We’re watching Captain America II, the story of a man who misses the Atomic Bomb, Cold War, and rise of Computer Technology, as a way of exploring the ethical implications of our so-called “postmodern era.” The Captain comes from a time (the 40’s) where traditional ideals and values still reigned, before they were called into question by the catastrophic and culture-warping events of the second half of the 20th century. One way to understand this is the Captain comes from a DEONTOLOGICAL moral perspective, one based on absolute standards of rules and duties, whereas our society has moved to a more UTILITARIAN or PRAGMATIST mindset which is more concerned about “what works” than right vs. wrong. Yet ironically, the Captain must break his own deontological rules when he learns that this Utilitarian mindset has led the government to create Project Insight, a massive world-surveillance program that will calculate people’s threat-levels and simply assassinate them before they commit a crime. His deontological opposition to this idea leads him to a utilitarian rebellion against government. The philosopher Michel Foucault thought that Utilitarian thinking could be dangerous. It was better than the old deontology that simply demanded obedience, but it wasn’t really making people any freer. We went from threats and punishments to what Foucaults “training” and “discipline,” molding people into the prevailing idea of “normality.” But since everything is an interpretation from Foucault’s Nietzsche-inspired perspective, knowledge is less a matter of “truth” than power. The collection of “facts” or the development of ideas that claim to reflect a situation’s “truth” are always attempts to influence, even control others. His favorite example of this comes from Jeremy Bentham, the founder of utilitarianism, who proposed a prison called the Panopticon (literally, pan-optic mean “all-seeing”). Through constant and unpredictable surveillance, prisoners would start to discipline themselves, following the rules out of fear that they were being watched by the officer in the central tower, who kept their cells always lit: In other words, Foucault says our society has begun to run like a giant panopticon; “panopticism,” mainly through surveillance, is the model of power that defines the (post)modern age. Foucault, like Captain America, saw himself as an advocate and defender of human freedom; Bentham and the utilitarians saw this surveillance as promoting safety and security in society. Who do you side with, and why? Cite as many real-world examples as you can to justify your position. This is worth a quiz grade!
20 Comments
skye post
3/14/2016 05:45:54 pm
For a long time, I thought I did not have strict parents. They always trusted me, were relatively understanding and fair about things and such...but I realized that may have been because I never overstepped my boundaries. Never once did I try to go against them when I felt a "rule" was unfair, and see there were no established rules!! I thought I had no rules. But. It was really just a mutual understanding, that I should never desire to go against certain unspoken expectations. And I think I never recognized it because I was trained to believe what they wanted. Now I like my parents just fine, but now that I am aware of the true relationship we have, I understand I am, and have always been, a guest in their house. My mom said "We give you complete trust. But if you break it you will never get it again. You are the only one who knows what you've gotten away with". My mother is very much a panopticon. I never know whether or not I'm being watched each moment, but I know I very well could be. Yet I side with Foucault, I still break the unspoken set of rules because there are "cracks in their system" that I must widen. Not because I am trying to defy them, but because I must refuse yo be oppressed by such a dangerous authority. As a human being, I am entitled to certain rights. One right I feel I am entitled to that I break is this: I do not like to visit the cemetery with anyone but myself. I like to go on walks alone. For this reason, I have to wait for my parents to leave to go do these things. Like Bentham/utilitarians, my parents would say they do this for my safety. It's better off because they're just trying to protect me. But to be entitled to human rights is to be entitled to take part in the danger we face. I choose MY freedom, as well as MY responsibility, my risks, my consequences. That is a respect all authorities should hold.
Reply
Emilie Weiner
3/14/2016 07:13:43 pm
Although I never thought I would wind up referencing to this research as much as I do, Foucault's work was a primary focus in conducting my preliminary research and establishing the foundation for my EE. I undoubtedly support his philosophy that, simply enough, power is exercised by creating mechanisms that ensure compliance rather than convincing people to conform. Power then becomes useless unless the threat of resistance exists. We do live under constant surveillance, and the fact that we even have to be remotely concerned about being watched during our daily lives says enough. For example, having recently acquired my license, I find that, particularly at night, I have a huge fear that cops are going to follow me or pull me over, even though I am positive that I'm doing nothing wrong. I am overcome with a feeling that I am not performing right societally, or that the authority is bound to be searching for a fault within me or my actions, just because of the expectation that one should be there. I do not by any means believe that this should be true, since it compromises our freedom entirely. Drivers, on this small scale, or ordinary people going about their every day lives in any situation, are then forced into behaving differently than they would in a free, surveillance free environment. Our sense of normality is thus altered, and we remain, trapped under the watching eyes that we're not even sure are on us.
