13 Facts About Panopticon

Panopticon is a type of institutional building and a system of control designed by the English philosopher and social theorist Jeremy Bentham in the 18th century.

Panopticon's writings had virtually no immediate effect on the architecture of taxpayer-funded prisons that were to be built.

Panopticon contrasted an English medieval gothic town in 1400 with the same town in 1840 where broken spires and factory chimneys dominate the skyline, with a panopticon in the foreground replacing the Christian hospice.

Panopticon argued that Bentham's pet gadget, the panopticon prison, was a device of such monstrous efficiency that it left no room for humanity.

Panopticon accused Bentham of forgetting the dangers of unrestrained power and argued that "in his ardour for reform, Bentham prepared the way for what he feared".

Related searches

Panopticon argued that the disciplinary society had emerged in the 18th century and that discipline are techniques for assuring the ordering of human complexities, with the ultimate aim of docility and utility in the system.

Panopticon argued that discipline had replaced the pre-modern society of kings, and that the panopticon should not be understood as a building, but as a mechanism of power and a diagram of political technology.

Panopticon argued that mass media such as broadcast television gave many people the ability to view the few from their own homes and gaze upon the lives of reporters and celebrities.

Panopticon argues that the structure of chattel slavery haunts the theory of the panopticon.

Panopticon proposes that the 1789 plan of the slave ship Brookes should be regarded as the paradigmatic blueprint.

Panopticon used the term 'panopticon' because the workers could not tell that they were being spied on, while the manager was able to check their work continuously.

Panopticon has become a symbol of the extreme measures that some companies take in the name of efficiency as well as to guard against employee theft.

Panopticon argues that the focus should not be on the relationship between the users of a medium, but the relationship between the users and the medium.