ReviseSociology

Tag: Surveillance

  • Michel Foucault: Where there is power, there is resistance 

    Michel Foucault’s work has been extremely influential in shaping sociological analysis of power. Some of his key ideas about power in society include:

    • Power is not simply wielded by one level of society over another, but is present in every level of society.
    • Power is something that is enacted rather than possessed.
    • Power relations involve discourse (systems of ideas), which allows the possibility of resistance.
    • Power is not a thing, but a relation.
    • “Where there is power, there is resistance.”

    MICHEL FOUCAULT’s theory of power 

    The power to maintain social order, or to bring about social change, has conventionally been seen in political or economic terms. Until the 1960s, theories of power usually fell into two types: ideas of the power of government or state over citizens, or the Marxist idea of a power struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

    However, these theories tended to concentrate on power at the macro level, either ignoring the exercise of power at lower levels of social relations or seeing it as a consequence of the primary exercise of power (or only of secondary importance). ​

    Foucault acknowledges that power has been, and continues to be, the major force in shaping social order, but describes how the nature of power relations has changed from medieval times to today.

    What he calls the “sovereign” exercise of power, such as public torture and executions, was the method that authority figures in feudal society used to coerce their subjects into obedience. With the advent of the Enlightenment in Europe, however, violence and force were seen as inhuman and, more importantly, as an ineffective means of exercising power.

    For further reading on Foucault’s theories, visit: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Foucault.

    A visual representation of POWER in society according to Foucault
    POWER casts a long shadow over all of us according to Foucault…

    Surveillance and Control

    In place of harsh physical punishment, a more pervasive means of controlling behavior emerged: discipline. The establishment of institutions such as prisons, asylums, hospitals, and schools characterized the move away from merely punishing individuals toward a disciplinary exercise of power—acting to prevent people from behaving in certain ways.

    These institutions not only removed opportunities for transgression but also provided the conditions in which people’s conduct could be corrected, regulated, and above all, monitored and controlled.

    This element of surveillance is especially important in the evolution of modern power structures.

    For a more detailed discussion on Foucault’s perspective on surveillance and crime control, see Foucault – Surveillance and Crime Control.

    The Panopticon

    Foucault was particularly struck by the Panopticon, a prison design inspired by British philosopher Jeremy Bentham. The circular structure features a central watchtower, enabling continual observation of inmates.

    • The cells are backlit, preventing prisoners from hiding in shadows.
    • Prisoners are unsure of when they are being watched, so they self-discipline their behavior as if they are always under surveillance.
    • Power is no longer exercised by coercion but by establishing mechanisms that ensure compliance.

    Foucault argues that not only prisons but also hierarchical institutions such as hospitals, factories, and schools have evolved to resemble this model of surveillance and control.

    Foucault's panopticon
    The Panotopticon

    Regulating Conduct

    The mechanisms by which power is exercised, referred to as the “technology of power”, have since become an integral part of society. In the modern Western world, social norms are not imposed through direct enforcement but through a “pastoral” power that guides people’s behavior.

    Rather than an authority figure forcing people to act in specific ways, or preventing them from behaving differently, individuals participate in a complex system of power relations, regulating their own conduct.

    This pervasive form of power is determined by the control society has over people’s attitudes, beliefs, and practices—what Foucault refers to as “discourse.”

    Over time, belief systems evolve as people come to accept certain views, shaping social norms and expectations.

    A shepherd tending his flock is the analogy Foucault uses to describe “pastoral” power, whereby people are guided to act in certain ways and allow themselves to be governed.

    These views become embedded in society, defining what is good and bad, and what is considered normal or deviant. Individuals within that society regulate their behavior according to these norms, largely unaware that it is the discourse that is guiding their conduct, as it makes opposing thoughts and actions unthinkable.

    For an exploration of how discourse shapes identity, refer to Sociological Perspectives on Identity.

    Discursive Regimes

    Discourse is constantly reinforced, as it is both an instrument and an effect of power:

    • It controls thoughts and conduct, which in turn shape belief systems.
    • Because it defines what is right and wrong, it creates a “regime of truth”, forming a body of what is considered undeniable common knowledge.

    Foucault challenged the traditional idea that “knowledge is power,” arguing that the two are related more subtly.

    • He coined the term “power-knowledge”, explaining that knowledge creates power but is also created by power.
    • Today, power is exercised by controlling what forms of knowledge are acceptable, presenting them as truths and excluding other forms of knowledge.
    • At the same time, accepted knowledge (discourse) is actually produced through the process of exercising power.

    Unlike traditional power, which compelled and coerced people to behave in certain ways, this modern form of power-knowledge lacks an immediately recognizable agent or structure.

    • Because it is all-pervasive, it appears to have nothing specific that can be resisted.
    • Political resistance (such as revolutions) may not lead to real social change, as they challenge only the power of the state, but not the everyday ways in which power is exercised.

    However, Foucault argues that resistance is possible.

    • What can be resisted is discourse itself, which can be challenged by opposing discourses.
    • Power that relies on complicity implies at least some degree of freedom for those subject to it.
    • For discourse to function as an instrument of power, those subject to it must be involved in a power relation.
    • If there is a power relation, there is also the possibility of resistance—without resistance, there is no need for the exercise of power.

    The Deployment of Power

    Foucault’s concepts of power, knowledge, and discourse were initially rejected by many scholars as speculative and vague. However, his lectures and writings became enormously popular, despite his sometimes difficult concepts and convoluted prose style.

    The ideas of power described in Discipline and Punish and The History of Sexuality gradually gained acceptance in the mainstream of sociology (though not always among historians and philosophers).

    Eventually, Foucault’s work influenced the analysis of how discourse is used as an instrument of power in many areas, including:

    • Modern feminism
    • Queer theory
    • Cultural studies

    These fields owe much to Foucault’s explanation of how norms of behavior are enforced.

    Today, opinion is still divided as to whether Foucault’s theories are:

    1. Vague conclusions based on poor research, OR
    2. A brilliant and original contribution to the social sciences.

    Foucault’s Quote on Power and Discourse

    “Discourse transmits and produces power; it reinforces it, but also undermines and exposes it.”
    — Michel Foucault ​

    Quote from Judith Butler on Foucault’s Theory of Power

    “Foucault’s History of Sexuality… warns us against imagining a complete liberation from power. There can never be a total liberation from power.”
    — Judith Butler ​

    Michel Foucault Brief Biography (1926-1984)

    A brilliant polymath, influential in the fields of philosophy, psychology, politics, and literary criticism, as well as sociology, Michel Foucault was often associated with the structuralist and post-structuralist movements in France but disliked being labelled as such.