Reply
Haley Watson
3/15/2016 05:40:45 am
As most human beings probably will, I side with Foucault. It does frighten me that someone could easily be tracking my activity on my phone or where I physically am. It makes us question if one day our society will become similar to the ones displayed in Orwell’s 1984 and Huxley’s Brave New World, where Big Brother is a largely prevalent figure. In order to prevent ourselves from reaching this state, society as a whole would have to subject ourselves to the standards of rules and duties deontology promotes. However, if our society were to transition into a deontogical perspective now, madness would suit. Most people don’t follow the morals religion or life establishes in general. I also think people wouldn’t be able to handle the lack of security they have been accustomed to. The best example I can think of is how babies are accustomed to their parents coming to take care of them when the cry. The baby needs that sense of security in order to feel safe.
Reply
I feel if I side with Bentham, I would have a more cynical look on human nature. I really don't feel that more then a good portion of people are really "bad". I would have to side with Foucault on this one. Well, I am really on his side for a couple reasons. We have seen countries in which leaders have complete control of people and can see what most of them are saying or doing at any given time. (ex N. Korea, Russia, most any areas with a dictatorial leaders.) A note about these dictatorial countries is that they all have extreme security and with that the people are under the thumbs of the people who rule. This really means that the people being crushed under the weight of the thumb have a billion cameras on them and are not free what so ever. But also in a sense, we are not "free" in America either, we have a panopticon security, they are not watching all of us, but they can easily. They watch us in the means of "security" and control what websites and content we are "safe" or not. BS to that especially even if it is knowledge for the greater good.
Reply
Tim Mills
3/15/2016 05:02:41 pm
In today's world people are always battling with whether security is most important or freedom is most important. At first I might say Foucalt because I do believe that freedom is priceless and should always come first. However security is very important to protect the freedoms we cherish. Look at the issue of the government wanting apple to unlock a suspected terrorist's phone to see what he's been doing. If the government were allowed this sort of access, they may be able to track down and stop terrorists before they can cause any harm. I believe in both Foucault and Bentham's views, I think we should try to find a middle ground between the two. In Captain America 2 I believe Cap and Nick Fury represent the two extremes of their arguments. Fury wasn't everyone to be surveyed wherever they are at all times, while Cap thinks no one should have to be forced to be watched. I think some surveillance is necessary to protect people. Cap's views would work in a perfect world without major threats, but that's not the world we live in, the government needs to be able to find threats wherever they had. I'm not saying they should bug everyone's phone, but they should be allowed access to the information of anyone suspected of being a terrorist, major criminal, etc. Freedom is important, but what's the point of it if we have to keep waiting for the next threat or attack to come?
Reply
zoe kralyevich
3/15/2016 05:04:19 pm
I would have to agree with Foucault simply due to my strong nature of defending whatever you strongly believe in. I may not seem like it, hence my shy nature, but when it comes to contemporary issues such as this, I get very passionate about what I fight for. I don't believe that having this total system of surveillance would cause anything but chaos. This is a persistent threat to people's privacy and would cause a great amount of uproar from citizens. The goal of the government is obvious: to eliminate threats before they become out of control. However, the only way you can determine who is a threat is through information and the only way to get information is to get it through others. I can also understand how the government has a need to know everything. Knowing everything gives you the ultimate power: to not only know what everyone is doing but also what their intentions are and future moves will be. By giving the government this power, we become like chess pieces on a board with the government being the player.
