On Nano-Panopticism:
A Sociological Perspective
Michael D. Mehta*
“In the end, only a society
that is fundamentally just can be trusted with nanotechnology.”[1]
Advances in nanotechnology promise to usher in a new kind of scientific and industrial revolution. For chemists and chemical engineers, nanotechnology represents a central direction for growth and revitalisation of their respective sciences. For the general public, nanotechnology has the potential to focus the collective imagination on the possibilities of a world where scarcity of natural resources, environmental contamination, and seemingly intractable health problems are things of the past. Nanotechnology promises to vitiate the relevance of organised matter and to foster the development of technologies that are cleaner and more efficient. Clearly, much is expected from nanotechnology.
In addition to changing the way objects are eventually constructed, nanotechnology will stimulate a range of social transformations. Such changes are likely to be incremental in nature, and may lead society down paths that are normatively-speaking undesirable. In this paper we will explore how the development of nano-scale devices for surveillance, tracking and monitoring may create a society that functions as a “panopticon.” In short, a panopticon is an institutionalised (and physical) form of surveillance. In this era of heightened sensitivity to security, nanotechnology may provide a valuable set of tools for enhancing surveillance. But at what cost?
What is a
panopticon?
Sociologists and
others have written extensively about how people respond to being observed. In
the late 1920s a Harvard University professor named Elton Mayo conducted a set
of social experiments at the Hawthorne plant of the Western Electric Company in
Cicero, Illinois.[2] Mayo and
associates were interested in productivity and manipulated a range of
environmental variables (e.g., lighting, humidity, temperature) to see if
workers would be more productive under certain conditions. After more than five
years of study, these researchers concluded that worker productivity increased
whenever any variable was adjusted. Now known as the “Hawthorne Effect,” this
study is a famous example of how observation alone is enough to induce changes
in behaviour. In short, workers at the Hawthorne plant were more efficient when
being observed because they noticed the attention (and possibly feared
reprisals) from their employer. Since this period of time a range of new
technologies has increased the power of observation.
To understand the
social impacts of observation, it is useful to consider the work of theorists
like Michel Foucault and his assessment of the panopticon within prisons and
elsewhere. In 1977, an English translation of Foucault’s seminal book on the
history of the modern prison system was published.[3]
The central argument of his book is that the purpose of the prison system
established after the French Revolution was to get away from punishment based
on the arbitrary rule of the monarch and the use of torture. This represented a
radical transformation in the deployment of power, as recourse to torture as a
system of state punishment became less possible, or even desirable, in an
increasingly democratic and enlightened context. The new bourgeois regime
undertook a major reform of the state penal system based on the humane and
equal treatment of all prisoners. As part of that reformist movement, the
French National Assembly launched a competition for the design of a new prison
which would be cost-effective to run from the state's point of view, and which
would help create model citizens, or at least model prisoners.
According to
Foucault, Jeremy Bentham entered the competition and suggested the construction
of a panopticon, an observation tower located at the centre of the prison.
Using an open-plan, iron bars are placed on the side of each cell facing the
panopticon, thus making the occupant totally visible to a gazing guard. An
outside window in each cell provided natural light and additional visibility.
This system was designed to reduce the operating cost of the institution since
a single guard could simultaneously observe all prisoners. Like a goldfish in a
glass bowl, prisoners within the panopticon had little or no privacy.
Another original
and important feature of the panopticon is that it is a one-way observation
system in which prisoners cannot tell if a guard is actually observing them.
This meant that, in theory, there could be no guard in the panopticon yet
prisoners would still behave as if being observed. Even without the actual
presence of a gazing guard, the power effects of the panopticon were felt by
prisoners. This meant that individuals in each cell would have to learn to
practice self-control to behave as good prisoners who followed prison
regulations. Despite the absence of institutionalised physical violence against
prisoners, the constant gaze had normalising effects on, not only their
conduct, but on their self-perception, personality, and way of seeing the
world.
The dream of
total visibility and unencumbered gaze is being realised by new surveillance
technology.[4]
A constant gaze (or monitoring) of individuals is now possible, from credit
ratings, financial transactions, health records, police files, cameras in
public spaces, to marketing surveys for gauging consumer preferences. More
importantly, increasingly sophisticated new data processing technology enables
the effective sorting of large amounts of information, and provides the ability
to track individuals as they navigate their way through networks like the
Internet.[5]
Can nanotechnology intensify these effects?
Is
nano-panopticism a real threat?
Nanotechnology
is stimulating significant advances in surveillance and monitoring technology.