    Born in Poitiers, France, he studied philosophy and psychology at the École Normale Supérieure in Paris. He taught in Sweden, Poland, and Germany in the 1950s and received his doctorate in 1959.

    He lectured in Tunisia from 1966 to 1968 before returning to Paris, where he was appointed head of philosophy at the University of Vincennes. Two years later, he was elected to the Collège de France as professor of the history of systems of thought.

    He died in 1984, one of the first prominent victims of HIV/AIDS-related illness in France.

    Foucault’s Key Works

    • 1969 The Archaeology of Knowledge
    • 1975 Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison
    • 1976-84 The History of Sexuality (three volumes) ​

    KEY DATES

    • 1848 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels describe the oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie in their book The Communist Manifesto.
    • 1883 Friedrich Nietzsche introduces the concept of the “Will to Power” in Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
    • 1997 Judith Butler’s Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative develops Foucault’s idea of power/knowledge in relation to censorship and hate speech.
    • 2000 In Empire, Italian Marxist sociologist Antonio Negri and U.S. scholar Michael Hardt describe the evolution of a “total” imperialist power, against which the only resistance is negation.

    For more on Foucault’s influence on modern sociology and critical theory, check out:

    Foucault’s work is part of the Theory and Methods module within A-level sociology.

  • Corporate Enabled State Crime 2021 – Pegasus Spyware

    Pegasus Spyware is software which is able to bypass your phone’s security and gain access to data on your device, such as:

    • emails
    • Whatsapp messages
    • photos
    • Your GPS location

    It can also switch on your microphone and camera and record what you are doing without you being aware.

    Pegasus is the most sophisticated piece of Spyware ever developed and it takes surveillance to its most intense and intrusive level ever.

    How Pegasus hacks your phone

    Pegasus Spyware is the main product of the Israeli surveillance company NSO Group who sells its surveillance software to governments around the world.

    The company says it ‘vet’s governments and only sells software to clients involved in combatting terrorism and other serious crimes – by infecting suspected terrorists’ phones and subjecting them to intense surveillance.

    However, according to a recent Guardian investigation, a recent leak of NSO files has revealed that some of government’s clients have been using their Spyware to target journalists and other dissidents who are perceived to be critical of their regimes. Some of the countries who use the software with bad records of human rights abuses include:

    • India
    • Morocco
    • Saudi Arabia
    • Hungary
    Countries using Pegasus Spyware in breach of citizens’ human rights

    The leaked records include 50 000 phone numbers of people whose phones may have been hacked – The Guardian recently investigated hundreds of these numbers and found that in dozens of cases the software was indeed on their phones and in some cases the people who have been under surveillance, or people close to them have been murdered, possibly by agents of the state in an attempt to silence them.

    (NB the company denies these allegations and says its software is only used legitimately by ‘vetted’ governments.)

    The most serious consequence of this level of surveillance used in this way is that it poses a threat to democracy. Dictatorial states are obsessive about surveillance in order to crack down on opposition and this software increases hugely their capacity to do just this.

    It also reveals as a ‘fantasy narrative’ the idea that surveillance companies and states work together to only surveil ‘criminals’ in order to keep ordinary citizens safe. In these examples it is the citizens who are being kept under surveillance and having their right to privacy undermined as a result, without their consent.

    A Corporate-State Crime

    This seems to be a good example of a corporate enabled state crime, with the governments identified above being the criminals and the victims being anyone who has had their phone hacked.

    Privacy is a fundamental human right defined under the United Nation’s Human Rights Convention, and in the above examples there are 5000 potential cases of individuals having their right to privacy denied by governments, in breach of their human rights.

    Relevance to A-level sociology

    This material is relevant to both the crime and deviance module and the media module, especially the topics of state crime and surveillance.

    Find out More

    This video provides a good overview of the Pegasus Surveillance Project.

    This link to The Guardian provides an excellent way into exploring all aspects of this issue.

  • Education and social control

    One possible social function that schools perform is that of social control. This post explores some of the ways school might perform this function and asks how effectively schools control pupils and parents today?

    You can use the material below to evaluate some of the perspectives on education, and much of it is also relevant to the crime and deviance module, especially the material on surveillance.

    What is social control?

    Social control refers to the formal and informal techniques that may be used to make the individual conform to social norms and values.

    In sociology the focus is usually on how those with power and authority use institutions to control ‘ordinary’ people in society.

    There are many institutions which can be said to perform social control, such as the law and the courts, the police, religion, the media and education.

    The education system is of interest as an institution of social control because it reaches more people than most other institutions. Nearly all of us will attend school from a young age, and spend thousands of hours in school as children, while most of us will have no direct contact with the police, for example.

    How might school act as an agent of social control?

    1. Parents are legally required to either send their children to a state or independently run school. Put another way, pupils are expected to attend school, and truant officers are employed to catch those who are not attending. Parents can be fined if their students have unauthorised absences.
    2. The > 90% of pupils who attend state schools will spend at least six hours a day in formal education. Many will spend more time in school because the school day has been getting longer in recent years, through the addition of both morning classes or breakfast clubs and after school clubs.
    3. Students who attend state schools will be taught the National Curriculum, having limited choice over what they study until they make their GCSE choices at 14.
    4. From 2013 young people are required to remain in some form of education or training until the age 18, raised from the previous ‘education leaving age’ of 16.
    5. Schools and colleges are required to teach pupils about ‘British Values’. This might be regarded as indoctrination by the State.
    6. Schools are responsible for Prevent – they have to report to the police anyone they believe to be involved with terrorist activities, and they have to work to prevent students being attracted to terrorist organisations.
    7. Schools engage in physical surveillance of pupils, most obviously through the increasing use of cameras, but also by using staff at school gates, in playgrounds and walking the corridors during lessons.
    8. Schools have clear codes of conduct and use isolation units and detentions to regulate deviant behaviour.   
    9. Schools increasingly involve parents in monitoring students and keeping them on track, using ‘parenting contracts’ with deviant cases.
    10. Schools keep databases of student’s academic progress and report back to parents regularly. This means students know they are being watched, and most of them ‘self-regulate’ because of this.
    11. Schools may require certain students to work with learning support staff or attend further supported learning, which means such students will be under higher levels of surveillance.
    12. Schools may keep (confidential) records of student discussions about mental health and well-being and work with medical professionals to require students to attend further ‘support’ as necessary.  
    13. Schools constantly remind students of the importance of qualifications for getting a good career, which may lead to some students self-regulating.
    14. Students are required to resit GCSE maths and English when in 16-19 education if they achieve less than a C first time round, meaning less choice in later life for those students.