Reply
Kristen Wimmer
3/15/2016 07:12:47 pm
I agree with Foucault; power in our modern age is the accumulation of knowledge. Some may argue that it is the rich that hold the most power, however the ties between wealth and information are indisputable. We have to pay for internet access, for starters. Once you move up the socioeconomic ladder, the richer cooperate with royalty, government officials, those who hold the most knowledge of their people. The best education costs the most money, and in the United States, there is generally a greater respect in the workforce for those attended an expensive university.
Reply
Jaz Flores
3/15/2016 09:06:11 pm
"Bentham and the utilitarians saw this surveillance as promoting safety and security in society." Is this not happening now with the government? The thing with apple and the government wanting them to have a back door so they can get into that one phone I do feel like great yes it's a wonderful idea except for the part where the government will be able to just go through phones. I side with Foucault we are granted our freedom by birth even before. Though freedom can mean many things to different people, in different levels of society. I am not so into politics so I won't reference that though I should be more inform. I just feel really uneasy about someone having access to every piece of info on my life.
Reply
Kelly Cruz
3/16/2016 07:48:27 am
I, like most other people as well, am going to side with Foucault. Despite Bentham's reasoning for this "surveillance" being for our own safety and security, it doesn't necessarily make me feel safe.
Reply
Abby Westgate
3/16/2016 04:24:53 pm
Without rehabilitation, there is no point in discipline. If there are reduced crime rates in an area because of surveillance, does that mean the area has really changed? With surveillance, does a society become more humane, or does it just appear to be so? This question reminds me of the city of Camden, NJ, which we have been learning about in AP Human Geography. The city of Camden was riddled with crime, and had one of the highest murder rates in the world. One of the most dangerous places to live was a city in the United States, and almost no one knew this. Drug deals went on in broad daylight, and at some points in the day, a total of 12 police officers were responsible for policing the whole city. Camden was a mess. Recently, governor Christie has brought a County Police force into Camden. One of the strategies of this new police force is use of surveillance. There are video cameras on almost every street corner. Police can track the movements of people over time, and "stop crime before it happens." At a quick glance, surveillance really does seem to be the better option. The crime rate has significantly decreased in Camden. However, we watched a Vice video that took a closer look and interviewed drug dealers in the city. It turns out less drug deals are going on outside because of the surveillance, but more illegal activity has moved inside, away from the watchful eyes of the police department. Surveillance, an exercise of power very much concerned with how things appear, has made Camden appear to be a better place. The problem with both deontology and surveillance is that they both involve telling people what they should or should not do, and lock them up if they are caught doing the wrong thing. People do not learn to make better decisions if they are locked up and doing nothing in jail. Those that do not get caught will just think of more clever ways to elude surveillance. What we need is a hands-on strategy. People need to see the consequences of their actions. If someone is arrested for murder, he or she should have to have mandatory visits from the family of the victim frequently while they are in jail, to see the emotional damage they have inflicted on the family. Maybe instead of focusing on how we should be keeping an eye on illegal activity, we should be focusing on how to make the perpetrators of crime keep an eye on the consequences of what they have done, and think of other ways to rehabilitate criminals.
Reply
Jessica Auriemma
3/16/2016 08:52:52 pm
I strongly side with Foucault on this issue. I think surveillance, especially oppressive surveillance like described in the Panopticon, is a horrible way to try and control people. Having a person be aware that at any moment they could are potentially being watched instills fear and anxiety into them. For example, I feel like this tactic is used a lot by cops in order to control drivers. I see cop cars parked far off in corners, just barely peeking out from behind stores or in other places where you only see them out of the corner of your eye as you pass. This method of “hiding” while still making sure that you are seen makes drivers very cautious because they know that at any moment there could be a cop car parked in the corner with its lights turned off. This works fairly well in controlling the general public because the threat of a consequence for breaking the rules is always lurking over them. However, as I said before this also puts a lot of paranoia in people. I know that I personally always step on the brake when I go past a cop even if I know I am not speeding because what if for one second I were to accidentally speed up and he/she catches this? Constant surveillance makes people doubt themselves even if they know they are abiding by the rules. I think the amount of anxiety constant surveillance puts on people far outweighs any good it could do. Another example is RBR. Aside from the cameras every 5 feet, there are signs all over telling you the rules and hall aids who walk around to make sure you aren’t doing something horrendous that could potentially threaten the safety of the entire school like, I don’t know, maybe going on your phone in the hallway because god forbid I should check a text on my way to the bathroom :):):):) it would surely wreak havoc in the school. There are also teachers stationed at tables in almost every major hallway who’s only job is to just watch as you walk by. Every second you are under some type of surveillance and if it isn’t by a teacher right in front of you then it is the camera that is without a doubt right above your head. Not only is overbearing surveillance unnecessary, but I feel as though it doesn’t do much good. When such tight restrictions are placed on people it makes them itch to find cracks in the system and rebel. I know countless kids who sneak out of school just because they know that if they leave through this door at this time that they can go unpunished. Surveillance is counterproductive when it reaches the point where people are actively seeking ways around it. Foucault is right that humans should be free to live without someone watching over them. Constant surveillance leads to a society where people are either ridden with anxiety about breaking the rules or a society where people rebel and look for flaws in the system and then extort those loopholes as much as they can.
