?Our society is not one of spectacle, but of surveillance; under the surface of images, one invests bodies in depth; behind the great abstraction of exchange, there continues the meticulous concrete training of useful forces; the circuits of communication are the supports of an accumulation and a centralization of knowledge; the play of signs defines the anchorages of power; it is not that the beautiful totality of the individual is amputated, repressed, altered by our social order, it is rather that the individual is carefully fabricated in it, according to a whole technique of forces and bodies. (pp.333-34)?.
In the essay, Panopticism, by Michel Focault, he makes the argument that we live in a society ofsurveillance?. Meaning that our society is based on amalgamation offorces and bodies? all of which act to create the individual. It is principally this surveillance which forms the basis of power that draws the individual to believe that the world he lives in is one that is continually watching over him. This constant friction of mental forces (those who fear or have a certain curiosity) shapes who the individual becomes within the society. According to this passage, Focault gives support to the basic argument concerning the panopticon, that communication is key to knowledge. Within the panopticon, there is no communication among the prisoners or those who view them. This becomes another aspect of power; it underlies the main idea of separation and communication as a form of shaping forces in the panopticon.
The first phrase in the passage testifies to the basic structure of our society. The goal for our society isto procure for a small number, or even for a single individual, the instantaneous view of a great multitude? (333, Focault). The purpose of such a society is so that relations between the individual and the state can be better controlled. That theinfinitely small of political power?(331, Focault) who run the state can watch the many citizens.