    Are schools effective agents of social control: exploring the evidence

    It’s hard to argue against the view that schools use more control measures today than they did in the 1970s and 80s. However, just because schools try to control pupils more than they used to, this doesn’t necessarily mean that they are effective in doing so.

    Furthermore, there are some possible counter trends, such as the growth of home education and the increase in post-16 educational choices, that suggest that ‘formal education’ might actually be less constraining and controlling than it once was for increasing numbers of pupils.

    Below I explore some of the different types of evidence to examine whether schools are effective agents of social control

    Fines for Parents taking their children out of school during term time

    Local councils can impose fines on parents if their children have an unauthorised absence from school during term time, even if just for one day. The fines start at £60 and if not paid parents can be prosecuted and face up to three months in jail.

    These fines were tested in 2015 when John Platt refused to pay a fine handed out by the Isle of Wight LEA after he took his daughter on holiday to Disney World, Florida during term time. He argued that his daughter’s attendance had otherwise been excellent, and took his case the Supreme Court.

    John Platt: guilty of taking his daughter on holiday for one week during term time.

    Platt lost the case, with the court siding with the Local Education Authority, declaring that he was guilty of breaching school rules and failing to secure his child’s regular attendance at school.

    This court ruling seems to have made LEAs more likely to impose fines, and in 2017 -18 Local Authorities issued 260 000 penalty notices for unauthorized absences to parents, which was an increase of 110 000 on the previous year.

    Extended School Days

    Though not compulsory, there are some academies, such as the NET Academies Trust which run extended school days – starting school at 8.45 rather than at 9.00, running extra lessons after 15.00 for underachieving students, and offering a further enrichment programme later in the afternoon.

    The rising of the ‘education’ leaving age in 2013

    In 2013 the government raised the ‘formal education’ leaving age of pupils in England from 16 to 18 years.

    Pupils can still leave school at 16, but only if they have a place at a further education college, or are going into work which has some kind of accredited training attached to it.

    This means that rather than being able to transition to full adulthood and relative freedom at the age of 16, students are now subjected the control and surveillance associated with training for at least another two years.

    If an individual is on a work-based training course, this regime of control may not be as severe as being in school, and in many ways this is probably going to be quite similar to just starting out on a new job anyway. But since 2013 this layer of ‘educational control’ has been formalised, and it means that MORE PEOPLE are now definitely going to be subjected to work based observations and assessments than ever before.

    Physical surveillance

    In 2012 Big Brother Watch released a report based on Freedom of Information requests that estimated there are over 100 000 CCTV cameras in schools.

    There are more recent reports that camera footage taken in schools to show parents how their children have misbehaved, and to get students to reflect on and take responsibility for their ‘bad’ behaviour.

    It’s interesting to note that if you do a google search for ‘schools’ and ‘cctv’ or ‘surveillance’ there isn’t much research being done, so the use of CCTV in schools seems to have become normalised as a form of social control.

    Some schools even have security cameras in toilets, and this is raising some concern among parents.

    The most recent evolution of physical surveillance is the use of body cams by teachers, which some schools are currently trialing. (Link from 2020).

    The increasing use of isolation units

    Isolation units are staffed rooms, often with partitioned booths, where disruptive students are sent to ‘cool off’, possibly for an hour or so, but sometimes for an entire day.

    They are especially popular, according to at least one of the reports below, among multi-academy trusts.

    Isolation booths in one primary school – may as well start ’em young!

    According to a 2018 BBC report, at least 200 out of 1000 schools use isolation units, or booths. Some even have permanent units with their own toilet facilities so pupils can remain in them for an entire day if necessary.

    According to this Guardian article (2020), schools are using isolation units to punish pupils for more and more trivial breaches of the rules. For example the article refers to one girl who was put in isolation for forgetting her planner, for the first time ever.

    Some schools seem to be using isolation on a more regular basis to freeze some pupils out of the mainstream school environment. The article refers to one individual, Brendan, who spent much of his last term in isolation, and left schools with no GCSEs.

    It’s likely that these units are growing in popularity since the government has cracked down on the use of exclusions, which means schools are more likely to try and deal with deviant students in-house, which explains the rise of isolation units.

    isolation units – https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-46044394

    British Values

    According to Ofsted, ‘fundamental British values’ are:

    • democracy
    • the rule of law
    • individual liberty
    • mutual respect for and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs and for those without faith.
    A fairly typical ‘British Values’ poster from one of Britain’s Academies.

    The British government has required schools to promote ‘British Values’ since 2014, when it first published its guidance on how schools might go about doing this.

    Certain extracts from the guidance read like something out of the 1950s: schools are required to prepare pupils for modern life by ensuring their moral, spiritual and cultural development.

    The primary aim of the British Values agenda seems to be about promoting democracy, and it is suggested that schools look for opportunities within the National Curriculum as well as extra-curricular activities to promote them.

    This article in The Conversation presents one of the problems with teaching British Values is that the idea of what British Values should be taught in schools wasn’t discussed particularly widely by parliament, let alone the general public before schools were required to teach them to pupils.

    The Prevent Duty

    The Prevent Duty (in effect since 2015) requires that schools take due regard to ensure that pupils are not drawn into terrorism.

    Specifically, the guidance recommends teaching British Values, as well as the possibility of monitoring students’ online activities, and it provides contacts if schools have a concern about particular students, among which it lists the local police force.

    This seems to be some extremely strong evidence that schools are directly being used as agents of formal social control, working directly with the police to combat terrorism.

    However, although the intention is to prevent extremism, the legislation may have had the opposite effect. This 2016 report by Rights Watch UK suggests that Prevent may have increased divisions in British society.

    The report argues that divisions may have increased as a result of untrained teachers unnecessarily referring students on to anti-terrorism authorities because they have misinterpreted certain patterns of behaviour or actions as being suspicious, when in fact the students has no terrorist intentions at all.

    The increasing use of technology to monitor students

    In the United States some schools have moved to 24 hour monitoring of students’ online activities, at least those made within the school’s own system.

