The Panoptic Algorithm
Este archivo se encuentra bajo las licencias de Atribución de Creative Commons. Atribución: Friman
In the late 18th century, British philosopher Jeremy Bentham envisioned the perfect prison: the panopticon. A circular structure with a central tower from which a single guard could observe every cell without ever being seen. It was never built exactly as designed, but it became one of the most powerful metaphors for modern power.
The key was not constant surveillance. It was uncertainty. Not knowing when you were being watched was enough to make inmates regulate themselves.
Two centuries later, Michel Foucault used this model to explain how modern societies operate — where power no longer needs to impose itself through force. It simply needs to organise systems in which individuals behave as if they are always being observed.
In the age of the infinite feed, metrics, visibility, and interaction play the role of that central tower. We don’t know who’s watching — but we know we might be evaluated.
And that’s enough.
Shame isn’t the enemy
Shame is a sophisticated emotion. From an evolutionary perspective, it protects us from social rejection. It helps us calibrate behaviour and preserve bonds. Without some degree of shame, coexistence would be impossible.
But when someone ignores that internal signal and acts simply because “everyone else is doing it,” when overexposure becomes normalised, that same protective mechanism stops warning us — and starts exposing us. Unfiltered exposure in an anonymous environment carries real psychological risk.
And we live in a constant contradiction. We want to be seen — but we fear becoming an object of judgement. That judgement no longer comes from a limited circle — family, friends, immediate community — but from a potentially global one. And global audiences don’t forget. What is published stays.
Anonymity amplifies aggression. It reduces empathy. It intensifies hostility. Criticism becomes sharper when there are no real consequences for those delivering it.
Shame, designed to protect us from the rejection of a group of twenty or a hundred people, now activates in front of audiences of thousands — or millions.
Our emotional system was never built for that scale.
Photo by Asher Pardey on Unsplash
Voluntary Prisoners
And within all of this, one of the defining cultural concepts of our time emerges: cringe. Cringe — or secondhand embarrassment — is that intense discomfort we feel when someone behaves in a way that seems inappropriate, excessive, naïve, or socially misaligned… especially when they don’t seem aware of it.
It’s the moment every alarm goes off. A collective reaction when someone steps outside the script. Maybe they were too sincere. Too enthusiastic. Too convinced of what they were doing.
Cringe.
Public judgement at global scale.
But who decides the rules? Who writes the script you’re not allowed to deviate from? Do you really have to be liked by everyone to be okay?
Cringe operates as a disciplinary mechanism — the one we fear being subjected to if the watcher in the tower catches us doing something “off script.” The key difference between our context and Bentham’s panopticon is simple: We’re not prisoners. We put ourselves in the cell. Knowingly. Voluntarily. We self-regulate under the possibility of being seen — as if there were no alternative but to remain inside.
Authenticity as an anomaly
There is an obvious dissonance: We are constantly encouraged to express ourselves, to show up, to expose who we are — more than ever before.
And at the same time, we are judged, criticised, and disciplined through increasingly rigid, unwritten rules.
It has never been easier to show who you are.
But your identity still has to be accepted, shared, validated. And maybe that’s why authenticity starts to feel like an anomaly within the very system that claims to celebrate it. Being yourself is a radical act.
One that involves risk — including the possibility of not being approved.
At its best, fashion works as a natural extension of identity. A way of expressing something internal. Style moves from the inside out — from character, attitude, and presence in the world. A visible consequence of who you are.
But under the gaze of the panoptic algorithm, fashion shifts. It becomes excessive. Central. Consumable. A copy-paste aesthetic emerges — a fast track to status, validation, and belonging through repeatable formulas packaged as “how to style” content: aesthetic, office-core, the trending piece of the month, milky nails, the aspirational bottle.
Style now moves from the outside in. Performative. Replicated. Scaled.The same reference image, multiplied endlessly.
.
Photo by Nur demirbaş on Unsplash
What happens if we stop performing for the audience?
A different relationship with clothing begins. Subtle, but decisive. Not invasive — but present. Intentional, but not obedient.
It allows identity to return without the need for validation.
Because rebuilding an inside-out relationship with aesthetics is a small act — but one that opens the door of the circular prison we placed ourselves in.
_________________________________________________
To think about:
- Bentham, Jeremy. Panopticon; or, The Inspection-House (1791). Originally published as a series of letters. Recommended edition: Bentham, Jeremy. The Panopticon Writings. Edited by Miran Božovič. Verso, 1995. Here, the architectural design and the logic of surveillance by uncertainty are presented.
- Foucault, Michel. Surveiller et punir: Naissance de la prison (1975). English translation: Discipline and Punish. Pantheon Books. Especially relevant: Part III – “Discipline.” Chapter: “Panopticism,” where Foucault transforms the architectural model into a theory of modern power: internalized surveillance and normalization.
- Zuboff, Shoshana. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism (2019). (Profile Books / PublicAffairs). Fundamental for understanding how data, metrics, and algorithms become systems for predicting and modifying behavior.
- Suler, John. “The Online Disinhibition Effect”, CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2004. Explains how anonymity reduces inhibitions and increases aggressiveness.
To read:
- Orwell, George. 1984 (1949). The inevitable reference. Not only for “Big Brother,” but for something more interesting: the control of language and the internalization of power.
- Eggers, Dave. The Circle (2013). A contemporary version of the digital panopticon. The protagonist voluntarily joins a tech company that turns total transparency into a moral virtue.
- Debord, Guy. The Society of the Spectacle (1967). Key to understanding life turned into representation. Debord anticipates that we do not live experiences, we consume images of experiences.
- Lasch, Christopher. The Culture of Narcissism (1979). Analyzes how modern culture fosters an identity dependent on external validation.
To watch:
- The Social Dilemma (2020, documentary). Explains how algorithms are designed to modify behavior through reward and variable reinforcement.
- Perfect Blue (1997, Satoshi Kon). A brilliant work on identity, gaze, and the fragmentation of the self in the face of public exposure. Very advanced for its time.
- Ingrid Goes West (2017). A more subtle film. It explores how identity is constructed through digital imitation and the desire for validation. The protagonist is not watched by a state. She is watched by the feed.
- Euphoria (HBO). Does not explicitly deal with surveillance, but with identity as a constant performance before a real and imagined audience.
Ángel Alado · Crop Top UNO Antracita
Anthracite Cotton Oversize T-Shirt
Anthracite Cotton Crop Top
Anthracite Cotton Printed Crop Top
Anthracite Cotton Printed Oversize T-Shirt
Camel Cotton Crop Top ONE
Off-White Cotton Crop Top Logo
Off-white Cotton Oversize T-Shirt
Camel Cotton Crop Top T-Shirt
Off-white Cotton Crop Top
Camel Cotton Printed Crop Top
Off-white Cotton Printed Crop Top