Reply
Jane Breslin
3/17/2016 05:52:23 pm
Today in our post modern society and with our advanced technology, surprisingly many people do not realize that they are under surveillance. Whenever you click a link to go to another website, that not only goes on your history, but is ingrained in the technology. Simply deleting your history will not help very much. However, there recently has been Ingonito mode from Google and private mode from Apple which makes it difficult to track. This brings up the whole issue and debate over the FBI needing the Apple phone codes in order to get into a terrorist's phone. It could save many lives, but also jeopardize our rights of privacy because then the government can hack easily into Apple phones. I understand that society does need some type of structure and order, but it leads to the question of how much power is too much? I agree with Foucault to an extent. People should be able to live free without constant surveillance. Since terrorism is such a huge concern it would be reasonable to keep tabs on suspisous individuals. We cannot simply treat every single person in the world as prisoners.
Reply
Gabriela Recalde
3/18/2016 08:11:16 am
I completely agree with Michel Foucault which is part of the reason why he is my favorite philosopher that we've learned about. I've been admiring his struggles and motives since Mr. Biggs introduced him in sophomore year. I think the reason that his philosophy carries so much weight is because he lived through institutionalized confinement and treatment. He knew better than most the fundamental flaws that come with a panoptic model. I guess that the most obvious problem with this system is its lack of privacy and freedom. Another crucial part of his argument is that it isn't completely effective. Last week, Mr. Biggs told out class about how students were completely ignoring the security cameras in the school. This lack of "respect" or fear proves that this method of control doesn't even fulfill its purpose on a small scale implementation. Personally, my problem with it is that having a Panopticon-type society takes away the opportunity for humans to be good on their own, not because we are being constantly monitored. I do believe that there is some hope for humanity and stripping us of our freedom doesn't even give us a chance to prove or disprove that existence.
Reply
Adel Soliman
3/20/2016 05:00:13 pm
" How can I really feel safe if I know im always being watched? Thats control through fear and paranoia." I would think this is the argument presented by those who are against total world surveillance, but in the sense of reality, how else can you truly control the people. People tend to miss the bigger picture, Yeah if the world is under constant surveillance, then there will be less wrong for people will be too afraid they are being watched to do wrong. Some people wont run a yellow light because of cameras that are being added to all traffic lights that record who breaks the law. this can prevent accidents and saves lives, and people wouldnt steal because storres are packed with cameras and they know there are always eyes on them. But that isnt the big picture. Its more of, when somthing is commited, The criminal can easily be caught and put away. If a murder happened and they killed all eye witnesses, then there is a murderer running free on the streets. if someone robs a store and the person gives all the money, without a camera they just got away and that's that. by have surveillance applied everywhere, we can prevent further crimes by capturing criminals and taking them off the streets. In addition, one should have to fear the cameras or thought of being watched. If it makes you uncomfortable, if you are even thinking about how oyu are being watched, then chances are youre thinking about something you shouldnt be. Why would you have to think or put the slightest \bit of thought in to if youre being watched or not if youre doing nothing wrong. There is no problem with surveillance, it only instils fear in those who think about it because they want to try getting away with something they shouldn't be doing.