    This article cites the example of one student talking about self-harm on a school messaging system, after school hours, this triggered an alert from the monitoring system, and a member of staff contacted the student’s parent immediately.

    I know this is the United States, but the UK so often follows what the U.S. does, just a few years afterwards. This article from Wired Magazine highlights the fact that students are already under a historically unprecedented level of electronic surveillance here in the UK, and maybe this is just the start, with surveillance of personal communications set to get ever more intrusive.

    Other forms of Surveillance in schools

    I’ve only examined a limited range of some of the more obvious forms of evidence which suggests schools are increasingly acting as agents of social control for the British State.

    In addition to all the above, schools have increased their level of ‘academic surveillance’ since the introduction of the 1988 Education Act, and students are now exposed to regular testings, reports, and reviews of their progress as just a normal part of school life.

    This kind of academic-surveillance has just become normalised: most students expect it, and don’t even think about challenging it.

    It is possibly this that is the most profound social control measure – millions of students knowing that their progress is going to be reviewed at least once every six weeks, probably more often, keeps them working, keeps them doing homework, keeps them chained to the system.

    The same may be said of getting students to think about their future careers – where UCAS is concerned, students have to start thinking about what universities to go to and writing their personal statements a year in advance, taking up considerable time in their final year of formal education, AND (if they get a conditional offer) keeping them working.

    So it is possibly the competitive nature of the system, the concern about failure and the constant surveillance of progress which are the main mechanisms whereby schools control pupils?

    Counter Trends?

    The system doesn’t control all students equally, and there are at least three recent counter-trends which suggest schools are NOT effective agents of social control: the increase in home education, the increase in exclusions and the increase in choice in 16-18 education.

    The Number of Exclusions is Increasing

    According to DFES data, both fixed term and permanent exclusions have been increasing since 2012/13

    However, whether this counts as evidence against schools being effective agents of social control is debatable.

    Personally I think it does suggest schools are not being effective, because exclusions suggest schools cannot control students within school boundaries, so students are offloaded, possibly to be under less surveillance once they have been excluded.

    HOWEVER, you might interpret this increase as evidence of MORE control: it all depends what happens to the students afterwards!

    The increase in Home Education

    48,000 children were being home-educated in 2016-17, up from about 34,000 in 2014-15, according to this BBC article.

    Students educated at home are more likely to get a choice in how they are educated, and are less likely to be subjected to many of the control measures suggested above.

    However, we are talking about relatively small numbers of students here – 48, 000 children, compared to a few million in the education system as a whole!

    Increasing post 16 education choices

    Students may have to stay on in some form of education or training until they are 18, but it’s debatable whether many of those are really still under educational surveillance.

    Once students hit 16 years of age, they can enter work based training, which can be just like an ordinary job, except with lower pay because they are ‘training’, so this may not be that much of a change from pre-2013 when they could have just left formal education altogether!

    Conclusions: Are schools effective agents of social control?

    Based on the evidence above, I’d say that they are certainly being used by the State to control certain pupils more, and that schools themselves are making increasing use of technology to control students through surveillance.

    When it comes to the question of effectiveness – I’d say yes, they have become more effective – but this is primarily due to the more subtle forms of academic surveillance, which works day to day, and goes largely unquestioned.

    However, there are a significant minority or students who are NOT controlled – both those who get excluded, and those who are home educated, and I’m sure if I dug further I’d find that we’re talking about the underclass being excluded and the educated middle classes who are being home educated.

  • The Quantified Self by Deborah Lupton: A Brief Summary

    The Quantified Self by Deborah Lupton: A Brief Summary

    ‘This book is about contemporary self-tracking cultures, analysed from a critical sociological perspective. It explores how the practices meanings, discourse, and technologies associated with self-tracking are the product of broader social cultural and political processes.’

    This summary is really just some extended notes I took on the book as self-tracking and the quantified self are concepts which interest me.

    It’s an academic book, written for an academic audience, and probably way beyond most A-level sociology students, but it’s still fascinating, and relevant as the practice of self-tracking is a growing trend.

    Definition of self-tracking: ‘monitoring, measuring and recording elements of one’s body and life as a form of self-improvement and self-reflection’. Commonly using digital technologies.

    Chapter 1 – Know Thyself: Self-Tracking Technologies and Practices

    The emergence of self-tracking

    Covers the pre-digital origins of the practice, a few examples of some self-tracking obsessives, outlines the self-tracking movement and charts the recent growth and ‘mainstreaming’ of the practice.

    Contemporary self-tracking technologies

    Provides an overview of the most common areas of social life to which self-tracking is applied – everything from education to emotions and from individual health to the home.

    Research on self-tracking

    • A brief overview of research on self-tracking (going up to 2013-15): most of the studies are conducted by market research companies, there are few academic studies and focus on health.
    • From this research we find that in 2014, fitness bands were the most popular, and white middle class men with high levels of education and technological know how seem to be the most involved.
    • Academic research has revealed strong positive views about self-tracking among most self-trackers, with a measure of scepticism about how their personal data might be used. There is also evidence of strong ethos of self-responsibility (the neoliberal subject).

    Chapter 2 – New Hybrid Beings: Theoretical Perspectives

    Because self-tracking is a complex process, we should seek to understand it from multiple perspectives. This chapter outlines theoretical perspectives (in bold below) on self-tracking

    Sociomaterial perspectives:

    • Datafication via digital devices is a fundamental aspect of selfhood today.
    • People invest digital technologies with meaning, and we need to understand these meanings to understand people’s identities.
    • Individual human actors should be understood as part of an assemblage that consists of (besides humans), digital devices, software and networks.
    • Code/ space is another concept that’s been developed to capture the hybridity of human-technological networks
    • G. our objects may govern our access to space (e-tickets)
    • Draws on actor-network theory.

    ‘Knowing capitalism’

    • A concept developed by Nigel Thrift to denote the way that capitalism has shifted from commodifying workers’ physical labour to profiting from the data they generate and upload.
    • This is in the context of a big data economy, there is a lot of money to be made from data-driven insights.
    • In the age of prosumumption, people upload this information for free, why social media sites are generally free, because it is the data that has value.
    • The four big tech companies need to be taken into consideration, due to the sheer amount of data they have access to, they have power.
    • Fluidity is key to metaphors used to describe the digital data economy.
    • HOWEVER, data can become frozen, stuck if people do not know how to use it.
    • Data can have a determining influence on people’s life chances
    • When data is rendered 2D it is frozen.
    • When data is represented, it is a result of social processes, we need to ask about who has made the decision to represent data in particular ways.