By facilitating the miniaturisation of remote camera technology, the panoptic
effects from surveillance become magnified. It will soon become possible to
place undetectable video cameras, microphones and transmitters anywhere one
wishes. For example, researchers from Hiroshima University and Nippon Hoso
Kyokai (NHK) have discovered that silicon nano-crystal film is photoconductive.[6]
Once greater control over the size of crystal grains is achieved, it should be
possible to use such films in charge-coupled devices for making highly
sensitive, compact video cameras.
In addition to
reducing the size of surveillance equipment and improving sensitivity,
nanotechnology has the potential to increase computing power and storage
capacity of electronic devices. Research on the insertion of fullerenes into
carbon nanotubes shows how nanowires can be exploited for their conducting and
semi-conducting properties.[7]
Other approaches include the work of scientists at the University of
Saskatchewan who secured recently a patent on a molecular wire with the
discovery of M-DNA (metal-containing DNA).[8]
Metal ions from zinc, cobalt or nickel are inserted into DNA to create
semi-conductors that are roughly 2 nanometers thick. Lastly, companies like
NanoMagnetics are developing new magnetic materials that may soon replace the
magnetic film technology currently used in hard disk drives. By increasing
storage density and decreasing granularity, terabyte drives may soon be
available for PCs and hand-held devices.[9]
Other kinds of
monitoring equipment will soon be available due to advances in microtechnology
and nanotechnology. The rapid development of portable, microfluidic platforms
for monitoring human health, environmental conditions and for use in forensic
and national security applications generates a different set of panoptic
effects. Commonly known as “Lab on a Chip” or as microarrays, this technology
measures, meters and mixes small samples with reagents, moves mixtures into
reaction chambers, and separates the results with detectors. Very small samples
can be analysed on-site with this technology. The development of PCR-DNA
analysis using such technology shows tremendous promise for diagnosing cancers
by accelerating our understanding of oncogenomics, and by making available
low-cost platforms for sorting cells and analysing their genomic profiles,
chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA.[10]
On the other hand, use of this technology by employers and insurance companies
to deny employment or benefits creates a set of social and ethical problems
that need to be addressed. In this instance, the panoptic effects of such
technologies may create a society where genetic discrimination becomes
scientifically defensible. Does this technology represent the death of privacy
as we know it?
How can we
shield ourselves against nano-panopticism without jeopardising nanotechnology?
Privacy is
generally defined as the right to be let alone and the right to control the
flow of certain kinds of personally identifiable facts. As a precondition of
trust, privacy is an essential ingredient in a society where “social capital”
is required for stimulating innovation. A society with strong social capital is
one where social trust facilitates co-operation and networking for mutual
benefit.[11]
The threat of nano-panopticism creates a paradox that may prove intractable.
The wide-scale use of surveillance equipment may create a society with lower
levels of trust, less social capital and depressed civic engagement. In short,
these uses of nanotechnology could depress innovation and lead society towards
an Orwellian future as presaged in the novel 1984.
Nanotechnology is a double-edged sword. On many levels it promises a future where dramatic improvements can be made in manufacturing, health care, environmental protection, and so on. As a democratic society, it is essential that we work diligently to maximise these benefits while keeping certain trends under control. Nano-panopticism is a very real threat. To reduce it, the following recommendations are offered:
In Canada, and in many other parts of the world, new regulatory agencies
need to be established for dealing with nanotechnology. It is unlikely that
existing agencies can deal adequately with the tremendous changes coming from
developments in nanotechnology. Such agencies should not be involved in
promoting this technology simultaneously as they regulate it (e.g., witness the
problems that emerged with the Atomic Energy Control Board with nuclear power
and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency with genetically-modified foods).
Stronger laws for protecting privacy need to be developed. These
laws should consider how best to deal with differences which often exist
between the public and private sector.
Industry needs to consider how ethical codes of conduct can be
re-written to include measures that actively reduce the threat of
nano-panopticism.
The public needs to be consulted on nanotechnology in general, and
on the social acceptability of particular applications of this technology.
Scientists need to be made more aware of the fact that technology
does not exist in a vacuum. Early in their training, scientists should be
provided with a background in the history and philosophy of science, ethics,
and the sociology of science and knowledge. Additional courses in risk issue
management and social impact assessment would help round out the education of
scientists, enhance their ability to communicate with the public in meaningful
ways, and enable them to more fully participate in the development of public
policy.
In closing,
nanotechnology will make the revolutions that we have seen in information
technology and biotechnology pale by comparison. This suite of technologies
promises to re-write the way in which we understand the fundamental nature of
matter. These changes will pose challenges to individuals and to many kinds of
institutions. Much more societal resources need to be allocated for examining
these impacts before things get out of hand.
* Michael D. Mehta, Ph.D. is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University
of Saskatchewan. He runs the Sociology of Biotechnology Program. His web site
is www.policynut.com