Reply
Tyler Duane
3/20/2016 06:13:08 pm
Today surveillance is almost everywhere, cameras watching every part of a building in businesses, people watching your every move on the internet, and many other instances where many have less privacy than one thinks they have. Governments have learned recent years that scare tactics and constant surveillance shows positive results in the short run, but the longer its done the more civil unrest appears. Privacy is one rights people expect to have so if its taken away for an extended period of time people are going to get pissed off and have anger towards the government. People then began to try and find loop holes in rules and take advantage of the few areas not surveillanced. It's easy to forget the line between order and total monarchy when given power to run others. Foucault's idea is true but society has not fully reached it yet, but it will soon if it is not stopped. Treating each person as a suspect for every crime works in the short run but not for the long run.
Reply
Ricky Wild
3/22/2016 07:52:08 am
Our society is indeed turning into a twisted version of Bentham's Panopticon, with it's growing surveillance. The reason I believe this is because we don't know when we are being watched both physically and through the internet. There are camera's on nearly every street corner, lining the walls of schools, and even in people's bedrooms. We think we are being watched, but usually we aren't. Also, we are afraid to do things that are normal and we begin to change our habits. We don't resist the installation of cameras because, "They are for our safety and if you aren't doing anything wrong, then you shouldn't be afraid." This is brings us to the argument of safety versus freedom.
Reply
Shea Cody
3/22/2016 09:13:30 am
I think a society with aspects of both philosophies are most benficial. A society will be chaotic with extremes of either philospher's ideas. A society with only personal freedom is one that will end up with anarchy. A society like this would not be able to progress in all ways possible, but neither does one with only structure. A society with only structure resembles more of a prison that all people shouldn't be living under. It would resemble Germany during World War II where people had no freedoms.
Reply
Michael DeCristofaro
4/4/2016 05:28:25 am
With the world we live in today everything is run off of rules. Our society is turning into Bentham's. Surveillance is all over. If you go in store and look up you will see several cameras facing you at different parts of the store. However, you do have to face the facts here. Without the surveillance many more crimes would be committed. Many people would steal in these stores and just do things that people should not do. However another question would be is it fair for those who would not steal? It is not all about crimes either. Today many parents are buying tracking devices to know where their children are at all times. If your parents are not tracking you, the government could be with the drones. It is just weird knowing you can be being watched at all times and not even know how or by who.
Reply
Joe "Drek" Dark
4/4/2016 08:09:46 pm
Because human nature is complicated i side with Bentham. I kind of don't like that fact that he wants total surveillance but some things could be given up for protection. One of the biggest problems is you can't truly know someones thoughts and potential actions. I mean you can try with a lie detector but you can't understand their true intentions, Like terrorists. There are a decent amount of the radical terrorists and sleeper cells around the world and its hard to find them when they look like just another citizen. Its not fair to inflict special (negative) treatment on a large population because a few people are bad. Surveillance would fix that. It would catch spies and potential threats without creating to much of an unfair system. Surveillance would also prevent many other criminal/"bad" actions.
Reply
Dannielle Wolf
4/6/2016 05:33:56 pm
I am going to side with Foucault because I do not agree with a society run by fear. When people are too scared to say what they actually believe because someone in a position of power might hear them, I would say there is definitely a problem. For example, in schools, there are cameras around every corner to watch exactly what students are doing. In most public spaces, there is someone watching you from a little closet somewhere. Our Google search histories are filtered for anything that could be considered dangerous. I also completely agree with Skye's entry as well. My dad, at a very personal level, is a panopticon. He can look through my text messages and he is notified whenever I do something "wrong" at school. Of course, it can be argued that all of these things are for my safety. It is still a violation of my privacy. Everyday, we are watched by someone, and that makes me very uncomfortable. People are terrified to do what they want or say how they feel because of the consequences. Plenty of students come to school and stay there for the entire day, even if they are sick or don't want to, because they know that there could be consequences for not being marked as present or seen on a camera. Instead of a society run by free will, we are left with a society of "can I?"
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorArchives
April 2016
Categories |