    Self-tracking and the neo-liberal subject

    • Foucault’s concepts of selfhood, governmentality via biopolitics and surveillance are especially relevant to understanding the social significance of self-tracking.
    • In contemporary western societies, the dominant idea is that ‘care of the self’ is an ethical project that the individual is responsible for – the ‘good citizen’ sees the self as a project to worked on, they don’t expect much from the state or other people in society.
    • Giddens, Beck and Bauman have focused on how the self has become individualised – society is full of uncertainties, and lots of choices, and it is down to the individual to do the work to make those choices (and take responsibility for making the right choices).
    • The ‘self’ in today’s society is one which must be constantly re-invented – improved in order to be a success.
    • There is a dominant discourse of morality surrounding self-improvement – people are expected to do it!
    • The psy disciplines have become increasingly popular today because they fit this era of self-responsibility.
    • Despite the focus on the individual, power is still at work through these practices and discourses of the self. They fit in well with neoliberalism, which depends on soft modes of governing rather than hard – the former basically being everyone controlling themselves because they have taken responsibility for themselves and themselves only.
    • Discourses of self-improvement and the focus on the individual ignore the role of structural factors (class, gender, ethnicity) in shaping people’s lives and the problems they may face during their lives.
    • Self-tracking fits in with this neoliberal discourse of self-responsibilization.

    Cultures of Embodiment

    • The way we understand our bodies is culturally, socially and historically contingent.
    • Digital devices offer people numerous ways for people to ‘digitise’ their bodies, and thus we are changing the way we think of our bodies.
    • Digital technologies mean people are starting to think of their bodies visually (the screen body) rather than haptically (to do with touch). Rather than rely on their ‘fleshy’ feelings they rely on the more ‘real’ visually represented data.
    • Self-tracking practices may be viewed simply as another set of technologies through which individuals seek to control their bodies.
    • Foucault’s concept of biopower is a useful analytical tool to explore digitised bodies: it emphasises how the body is a site of struggle.
    • Biopower is subtler than traditional forms of power and control – it focuses on the disciplines of self-management and control.
    • In the discourse of self-tracking, those who can control their bodies are ‘moral’, those who cannot are deficient.
    • Theories of boundary maintenance and purity (a la Mary Douglas) are also relevant: and we need to keep in mind that the boundary between the body and the social in digital space is less clear than ever.
    • Data tracking technologies render what was previously hidden about our bodies much more visible, and subject to greater control (but by whom>?).
    • NB – much of the way the body is visually represented is quantitatively – biometrics are largely quantitative, and this data can be used as a basis for inclusion and exclusion.

    Datafication

    • ‘Critical data studies’ have emerged to challenge the claims of big data being ‘all positive’
    • The process of datatification = rendering complex human feelings and relationships into digital data. This typically involves metricization, which involves numbers
    • This makes complex and diverse humans ‘easily comparable’ and this formed the basis of control through normalization in the 19th century, it seems to be even more central to contemporary strategies of biopower.
    • Data collected is often quite narrow (e.g. think about education) and is often used by powerful agencies to control and manipulate people. However this is not a neutral process: value judgements lie behind what data is collected and how it is used.
    • We are entering into a world in which biopower and the knowledges which underpin them are increasingly digitised. Such data are frequently presented as neutral, more reliable than individual subjective data, and thus forming a more robust basis for ‘truth claims’.
    • Datafication offers a late modern promise of rendering messy populations understandable and controllable.
    • Algorithmic authority is increasingly important in identity construction and governing inclusion to areas of social life.
    • It is also sometimes difficult to challenge, given that the algorithms are often black-boxed.
    • Dataveillance = veillance which uses digital technology.

    Dataveillance and Privacy

    • The generation of more data increases the opportunities for monitoring.
    • Veillance is Lupton’s preferred term – because there are multiple types of watching in society.
    • Some obvious forms of surveillance include CCTV and Passports, but Foucault’s idea of the panopticon is probably the most relevant to understanding veilance today – where people take on responsibility for controlling their own actions because they ‘might’ be being watched.
    • Veillance is extremely pervasive and works across multiple sites simultaneously and can be purposed and repurposed in multiple ways.
    • It is increasingly used as a means of categorising – often based on risk.
    • Sousveillance is increasingly important.
    • There is no longer a clear spatial boundary between public and private…. Some commentators have even suggested that the internet = the end of privacy.
    • We need to ask lots of questions about data ownership and usage rights.

     

    Chapter 3 – ‘An Optimal Human Being’:  The Body and Self in Self-Tracking Cultures

    The reflexive monitoring of the self

    • analysis of interviews with two self-trackers reveals a discourse of self-awareness and self-improvement facilitated by self-tracking technology.
    • The data used is mainly quantitative and individuals seek greater understanding by finding patterns in their lives.
    • There is always a focus on ‘becoming’ – present data is interpreted in light of a desired future (very goal-oriented).
    • There is a focus on individual self-knowledge within the movement, which some have viewed as narcissistic.
    • There is a strong ethic of self-responsibility, and an implication that those who don’t seek to improve their lives through self-tracking are morally incomplete.
    • Self-tracking selves thus seem to be neoliberal subjects.
    • The concept of the self fits well with digital entrepreneurialism, especially where the tracking of productivity is concerned.

    Representations of embodiment

    • Metaphors of the body as a machine and specifically as an information processing machine are often employed in self-tracking cultures.
    • Inputs/ outputs/ performance are all parts of the discourse.
    • ‘I can therefor I am’ is also part of the discourse of selfhood (Lury 1997)
    • Digital wearable devices are viewed as ‘prosthetics’ (data prosthetics) – enhancing the capacity to act in a similar way to prosthetic limbs. E.g. videos of life loggers expand the human capacity to remember.
    • The prosthetics also extend the body into a network of other bodies…. E.g. through the representation of data in social networks.
    • It becomes increasingly unclear where the body ends and environmental space (‘out there’) begins (code/space is a new concept to describe this).

