Episode

Today we talk about Jeremy Bentham's concept of the Panopticon. Michel Foucault's comparison to society in 1975. The historical role of intelligence as a justification for dominance. The anatomy of free will, and how a digital world may systematically limit our free will without us knowing it.
Get more:
Website: www.philosophizethis.org/
Patreon: / philosophizethis
Philosophize This! Clips: / @philosophizethisclips
Be social:
Twitter: / iamstephenwest
Instagram: / philosophizethispodcast
TikTok: / philosophizethispodcast

[@markoslavicek]

For everybody who enjoyed this episode, I highly recommend a short text by Gilles Deleuze titled Postscript on the Societies of Control. I also hope Deleuze's take on this matter will find its way into the next episode.

[@lenafelipe]

Thank you for the recommendation, this was a very good read.

[@markoslavicek]

@@lenafelipe Thank you for reading it ☺️☺️

[@thelasttellurian]

Free will is mostly a scam. Our minds are made from whatever other people tell us. Only in rare instances does someone have a strong will to come out with his own narrative which counts everyone around him. Usually, it will only happen to smart people who have gone through a life worth of disappointment and suffering. Most people just take the easy path in life and try not to think of anything too deep. They are afraid to be lonely, and they may be right. The more I learn, the more I wish I didn't learn.

[@ericjackson-nq4hp]

A little learning is a dangerous thing --Alexander Pope, _The Rape of the Lock,_ canto I. Anyway, be well. Cheers.

[@t-nzama-ijongosi6668]

We have been converted to comfort creatures ;) slaves to the systems on this earth

[@chrishu-zc1fj]

