final essay
Post on 09-Mar-2016
213 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
How do forms of surveillance media in everyday life affect our
subconscious mind and behaviour? And how has this changed
since the 9/11 attacks?
There are many forms of surveillance media and technology that are used
regularly within Western societies to control the behaviour of the people that they
directly affect and have now become 'fully-fledged surveillance societies'. [Page
26; O'Hara K & Shadbolt, N. 2008] They have become routine within the modern
world. The necessity of social control, to change the behavioural decisions made
of individuals within a society, has been a desire by governments throughout
history. How this has been achieved and applied even up until the present has only
really been understood and used since the findings of Michel Foucault. Another
significant event within history, which has pushed the Western world into a
greater desire for an extreme surveillance society, was the 9/11 attacks back in
2001. How this and Foucault’s ideas have changed surveillance will be discussed
within the essay.
Michel Foucault was a French philosopher and his theories are based on his
critical studies of Jeremy Bentham's Panopticon and the models and ideas
demonstrated within the building are the basis of modern surveillance and
‘became the crucial ‘diagram’ for Foucault’s work on surveillance.’ [Page 3, Lyon
D. 2006] This is because he studied the panoptic qualities applied by the building
and how these specific techniques in turn affected the behaviour and mind of the
patient to positively change their attitudes and behaviour.
Bentham's Panopticon was a type of institutional building introduced in the
eighteenth century which could have multiple uses and was designed to control
and change the behaviour of individuals through mental attributes rather than
physical, and this shift created was noted by Foucault. It achieves this control as 'it
reverses the principles of the dungeon' and 'arranges spatial unities that make it
possible to see constantly and to recognise immediately.' [Page 200; Foucault, M.
1991] Foucault suggests here that the design of the building has been built in such
a way to affect the psychological control of the prisoner held within the space by
making their actions visible at all times. With this they are constantly aware of
own mistakes being made, which essentially, forces them to use self-control
through fear of being seen and caught for misbehaving against the confinements
society wanted. The amount of visibility of each person enclosed within the space
was key for Bentham’s design in order to subtly modify their mental attitudes and
to alter their conscious actions; this effect was analysed in Foucault’s theory. ‘Full
lighting and the eye of a supervisor capture better than darkness, which ultimately
protected. Visibility is a trap.’ [Page 200; Foucault, M. 1991] The vast amount of
light was another key feature of the buildings design that heightened the visibly of
the individual making them an object of scrutiny of those in control watching,
links to been seen at all times. This allowed for classification and experimentation
of mental control and again a change in behaviour. It acted as a form of productive
training of the mind through this visible control and encouraged the individual to
reflect upon their attitudes creating a subtle and ongoing transformation of their
conscious through the reaction of the subconscious, until appropriate for society.
This visible control occurred from a central control tower within the building and
allowed the controllers to on look without being seen so surveillance was
unverifiable. But the tower still serves as a constant reminder that someone could
be looking creating instability of the subconscious. This new style of institutional
building was shifting physical discipline and punishment towards a mental change
of the mind for the behaviour and actions to positively follow.
Similarly in everyday society today the use of surveillance technology,
especially CCTV cameras, have a similar effect on the unconscious mind and
conscious actions. This uses the same logic as the panoptic building, that eyes
must see without being seen themselves. No other time in history have we been
scrutinised and watched as much as now. We are always aware that somewhere
our actions are been monitored and in result our actions change accordingly, the
same as what Foucault saw happening inside the Panopticon, but in modern
society is happening at a much larger global scale. ‘Surveillance…continues to
play an important role in establishing and reinforcing social inequalities.’ [Page
29, Lyon D. 2006] This suggests that surveillance is a permanent reminder of the
state control that is constantly visible to all and similar to the Panopticon
stimulates this productive nature to better society that controls it. And by
providing this constant reminder to the public it also shows that after the attacks of
9/11 the mass have nothing to fear as the visibility of the state control is publicly
shown as strong and under control, so subconsciously society feels safer that
someone is always watching and monitoring this danger.