    The affective dimensions of self-tracking

    • Self-tracking devices and software and the data they generate are invested with a high degree of personal meaning.
    • Obviously, the devices themselves, especially phones, matter to us, and the data collected through these devices is part of our lives, part of our biography: it is ‘my data’.
    • We use these data (images, stats etc to ‘present ourselves’ and engage in ‘algorithmic self-promotion’.
    • NB Even the way we organise our apps has personal meaning.
    • A more over affective dimension is where apps actually track our emotions.
    • The data generated by self-tracking and the responses this gets when presented also generates emotions – from satisfaction to frustration.
    • Those who do not self-track may be perceived as immoral because of not taking the responsibility to control their lives. (There is a barely hidden discourse of morality in the movement)
    • Emotions also come into the fact that devices sometimes measure what they are supposed to effectively, and sometimes don’t work at all – they tie people’s emotional states into the robustness of the material devices.
    • Wearable devices also affect people’s emotional states differently – if they make them feel more self-conscious, this may not be in a good way: some may feel ‘fitter’, others may feel fatter.
    • There are also design and fashion to consider – many people won’t wear devices if they don’t look good.

    Taking and losing control

    • Part of the discourse of self-tracking is one of using data to gain greater control over one’s life.
    • This fits in well with the uncertainty of late modern society – data collection and using it is a means of reducing risk: in terms of poor health or broken relationships for example.
    • This is most advanced in the sphere of medicine and health where the concept of the ‘participatory patient’ is well established – many patients are expected to engage in a routine of data collection and monitoring, along with their Doctors.
    • However, this effectively brings the body under surveillance as never before: the technologies used may be talked about as ‘inobtrusive, but the effects are to foreground the body through the data collected.
    • Some ex self-trackers report they gave up because data ‘took over’ their lives, drowning out their intuition.
    • Others reported they gave it up as they found they were only happy when their numbers were trending upwards.
    • And if you don’t have your device, you might regret it…
    • Some people also change their habits because of their devices, not necessarily in good ways – eating foods because it fits your diet regime and not actually enjoying the food!
    • Self-tracking may be a terrible idea for those with OCD or anorexia.

     

    Self-Tracking and Surveillance

    • Self-tracking and the data generated by it blur the boundary between the public and the private.
    • Especially when we publish our data on networking sites, our private data becomes public.
    • The practice of self-tracking is typically done as part of an assemblage – tracking of ‘intimate’ information, displayed in public.
    • There is a positive side to all of this – gamifying one’s data can be motivational, as can messages of support from others.
    • We need to consider that some forms of tracking may be imposed from above, and users have little choice over engaging in the practice
    • Finally, there are the political implications of how our data is stored and used!

     

    Chapter 4 – You Are Your Data: Personal Data, Meanings, Practices and Materialisations

    Covers the ways in which self-trackers seek to make sense of, materialise and use their personal information.

    The meaning and value of personal digital data

    • Self-tracking is not only about controlling one’s body and one’s self, but controlling the data generated by self-tracking.
    • Data assemblages are constantly shifting, and the data drawn upon is context dependent. They are also reflexive and recursive – people may act on the data, and those changes in action change the data.
    • Even though certain data assemblages may provide a snap shot, frozen, the data are liquid entities, constantly shifting, and this requires self-trackers to engage in constant meaning negotiation to make sense of the data and the selves those data represent.
    • The Quantified Self Movement says this is one of its primary purposes – to help people make better sense of the data – as they see it, collecting it is easy, making sense of it a life skill which needs practice/ training.
    • There is a sense in which the data is more reliable than gut feeling or memory.
    • Personal Analytics (according to QS) will help us develop optimal selves often defined as us becoming more efficient/ productive.
    • There is a ‘big data mind set’ – we can get new insights from this data that was not previously available – e.g. I can look at my phone and see how stressed I am.
    • Self-trackers often present themselves as scientists, collecting their own data, the digitized an information processing system
    • The data is often presented as trustworthy, and the body’s perceptions as untrustworthy.
    • This fits in with a long held medicalized view of the body, the only difference now is that we are visual not haptic and data is available to the layman, not just the expert.
    • The data is seen as emblematic of their ‘true selves’.

    Metricization and the Lure of Numbers…

    • Quantification is central to the quantified self discourse.
    • More and more areas of social life have become quantified in recent years (obviously?)
    • Although data is presented as neutral, there is a ‘politics’ to quantification.
    • The rationales of both commerce and government are supported by datafication – publics are rendered manageable by data: BIG DATA allows for people to be managed algorithmically.
    • ‘Comensuration’ is a result of metricization…. This is the process whereby a broader range of previously different social phenomena are brought together under one metric – thus the process favours homogeneity over heterogeneity – – e.g. the Klout score.
    • Such metrics create ‘climates of futurity’.
    • These metrics invariably favour some qualities over others.
    • Viewing the self through such data/ metrics encourages one to take a scientific/ comparable, and reductionist view of life…
    • This cuts out the experience of (real?) life as messy/ complex/ contradictory.

    Data Spectacles: Materializations of Personal Data

    • Visualising data is an integral part of the Quantified self-movement. A lot of these data visualizations are very ‘neat’.
    • Most self-trackers derive pleasure and motivation from seeing their data visualised
    • They also see the data as ‘more real’ than their own subjective feelings.

    Artistic and Design Interventions

    • Artists/ designers have tried to enhance/ challenge the way self-trackers visualize their data.
    • FRICKBITS – invited self-trackers to turn their data into art
    • The ‘Dear Data’ projected invited women to physically draw an aspect of their ‘data lives’ once a week.
    • Lucy Kimbell’s LIX index took data from various aspects of her life, and turned them into one index to criticise self-tracking
    • Critical making and design fiction aim to combine critical theory and art/ fiction. Their purpose is to envisage alternative futures (that are not necessarily either utopian or dystopian) – to challenge dominant power/ knowledge regimes/ discourses.
    • These may be messier/ more ambiguous than many of the representations of current data and imagined futures made by self-tracking communities.
    • Outlines a few projects which have sort to get us thinking about the boundaries between self/machine, and how these are shifting in assemblages.
    • 3D Printers are also being used to visualise data.
    • Data is also being used to produce things, based on data.

    The Importance of Context

    • There is growing cynicism about the use of numbers in self-tracking, because it is often not clear what numbers mean (e.g. a high heart rate can mean different thing) – we thus need to know the context in which the data is collected.
    • ‘Morris’ (blog) is a good example of how context and quality may be more useful – he took thousands of photos of his daily routine, on reviewing them he said he started to recognise more people on his daily commute, feeling more connected to them.
    • Presenting self-data is an important aspect, this is context, emotional.
    • Data collected and then presented back might conjure up uncomfortable emotions… e.g Eric Myer’s Facebook Year in Review experience.
    • Self-trackers are also self-qualifiers… they use the data to tell stories about themselves.