Ok notes for this time, this time is a bit different cause I have some extra notes in: Panopticon: Bentham’s Panopticon is the architectural figure of this composition. We know the principle on which it was based: at the periphery, an annular building; at the centre, a tower; this tower is pierced with wide windows that open onto the inner side of the ring; the peripheric building is divided into cells, each of which extends the whole width of the building; they have two windows, one on the inside, corresponding to the windows of the tower; the other, on the outside, allows the light to cross the cell from one end to the other. All that is needed, then, is to place a supervisor in a central tower and to shut up in each cell a madman, a patient, a condemned man, a worker or a schoolboy. By the effect of backlighting, one can observe from the tower, standing out precisely against the light, the small captive shadows in the cells of the periphery. The tower shines bright light so that the watchman is able to see everyone in the cells. The people in the cells, however, aren’t able to see the watchman, and therefore have to assume that they are always under observation. […] He is seen, but he does not see; he is the object of information, never a subject in communication. Michel Foucault, “Panopticism”: - Panopticism: the watcher is no longer external to the watched, but internal - Permanent visibility leads to self-surveillance and self-enforcement - The Gaze (ie. power) regulates us into socially accepted behaviour - Motivation for actions and behaviour is extrinsic, but held intrinsically - Useful background for explaining behavioural psychology of societies - Particular attention to technology and structure in shaping societies - Michel Foucault is also known for discourse analysis and Death of the Author State Surveillance: - Fear of being watched moderates our actions even when this fear is irrational - Deterrence of crime, crime-like behaviour, and “thoughtcrime” - Self-incrimination leads to self-suppression - Public power can interfere in private life without invading privacy - Information asymmetry makes us fear free speech in safe areas - Whistleblowers are feared because it “removes the backlighting”. It wasn’t until the Snowden leaks that the scale of NSA and GCHQ operations became known. This arguably makes the system more panoptic post-Snowden, when we are aware of it, but it hasn’t been the official rhetoric. The original emphasis, and still the emphasis today, hasn’t been on correcting behaviour but on providing security, namely from terrorists. - Accountability limits power because power is psychological - Asymmetry relationship between knowledge and power: - People in power define norms and what is normal and abnormal. For example, American history 70 years ago was taught to be a narrative of we fought the Britain courageously, then we fought a Civil War to end slavery, and we stayed away from WW2 but had to retaliate out of self defence to save the world. But a more recent narrative of American history is focusing on the details of experiences of the natives, slaves, and women. Regardless of which one of these narrative is correct, the point is that education isn't objective and the people of power designs curriculum in a way that shapes what we believe is normal. When you deviate from the political norm, you are a terrorist. When you deviate from society's psychological norm, you are mentally ill. Go to far out of the sexual norms, you become a pervert. Just like the panopticon where inmates regulate normative behaviors onto themselves, who wants to be called a failure and receive the social backlash for breaking social norms. Steven Cave: Intelligence is used to justify abuse. When we say someone is stupid or has less mental faculty, we are not making a neutral or factual statement. Intelligence usually entails how much rights one deserves. We have a culture where we reward the smartest persons to rule our country. This means that women who were seen as more sentimental were thought to be more suited for other roles in society. This also divides along race, black people are thought to be mentally incapable but bodily capable so they should use their labour to contribute to society. This is called a hierarchy of rationality. Colonialism was justified bc the less intelligence need our cultures. People are sterilized and taken away of their bodily autonomy because of lower intelligence. Intelligence test and eugenics were born together and thousands of women who score low on the tests were sterilized. So when you are saying someone is stupid, this isn't just an evaluative claim but also a claim but also a host of other claims for what this person deserves. Why are we worried about AI? Bc given the history of rewarding more rights to more intelligent beings, the worry is justified Before diving into digital panopticon, how do we measure people's freedom? If there is IQ and EQ, why don't we have FQ as in Freedom Quotient. This is why judges do in court all the time, they use philosophical and psychological tools to evaluate how free were the criminal making certain actions. Why can't we have a more scientific measurement of behavioral freedom? Free Will has three primary components one the ability to generate options for oneself two the ability to choose and three the ability to pursue one or more of those options after choosing. Prison is designed in a way that the low stimulation environment discourages prisoners to work on FQ. It might benefit society greater if we nurture prisoners and populations of their FQ skill. Government limits people's options all the time by barring people from education in the same way that abusive people in general limit the information of the people that they're abusing. You don't want your abused spouse to have friends and talk through the issue. Years ago Edward Snowden leaked the US program of Prism tracking emails and phone calls and flag people as threats. This is still ongoing, think of the advancement of AI and the deep learning and the neutral networks meaning that people flagged as dangerous will be far more granular. Think of how China and Russia would use these technologies. Surveillance impact people's moral development because of the chilling effects. People in China wouldn't have private conservations about topic that might seem irresponsible in public because of a fear of monitoring. People are on drugs in the modern panopticon, because generative AI feeds the most distracting games and reels that you never even consider the pain you are feeling. Powerful Gods and Religious Authority: - Omnipotent and panoptical authority enforces moral behaviour - Desire of reward or fear of retribution, particularly unobservable afterlife - The Gaze can be god, leaders in hierarchy, or both - Authorities justify abusive behaviour because they open themselves to the Gaze of God, which is not ultimately observable - Leaving religion is difficult because the internal Gaze cannot be cut out - Religion can offer relief from competing Gazes, eg. state, male, etc. Productivity Culture: - “Productivity” is both economic and individual behaviour and thought - Homework in K-12 education conditions children to feel the urge to be productive beyond school/work setting and into personal sphere - The Gaze values looking productive, even at the cost of economic productivity - Middle management observes worker productivity, but itself is inherently unproductive and therefore managers cannot be “observed” by workers - Cubicles, loft offices, remote mouse/keylog monitoring craft panopticism Free Speech: - The Gaze leads to self-correction by shaping language choice, conceptions of identity, permissible critiques, etc. - Fear of carceral repercussions (eg. cancelling, death threats, backlash) lead to self-censorship even if the state does not externally censor speech - Does cancel culture apply? Who is the Gaze? Who is in power? - Overton Window - discourse shapes where we see and centre “the debate” - This happens regardless of left or right, good or bad Male Gaze: - Women moderate femininity based on perception by others - Enforcers of patriarchal belief can be both male and female - Objectification leads to self-objectification (panopticism) - Male gaze also enforces heteropatriarchy - Implicit in male gaze to women is heterosexuality and relational roles - What’s the female gaze? Female enforcement of masculinity or hyperfemininity? - How do queer people fit into either gaze? Nonbinary people?

[@olivertoftemannwagner4476]

I wrote my final assignment about surveillance capitalism and referenced Foucault, Bentham and thereby the panopticon thanks to your first episode on Foucault. I got the Highest grade Denmark allows... 12. I'm excited to hear how you're going to frame it today.

[@Michelle_Wellbeck]

the biggest panopticon is the corporate workplace or so-called "job market"

[@allenandrews2380]

"Freedom is the knowledge of the size and shape of one's cage." -Allen Andrews

[@allenandrews2380]

That's an old thought. Maybe " Freedom requires at least....would be a better way to say it.