A number of authors have also considered how this new technology, such
as closed circuit television (CCTV), used in surveillance methods since 9/11 are
closely linked to the values of the Panopticon, Marx [2005], Foucault [1991] and
Lyon [2006] have all commented upon the fact that society is still watched but is
now by technology not the human eye. For instance Marx when analysing the new
surveillance describes how scrutiny of society in contemporary practices are
carried out by a machine not the observations of a person. This means of
surveying from afar using technology allows threats to be monitored in greater
detail and negative behaviour to be noticed quicker and dealt with easier. There is
also larger scrutiny of individuals on a mass scale to that seen in the Panopticon so
this technology is acting as an extension to the capabilities of surveillance. This
increased use of this technology in the past few years allows surveillance to be
adapted to look at a larger range of behaviours in different contexts rather than just
the individual in a confined space, which has greater effects on a global scale in
theory decreasing the terrorist threat to the western world. This is supported by the
fact that Lyon in his study of surveillance theories also states that 'old exemplar is
abandoned as a new model for future inquiry comes to command the field'. [Page
24, Lyon D. 2006] Here, he is suggesting that the new surveillance technology is a
positive direction and a shift from human observations in which to take better the
control and monitoring of society than the previous Panoptic models used seen in
Foucault's theories. This introduction and globalisation of the new surveillance
model is needed because of the growing population and the room for misbehaving
grows with this so therefore stricter and larger scrutiny is needed for this society to
be controlled. Similar to Marx, Lyon has seen this occur since the use of
surveillance machines. These new global models can be seen to have come by the
theories discussed by Foucault in his writings looking at the discipline and
punishment of society in the 20th century where he describes the effects of
surveillance on the individual not the mass as seen now in the 21st century. He
describes how constant and known observation by the human eye of the controller
can change the behavioural subconscious of the individual before misbehaving
takes place, acting before reacting which is key in modern to society to prevent
mass misbehaving. The models of Panopticism are described by Foucault to have
a priority to control rather than to change attitudes to create a safer society that is
described by the other two authors. These three authors do support the
development of surveillance on the society and argue that a change has occurred
in its use and the extensions to which observing uses but it is still used similarly to
positively to protect more than control now in the 21st century.
This new technology allows a mechanised control of people in a similar
way to how the Panopticon building changed to an automatic functioning of
power. The individuals held within the building were never really aware if
someone was watching or not because of the lack of visibility into the control
tower that gave greater mental control because it was never truly verifiable what
was being seen. A similar effect is seen today with the use of surveillance
technology because it is unverifiable if someone is watching the data being
recorded at that moment in time so mental control is still seen and behavioural
changes still take place.
Although a clear shift to more technical surveillance is suggested to be the
only way forward in monitoring a large mass of the society in the 21st century,
O'Hara and Shadbolt [2008] argue that the observations of the human eye are still
the main way to survey and are still needed to underpin the technology.
'Users of technology need to know what the risks are, what is sensible and
what is not. And all technology is part of a social system of administrators,
customers, policymakers, managers and security advisors. Not only is every piece
of useful technology engineered by humans, but it is surrounded by a support
network of humans who manage its use in the real world.' [Page 225; O'Hara K &
Shadbolt, N. 2008]
The authors are suggesting that technology is a 21st century extension to
the means already used for surveillance from the 20th century in the Panopticon.
Within the Panopticon a central control tower was used as a platform in which to
observe the individuals directly surrounding it from and could only be watched
from this stationary place inside the building. The goings on outside within the
rest of the society were not able to be monitored like they are today. The use of
technology allows the whole of society to be monitored whilst on the move,
achieving a larger scaled version of subconscious control as we are still aware of
being watched but now within mass public and social spaces. Although they argue
that a similar control tower is still needed in which humans can still monitor the
various surveillance findings but does not have to be directly in front of the
society being watched as this would not be possible. Instead of controllers looking
out of windows onto the individuals being controlled they are now looking at
screens displaying the same kind of visual information but across the whole of the
city being enforced.
