flux (film).

• In the video game Deus Ex, the password "panopticon" unlocks a surveillance AI, allowing it to merge with the protagonist.

• In the TV series Lost, The Island represents a panopticon on a few levels. Near the end of the series, the character named 'John Locke' attempts to convince several people who have left the Island to return. He does so under the pseudonym 'Jeremy Bentham'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.219.122 (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

-Sam 11:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Foucault's revival of the Panopticon in our time

Replying to Sam's comment above, I strongly suggest the Popular Culture section be put back in the text. I'll let you guys decide. The section shows how thoroughly, once Foucault dug up the long-forgotten panopticon, the metaphor began to suffuse middle-brow, then even youth culture. The Panopticon is what contemporary students hear about in their one General Ed lecture on "deconstructionism", and all that my students, at least, seem to remember from Foucault. The Panopticon has been, for twenty years, the topic most likely to be trotted out on MA grad papers, to show that the writer is aware of "theory." Indeed, now that I think of it, such paper writers are the people most likely to be coming to this handy Wikipedia article. Profhum 14:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Building on this, should the paragraph currently talking about Foucault not be expanded to include the idea of 'the gaze' - Foucault not only re-popularised the idea of the Panopticon as part of what I suppose one would call a surveillance state, but also explained it in more detail than the text here suggests. The text suggests inmates would behave because they could be observed at any point, but doesn't really explain why this would make them behave - is it fear of being caught, fear of punishment, or an in-built desire to conform when being observed? Foucault's ideas about the gaze build on the latter, and why thinking we might be being watched makes us almost subconsiously conform to society's ideas of 'normal'. I think explaining why being watched in a panopticon-style prison would, in theory, make prisoners behave is pretty important, and on my reading wasn't really explained in the text of the article? 194.66.198.40 (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Spanish "Punta" comment

-the Mexican word "Punta"- was removed because the phrase was simply inserted into a pre-existing sentence and didn't make sense. If it is true please put it in a complete sentence and site it. 129.137.200.85 17:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

1977 Interview?

There's a quotation from a "1977 interview" in Panopticon#Other_panoptic_structures. Interview with whom? Surely not the long-deceased Jeremy Bentham. --Jeremy Butler 12:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Penis Building

Is this the actual name? I don't see a source for it! 69.210.209.100 23:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of the knitting blog

Why is http://the-panopticon.blogspot.com/ included in the external links? It's mainly a knitting site. --Zyryab 21:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Last paragraph needs development.

The last paragragh was clearly not another example, but almost a criticsm. I hope that by pointing this out, somebody familiar with the topic can flesh out some real criticsm, and more definite examples of backlash. As for support, while closed caption video systems realise the secret monitoring aspect, can more details on the original, less virtual design be added, perhaps from the prisons that were based on Bentham's design? When was the first Panoptic prison (or other structure) built? How effective were they, what flaws did they exhibit, or what unforseen consequences were there? After a couple centuries, was there no published analysis until the television era?

Sorry if I'm demanding too much, I'm just surprised that none of these issues have been addressed yet, it would really strengthen this article. For comparison, (if I recall correctly) Eastern State Prison was designed for isolation, to allow prisoners space to reflect and be prayerful, but then the isolation turned out to be a cruelity the designers (quakers?) didn't foresee. Similarly unforseen effects might prove interesting in that they could predate the widespread surveillance in modern (at least Anglo and increasingly so American) society. I don't do this myself because I'm not really familiar with the topic (yet?), but I recall that Bentham was a philosopher whose body was preserved , and I have been to the Eastern State Penitentiary site. While I'm thinking of it, the Philadelphia Police building near 8th and Race is called the Roundhouse, I wonder if this is related. I'm kind of hoping that somebody who knows the subject a bit can fill this in before I start blindly googling. Castlan 08:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge Panopticon (Internet culture) into here

I see little need for a separate article on Panopticon (Internet culture) - much of it repeats what is here, and seems to be original researched essay noting how some Internet tools & spaces have panoptic elements. It should just be a subsection here, such as "On the Internet" or similar. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, though I don't think it even deserves a subsection. Panopticon (Internet culture) is little more than a POV fork... have merged some content and redirected. --Pretty Green (talk) 08:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

In the coinage used by Jamais Cascio it refers to the synthesis of knowledge from multiple different sources and has very little to do with "Panopticon" in the historical context. In the process of "merging" you deleted all of the relevant information about this. Tarcieri (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Given no response to this point in about a year I think it's about time I reinstanted the Panopticon (Internet culture) article, unless you can convince me otherwise Tarcieri (talk) 07:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Panopticon Inspired Prisons

Parramatta Prison (NSW, Australia) used to have a section called the Parramatta Circle for Intractable Prisoners that I believe fits the criteria for a Panopticon Inspired Prison. This was a central courtyard between four wings. From the air it would look like a cross section of an orange cut in half. The walls of the outer circle, inner circle and sections were about 24 feet high. The inner circle was about 20 feet in diameter. The sections (or yards as they were called)were wedge shaped, about 24 feet long with the doors facing the inner circle. I think there were about 8 of them. There were four corridors leading from the four wings into the inner circle There was a solid cover over the outer rim, about 8 feet in width. The rest of the roof was covered in reinforced steel mesh so that a guard could stand on the roof in the middle of the circle and see into all aspects of the yard.

