“We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.” – Book of Mormon, Thirteenth Article of Faith

“ The panoptic mechanism arranges spatial unities that make it possible to see constantly and to recognize immediately. In short, it reverses the principle of the dungeon; or rather of its three functions — to enclose, to deprive of light and to hide — it preserves only the first and eliminates the other two. Full lighting and the eye of a supervisor capture better than darkness, which is ultimately protected. Visibility is a trap.” – Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish

Brigham Young University is a research institution located in Provo, Utah owned and operated by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Students who attend BYU are expected to adhere to the standards and expectations of the LDS church as laid out by the university’s code of conduct, the Honor Code. Through a critical reading of the BYU Honor Code, I demonstrate its ability to act as a panoptic mechanism of discipline that subjects students to a constant and unverifiable surveillance. Additionally, I make a move away from Foucault, who envisioned the panopticon as being solely operated by the state, and argue instead the panopticon can be effectively operated by a religious institution. First, I introduce panopticism as laid out by Michel Foucault in Discipline & Punish. Next, I analyze the honor code through a Foucauldian lens and demonstrate its ability to discipline and surveil students. Finally, I move away from Foucault and discuss the consequences of the Honor Code.

In Discipline & Punish (1995), Michel Foucault builds on Bentham’s panopticon, a circular prison characterized by isolated cells facing a central watching tower. In contrast with historic institutions of punishment that banished and hid the prisoner, the panopticon puts the prisoner on display, under a constant surveillance in which they are an object of information but never a subject in communication (p. 200). The idea is that the inmate should be subjected to a power that is visible but unverifiable: visible in that the inmate is always exposed to the tower, unverifiable in that they may never know if they are being watched at any given moment (p. 201). The result is that the enforcement of power passes from the warden to the prisoners themselves; they become the principles of their own subjection:

Hence the major effect of the Panopticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power. So to arrange things that the surveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its action; that the perfection of power should tend to render its actual exercise unnecessary… that the inmates should be caught up in a power situation of which they are themselves the bearers. (p. 201)

The panopticon subjects the prisoner to a permanent visibility through which power is internalized. Moreover, its effects are automatized and passivized, so it need not be actively enforced. As a result, power is optimized and a disciplined prisoner emerges.

While designed as a prison, Foucault (1995) suggests the panopticon can be understood as a generalizable mechanism of power. He notes that Bentham’s architectural prison layout has been applied to other institutions of discipline: “Is it surprising that prisons resemble factories, schools, barracks, hospitals, which all resemble prisons?” (p. 228). The move away from the prison and towards other institutions, including schools, brings us to Brigham Young University. BYU exists to “provide an education in an atmosphere consistent with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (Church Educational System Honor Code, 2015). Students are required to receive an ecclesiastical endorsement from the bishop of their congregation. Students who violate the Honor Code are ineligible for registration and aren’t permitted to attend BYU (p. 4). A close reading of the Honor Code unpacks its ability to act as a panoptic mechanism that disciplines students by subjecting them to a constant and unverifiable surveillance.

The Honor Code acts as a mechanism of discipline by regimenting basic and everyday aspects of life. This is demonstrated by the Dress and Grooming Standards:

[For men], a clean and well-cared-for appearance should be maintained. Clothing is inappropriate when it is sleeveless, revealing, or form fitting. Shorts must be knee-length or longer. Hairstyles should be clean and neat, avoiding extreme styles or colors, and trimmed above the collar, leaving the ear uncovered. Sideburns should not extend below the earlobe or onto the cheek. If worn, mustaches should be neatly trimmed and may not extend beyond or below the corners of the mouth. Men are expected to be clean-shaven; beards are not acceptable. Earrings and other body piercing are not acceptable. (p. 3)

Similar restrictions are laid out for women, the only differences being that women are restricted from wearing strapless or backless tops and from having more than one piercing per ear (p. 3). These standards demonstrate how students are subordinated and homogenized. It is not enough that the student’s coursework reflect the standards of the university, their appearance must as well. Other sections of the Honor Code are just as rigorous as the standards of dress. Students are asked to attend church regularly and participate in church related events (p. 1). They are also asked to respect others and obey the law and campus policies (p. 1), furthering the idea of a disciplined, civil and well-behaved student. In addition to appearance, the Honor Code regulates morality; students are to be “honest, chaste and virtuous, and abstain from using bad language” (p. 1). By overseeing morality, BYU is providing more than an education to students; they are providing enlightenment, playing the role of both educator and rehabilitator. In doing so, BYU aims to develop a disciplined and well-behaved student who is also clean and presentable, both physically and mentally.

