In his book, Surveiller et punir: naissance de la prison (roughly translated as “Discipline and Punish: the birth of the prison”), Michel Foucault discusses a social theory called “panopticism.”
The basic idea of panopticism is the threat of surveillance as a method of disciplinary control. Architect Jeremy Bentham famously designed the Panopticon: a layout for prisons where a large tower was centered within a square or arch of prison cells facing inwards towards the tower. Bentham suggest the central tower be occupied by a prison guard, who could see all the prisoners—and, more importantly, be seen by all the prisoners—at once.
The guard would be, in Foucault’s phraseology, “ever visible.” Conversely, the inmates, who could not be seen by one another, would be invisible. (Many, many prisons have adopted Bentham’s model.) Foucault explained panopticism as a disciplinary model as follows:
“If the inmates are convicts, there is no danger of a plot, an attempt at collective escape, the planning of new crimes for the future, bad reciprocal influences; if they are patients, there is no danger of contagion; if they are madmen there is no risk of their committing violence upon one another; if they are schoolchildren, there is no copying, no noise, no chatter, no waste of time; if they are workers, there are no disorders, no theft, no coalitions, none of those distractions that slow down the rate of work, make it less perfect or cause accidents.”
It is a basic enough concept to be readily understood: surveillance establishes control, which in turn creates power insofar as it regulates and modifies behavior. People tend to behave if they believe they are being watched (regardless of whether in fact they are being watched or not.)
It is not surprising that Foucault considers appeal of panopticism to schools and to prisons as one and the same: schools, like prisons, seek to maintain order and compliance. The United States Supreme Court recognizes that schools “have a legitimate interest in maintaining an environment that facilitates learning and ensures security.” New Jersey v. TLO, 469 U.S. 325, 338 (1985). And the Supreme Court had held that prisons have a legitimate interest in maintaining order in a prison, even while cautioning that “the prisoner and the child stand in wholly different circumstances, separated by harsh facts of criminal conviction and incarceration.” Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977). Note, here, however, what the Court does not say: that the objectives regarding the need for surveillance of prisoners and school children differs; only that prisoner and children are differently situated as populations.
It would be nearly ten years later that the Court would take up the distinctions between prisoners and students as to means authorities could use surveillence on both populations.