    Chapter 5 – Data’s Capacity for Betrayal: Personal Data Politics

    Covers the political dimension of self-tracking data (who stores the data, what they do with that data and how they benefit).

    Exploited self-tracking

    • Self-tracking practices generate digital biocapital (value derived from a combination of bodies and data)
    • The generation and storage of this data is now beyond the consensual and the personal and this raises all sorts of questions pertaining to who should have access to this data and its use…. Much of which has been highlighted by the recent Facebook scandal.
    • Digital biocapital also raises the spectre of governments and corporations being able to algorithmically manipulate people.
    • Prosumption is a form of work… the value people derive from generating the data not monetary, but the data is commodified and then has a monetary value… this is exploitation.
    • Employers data trawl prospective employers
    • Insurance companies are already using predictive algorithms to set premiums
    • Data is being used in some legal cases.

    Pushed and imposed self-tracking

    • Although self-tracking is usually presented as something voluntary, there are some fields where the practice is used ‘coercively’ – where institutions use self-tracking to ‘nudge’ (often unwilling) participants’ behaviour in a ‘desirable’ direction.
    • It is mostly in the sphere of health that we find this.
    • This fits in well with soft power in neoliberal regimes.
    • One example is insurance companies getting people to upload their health data (also driving).
    • Another is Corporations offering reduced health insurance packages for employees who enrol in their wellness programmes.
    • There is a fine line between consensual, pushed and imposed self-tracking.

    Personal data security and privacy

    • Written before GDPR – ‘many companies fail to tell customers how their data will be used’.
    • Personal information is very sort after by criminal gangs who can gain access to it at two main points – data transfer, and when data is stored on online databases.
    • Survey data show that people are generally OK with their data being used for beneficial purposes but are suspicious of and worried about the use of data by governments and corporations to manipulate people, and of the fact that their data may be used to exclude them.

    Communal self-tracking and taking control of personal data

    • Some in the quantified self movement talk of ‘pooling’ their small data so as to gain big data insights.
    • (Small data is personal and identifiable, big data as impersonal and anonymous).
    • Nafus and Sherman (2014) have theorised that this can be a form of resistance against control of big data by large companies.
    • A very small pool of experts can create their own means of dealing with their data, most people are dependent on commercial products.
    • Some self-tracking initiatives encourage collective positive projects – e.g. environmental, collective steps, hours meditated. This could be a new form of digital citizenship moving forwards.

    Responses and resistances to dataveillance

    Outlines three counter responses…

    • Selectively recording information (the power of forgetting)
    • Obfuscation – deliberately generating false data or digital noise.
    • Making people aware of the sheer amount of data being collected.

    Final Reflections

    More detailed summary: chapter 1 (NB – find points of interest and think of the questions I can ask, to then find further research on (reorganising this!)

    Self-tracking cultures have emerged in a sociocultural and political context in which various rationales, discourses, practices and technologies are converging… these include the following:

    • A self-concept that values self-knowledge and entrepreneurialism
    • The privileging of quantitative scientific knowledges seen as neutral
    • A moral imperative to take responsibility for the regulation and tight control of one’s body
    • Digital technologies which allow the recording of more aspects of life in ever greater detail
    • A digital data economy which commodifies personal data
    • Governments and commercial agencies seeking to use data to manipulate behaviours.

    The notion of autonomous individualism is central to many self-tracking cultures – the individual is seen as being morally responsible for rationally improving their own well-being. Little account is taken of the role of structural factors (poverty, discrimination) in affecting life chances.

    Technologies tend to have been designed by white middle class men in the global North, and the decisions about what to measure through tech reflects their bias – for example the Apple Watch does not track menstrual cycles.

    At the same time as being reductive, the process of generating self-knowledge is also productive – it is an active process which gives rise to new knowledges, and people use them to ‘improve the self’.

    How self-tracking knowledge changes power relations is not clear – presumption means lay people can track and present data, which challenges the role of the big tech companies. However, producers of data have little control over it once it has been generated and uploaded to social media sites.

    Self-tracking practices are now mainstream, and way beyond just in the realms of health and fitness.

    Lupton has identified five ‘modes’ of self-tracking:

    • Private
    • Pushed
    • Imposed
    • Exploited

    The differences are to do with the extent of consent and the purposes for which data is used.

    Data devices are learning more about humans. Some of them already tell us what to do. This makes future assemblages more complex – once the world of the Internet of Things really kicks into gear!

    Data Literacy is a common thing today, but we need to focus more on getting people to think about the power relations between the users of tech and the designers who make them, and commercial and governmental agencies involved.

    There are many new positive uses to which self-tracking might be put, and the penultimate few paragraphs outline some of these – such as ‘empathy’ projects and creative projects.

  • The State COULD be watching you: and other lessons from #Hunted

    In case you’ve been living in the dark-ages and missed it (like me) Hunted is a T.V. show in which ordinary individuals take on the role of fugitives on the run from ‘Hunters’ who take on the role of agents of the state (think of MI6 meets special ops).

    Hunted C4

    The latest C4 series kick-started with 9 individuals (although 6 of them paired-up, so really just 6 targets) bailing from a van in Manchester city center, and then spreading out to the four corners of the UK. If they can evade the Hunters for 25 days, the survivors each get a share of £100K.

    The ‘Hunters’ consist of some serious (and not particularly pleasant, although that may be dramatic license) intelligence professionals based in  London HQ, who steer a number of ground-teams, some of whom are the ‘Hunters’ who are empowered to ‘arrest’ the fugitives, and some of whom are just covert surveillance operatives who aren’t allowed to reveal their identity.

    I must say, I caught the second half of episode 5/6 entirely accidentally during a Thursday evening channel hopping session last week, and enjoyed it so much I binged-watch the entire series over the next couple of days.

    At time of writing (5 episodes in to a series of 6), 4 out of the 6 targets have been captured by the Hunters using a variety of surveillance and closure tactics, and 3 remain: because one original pairing has split up.

    Despite enjoying the show, I couldn’t help but do a little sociological analysis:

    Sociological Observations of Hunted

    We may as well start with the obvious – YES the state has deeply-penetrating powers of surveillance.