[@Driftking305forlife]

Damn my Philosophy dude dropping some Philosophical Truth Bombs 💣

[@normanfranklin4784]

I had never heard of a panopticon before I saw this title. What a fascinating thing. I completely agree that that is where we are headed.

[@oatmealeverymorning]

There's lots of good stuff to read about the panoptic. Michel Foucault wrote a lot about it. 10/10

[@t-nzama-ijongosi6668]

Talk about hidden in plain sight;)

[@lunalevi7482]

This episode was so good (like always) but it literally terrified me 😖

[@mepanther3125]

This episode is FIRE 🔥

[@LordHalaster]

Man, I'm already trapped on this series of episodes, can't wait to see the next! Wait a sec...

[@t-nzama-ijongosi6668]

Long time "silent" subbie of your podcasts Mr West ;) I have to say, you really put an effort into your work and I have a learned a lot over the years thanks to you. It is very much appreciated.. wishing you a happy and fun filled life.

[@gmbs360]

Fantastic episode. No need for the dig at omnivores around the halfway mark, however 😉

[@andrewbowen2837]

An interesting thing with the idea of Freedom Quotients is those people who have high perception of options, yet the inability to enact them not due to any outside constraints, but internal anxiety or fear. We have people like the Underground Man, or Kierkegaard paralyzed by freedom. How would that be examined I wonder?

[@andrewbowen2837]

"They're trying to build a prison For you and me to live in" -"Prison Song," System of a Down The idea of the Panopticon is a very powerful one. However, as should be expected, Foucault's analysis is sociological and not anthropological. The modern nation state is not the originator of a Panopticon that guides behaviors. It is in fact something much more fundamental. "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains," Rousseau once wrote. Who is it that fashioned and clasped these chains on us? Our fellow man. We are eager to chain ourselves up in seemingly flowery bindings as long as we hook ourselves to the fellows of our species. We are dependent on others, and this is our slavery. This is our natural state, something that Rousseau did not see. Humans, just like our primate relatives and so many other species, are fundamentally social animals. Even Aristotle noted that if one could exist outside of the bounds of society, they must be either a beast or a god. As social animals, there are certain values and behaviors that are instilled or enculturated through our youth about proper behaviors conducive to group cohesion. It is these norms and mores that form our Panopticon, where we must act out these roles under the scrutiny of our fellow men, our group or society. The eyes of our comrades are constantly upon us within that tower, and we, in our cells, must act according to the rules or else we face their ire. My problem with what Mr. West formulated here in terms of a digital Panopticon is the unanswered question of why someone should care that they are being observed. The very reason that the Panopticon is functional in prison settings is still the same as in the classical prison system: fear of punishment. There has to be a background of beatings or other painful punishments for one to he concerned about being watched. If there is no sense of repercussions to actions, why should anyone care if the jailer is peeping? Thus, for the classical state perspective of the Pantopicon, those who break the rules are sentenced by the state to prison or execution or whatever else for subversion or treason. Even with stateless societies (and still within all societies but especially with democracies), the people who were observed deviating from expected social norms were usually punished by ostracism or exile (we can see something very similar today with cancel culture; thus is the threat of majority tyranny and the court of public opinion). Within the digital Panopticon though, what exactly is the repercussion at stake? If an algorithm, AI, or tech giant watches you Google something abnormal, not download Tiktok, or whatever, what are the potential outcomes? Will they give out specific ads that differ from the rest of the crowd? When the Pantopticon is applied to prisons, states, or societies, there are dire consequences to deviancy; what is there to lose in the case of a digital one?

[@ericjackson-nq4hp]

Pivots on game theory; Civil liberties (things people/institutions cannot do to you) versus Civil rights (things the government cannot do to you). Americans are educated from very early on that they are fundamentally 'free' among their private papers and allowed to move around in their own home unencumbered. That is Constitutional-sh** - at least in America it is, but to underwrite the point, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 mandated that ALL internet enabled devices sold to consumers permit 'back door' access. Check-it-out, outside the computer science lab at the University only a couple hundred yards from my front door - I could give a computer science student $100 and before the end of the week, I could learn who your dentist is and what your porn stream include. All of whatever findings begin with our respective, unique google link. It gets claustrophobic quick even if the implications are only considered broadly. Some college age students have been denied scholarships simply on account of what their respective parent posted online over social media. Further, State governments have put hundreds of Americans on "do not fly" lists across airports internationally and it was found in one study, what linked the group of flagged Americans was simply the common denominator of liking Doctors Without Borders on Facebook. Personally, I live in a condo in which one wall facing the outside world is all glass. My digital window is probably all f**ked up. Game Theory. Economics.

