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