The Honor Code is not enforced from the top down. Rather, operates invisibly through internalization as well as the constant threat of being turned in by a fellow student. Although the Honor Code is stated to be a voluntary contract (p. 1), threats of academic discipline discourage students a priori from deviating:

Students who are not in good Honor Code standing must discontinue enrollment. Also, they are not eligible for graduation, even if they have otherwise completed all necessary coursework (p. 6)… The Honor Code office also reserves the right to place a “hold” on the record of any student based on reports of misconduct prior to notifying the student. (p. 2)

By preemptively laying out the punishment for violating the Honor Code, students are discouraged from violating the Honor Code. This internalizes power and lessens the need for such punishment in the first place. In addition to regulating themselves, the Honor Code also encourages students to regulate the behavior of one another. Students in good standard are required to “encourage others in their commitment to comply with the Honor Code” (p. 1) and may not influence or attempt to influence others to violate it (p. 2). The idea of being watched by anyone — a classmate, a roommate, or a friend — at any time further discourages students from even considering violating the Honor Code. In a sense, the Honor Code is as omnipresent and inescapable as the watching tower of Bentham’s panopticon. Students are constantly visible but always unaware of whom they are exposed to. The enforcement of power thus becomes internalized and operates automatically.

There are many ways in which the BYU Honor Code deviates from the panopticon discussed by Foucault and Bentham. For one, it does not operate through architecture, but rather through a strict set of rules and guidelines; not through physical structure but through a rigorous set of requirements. The Honor Code also deviates from Foucault in that it is operated by a religiously-affiliated institution; the panopticon Foucault imagined was precursor by a “slow loosening of [the state’s] kinship with religious regularities and enclosures” (p. 211). In many ways, the fact that the Honor Code is operated by a religious institution makes it all the more effective in its operation. Religion and spirituality have an intimate connection to their followers that secular states rarely achieve. Additionally, religious institutions have a long history of regulating morality, something noted by Foucault (p. 213). The intersection of religious and educational institutions is ultimately an intersection of morality and utility, creating students who are both productive members of society and good followers of their faith. The student who follows the Honor Code is both literate and moral, educated and decent.

While it can certainly be argued that discipline is a good thing, there are consequences of having such a rigorous and reforming policy. First, in asking students to conform and homogenize — in terms of dress, hairstyle, activity and housing — BYU is stripping students of agency. Appearance and lifestyle are less indicators of morality as they are expressions of creativity and individuality. As such, they should not be regulated. Moreover, in demanding students be active in a church, BYU is restricting students from exploring secular or otherwise nonreligious schools of thought. Unrestricted thought should be a key principle of any institution of higher education and religious universities should not be exempt from this. Another consequence of the Honor Code is that it promotes an unhealthy and even repressive culture. It was recently revealed by The Salt Lake Tribune that students who report sexual assault may be investigated by the university for violating the Honor Code (Alberty, 2016). Not only does this discourage students from reporting sexual assault, it creates a toxic atmosphere where students are victimized rather than protected by their school. This is perpetuated further by the encouragement of students to report others for Honor Code infractions. Not only does this likely invoke feelings of loneliness in victims, but also feelings of shame and guilt. A school policy that encourages this kind of stigmatization and toxicity should not be tolerated, whether the school is publicly or privately funded.

The BYU Honor Code is a rich document that offers insight into panoptic mechanisms of discipline that extend beyond Bentham’s architectural design of a prison. The Honor Code disciplines students in terms of appearance and morality and is enforced by the very students it subjects. The intended result is a moral and productive student, but one who is ultimately repressed and stripped of agency. While Foucault imagined the panopticon being operated by the state, the BYU Honor Code offers insight into the effects and consequences of religious operation of the panopticon.

—

References

Alberty, Erin. “BYU Student Who Reported Sex Assault Says Her Honor Code File Shows School Saw Her as a ‘suspect'” The Salt Lake Tribune. N.p., 22 Apr. 2016.

Brigham Young University, Church Educational System Honor Code. Provo UT, November 9, 2015. Online.

Foucault, Michel. “Panopticism.” Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage, 1995. P. 195-228. Print.

Advertisements