To be is to be seen. This statement as it relates to what is public and private and consequently to the dynamic of power is particularly interesting. Windows, originally designed to allow light to enter a home, now exhibit less of their elementary function and are instead more simply a vestige of an old custom. Is the existence of windows anything more than a tradition? Do they serve any other purpose? While not as practical a function as lighting a home, windows do serve to illuminate something else. In Thomas Keenan’s Windows of Vulnerability and Bentham’s Panopticon it is suggested that windows can be utilized, in the form of a structure they reference as a panopticon, to exert power over individuals who might otherwise behave in a way considered unacceptable by society. It is thus implied that without this threat of being seen, these individuals would do exactly what the panopticon prevents, that which is unacceptable. The necessity of the threat of observation in order to exert control over human beings implies either a flaw in the power trying to be exercised, or an inherent flaw in humans themselves.

In the panopticon, it is theorized that the inmates need the threat of constant observation in order to facilitate the development of a self-regulated sense of proper behavior. Consequently, it is implied that without this threat the conduct of the inmates would be opposite, they would descend into anarchic behavior. Keenan references Bentham’s Panopticon in his Windows of Vulnerability describing this phenomenon,

Unverifiable: the inmate must never know whether he is currently being looked on; but he must always be sure that he may always be seen… He who is subjected to a field of visibility and who knows it, assumes responsibility for the constraints of power; he makes them play spontaneously upon himself; he inscribes in himself the power relation in which he simultaneously plays both roles; he becomes the principle of his own subjection (Keenan, 128).

The concept of the panopticon as it relates to control can be extended to the dynamic of power as it acts in society. In the metaphor, the central tower serves to represent the governing body with its rules and regulations while the inmates in the surrounding cells represent the governed. In society, if there were no consequence for certain actions of self interest there would be nothing preventing people from indulging in such actions. The speed limit is a good example of this dynamic at play. If one could drive as fast as he or she wanted there would be nothing preventing them from driving at speeds that put not only their own life at risk, but also endangered the lives of the other people using the road. These types of behavior, ones that do not take into account the negative externality they inflict on a third party, result in inefficiencies in society. The goal of any society can be indisputably summarized as maximizing efficiency, and therefore it is quite apparent that self-indulgent behavior is not beneficial to society. To this end it can be concluded that, since the governing body acts in the best interest of the people, there is nothing wrong with such regulations. If there is nothing wrong with the regulations, this leaves one remaining option; there is something inherently wrong with the people being governed. To return to the example, even when there might not be a police officer present in the vicinity, generally people tend to abide by the rules of the road. When under surveillance, “If they are madmen there is no risk of them committing violence upon one another; if they are school children there is no risk of 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” (Bentham 60-64). It is thus only in spaces where the “window of vulnerability” is removed that true human nature is unveiled.

One of such spaces where the actions of the individual cannot be monitored and hence controlled by the rules of society is virtual space such as that created by the “second life” application. In such a space, there are no consequences for impulsive, self-interest-oriented actions. When section is held in “real life,” the setting is very controlled; the section leader runs the discussion, students raise their hands when they have something to say that is relevant to the discussion but otherwise remain obediently quiet. When section was held in the second life application, the section leader had absolutely no control over the conversations taking place. People could talk out of turn and about whatever they wanted whenever they wanted with no ramifications. This type of behavior, while harmless when taking place in second life, is no different than natural human behavior in a real world not subjected to rules and accountability. Without the system of a governing body people act in such a way that propels furthest personal benefit.

Since rules enforced by the government can generally be proven to act in the best interest of a society, the only remaining conclusion is that humans are inherently bad. The need for a government to ensure that people do not act in ways that harm others proves that humans as a whole are flawed. If humans were inherently good, there would be no need for a government; society would simply run itself in its own best interest. However, this type of society requires the opposite of natural human behavior, self-sacrifice instead of greed. In a perfect world there would be no need for the power dynamics as outlined in Windows of Vulnerability and Panopticism, but we do not live in a perfect world.