Mike Calou

Commentary Week Ten

Panopticism

The reading this week reminds me of the power structure within the classroom. Using Foucault’s analysis of Jeremy Bentham’s 1785 panopticon model the tower represents the teacher. The principle of visible and verifiable power, although initially brought up to describe the power structure in a prison, relates to any organizational unit, including the classroom. “In the peripheric ring, one is totally seen, without ever seeing; in the central tower, one sees everything without ever being seen” (5).

The idea of the Panopticon as a laboratory (6) is also intriguing. To try out new pedagogical experiments; to take up once again the well-debated problem of secluded education, by using orphans (6). This reminds me of the process we use at my school to discuss our ideas about students who are “different.” We use the acronym “STAR” to label this process. The process works something like this: a team of individuals from the school site is assembled to discuss with the classroom teacher any students that are having difficulty learning. As Bentham puts it, “to draw up rigorous classifications and, in relation to normal development, to distinguish laziness and stubbornness from incurable imbecility” (5). Meetings are held monthly with the school psychologist, counselor, resource teacher, principal, assistant principal, nurse, speech pathologist, and the classroom teachers by grade level. Each teacher has an opportunity to share the name of a student with the group. The teacher will usually bring up students who are having difficulty learning, are experiencing difficulty socializing, or may be at risk of retention. The group then discusses the particular student and offers suggestions to the classroom teacher. Because these types of meetings are held monthly with each grade level many of the students discussed have usually been mentioned at meetings in earlier years. So there is a “history” established for these children.

The reason I bring up this meeting is because I am sure that meetings of this nature are held not just at the school I teach in, but at many of the schools in California and across the whole country. As educators I think altruistically we try to shape our students to fit a “societal mold.” When a student exhibits behavior or learning variations then that particular student is put into an environment similar to Bentham’s panopticon: the teacher is able to see the student, but the teacher is not visible to the student. There is an idea, at least in my mind, that we are trying to form young citizens to fit into our society. This is not necessarily a bad thing; however this notion of shaping and molding “individuals” can be viewed as cultural genocide. By cultural genocide I mean that we have read about the impact of culture on language: the two are inseparable. When we impose our culture on students of another culture we have to be careful about the implications of our intentions. Do we force our culture on our students? Is it acceptable for more than one culture to “coexist?”

As teachers we are a part of the “discipline” of education. I think what Foucault is trying to say is that all disciplines, including education, were affected by the Enlightenment. One significant factor that contributed to the efforts to become more efficient had to do with the increasing population and the demands that more people put on society. The push to greater efficiency and lower cost became a part of the educational system. We are experiencing the zenith of the efficiency push that was begun in the 19^th century. Standardized testing is an example of the use of efficiency to accomplish order and discipline in an educational system that is increasing in size.

In conclusion, I think that Foucault is saying that humans need order to exist in societal groups. Societal groups have evolved from wandering tribes to advanced civilizations. Part of this development has occurred because humans have become more efficient at the disciplines of education, military, and medicine. The panopticon is a metaphor for the efficient monitoring of society for the benefit of the majority.