You are being watched.

Again, this blog is (un)fortunately not about conspiracy theories. This will not be about Greys,  or the government.

You are being watched – but not in the way that you might be thinking.

What is Panopticism? First, let’s start with the Panopticon.


This is a blueprint for The Panopticon. An ideal prison proposed by Jeremy Benton. What makes this prison so ideal? The genius lies in the construction.

Benton envisioned a prison where all the cells would be positioned at the far end of the circular structure. These cells would be built with small windows at the back. Just enough to a let little bit of light in to make the prisoners visible. The windows at the front of the cells would be very large so that the prisoners could be watched at all times.

Benton had a brilliant idea when he thought about the watchtower. The watchtower was envisioned in the centre of this circular structure. This could be constructed in such a way that the guards could always see the prisoners – but the prisoners could never see the guards.

To construct this prison in such a way ment that the prisoners would start to act as if they were always being watched. Even if there were no guards in the tower the prisoners would never be aware of that. They would assume that they were always surveilled. The gaze of the prison guards were ever-present. In the end the prisoners would start to police themselves. In effect, a prison could be run by (almost) no guards!

That was The Panopticon.

But what is Panopticism?

In ancient times a king or ruler told the population what was expected of them. He was visible and his commands clear. If his/her subjects did not agree they could ignore the rulers decrees, revolt and suffer the consequences.

The philosopher, Michel Foucault, made us aware of the fact that power doesn’t work in this way anymore. He was one of the pioneers in the thought about discipline and power in modern society. Power relations, not rulers, shape the lives of the everyday man. He explained this by using The Panopticon. Whereas the The Panopticon has to to with external surveillance, Panopticism has to do with internal surveillance¹

Just as the prisoners was exposed to the gaze of the guards, we too are exposed to an omni-present gaze. Power also can not be held by anyone or thing. Power is rather constituted through accepted forms of knowledge. “Power is everywhere” and “comes from everywhere”. This gaze functions as a regime of truth and is constantly in flux and negotiation². This gaze recruits individuals into docile bodies and has a normalising effect.

Each society has its regime of truth, its “general politics” of truth: that is, the types of discourse which it accepts and makes function as true (Foucault 1980:44-55).

Foucault was the first philosopher who saw power not only in negative terms. While power controls, constrains, and forces us to do things against our will it can also play a constitutive role. This form of power, as envisioned by Foucault, that can attach to strategies of domination can also attach to strategies of resistance.

Docile bodies can become agents again by the insurrection of subjugated knowledges.

What does this insurrection entail? At least two things according to Foucault (in Gordon 1976:81-82):

  • historical knowledges that were always there but were disguised by the current regime of truth and;
  • alternative knowledges that were not deemed worthy by the current regime of truth.

We can never be fully free. The idea of the self-made (wo)man is an illusion. However, this omnipresent gaze can be turned around upon itself.

Postfoundationalism and the Other

In my previous post, Is Truth absolutely relative?, I wrote about three worldviews and how they see the truth. In a few words:

1) Foundationalism – Truth is objective, absolute and universal.

2) Anti-foundationalism – Truth is subjective, relative and context-bound. There is no Truth- only truths.

3) Postfoundationalism – Truth is something or lies somewhere in-between 1) and 2).

In this post we will ask the following question: How is the relationship between the Same and the Other addressed in the three above-mentioned worldviews?

1)      Foundationalism tends to over-emphasise the Same. This results in a monistic/dualistic way of thinking. Everything has to be black or white. It’s either/or. Typical of foundationalism is the need for binary opposition (following Derrida). To name only a few examples of binary oppositions: Presence/Absence, Being/Nothingness, Mind/Body, Rational/Emotional and The Same/The Other. The first term in the opposition receives primary attention and the second term is suppressed.

2)      Anti-foundationalism insofar as it is a reaction against foundationalism tends to over-emphasise the Other. Now the second, repressed, term of the binary opposition receives all the attention and the first term is suppressed if not outright renounced. In the end this whole exercise is futile. The binary opposition only gets reversed. The Same that has been repressing the Other now gets repressed by the Other. Because the Other has become the oppressor it is, ironically, no better than the Same.

3)      Postfoundationalism attempts to maintain a creative tension between the Same and the Other. By doing so it tries to avoid the exclusivism of both foundationalism and anti-foundationalism.

So what?! I said in my previous post that I will address this question. For all intents and purposes I will equate the words “worldview” and Peter Berger’s term “symbolic universe”. A symbolic universe, in short, puts everything into perspective. The symbolic universe, still following Berger, determines how we form the social universe. In other words, the way in which we see the world (i.e. our worldview) determines the world we create.

In a world where most Christians, to my mind, are modernists/foundationalists I feel a particular need to talk about worldviews. If most Christians adhere to foundationalism it means that they also tend to over-emphasise the Same and suppress (or even renounce) the Other. A worldview that suppresses the Other has no place for “others”. Adorno and Horkheimer believed fascism and Nazi Germany were direct descendants of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment gave birth to foundationalism. Thus, foundationalists are responsible for the creation of binary oppositions such as Us/Them, Pure (Arian) race/Impure (especially Jewish) race. Then it goes without saying that foundationalists are also responsible for sexism (Man/Woman), racism (One race/Another race), imperialism, Eurocentrism, xenophobia and homophobia.

