Nathaniel Adames
Professor Lee
English (Cyber) 110
October 21, 2008
Assignment 3 Revision
In “Panopticism” by Michel Foucault and in “The ‘Banking’ Concept of
Education” by Paulo Freire, both authors state their radical ideas. Foucault’s
“Panopticism” focuses more on oppression, while Freire’s “The ‘banking’ concept of
education” focus on freedom. While different in nature and purpose, both works do focus
on the oppression that is occurring. So both works can either be similar or different. But
how can two different essay by two different authors be overlapping and yet still clash
with each other? It all depends on your point of view and how you interpret each essay.
With this knowledge that the two essay can and do overlap, lets focus on how they clash.
The clash is not only a battle of ideas, but a classic battle that occurs over and over again,
the battle between a dreamer and a realist.
In Foucault’s “Panopticism”, Foucault uses the Panopticon as a concept. The
Panopticon is a type of prison designed by Jeremy Bentham in the late eighteenth
century. The panopticon is unique because it allows an observer to see each prisoner,
without being seen. He goes on to discuss how it can be applied to multiple environment
and applications that require a group of people to be kept under observation. He also uses
the Panopticon to illustrate the relationship between knowledge and power. He does this
by showing how knowledge leads to power. In this case knowledge doesn’t refer to what
you know, but the understanding of how things “work” and are. He conclude his essay by
saying how surprising it is that “factories, school, barracks, hospitals” resemble a
Panopticon, a prison (Foucault 236).
In Freire’s “The ‘Banking’ Concept of Education”, Freire start off by emphasizing
how strongly he disapprove of the modern style of education, which he calls the
‘banking’ concept of education. The ‘Banking’ concept of education is the idea that
students are to absorb the knowledge deposit by their teacher; students are force to
memorize this knowledge. Freire solution for the ‘Banking’ concept is the ‘Problem
Posing’ concept of education. As I understand, the ‘Problem Posing’ concept is the idea
that the teacher and the students supposed to communicate with each other to answer a
question or questions; in this way both students and teacher learn from each other.
Freire believe that the banking concept is oppressive because it prevents students
from thinking for themselves. Accounting to Foucault, a school or any other educational
institution can be a panopticon, a prison; This is because “Whenever one is dealing with
a multiplicity of individuals on whom task or a particular form of behavior must be
imposed, the panoptic schema may be used” (Foucault 220). As we all know, a prison is
design to effectively oppress the inmates and strip then of their power.
Freire believes that because of this oppression, that there should be a revolution to
stop it. Foucault may agree with him, but will argue that if all schools are Panopticon,
then a revolution can not occur. A revolution is not likely to occur because the
Panopticon “makes it possible to perfect the exercise of power” (Foucault 220).
Panopticon efficiency allows the flawless exercise of power, the power that allows one to
exercise control upon another. The Panopticon allow the person in power to see and
know all, while the person under his power to see and know little. This in itself is a form
of oppression, a form of oppression that can’t be overcome without the person in power
allowing it. This form of oppression is also a perfect form of control being because the
person being controlled is always being control even if no one is actually maintaining it.
This perfect control is perfect discipline, and perfect discipline is perfect power. To put it
simple, control is a form of discipline and discipline is a form of power.
Works Cited
Foucault, Michel. “Panopticism.” ways of reading.
Ed. David Bartholomae and Anthony Petrosky. 209 – 37. Print.
Freire, Paulo. “The ‘Banking’ Concept of Education.” ways of reading.
Ed. David Bartholomae and Anthony Petrosky. 243 – 57. Print.