Panoptical Paradise
Our world today, revolves around the notion of surveillance, in a way that we are monitored everywhere we go. Surveillance, according to the Oxford English dictionary, is ‘to be under observation especially of a suspected spy or criminal.’ But now a palm-sized device- the CCTV (Closed-circuit television) cameras have taken over all spaces- public as well as private to the extent that it has gone to become one of the most essential service requirements in architecture and urban design.
A home, an office, or any other built space for that matter is incomplete without a system of digital surveillance. The public and pseudo-public spaces usually display signage that reads “You are under surveillance”, to make an individual conscious of their actions in the space they occupy.
The technology that has now become an important aspect of the built environment found its roots in an architectural building. It was Jeremy Bentham’s idea of a Panopticon in the 18th century, which is probably the first significant reference to surveillance in modern history. Panopticon comes from Argus Panoptes, a hundred-eyed giant in Greek mythology who was a watchman and slept with his eyes open to watch over people.
Taken from that, a Panopticon was an ideal form of institutional building and a system of control designed as a six-floored circular building with radial cells that housed inmates. The centre of the building was a tower in which a supervisor would monitor the inmates. Large external windows and smaller internal windows in each cell would allow the monitoring while a system of louvers in the central tower would prevent the inmates from seeing the supervisor. Communication could only be enabled with the use of a loudspeaker.
Although it is physically impossible for the single guard to observe all the inmates’ cells at once, the inmates were to be made to believe that they were in constant surveillance by the supervisor, even though they were not. This, Bentham believed, would encourage the inmates to be self-disciplined and well-behaved, and would in a way condition them to always live with caution.
He conceived the basic plan as being equally applicable to hospitals, schools, sanatoriums, and asylums, but he devoted most of his efforts to developing a design for a panopticon prison. It is his prison that is now most widely meant by the term “panopticon”. This long term behavioural conditioning in the panopticon, he argued, would reduce the possibility of them committing crimes in the future. This form of the prison was never realised during his lifetime, however, later prisons were designed with this as their conceptual idea.
In many ways, the watchtower at the heart of the panopticon is a precursor to the cameras fastened to our buildings — purposely visible machines with human eyes hidden from view. Today, monitoring CCTV cameras are embedded everywhere in our lives, right in the domestic sphere with residential corridors and lifts being equipped with cameras (sometimes even spaces inside the house are under 24-hour surveillance) to offices, institutions, street crossings, pseudo-public space like train stations and some modes of public transport and public places. Hence, a person, once steps outside the premises of their bedrooms, right into the corridor should be aware of the fact that he/she is under surveillance.
Michael Foucault explores the theme of the Panopticon in his seminal work Discipline and Punish (1975), which is an overview of the history of prisons, their associations to the use of power positions, and an increasing bureaucratization in the modern period. He argues that not only is the panopticon a means of punishment but also a form of discipline of the inmates, owing to the seemingly persistent gaze of the supervisor. He scrutinises the asymmetrical surveillance by saying: “He is seen, but he does not see; he is an object of information, never a subject in communication.”
Architecture and urban planning of most public and semi-public spaces are made for the people. The cities are built for people ‑ to be occupied, inhabited, and brought to life by the people- designed to make every space inclusive. However, with the surveillance taking the built environment by a storm, many questions that could be raised — Does constant scrutiny of public spaces with surveillance hinder the inclusivity of a space? Does our need for constant surveillance an evidence of our fear and distrust in society and the system? And does the use of CCTVs lead to safer cities and public spaces?
While I was building my argument for this piece, Surat (the city I am based in) registered two rapes, one of a ten-year-old girl and the other of a seven-year-old. The horrendous crimes were committed during the curfew hours, which requires people to remain indoors between 9 pm to 6 am hence there were few to no people on the streets. It was through the CCTV footage from adjacent stores and apartment complexes that those who committed the crime were caught by the police. This is the story we often hear in the news today. So while CCTVs have not been proven to have reduced the crime rate, the devices have been instrumental in tracking the accused and providing the legal system with pieces of evidence that help solve the crime.
Over time, cameras in public places have come to also be associated with security. In other words, the thought that everyone is under surveillance, while on one hand attempts to discipline the one not adhering to the rules of the authority (which can be a problematic notion), also leads to generating a sense of security for those that fear their safety, in say secluded spaces. If you had to walk through a secluded road, which has CCTVs lined up on one end and the other side was unobserved, which side would you choose to walk? The CCTV apart from the disciplinary aspect is now a device of psychological safety.
While initially, surveillance was only about discipline, the practice of surveillance today belongs neither to the white or the black but like most other things; it meanders in the greys, having its benefits and harms. Having said that, the ethics of surveillance should always consider the moral aspects of how surveillance is employed. Surveillance of public space might not be considered problematic yet the aspect of cameras in workspaces to ensure that the employees are always working is problematic, for it generates a system of distrust rather than security in the working environment.
What determines the ethical nature of a particular instance of surveillance will be the considerations which follow, such as justified cause, the means employed, and questions of proportionality. Yet, the system of surveillance, in today’s time, is not only justified but also embraced by those surveilled, in the public and pseudo-public spaces, making it an ethically neutral concept.
Bentham sure was a visionary to have said-
“To say all in one word, the panopticon will be found applicable, I think, without exception, to all establishments whatsoever”
To answer the question I posed above of whether CCTVs make our cities safer? Most probably not, but they sure do ensure that criminals are rightly caught and punished, ensuring psychological safety about the city to the citizens.
