Foucault Panopticon Analysis

In his concept of the panopticon, Foucault adopted Jeremy Bentham’s prison design as a metaphor for modern disciplinary power. According to Foucault, discipline is invoked through an individual’s consciousness of permanent visibility and surveillance, resulting in compliant and self-policing behaviours as if constantly being watched (Nettleton, 1997). Engrained in this concept is Foucault’s notion of discourse, where he asserts that power is fabricated through language and practices, acting as leverage in legitimising power (Nettleton, 1997). In turn, discourse influences how expert knowledge and ideologies are constructed and maintained within social institutions and processes, and the ensuing power relations observable in society (Nettleton,
Firstly, discursive practices almost exclusively focus on the way it constructs knowledge and ‘truths’ to regulate the behaviour of individuals (Olson, 2015). There is little discussion in Foucault’s work of the ways in which individuals may reject discourse, fail to self-regulate and resist dominant moral order. This is problematic when looking at the issue of obesity, as it cannot explain the actions of those who are already obese. Similarly, Foucault’s theories do not take into account the social determinants of health that may increase the likelihood of being obese, such as lack of education, unemployment, social isolation and socioeconomic status (Phelan et al., 2010). For instance, if an individual does not understand that calorie dense foods and sedentary lifestyles leads to obesity, and has a low-income, this individual’s social position may hinder their ability to self-discipline and comply to dominant discourses, though these discourses still retain their authority (Nettleton, 1997). Instead, they are acting within their means, with behaviours anchored in their social and economic circumstances (Phelan et al.,