In Michel Foucault's essay "Panopticism," he discusses how discipline and the ideas brought upon by the architecture of Bentham's Panopticon effect how institutions operate and how we, as a society, think.  It is the idea of discipline and the way of thinking developed from the formation of the Panopticon that creates the notion of Objectification. If we try to break something complex into it's simplest terms, than maybe we can understand it. 

The Panopticon, or basis for this idea of objectification, is an architectural design for a prison created by Jeremy Bentham, a utilitarian.  This structure is comprised of a singular tower in the center of a circular periphery building. The center tower was used as a watchtower, where the guards would supervise the inmates. The surrounding periphery building held several cells, each of these cells only held one inmate; the idea being that if they were all separated you can discipline them on a personal level, and it would be less chance of a revolt if the imates are unable to consult with others.  Another aspect of the Panopticon described is the lighting, and how it affects the structure. It is said "they have two windows, one on the inside, corresponding to the windows of the tower; the other, on the outside, allows the light to cross the cell from one end to the other." (Foucault, 244).  This makes it so that the light is always focused on the watchtower, constantly reminding the inmates that the guard is watching, and making them visible to the guard.  If the guard is always watching then the inmate is always seen, leaving no room for revolts from the inmates.  Foucault then says, "He is seen, but he does not see; he is the object of information, never a subject in communication." (Foucault, 244).  Meaning, they are always being watched and observed but unable to defend themselves from the assumptions made against them. This shows the objectification created on each cell by the panopticon. Since each inmate is separated by details that define "them" and can is constantly watched by others, than they are constantly being observed and made into objects simpler than they are.  For example, a man may be in prison for murder that becomes his identifier. Instead of being John Smith a complex individual, he is the murder. He becomes known for the small definable parts about his identity, but not what might have made him become this way. We may learn why he committed the murder, but never understand him as an entire person, because it is too difficult. Through out history however, this idea of objectifying is not just kept for prisons but it has become a part of how we think about everything. We come to discipline a topic by breaking it down into different simpler pieces so we can try and understand something very complex. 

This has become relevant to me in my field of study.  I am a major in Biology, or the study of life, which is arguably a very complex thing. There are many aspects to life, but what biology does is break facts down into small subjects so that maybe we can hope to understand biology. We observe living organisms by cutting off a piece of them and concentrating on it under microscope lens. This is how the cell was discovered, which is a good example of objectification or simplification also.  A cell is the smallest and simplest unit of life, a group of cells makes up a tissue, a group of tissues makes up an organ, a group of organs makes up an organ system, a group of organ systems makes up an organism, organisms make up a population, populations make up communities, communities make up ecosystems, ecosystems make up biospheres, than the whole earth seems to be derived from cells. This was taught on the first day of biology 101. We were taught to think of the world, something very complex with a lot of phenomenon, could all be explained and simplified, by observation and objectification, into something as simple as a cell. However it turns out the cell is not as simple as you would think. It could be simplified even more and more into organelles and molecules and atoms and electrons and much more.  If we did not objectify ideas and facts down into simpler ideas, than how would we ever describe such complex beings? Well we could not, because we would see a person or another organism in front of us as a subject that could be communicated with instead of a group of cells combined and defined by different functions. To truly understand something you have to tear it apart. 

This is something that I tend to do when learning new information in any field of study.  When in Chemistry I try to understand the electrons that are involved in bonds between two atoms, to try and combine that together to understand the structure of a molecule.  In math I break down the whole process into a series of operations, to derive a final answer to a complex problem such as the volume of an irregular object. In dance I focus on each individual move by making sure each part of my body is in the correct position to form a dance. Finally, in English I break down each sentence and word to understand each thought so I could try to understand the author's message. Every subject focuses on the break down of a study into separate parts so that it can be better understood. Maybe this is because we are taught to think this way by the structure of discipline given to us through Panopticism, or maybe we cannot help but think this way. Maybe this idea of objectification is inevitable because we cannot physically understand something that is so complex.  Maybe, objectifying things is just our way of actually understanding the world around us. If we can understand the world, than we find inner peace in ourselves. As humans we like to know as much as possible, so we will continue to break things down into smaller and smaller pieces until there is nothing left to cut up. 
