When we are alone in our rooms we believe that we are experiencing the highest level of privacy possible. If we feel the need to leave an uncomfortable situation we normally respond by locking ourselves in our room, shutting everyone else away; this is where we feel safest, with no eyes to watch our every movements, left in privacy to do whatever we want to do with no fear of being judged. How true is this? Now that technology is especially unavoidable, how do we know that our devices are not being tampered with? How de we know whether a third party is listening to our conversations at the end of the line? It is impossible for us to know unless we have been warned beforehand. The possibility of it all is the scariest part. In “Panopticism,” Michael Foucault explores the Panopticon and its appearance in modern society. The main effect of the Panopticon when referring to prisons is to “induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power” where “power …show more content…
If it is true that panopticism is omnipresent, then it is virtually impossible for free will and panopticism to coexist. While we may believe that we are doing things of our own accord, we might be unknowingly predisposed to act in certain ways set by those controlling the Panoptic building since they are the ones in control and this is what absolute control is. Those who do not partake in the panoptic execution are subjected to act however they want to. Whenever making a decision, if one is unethical, there is the slightest hesitation before deciding to continue with that idea since there is the possibility that we might be caught. It does not even necessarily have to be unethical, but there is always that minor hesitation. All the choices we decide to make have been shaped by our personal experiences that are not entirely ours since society has influenced our thoughts of those