Foucault, Power And The Modern Panopticon
Health geography presents the interaction between people and the environment. Institutions are formal bodies/groups which have set habits, rules, and values that structure people’s actions (Mackinnon, 2009). Geography institutions are the interaction of people and place in a modern disciplinary society. Foucault believed that this was the focus of cultural and social geography by analysing spatial relations of discourse, knowledge and power in society. The Panopticon was a theory that one’s self is self-surveillance through the fear of being watched to conform to the new ‘norm’. Through control and regulation of movements, time and everyday activities, Foucault argues the body becomes invested with relations of power and domination, resulting in obedient ‘docile bodies’. Docile bodies are subject to external control, manipulation, transformation, improvement. We see sporting institutions use bodies to conform to the ‘surveillant gaze’ of the panopticon. Health geography has a holistic perspective of space and society, constructing the role of place, location and geography in health. It has changed from concerns with the disease to interests of the well-being and broader social models of health. Different health experiences within class, race, sexuality and gender were highlighted in research. Health and geographies are inextricably linked. Where you live affects the treatment you receive, your access to health professionals (or not). Where you live affects your risk of disease or ill-health, access to essential resources (affordable food, clean drinking water, decent housing, and rewarding employment) is geographically differentiated. Philo and Parr (2000) divided geographical work on institutions into two categories:
- Geographies of institutions is an assessment of the location, how and why this has emerged spatially separate from the rest of society.
- Geographies in institutions examine the arrangement of inner spaces to understand how institutions regulate, control, discipline, train, transform bodies.
The findings were that institutions are maintained and transformed by the people in them. The dynamics within them form the social power, meaning and knowledge that create the institution. Foucault had the idea that power is that not concentrated but more diffused (Gaventa, 2003). societal hierarchy and power are viewed as a top down initiative where rulers or states exercise control over the subjects below them, however, Foucault sees power as coming from below of power relationships. Because power does not derive from a single person, entity, or space, Foucault concludes that that power is the people or groups, they can choose where growth, developments, needs and wants in their geographic institutions. Jeremy Bentham, an English philosopher, created an idea of Panopticonism which was based off the strict spatial partitioning enforced during the plague. People had to be accounted for by visual roll calls by a centrally located inspector. Bentham related this architecturally to the idea a watchtower sits in the middle of a circle of prison cells. Communication amongst the prisoners was non-existent, married with not knowing whether or not they are being watched, it allowed for an efficient surveillance system. One guard can watch many prisoners or no guard as the watcher is internalised. Foucault took this idea as a theory of power works in the modern ‘disciplinary society’. The primary purpose of the panopticon is that of centralised and (in) visible power forcing individuals to self-monitor their behaviours and actions. Docile bodies/ conforming to ‘norms’ or resisting power is “A body is docile that may be subjected, used, transformed and improved” (Foucault, 1995, 136). Foucault described bodies are effects of techniques and strategies of disciplinary power. Docile bodies are products that can carry out precise and often rarefied skills (Shogan, 1999). Observation in the exercise of power is important, and normalisation of this imposes uniformity where punishment of those who deviate from the ‘norm’ is unquestioned. Renewed opinions on docile bodies shifted. They became a site of investment and treated individually as objects of control, subjected to subtle and overt coercion instead of in mass. The military has a hierarchy system of ranks and commands for efficiency. The system classifies people based on performance on the same a set of criteria across the board. Society adopted the same practice as the Army, using panopticism for productivity. Soldiers were returning from the war in the industrial era, were transitioned back into the community using sports as an outlet to divert and control their attention to less aggressive activities (Brohm, 1978).
Modern sports athletes submit themselves voluntarily into intensive training regimes assumed that training develops the potential of all athletes, which the ultimate is to win. Analysis of sports culture, individual bodies are subjected to controlling mechanisms to produce compliant athletes. A machine-like body that monitors, guards and disciplines themselves into productive, docile bodies, which have importance placed upon it to be that of a successful performer (Heikkala, 1993; Eskes, 1998). Conformity takes hold of the athlete. Realising that they can be seen by coaches’ athletes become to monitor their behaviour and shape it accordingly to the expectations of the sport. The watchful eye of the coach is the normalising standard of the sport become embodied by the athlete. In high-performance sport training sessions are organised that all athletes in the session can be seen by the coach so that the athletes are consistently engaged with the activity, unaware of if they are being watched or not. Less than satisfactory participation results in fewer or no opportunities in competition, understanding that it is in their best interests to train with intensity. Athletes are subjected to mechanisms of dominance using exclusion, individualisation, classification, regulation, distribution, normalisation and surveillance (Chapman, 1997). Self-policing of training is to avoid punishment; they have incorporated both the technologies, values of docility and correct training. Random or unannounced testing for banned performance-enhancing drugs of high-performance athletes is another example of Panopticonism. It is in the hope that athletes’ police themselves, knowing testing occurs at any time in fear of being caught.
Sporting institutions control bodies through the organisation of time, space, daily movement and examinations. The discipline of high-performance sport includes the knowledge about the biomechanics of movement, physiology, strength and conditioning, care and prevention of injury and illness, the psychology of performing, nutrition, sports skill and competitive strategy. Athletes are exposed to the created a normalisation of hierarchy where they are the bottom of the chain, which used a disciplinary power, by providing knowledge. The first modern Olympics’ in 1896 featured neither female athletes nor athletes outside of Europe and North America. One Hundred years later shifts from aristocratic to commercial support in the sport. Diverse participation which included women and global involvement (Michael Real, 2002). Controlling the athletes became a commercial asset. Over conformity from external control such as the public, fans, coaches and sporting bodies encourage athletes to act in the best interest of others and not themselves (Rainey, 2013). They sacrifice to achieve an institutional goal subconsciously because of the commitment to the sport. With no direct relationship with the athlete, many stakeholders influence the roles, goals, and overall life of the athlete to show the power.
Finances dictate the decisions on how athlete’s treatment, is hinged on performance. Academic and life skill development are stunted by the economic pressures associated with high-performance athletes which in turn makes the institution more in control of the bodies (Benford, 2007). Discussion into self-surveillance by John and Johns (2000) in the power structure that shaped the institution. "Biopower" focuses on the body as the site of subjugation, and because it highlights how bodies are associated in their subjugation as they participate in regular daily bodily practices and routines which are socially and culturally driven and constrained. Foucault argues that power produces the types of bodies that society requires. Athletes are trying to conform to aesthetic norms of what the perfect athlete should look like and self-surveillance their eating habits. The identity of being an athlete means their moral and physical health is compromised to fit into the normalization of institutional and social expectation. Athletes challenged the knowledge of the coaches and other institutional support figures e. g. nutritionists, who engaged in conversation. Docile bodies are aware and settle for the power structure as long as they find reasons to accept and internalise explanations to justify it.
In conclusion disciplinary power works at an individual level to create soft and productive bodies. By isolating individuals, augmenting their individuality through a ranked hierarchy, regimenting every movement of their body according to a rigid schedule, and conforming them to subjective norms through the use of examination. Normalizing and the panopticon is constant with the observation of subjects, combined with an increasingly extensive schedule of examination work to classify individuals behaviour to whether or not to conformed to the normal and those whose behaviour is abnormal was punished.
