In his criticism of Foucault’s conception of the panopticon, C. Fred Alford learned from his visits to prisons, that the empirical reality was of prison differed highly from Foucault’s account. Instead of the panopticons overbearing presence influencing the discipline of the prisoners and the guards, guards cared so little about the inmates, that their only major commitment was to containment (Alford, 2000, p. 125). Apparent programs of organisation born out of the physicality of panopticon, such as the routine of the timetable, and precise psychological characterisation of prisoners had little to no prevalence in practice (Alford, 2000, p. 125). Furthermore, prisoners would simply avoid surveillance through shields of cardboard or blanket, much to the indifference of officials (Alford, 2000, p. 125). Thus, in detailing the panopticon, and similar forms of rationalisation, Foucault utilized the Weberian ‘ideal type’ to a far greater extent than maybe he would have