Stability in terms of society can be defined as the state in which power is clear and defined, and the constituents obey those in power. In modern institutions, a certain degree of stability must exist, otherwise people would not have the motivation to do their work and would be unresponsive to authority. To ensure motivation, employers will install cameras or use other techniques to always keep an eye on their workers. If people aren't doing anything wrong, there's no reason to have a hard time being monitored. For this reason, it is not surprising that employers set up their workstation like a Panopticon, an elevated institutional building with someone in the middle watching everyone, but workers don't know if they are being watched or No. As a result, workers will behave optimally knowing they are being monitored and maintain a high level of productivity. Workers perform at their best knowing they are being watched because they don't want to lose their job more than they want to impress their boss. As Foucault describes it: “He who is subject to a field of visibility and who knows it assumes responsibility for the constraints of power.” (Foucault, 290) As human beings, it is natural for us to do what we want rather than what we must do. If workers can escape laziness, they will. However, being monitored at all times forces workers to always exhibit optimal behavior, eliminating laziness in the workplace. However, despite its effectiveness, people criticize this use of surveillance, saying it dehumanizes people by invading their privacy. That being said, despite its criticisms, a Panopticon is an effective means of ensuring discipline in any institution, medium of paper and stability. Despite this, it doesn't matter who controls the Panopticon, but at the same time it matters. It doesn't matter who controls the Panopticon, because it will work no matter what. People will follow the rules and do whatever is considered “normal.” However, it matters who is in control, because the person in control dictates how people will act or decides what is “normal.” For this reason, a panopticon can be used for destructive purposes if power is in the wrong hands, as the example of Nazi Germany shows. Ultimately, it all depends on whether or not those in power have the best intentions for their people, their institution, and for society. Works cited Foucault, Michel. “Panopticism”. Ways of reading: an anthropology for writers. 9th ed. Boston, New York: Bedford St. Martin's, 2011. 282-309. Print.