According to Michel Foucault in his book Discipline and Punish, the Panopticon is a prison designed to establish power and control of one individual over the prisoners through observation. This observation is achieved through the prison’s annular structure, with the prisoners in confined cells facing the center, and the supervisor in a central tower (Foucault 200). The ring-like structure and the central tower allow the supervisor to see all inmates while simultaneously prohibiting them from seeing each other or the supervisor. As Foucault states, for the prisoners, “visibility is a trap” (200). Visibility is a trap for the prisoners because they can see the tower, but not the supervisor (Foucault 201). In addition, the prisoners never know
…show more content…
Wise explains that she told him about the attempted divorce, and Spade interrupts, saying “‘I know all that’…‘You can skip it. Get to the part I don’t know’” (Hammett 110). In this declaration, Spade indicates that he lacks knowledge regarding Iva’s life and whereabouts. Spade goes to Wise with the intention of learning information; he doesn’t infer or intuit or analyze evidence like Dupin. Spade’s method of gaining knowledge is through asking questions. This method of gaining knowledge hinders Spade’s achievement of perfect knowledge of the case because people can lie, not tell the whole truth, or lack knowledge. If any of these three possibilities occurs, then Spade does not make progress in finding the truth and thus does not attain perfect knowledge. He, unfortunately, cannot creatively intuit beyond what he learns through conversation. After all, if Spade was omniscient and able to intuit events and motives, he would not have to ask questions and would attain perfect or near-perfect knowledge of the case …show more content…
When judging Dupin, it is clear he approaches the idea of omniscience with desire for truth and justice, and he does so through analysis and imagination. Dupin’s analytical and imaginative traits lead the story to be engaging as the reader intuits his or her own hypothesis of who the murderer is as Dupin does as well. Sam Spade is not engaging readers because he approaches the idea of gaining perfect knowledge with greed and selfishness, not a desire to know the truth and restore
Wise explains that she told him about the attempted divorce, and Spade interrupts, saying “‘I know all that’…‘You can skip it. Get to the part I don’t know’” (Hammett 110). In this declaration, Spade indicates that he lacks knowledge regarding Iva’s life and whereabouts. Spade goes to Wise with the intention of learning information; he doesn’t infer or intuit or analyze evidence like Dupin. Spade’s method of gaining knowledge is through asking questions. This method of gaining knowledge hinders Spade’s achievement of perfect knowledge of the case because people can lie, not tell the whole truth, or lack knowledge. If any of these three possibilities occurs, then Spade does not make progress in finding the truth and thus does not attain perfect knowledge. He, unfortunately, cannot creatively intuit beyond what he learns through conversation. After all, if Spade was omniscient and able to intuit events and motives, he would not have to ask questions and would attain perfect or near-perfect knowledge of the case …show more content…
When judging Dupin, it is clear he approaches the idea of omniscience with desire for truth and justice, and he does so through analysis and imagination. Dupin’s analytical and imaginative traits lead the story to be engaging as the reader intuits his or her own hypothesis of who the murderer is as Dupin does as well. Sam Spade is not engaging readers because he approaches the idea of gaining perfect knowledge with greed and selfishness, not a desire to know the truth and restore