I am not a particular fan of foundationalism. Nor am I a fan of anti-foundationalism. Both worldviews are exclusivist and, among many faults, extremely susceptible to ideology.

Relevant enough for you?

Is Truth absolutely relative?

Is Truth absolutely relative?

Does objectivity even exist? If it does, how can it be defined?

The current debate on objectivity can be categorized under three rubrics/categories (and yet another meaning of the word rubric is used). Two extreme viewpoints can be identified on opposite sides of the debate. The third viewpoint oscillates and mediates between the two extremes. The umbrella terms I use for the different worldviews in this post are not my own. All credit goes to Wentzel van Huyssteen.

Let’s start with the two extreme worldviews:

1)      Objectivity most definitely exists! This viewpoint is traditionally associated first and foremost with Descartes and his maxim: “I think, therefore I am.” The human capacity to think came to be seen as the highest expression of human virtue. The rational subject became the centre of the universe. Reason was now autonomous. Reason reigned supreme and it didn’t have to answer to anyone. There was an overwhelming sense of optimism: Through reason man can shape and change his world. Yes, the whole world, because there are absolute, universal, truths that can be applied to any place or any time. Human reason will lead the way to a messianic era.

This worldview can be called modernism or foundationalism.

2)      During and after the Second World War there was a growing sense of disillusionment in humanity’s intellectual capabilities. It soon became clear that if it may be the case that all people are rational, some are more rational than others. In the aftermath of the Second World War the idea of a messianic era of reason became an absurdity to many. The meta/master/grand-narratives of the Enlightenment, the West, Communism, to name a few, were opposed. Local, micro-narratives were favoured instead.  Optimism warped into pessimism. Objectivism was replaced by subjectivism. Truth could no longer be expressed in global and absolute terms because truth is relative and context-bound. The claim to a truth depends on the certain perspective from where it is made. The only objective truth-claim that can be made is that there is no such thing as objective truth. As long as everyone would just stick to their own truth(s) everything would be fine. Dialogue, if even possible, would be unproductive or unnecessary. No one wants to step on anybody’s toes and cause a Third World War. “To each its own” can be seen as the maxim of this worldview.

This worldview can be called anti-foundationalism.

What we have said thus far can be summarized by the following table showing what the two extreme viewpoints tend to emphasise:

Foundationalism Anti-Foundationalism
Black or White Gray Areas
The Same The Other
Consistency Contingency
Either/Or Also
(Naive) Realism Anti-Realism
Epistemic Hermeneutic
Objectivity Subjectivity
Absolutism Relativism
Monism/Dualism Pluralism
Optimism Pessimism/Skepticism
Meta-Narrative Micro-Narrative
Global Local
Institutional Anti-Institutional
The Central The Marginal
Certainty Ambiguity

The third worldview oscillates and mediates between the two above-mentioned extremes:

3)      Unlike foundationalism this particular worldview acknowledges the fact that truth is interpretive, contextual and confined. It, however, rejects the notion of anti-foundationalism that it is impossible to break through the confines of the local, perspectival and plural nature of truth. Yes, every construction of an objective reality is subjective. But in the end all these subjective constructions remains constructions of the same object. For this reason, inter-subjectivity exists. Through dialogue (“transcommunal conversation”) common ground can be discovered. Although we cannot have absolute certainty this gives us no reason not to eventually escape from a position of radical doubt. Local truths can become more-than-local truths but it will never be absolute truths. This worldview attempts to avoid the exclusivism and reductionism that are the eventual consequences of foundationalism and post-foundationalism through building a bridge between the two.

This worldview can be called postfoundationalism.

I had much difficulty in writing this post. What I have said thus far has left me unsatisfied. One reason for my dissatisfaction is that this post has to have a disclaimer. I can’t stress this enough. I have no intention of pretending that the few words that I have written does justice to the enormity of the debate on truth that has been going on since the birth of philosophy. Therefore this post has to be treated as a summary of an overview. These worldviews can’t be solely equated with historical movements although some of these worldviews are more prevalent at certain times. One particular philosophy does not necessarily have to be associated with only a single worldview. Some are a mixture of at least two of the three worldviews. By no means can the descriptions of the worldviews or the worldviews themselves be absolutes. Not only do we have many differentiations within the worldviews themselves but we also have alternative worldviews between the three mentioned worldviews.

Maybe some of you have asked yourselves when I am going to mention postmodernism (as I have already referred to modernism). Modernism and foundationalism is, to my mind, essentially the same thing. Then postmodernism and anti-foundationalism is the same thing, right? Nope! Then, if postmodernism isn’t anti-foundational it has to be post-foundational. Also no. Many believe that postmodernism is anti-foundational. I disagree. Most postmodern thought tends to be anti-foundational, yes, but I believe that at least one “postmodern” philosopher, Jacques Derrida, is in fact post-foundational. Maybe I will defend this claim at a later stage.

You have the right to ask the following question about foundationalism, anti-foundationalism, post-foundationalism or any other –ism that I have addressed: So what? Seeing that this post is turning into a mini-dissertation I will answer this question in the weeks to come.