I doubt whether it is still operational. But it would be interesting if anyone had any history on this.

Also ... I believe there was a similar section in Maitland Prison (NSW, Australia)and this used to be called Maitland Tracks - for Intractable Prisoners. I have no further details on this.Haveagoodlook (talk) 05:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

King in 1811

I am confused about which king refused to let Bentham have the money to build his prison. This article states that in 1811 the king refused to authorize the purchase of land to build the prison on so the project was aborted. Which king does this refer to? In 1811 the future King George IV began serving as Prince Regent for his insane father King George III. Was it King George III or the future King George IV who refused to let Bentham have the money? They both reigned during this years so that is why I am confused.-Schnurrbart (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Panopticon only for prisons?

According to Murray Rothbard in his book "An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Though", the Panopticon was actually meant by Bentham to be used in all parts of society, not only prisons.

In his chapter on Bentham, he writes:

"Bentham's apologists have reduced his scheme to merely one of prison 'reform' , but Bentham tried to make it clear that all social institutions were to be encompassed by the panopticon; that it was to serve as a model for 'houses of industry, workhouses, poorhouses, manufactories, mad-houses, lazrettos, hospitals, and schools'. (pg 63)

What of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vodka2389 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This article on the Panopticon should have a section, or at least a sentence or two, regarding why the Panoption design is currently held in low regard. Why is it regarded as a flawed design and no longer used in building prisons in most of the world? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.67.228 (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

In my visits to Monticello I have been lucky enough to experience the dome room. With its echo-chamber acoustics and over-sized baseboards, devoid of any furniture, it feels to be right out of Alice and Wonderland rather than American history. Cinder Stanton, Monticello's Senior Research Historian, suggests that Jefferson might have used this room as his panopticon, where with the aid of his telescope, he could keep an eye on everything, including his slaves. With Jeremy Bentham’s 18th Century book “Panopticon” in his collection and two former slaves noting his use of the telescope, it is a sinister yet plausible interpretation. Whatever its original usage, it is a truly marvelous and unique architectural flourish today. Matthew Fisher – Jefferson/Monticello Enthusiast December 8, 2010, 4:11 pm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.80.121.220 (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Lancaster Castle HMP Panopticon

Lancaster Castle HMP, Lancashire, UK

C-Wing cell block is a true panopticon built in 1821 by Joseph Gandy (based on Bentham's model) and closed along with the rest of the prison in March 2011.

It was initially used as the female penitentiary, later for male prisoners. Semi circular, it allows for a 180 deg view from a central guard tower over 5 levels. Floors and walls were originally grilled/ meshed to allow surveillance up and down levels too.

Could it be added to the list and/or article?

http://www.lancastercastle.com/html/tour/tour.php?id=67

Naomi86.150.17.111 (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Scott & White Hospital

Scott and White Hospital in Temple, Texas is an example of a hospital that uses a panopticon design for its ICU areas. Here are links: www.sw.org https://maps.google.com/maps?q=76508&hl=en&ll=31.07791,-97.363672&spn=0.001126,0.002234&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=34.122306,73.212891&t=h&hnear=Temple,+Texas+76508&z=19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.39.27.227 (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Eastern State Penitentiary

Eastern State was NOT a panopticon. The guards could see down most of the hallways but not into the cells. Unless anyone has objections, I'll remove it.