Lyon [2001] suggests that 'The rise of surveillance societies has everything
to do with disappearing bodies' [Page 15; Lyon, D. 2001] and this disappearance
of people is happening as technology allows us to communicate and live at a
distance, not really knowing those involved in a situation at a personal level. So
this could argue that threats to society are caused by the distances being developed
between the understandings of individuals through increased communication
technology. With this technology the terrorists plots were able to develop over
long distances without feelings of individuals in society being considered, making
the act of mass killing easier. This increased 'hyper' surveillance through the shift
to machine lead monitoring, although used originally to gain more mass control of
society, has ultimately caused a problem in itself by making the visible behaviour
disappear along with the body. Communication technology allows misbehaving to
occur without control and implications along with no worry of being seen because
the individual is not physically there to relate to anymore. Foucault however
describes a different form of disappearance that of a docile body. 'A body is docile
that may be subjected, used, transformed and improved.' [Page 136, Foucault, M.
1991] Instead of the body becoming invisible, as it is now, then the mind
disappeared leaving a body that could be visible and manipulated to what was
wanted ideally by society. The creation of a docile body was one which did not
rebel or misbehave but rather followed orders and was more productive. Without
this body visible to be physically changed, society is at a greater risk and in turn
this is being caused by technology used to watch bodies that are no longer there.
'Technological representations of ourselves do the interacting.' [Page 1; O'Hara K
& Shadbolt, N. 2008] This is another author that suggests this shift in how the
human body and mind works through extensions of technology, hiding behind
representations of the real. Scrutiny of people becomes more open with the
introduction of technology so could be a form of private surveillance of one
another to not better society but to better themselves. As this technology improves
further it becomes harder to conceal what the body and mind is doing. This is
another form of 'transformation' of behaviour to represent something that is often
better than the real to others around which manipulates interactions between the
two and can now occur within a private space.
'Part of the problem is the shift from physical to electronic space. The
fiction that the inside of a home is a haven from outside demands and pressures is
subverted by the ways in which electronic devices that data into and out of the
house, sometimes without knowledge. Even our bodies, often thought in modern
times to be our own, and thus private, become a source of surveillance data.' [Page
17; Lyon, D. 2001] Another point the author makes is that although are bodies and
physical actions can not be visibly watched within our homes other surveillance
data can be taken from various sources of technology. Although the lack of
knowledge that this takes place causes behaviour not to change, as the conscious is
aware it is not seen, panoptic values cannot act. Again, for behaviour to change for
a better society, visibility is needed and is key for panopticism to still work. For
some however change could be seen because it is known that nothing in the
modern world is private anymore so secrets and misbehaving cannot be kept.
Within recent years the technology boom has expanded even further within the
home, with smart phones within touching distance the majority of time and the
constant need for connection and communication, we are becoming more
accessible thus removing the old ideas, speculation and 'fiction' that we are only
seen within a specific area or building, similar to that of inside the Panopticon.
The ability of surveillance has improved drastically in the years after the
9/11 attacks and continues to do so, encroaching on private lives even more.
'Computers are getting smaller and smaller, and can be made of, or fitted into,
many new and interesting materials. The possibilities are endless, but so are the
dangers.' [Page 9; O'Hara K & Shadbolt, N. 2008] This backs up the argument that
surveillance is changing our private actions and behaviours. 'so are the dangers'
suggests that an increase of surveillance could also have a negative effect on its
original purpose and need. That it could be causing individuals now to be more
secretive about their actions and misbehaving or surveillance may uncover
something that should not be known. Either way the improvements to come with
technology and surveillance are sure to be endless and carry on to be used for
control of society but too much that the public begin to rebel against further.
Machines are good at surveying a situation and behaviour but people are
becoming unaware of their effect and with no one there physically to intervene,
like there would have been in the Panopticon, many just ignore the threat of
possibly being watched. The power of the state is deteriorating as this form of
surveillance media becomes over used.
