Among the inmates of the mental institutions and poor houses in France, ongoing observation allowed for the shifting of physical chains to mental chains. Fear and shame are aroused when we are being observed, and those doing the observation apply moral judgements to our behavior. This internalization of shame and control is perhaps the most important (though often overlooked) impact of capitalism on the labor and lives of the women we are studying.
The noted philosopher and social reformer, Jeremy Bentham, captured the essence of this internalization process in his description of the hypothetical Panopticon. Bentham proposed that a circular (or semi-circular) building could be built. This building would have windows facing out to the center of the circle (or semi-circle). A tall tower would be constructed at the center. Windows are placed near the top of the tower. With this design, someone positioned at the top of the tower could observe everyone residing in one of the rooms located in the main building. All occupants of these rooms in the main building could be observed. Their behavior can be carefully monitored, whether the building houses a manufacturing facility, a prison, or a school. The culture of observation is clearly in operation.
Bentham’s envisioned Panopticon moves us well beyond external observation. Bentham notes that those being observed can’t observe the observers. This means that no one needs to be in the observational room of the tower. This tower room is high enough that occupants of rooms in the main building could never determine if anyone is in the tower. Thus, just the possibility that they are being observed would lead these occupants to “behave themselves.” The occupants would internalize control of their behavior, thereby eliminating the need for any regular occupation of the tower by someone serving as a monitor (manager, supervisor, guard, or teacher).
Foucault doesn’t just point to the internalization of control offered by Bentham’s Panopticon. He also points to ways in which psychological processes of shame and disregard can lead specifically to the internalization of chains in mental institutions (Foucault, 1988). When someone is in chains, they can strike back, knowing they can’t harm anyone. If the chains are removed, then the inmate can do real harm. The unchained person is now truly responsible for their actions. As Foucault notes, it is at this point that a facilitator (alienist, therapist, or counsellor) can induce shame when the liberated asylum dweller “behaves badly.”
Authority, observation, and indifference
Richard Sennett (1995) offers a similar account of how authority is often engaged in contemporary postmodern societies. An alienating and shaming form of authority is built on the foundation of indifferent concern for the welfare of other people: “I don’t really care what you do, but here is the probable outcome if you choose to do something as foolish as you have suggested.” Sennett (1995, p. 95) provides a disturbing portrait of this destructive form of authority:
“Autonomous character structure means a person has the ability to be a good judge of others because he or she is not desperate for their approval.. . . When a person is needed by others more than he needs them, he can afford to be indifferent to them. . . [A]utonomy removes the necessity of dealing with other people openly and mutually. There is an imbalance; they show their need for you more than you show your need for them. This puts you in control. . . Someone who is indifferent arouses our desire to be recognized; we want this person to feel we matter enough to be noticed. . . . The shame an autonomous person can arouse in subordinates is an implicit control. Rather than the employer explicitly saying ‘You are Dirt’ or ‘Look how much better I am,’ all he needs to do is his job—exercise his skill or deploy his calm and indifference. His powers are fixed in his position, they are static attributes, qualities of what he is.”