I have an objection. Architectural historians have shown that Haviland was influenced by Bentham's designs. ESP's own website observes this connection (http://www.easternstate.org/learn/research-library/history/haviland). You can also see Andrzejewski's Building Power: Architecture and Surveillance in Victorian America (pp. 18-19). The fact that the prisoners were not strictly visible in their cells does not mean that the British-trained Haviland was not influenced by Bentham's thinking. The radial design, and the installation of mirrors that provided a view down every hallway to the center guardhouse guaranteed that the only entry/exit to every cell was visible, and this design clearly derives from the panopticon concept. Was Bentham the only impact on Haviland? Obviously not. Does ESP depart from Bentham's idealized designs? Certainly. But it seems to me to be splitting hairs to say that ESP is not a panoptic prison when this very article notes that no prison was ever built to Bentham's specifications. It should be enough for inclusion here that the design was influenced by the panoptic principle, which ESP was. I have updated the note on ESP and similar radially designed prisons to reflect these subtleties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.146.165.136 (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I have held off responding to this point until I had had a chance to see Andrzejewski's book, which I have now looked at. What both she and the ESP site do is to place the Panopticon and ESP in a wider context of architectural responses to the C18/19 debate on penal reform. They suggest, but certainly do not establish, that Bentham's ideas may have had an influence on Haviland. The relevant sentences from Andrzejewski read: "Although Haviland's radial plan for Eastern State Penitentiary bears little similarity to Bentham's panoptic layout with a row of cells surrounding and facing a central watchtower, Haviland's choice to include a central rotunda from which emanated the threat of perpetual and hidden surveillance reveals a debt to Bentham. As Haviland's description of Eastern State quoted earlier suggests, he intended the centralized watchtower to function as the chief means of control, something that the panoptic scheme also realized, if in a very different material form." It's a point of view, but it's no more than that, and I don't think the case is made. Bentham's argument was that control would be exercised almost entirely through surveillance; the philosophy of the separate system (as realised at ESP and elsewhere) was that control would be exercised primarily through prisoner isolation, with surveillance as a secondary back-up: the radial design would only come into play when the prisoners emerged from their cells. Every prison with guards since the beginning of history has included an element of surveillance, so the fact that it features in Haviland's design is no proof of direct influence; and it did not play the central role that it did in Bentham's thinking. I have edited the passage (with a reference to Andrzejewski) to what I hope is an acceptable form of words. GrindtXX (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Original Research on Technological Feasibility:

"Something close to a realization of Bentham's vision only became possible through 20th-century technological developments—notably closed-circuit television (CCTV)—but these eliminated the need for a specific architectural framework."

The part about the Panopticon only being possible with the advent of CCTV sounds fishy to me, and I notice it doesn't have any sources. The half-silvered (a.k.a. "one-way") mirror has been known since at least the 16th century (cf. "Natural Magick" by Giambattista della Porta), and would trivially allow an observer to remain virtually invisible (only outside reflections would be visible) while reducing their powers of observation only minimally by simply differing the lighting between the two sides of the glass. Bentham may not have known about or used this technique, but it certainly existed (and was popularized in Britain for entertainment purposes as "Pepper's Ghost"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.129.186 (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

IT as a New Panopticon

I am removing for a second time the long section which an IP has added on IT as a New Panopticon, which discusses Shoshana Zuboff's use of the Panopticon as a metaphor. My reasons are as follows:

• The present article is about Bentham's proposals for a Panopticon. It has a section within it on "Criticism and the panopticon as metaphor", which is where, if anywhere, this material belongs. However, that section in fact already mentions Zuboff's arguments (which the IP seems not to have noticed).
• The new material is far too long for what is a fairly minor and peripheral aspect of the Panopticon story: see WP:UNDUE. The existing short paragraph on Zuboff is about right in terms of length.
• There is a separate article on Panopticism (which again the IP doesn't seem to have noticed, despite the headnote link). That article addresses the Panopticon-as-metaphor at greater length, and would be a more appropriate place for a fuller discussion of Zuboff (though this material still needs considerable editing on other grounds).
• The text reads as if it has been cut-and-pasted from an essay (see WP:FORUM), and the IP has made no attempt to integrate it into the existing article. For example, the first paragraph includes the statement that "Bentham’s concept of a Panopticon refers to a type of institutional building where the design and architecture allows for a single watchman to observe all inmates of an institution without them being able to tell whether they are being watched or not". Well, that's all been said already.
• The language is unencyclopedic: e.g. "Let’s say that User A sent a text to User B." See WP:FORUM (again) and WP:TONE.

So, I'm deleting it. GrindtXX (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto

Why no mention of The Panopticon area in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City? 82.12.226.250 (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The Baha’i Faith as Panopticon

One user has somewhat ironically removed the following reference to the Bahai Faith as panopticon...