Two authors that have considered how improvements to technology in
recent years has affected the way in which surveillance is used within a more
private individual aspect, whether this be bad or good. Tudge (2011) and
Stalder/Lyon (2008) have both commented on the increase of technology not just
to control within a space but generally over an individual. The case study which
they both focus on is the introduction of identity cards, especially since 9/11, and
how this data handling is used within a social system and to what extremes it has
taken. For instance when Tudge describes how retail chains are now being used to
collect data of customers location and regime similar to that of ID cards, it is clear
to what extremes the government are using to socially sort and survey the mass
population without them being aware through their consumption. He later goes
onto say that ID cards are capable of even much more than this and becoming a
further aid to the disruption of privacy. The government at the time argued that
they were ‘a weapon in the anti-terrorism arsenal’ so giving them a reason to be
used and why they need to monitor movement, to avert attention away from them
being seen as negative by the mass wanting to protect their privacy. This is
supported by the fact that Stalder/Lyon suggest that ‘stable identities of its
subjects has been one of the central concerns on the modern nation state’ showing
that the threat to individuals privacy for the sake of state control is growing and
becoming more of a concern as the abilities to record data improves. Again the
government suggests that the stability of knowing data is a positive way to fight
against terrorism.
Surveillance now goes further than just being used for crime, security and
control by the state. It is used on many personal and private levels between the
relationships of two people. Monitoring their behaviour in the hope of teaching to
shift towards better and giving the option for change instead of subconscious
control, the change is becoming more conscious. 'To varying degrees it is a
property of any social system…' [Marx, G. 2005] This statement suggests that
surveillance is becoming part of individual social systems and groups but the
variety of forms and extremities changes depending on which group. Although it
is seen that the state and government still have the most control over the mass
global state as they did in the years of the Panopticon, individuals can now carry
out there own surveillance as surveillance media becomes more widely available.
With this, surveillance is occurring more between social groups with individuals
want to hide and seek information from one another. Surveillance is becoming a
larger tool in which conspiracy can happen backing up the points made earlier of it
becoming a danger.
In conclusion, it is clear to say that surveillance and the scrutiny of people
has increased since the introduction of the theory by Foucault but even more so
after modern terrorist attacks in the western world. The need for the western world
to control globally across a growing population has increased to try minimise
these threats and only improvements in communication technology and
surveillance machines have allowed this to happen. Without Foucault's findings
and knowledge of the subconscious and the effects of being watched however
surveillance control could not have been built upon into the mass automated
system which it has also now become. The western world has become filled with
unverifiable surveillance of each individual within a private and public space and
with this media a shift and change of behaviour occurs to better that of society
seen today. Surveillance media is a tool in which to ultimately mould society
without mass discipline and punishment.
Bibliography
Books
Foucault, M. ‘Discipline and punishment: The birth of the prison’ (1991) Penguin
Books, London.
O’Hara, K and Shadbolt, N. ‘The spy in the coffee machine: The end of privacy as
we know it’ (2008) Oneworld Publications, America.
Lyon, D. ‘Surveillance society: Monitoring everyday life’ (2001) Open University
press, London.
Lyon, D. ‘Theorizing surveillance: the panopticon and beyond.’ (2006) Willan
Publishing, London.
Tudge, R. 'The no-nonsense guide to Global Surveillance' (2011) New
Internationalist Publications Ltd, Oxford.
Lyon, D. 'Surveillance as social sorting: Privacy, risk and digital discrimination'
(2008) Routledge, America.
Levin, T. 'CTRL (Space): Rhetorics of Surveillance from Bentham to Big Brother'
(2002) ZKM Center for Art and Media.
Internet
Marx, G. ‘Surveillance and Society’ (2005)
http://web.mit.edu/gtmarx/www/surandsoc.html [accessed on 14/01/2013]
Panopticism lecture/seminar notes
top related