"Bartleby, the Scrivener: A story of Wall Street", tells the story of Bartleby, a character who seems to not have a care in the world and only does what he wants. By reading the story on its own, it can be difficult to deduce the reasoning behind his peculiar behavior. This was the case for me until I read "Pantopticism", by Michel Foucault. The short story brought up many good points and ideas that were applicable to Melville's story about Bartleby. Some of the main focal points of "Panopticism" are about power and how we can never truly be free in today's world. These and many more points opened my eyes and allowed for me to see a different interpretation of Bartleby and what he was going through. By looking at "Pantopticism", by Michel Foucault, we are able to perceive a new interpretation of "Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall Street" by Herman Melville, which is that Bartleby is rejecting the rigid rules set forth by society and deciding to live his life free rather then being a slave to the government.

With the introduction of the social theory "Panopticism" we are able to read "Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story on Wall Street" in a completely different light. In simplest terms, Panopticism, stems from the concept of the Panopticon which is the concept of an institutional building that can be home to any kinds of people, ranging from criminals, madmen, workers or even schoolchildren; pretty much any group of people that you want to be watched. The idea is that these individuals are placed in separate cells that are overlooked by a single tower manned by a single guard. The single guard could not possible look at every cell, but the way the tower is positioned, the prisoners have no way of knowing if they are being watched at any particular time or not. It creates a sort of paradox for the prisoners; it is to risky for them to do anything against the rules cause the guard could potentially be looking at them but, they have no idea if the guard is looking or not but the possibility is always there. The Panopticon forces the inmates to behave well as though they are always being watched by a guard to ensure they won't be punished. In the end, the Panopticon was merely a concept and was never seen to fruition. However, the social dynamic caused from the idea of Panopticism is still prevalent today and directly ties into Bartleby and his downfall. 

From the very beginning of the story it's obvious Bartleby is unlike any other character in "Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall Street. The main reason Bartleby is so vastly different from his coworkers is his refusal to conform with society and its rules. On the third day of Bartleby working at the office, the narrator finally calls on him about examining a small paper, like how the guard in Panopticon finally looks at a particular prisoner after days of not looking at him. But, when confronted with the task Bartleby responds with "I would prefer not to (Melville P.376)" The narrator can't even begin to fathom why anyone would say that to their employer, nobody in their right mind would ever say such a thing. It goes against everything the idea of the Panopticon was made for. Even though he is constantly under a microscope from his boss, society, and the government. He refuses to do what he is told regardless of what anyone else thinks of him. Bartleby made the conscious decision to not be forced to follow the set of acceptable customs that were presented, he wanted to be his own man without having to deal with the scrutiny of others. And as the narrator would later remark "His decision was irreversible. (Melville P.377)" No matter what was going to happen to him he decided he was going to stick to his guns even if it meant his death, which sadly it did. When given one last chance to eat or starve to death Bartleby told the narrator, "I prefer not to dine today, it would disagree with me (Melville P.396)" It is interesting to note the word choice Bartleby used in this quote, which just so happened to be the last thing he said before he past away. Instead of his usual saying of "I would prefer not to", he says he just doesn't want to eat at this moment. This shows that its not that Bartleby just doesn't do anything, its that he only does things that he wants and he never what's to be forced to do something. It shows a lot about his character that he would rather die then give up his morals. 

When Bartleby accepted the job to work for the narrator, he found himself in a real life Panopticon, which is a contributing reason to why he gave up on society. To start, Bartleby's job as a scrivener shows many aspects of Panopticism. His job is to copy papers and make sure they are perfect copies; then afterwards other scriveners would inspect your work to see how you did. He is never free to do any sort of work independently, all of his work is very carefully examined by his coworkers to see if they find any errors. When discussing a real life Panopticon, theorist Jeremy Bentham stated that the power in it should be visible, but unverifiable. Visible in the sense that "The inmate will constantly have before his eyes the central tower (Foucault P.349)"  and unverifiable where "The inmate must never know whether he is being looked at or not (Foucault P.349)". This was the exact situation Bartleby was placed in. The narrator placed Bartleby directly next to him and then "procured a high green folding screen, which might isolate Bartleby from my sight, though not remove him from my voice. (Melville P.375)". The narrator believes this setup to be beneficial but, he fails to understand this from Bartleby's perspective and how it would affect his mindset. This is the concept of the Panopticon, "a cruel, ingenious cage (Foucault P.352)"brought to life. 

The narrator unknowingly put one of his employees in a very stressful, and mental straining situation that even the best of us might struggle with. After implementing this new seating arrangement, Bartleby cracked at the first opportunity and refused to much or any work at all from that point forward. I believe having to days in his own personal Panopticon was bad enough. Bartleby must have realized what his life had become, in a cell that has the potentially to always be watched but not only that, he could have come to the conclusion that even when he is away from work he still able to be kept tracked of from his address, cellphone and other government records. Realizing this, Bartleby snapped, not in a fit of rage but in a relaxed calm manner. It was as if trying to conform and doing what you were supposed to as deemed by society was burden that he had finally lifted off his soldiers. He could finally be free.

For Bartleby and the world that he lives in you either conform to society and its rules or you are an outcast, unwanted by the generally population. This idea called idea called "binary branding" goes hand in hand with Panopticism. Binary branding is defined as "The constant division between normal and the abnormal, to which every individual is subjected. ( Foucault P.347)" From the very beginning we can tell that Bartleby belongs in the "abnormal" group. For starters, he is the only character with an actual name, the rest of his coworkers are given nicknames by the narrator based on certain characteristics they have. This characters have accepted their roles in society as well as the rules that they are to live by. In a sense, they lost part of their true identity. These characters have become another cog in the corporate machine, waiting to be replaced by the next batch of workers that come in. This is one of the main reasons why the narrator has trouble giving Bartleby a nickname. He is an individual who he stands out from the rest of the crowd and is not willing to let that go in order to comply with societies demands. But as the story goes on, the flaws of binary branding surface. Where the minority must decide whether they will cooperate and join the majority, or be marginalized by them. But, Bartleby stays true with himself, and by placing himself in the "abnormal" group, he is openly going against society and what it stands for, so he is locked up in jail only to whiter away and die.

The story "Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall Street", is a great example how much are lives are monitored. When discussing the topic of Panopticism with Bartleby, so many similarities arise. Even though Bartleby was written in 1853; and Panopticism in 1973, they still can be both very relatable in 2015. We live in a place of constant surveillance where almost everything we do is cataloged. Things like where we live, permanent records, social security are readily available for government in a moments notice. With the NSA tapping messages and cell phone providers giving out client information, its near impossible to do things away from the eyes of society. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as it was bound to happen. But, it is interesting to think about how Bartleby would have reacted if his story took place in the 21st century rather than the 19th. Personally, I believe that he would have suffered the same fate, jail time.