Juan Cole has compared the Baha'i Faith to panopticon in his essay "The Baha’i Faith in America as Panopticon, 1963-1997," originally published in The Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Volume 37, No. 2 (June 1998): 234-248. He concludes that "Baha’i authorities exercise a great deal of control over discourse in the community, maintaining a virtual monopoly on mass media with a Baha’i audience. This control is felt necessary in part to prevent electioneering and coalition-forming, which are formally barred (despite the informal campaigning discussed above). It is perhaps not incidental that the controls on electioneering and other forms of communication have the side effect of ensuring that criticism of those in power cannot achieve wide circulation, and that the incumbents who exercise that control are reelected every year. Incumbents act aggressively against Baha’i owners of media who demonstrate too much independence. They monitor the speech of individuals extensively through a system of informants, and intervene behind the scenes to silence dissidents with threats of sanctions. They require prepublication censorship of everything Baha’is write about their religion. They intervene in the private businesses of believers where they think the interests of the administration are at stake. They tell private Baha’i publishers what books and even what passages in books they may and may not publish. They employ the threats of loss of administrative rights, humiliation in the national Baha’i newspaper, and even of shunning, in order to control believers."

A35821361 (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The above is completely undue weight in this article. Baha'i content in articles of general interest have been reduced or eliminated because while there is sourced content, in general third party descriptions of that subject, the Baha'i view is not described. And in this article, that is the extreme. One article does not allow for appropriate weight to be included. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Jeff3000: this paragraph has no place on this page (which is primarily about the original Panopticon concept), and is unquestionably WP:UNDUE. It is more relevant to the Panopticism article, but even there it should be edited down to a single sentence and a proper reference. GrindtXX (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I would note that the section here is "Criticism and the Panopticon as metaphor" with other metaphors included being work places like Wal-Mart and Amazon as well as municipalities in the U.K. that utilize CCTV. Juan Cole's description of control mechanisms in the Baha'i Faith in his appropriately titled essay, "The Baha’i Faith in America as Panopticon, 1963-1997," is perfectly suited for this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A35821361 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Even if the very marginal, not to say vestigial, degree of relevance were much stronger - this is an article on a very specific subject - and a quite obscure one, that even someone of Mr. Cole's great erudition can (and does, in this case) misunderstand and misuse. An encyclopedia article on such an obscure and little known topic needs to be especially clear, informative, and very much to the point if it is going to fulfill its function of informing an "ordinary" reader, who is much more likely to be confused than informed by masses of matter of doubtful relevance to the case. So no, it is not "suitable' at all. This is nothing to do with our relative points of view - Wikipedia policy implies that we don't accept unquestioningly matters of faith and that no one is exempt from legitimate (i.e. among other things, fair) criticism. But splattering references to that criticism though as many relevant, marginally relevant, and totally irrelevant articles as we can find starts to look very much like an agenda driven crusade. Not good.

For what it is worth, there is an article on Baha'i review (the specific subject of Mr. Cole's paper) which may currently be a little one-sided. Have you considered editing this instead? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Cole's essay is not limited to Baha'i review, but the totality of how the Baha'i administration maintains control over its members. In the analogy to panopticon, the aspect of Baha'i review is but one small aspect.

"Baha’i authorities exercise a great deal of control over discourse in the community, maintaining a virtual monopoly on mass media with a Baha’i audience. This control is felt necessary in part to prevent electioneering and coalition-forming, which are formally barred (despite the informal campaigning discussed above). It is perhaps not incidental that the controls on electioneering and other forms of communication have the side effect of ensuring that criticism of those in power cannot achieve wide circulation, and that the incumbents who exercise that control are reelected every year. Incumbents act aggressively against Baha’i owners of media who demonstrate too much independence. They monitor the speech of individuals extensively through a system of informants, and intervene behind the scenes to silence dissidents with threats of sanctions. They require prepublication censorship of everything Baha’is write about their religion. They intervene in the private businesses of believers where they think the interests of the administration are at stake. They tell private Baha’i publishers what books and even what passages in books they may and may not publish. They employ the threats of loss of administrative rights, humiliation in the national Baha’i newspaper, and even of shunning, in order to control believers.

Having Baha’is inform on their co-believers allows the administration to discover nonconformists who might not toe the party line, and to monitor their activities. The system operates so as to maintain the “orthodox” ideology in power and prevent the election to that institution of dissenters through identifying them and ensuring that they do not become visible in the community. The practice of informing creates a panopticon, as described by Michel Foucault in his discussion of Jeremy Bentham's ideas on penal reform (Foucault 1979). Bentham argued that putting the criminal constantly under observation would deter him from further criminal acts, and would even cause him eventually to internalize the sense of constantly being watched, thus becoming permanently reformed. Conventional Baha’is often never discover the informant system, since they never trip the wire that would lead to their being informed on. The independent-minded, however, usually discover it fairly early in their Baha’i careers, and then have to decide whether they wish to live the rest of their lives in a panopticon. This practice, like many other control mechanisms, discourages spiritual entrepreneurship and keeps the religion from growing in the West."

It is therefore prudent to include mention of this essay in a section titled "Criticism and the Panopticon as metaphor." - Regards, A35821361 (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)