[@philosophizethispodcast]

Good comment! Thanks for the questions! Look forward to hearing your thoughts on next episode about the age old freedom vs security.

[@Fawn-mn3zv]

Maybe this is part of the reason that I continue to read physical books, as challenging as they may be. I don't know. I just don't know. (Currently reading "Foucault's Pendulum", but have never read Foucault.)

[@xyzmattc4291]

U rock!!

[@justinmoegling5427]

Keep it up, great show.

[@benjueabba9480]

Thanks Mr West

[@montgomeryscot6623]

Is this the distinction between Orwell's and Huxley's visions? Orwell had is living in a figurative panopticon, whereas Huxley had us entertained and distracted to the point of sedation. I can't wait to hear about how people resist this sort of world.

[@andrewbowen2837]

Very interesting question. Are we headed towards prison states, or societies of spectacles?

[@montgomeryscot6623]

​@@andrewbowen2837I fear the answer is yes. Although the idea of the state as a menace is very fast becoming the corporation. Again, foreseen by many in the mid 20th century, for all it matters

[@andrewbowen2837]

​@@montgomeryscot6623I would agree with you, with one stipulation. I think, as Nietzsche predicted, we have become the Last Men. The government, corporations, and even AI, should they be our downfall, are only doing what we ordained them for. There is nobody to blame but ourselves for desiring comfort, efficiency, convenience, and security, allowing such things to capitalize on it

[@montgomeryscot6623]

@@andrewbowen2837 I hadn't heard that, but totally agree

[@t-nzama-ijongosi6668]

Too late I am afraid :) We are in a point of no return, it's either this(,,post modernism) or mass starvation/deaths/anarchy/cannibalism/wars.... By *this*,

[@joeyk169]

dayum.... shit is getting real

[@akirtirem]

Wow. Such a good episode

[@allenandrews2380]

This is my new favorite channel , easily!!!!!❤

[@zeromonster3381]

Foucault covers this concept of Bentham's 'Panopticon' in detail in his book "Discipline and Punish." We're kinda already in a digital prison. Spend a few days on a dating app and you'll see what I mean.

[@davidtaylor656]

Love your work

[@bigjothinks]

Thank you!

[@yaongingyfmm1571]

After the recent uncoverings about Foucalt, it seems he was the one who should've lived in a panopticon, to say the least... it's kinda hard to dissociate his work now from what he allegedly did...

[@gethinfiltrator6700]

Title answer: not sure. But i can be absolutely sure this channel is going in the way of Academy of ideas.

[@christinemartin63]

(Sarcasm Alert!) The WEF's handmaiden tells us that the way we treat animals may very well be the way AI will eventually treat humans. The WEF is never wrong, so it must be true. (One must remember to follow one's master. This channel may not be on the air long if it asks listeners to question authority.) Seriously ... nice, nice podcast!

[@rabbychan]

I hope you don't get too popular in the future, I feel it will be ruined somehow if that happens.

[@life_lab_chronicles]

It's philosophy so... As talented as Mr. West is, I think popularity will be well mitigated by the topic.

[@richardouvrier3078]

The philosopher is the king in the Agora. One ought to be intelligent in the marketplace, rational.

[@aocbbl]

How can we use philosophy outside of academia beyond introspection in a capitalistic society?

[@aocbbl]

Ehh, not the obvious "start a KZbin." Lol

[@aocbbl]

Serious question. I'm having buyer's remorse for investing so much time learning about philosophy. I have a business degree because I'm pragmatic but philosophy continues to be that itch I cannot scratch due to my inquisitive nature. But I keep asking myself why? I often find myself talking about philosophical concepts and dead philosophers like they're my best friends in casual conversations and the other person has no clue what I'm talking about. I come off as pretentious and I don't want to be 'that guy.' What's the point in communicating if the other party doesn't understand? I don't want to convert conversations into lectures. Maybe I need better social circles.

[@aocbbl]

C'mon man. I don't even get a heart for my existential crisis? Alright. I'll fall back in line and leave generic, superficial comments next time.

