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