[@ericjackson-nq4hp]

@@aocbbl [...] but, then, I rather fancy it has more to do with this skill of bantering. Listening to them now, I can hear them exchanging one bantering remark after another. It is, I would suppose, the way many people like to proceed. In fact, it is possible my bench companion of a while ago expected me to banter with him - in which case, I suppose I was something of a sorry disappointment. Perhaps it is indeed time I began to look at this whole matter of bantering more enthusiastically. After all, when one thinks about it, it is not such a foolish thing to indulge in - particularly if it is the case that in bantering lies the key to human warmth. --Ishiguro, _The Remains of the Day_ If for now, dead philosophers fulfil you, then stick with it - if not, welcome. The light is always on around here, that's why I keep coming back. Case in point, I found West during a period of absolute violence in my own home, for me personally, West was quite literally one of the only affirmative voices I could hear during that time. The creation of meaning is a heady topic for a lot of us who show up but I sense that we are more emotional then what we often permit ourselves to admit. You fit right in, hahaha, crisis or not you have wit - cheers

[@aocbbl]

@@ericjackson-nq4hp thank you for that. Fulfillment doesn't pay the bills but appreciate your comment.

[@_PanchoVilla]

Im on episode #75 on Hegel and want to hurry up and get to the latest episodes. What a tease.

[@stacysmith7387]

Maybe we can choose not to use technology. Or… like childhood, we lose our sense of curiosity and spontaneity as we’re bound by parental rules, or the rules of adults trying to reign us in. Then we live in this infinite loop of searching for our inner child or souls by piecing things together backwards. Or a select few are chosen to remember life before AI… the rest of humankind get sent to colonize Mars or space.. by that time science has figured out how to extend life under the conditions of living in space…. As we depart, life on earth is left in the dust.. a new adventure awaits… the new human uses Ai and machine learning as a tool to make advance decisions in space… we amass more data in two days than from the dawn of humanity til Y2K… generative AI will use this mountain of data to help an ordinary person make impossible decisions in the unpredictable frontier of space travel…I feel this is the only way for us to discover the beyond.

[@seanpatrickrichards5593]

I like that this one mentions the idea of intelligent people being able to breed more :) It seems like it might be a popular formula to Intellectually talk about topics like sex, violence, racism (stuff that riles people up) Thats kinda what Jordan Peterson, Stephen Dubner, Malcolm Gladwell do. But I like this better cause its classier :)

[@joshuafillmore364]

Is this a safe forum for discussion or a limited hangout like reddit where a survivor shares real life experiences with the panopticon and the "expert" commenters throw stones at the person, correct their diction and tell them that they are mentally ill?

[@hashkeeper]

we've turned the earth into one massive concentration camp, and the worst part is humankind was able to predict it ridiculously early, and continued to accurately describe it every excruciating step of the way. 18:29 -- I can safely say that I have actual life experience proving I knew it. and im booooooored

[@trashbag1598]

Got us by the balllllllllllsss

[@TiagoLageira]

MGS2 vibes

[@JonathanParentLevesque]

14:00 From a modern management perspective, you want to localize decision-making as much as possible. of course, brilliant people (the sweetspot being 120 IQ according to Allaire & Firsirotu, 2004; between 115 & 130 of IQ according to Jordan Peterson's lecture series at U. of Toronto, 2017) will take care of the strategic aspect of an organization. Nevertheless, "rehumanized management" (Saives et al., 2017) should empower (e.g. employees) should be empowered as much as possible to make (tactical) decisions on the spot since they have the most primary data.

[@comprende2586]

14:35

[@notme214]

13:30

[@veryexciteddog963]

erm actualy it's called a 1-way mirror B3

[@veryexciteddog963]

B3 is :3 with shades on

[@SlikWilly-gx1bz]

someone has to racketeer problems 🤔 why not instigate digitally? too easy 🙉

[@DoomofOlympus]

No. Elaboration? We are in hell.

[@richardouvrier3078]

FQ: some ppl w hiiqs are still lofq inherently because they can’t execute options for themselves they may see. The YT options could control our executive function via AI.

[@dempsey2023]

Be mentally ill

[@serialbitchyvibes]

Writer's of holy texts of multiple religion also created a discourse regarding people's desired attitudes and role....if women wrote those books it must have been created another version of knowledge where they must have been considered on the right side of two opposites which is pure not profane and suppressed and the heated topic of contemporary politics would be about men's right and their empowerment and women's punch line would be "not all women"😅