    Without giving too much away, the ‘Hunters’ use the following techniques to track down the fugitives:

    1. CCTV – obviously
    2. Bank card transactions which PING an alert at hunter HQ as soon as they’re used (should’ve used steem)
    3. Phone taps – some of the fugitives use ‘burner phones’ to avoid detection, the problem being that as soon as they ring someone in their network, the Hunters have that burner phone on record and can tap it.
    4. Bugging computers – the Hunters are allowed access to the fugitives’ network to interview them and use USBs to hack into their computers so they can take control of them (whether this happens in real-life, I don’t know)
    5. Car tracking devices.
    6. Analysis of the fugitives’ social media profiles.
    7. Network analysis – this actually proves to be the most important aspect of tracking people down, simply analyzing the network of family and friends and focusing surveillance on these is what typically leads the ground teams to the fugitives.

    Secondly – the show demonstrates the extent to which we live in a ‘Network Society’

    The Hunters have access to the fugitives’ phone and social media records, which clearly show the fugitives’ recent life-histories mapped out, and, crucially for most of the captures, the ‘densest’ lines of communication within those networks.

    With some of the individual fugitives, we really get to see the ‘strength of weak ties’ – especially the guy who is ‘Deputy Mayor of Sheffield’, whose network is huge. However, there is one person who stands out, and this is what gets him caught in the end.

    With the three pairs, what is further apparent is that all of them have quite different personal networks, despite being very close to each-other, which really goes to show to complexity of networks in contemporary Britain.

    Hunted2.png
    The Network Analysis which ultimately led to the capture of the Deputy Mayor of Sheffield. 

    Thirdly – the show demonstrates dramatically the continued importance of local and family connections

    Interestingly, MOST of the fugitives return to their home turf, and most to the support of their local friends and families – so it is clearly not correct to say that our networks are free-floating and virtual – our meaningful relationships are still very grounded.

    Finally – it gives us a nice insight into Multi-cultural Britain!

    I don’t know if it was a deliberate ploy of this year’s recruiters to demonstrate British multiculturalism, but it’s very interesting to note that 2/6 targets were African Immigrants, all from different countries: it’s actually quite rare to get such an in-depth insight into the back-stories of black-Britons, quite a nice escape from the usual, generalized tokenistic representations we get in ‘black history month’ for example.

    Very Finally – what I probably find most interesting about the show (although this might just be me) is that it does put you on the side of the fugitives… you do want them to win, and this is a potentially disruptive show… it wakes you up to the awesome surveillance powers of the State: the extent to which they can penetrate into our daily lives, especially if we leave an electronic trace… although it might also be performing a subtle ‘social control function’ by sending out the message that….

    The State COULD be watching you.

    Final thoughts:

    I think the addition #Hunted really needs is a ‘how to avoid state-surveillance’ guide… and what would my strategy be? Actually I’m not going to say, I fancy a pop at this for season 4!

     

  • Good Sociology Movies #1: Minority Report

    Thought I’d start bashing out the occasional Friday post on good sociology movies… starting with Minority Report – which is a great intro to the ‘surveillance and crime control‘ aspect of the AQA’s 7192 sociology syllabus, crime and deviance topic,

    It’s the opening scene in Minority Report which is really the relevant bit here: the arrest of Howard Marks:

    In the above scene, John Anderton (played by Tom Cruise) is the chief of police of a special Washington D.C. ‘pre-crime’ unit – in which predictions are so accurate that people are arrested before they have committed a crime.

    In the movie, predictions are actually made on the basis of some ‘psychic’ beings who are biogenically networked into the police’s systems, but this aside, the above movie acts as a great starting point for the topic of surveillance and pre-crime.

    You can simply show the clip, and then get students to think about where in society authorities restrain or restrict people based on ‘big data’ which is a form of surveillance.

    Students should be able to think of a few examples at least, tied into the topic of ‘actuarial crime control‘.

    Maybe I’ll blog about the answers another time…

  • Sociology in the News (8) – Killer Clowns and Donald Trump’s Misogyny

    The Killer Clown Craze 

    killer-clown-craze-manchester.jpg

    The societal response to the so called ‘Killer Clown Craze‘ seems like a good example of a moral panic. Piers Morgan (moral entrepreneur supremo) has waded in against the craze, and as soon as he gets involved in anything, that’s a sure sign of moral panic). Twenty years ago, people dressed in scary clown costumes would have been regarded as ‘Halloween pranksters’, today they’re regarded as public menaces who are a threat to public order and child well-being.

    Thames Valley Police reported that –

    ‘In the last 24 hours we have been called to 14 incidents across the region where people have reported being intimidated or frightened by others dressed as clowns. This follows the report of other incidents across the country which have been widely reported in the national media. While we don’t want to be accused of stopping people enjoying themselves we would also ask those same people to think of the impact of their behaviour on others and themselves.’ 

    The public have been warned that dressing up as a clown with the intent to scare people could result in a criminal record, and children have been advised to phone child line if they are distressed by such sightings. Staffordshire police have further advised that people don’t ‘like’ Killer Clown pages on Facebook.

    Maybe the chainsaw wielding clowns are taking this a step-too far, but as far as I can see, most of the incidents are harmless pranks, meaning the panic over this is almost certainly disproportionate, possibly a response to living in a culture of fear in which paranoid parents construct children as delicate objects in need of protection. Surely 30 years ago clown pranks would have been laughed off as funny?

    This is also a great example of a ‘hyperreal’ deviant phenomenon – some people are even dressing up as superheros and chasing the Killer Clowns…

    cumbriasuperheroes1

     

    Donald Trump’s Downfall

    donald-trump-gropes-ivanka.jpg

    Donald Trump’s downfall is a useful example of how Synoptic Surveillance can bring down the powerful – It looks like his chances of winning the US election are now extremely slim after video footage came to light of him engaged in what he thought was a private conversation in which he described his failure to ‘fuck’ (his words) a married T.V. presenter even thought he’d ‘moved on her like a bitch’, shortly after he himself had just married. He also boasted of groping women in the same conversation.

    Synoptic Surveillance is a concept developed by Thomas Mathiesson to describe how surveillance is now carried out by a diverse range of people, rather than just the state keeping citizens under surveillance – as a result power is now more widely dispersed and those with political power are subject to more control from below, through journalistic surveillance for example.

    Maybe the next moral panic will consist of people dressing up in Donald Trump masks groping women?  (‘Honest love, it was just a joke’.)

    donald-trump
    Trump -almost certainly more terrifying than killer clowns

     

     

  • Feely and Simon: Actuarial Justice and Risk Management

    Feely and Simon (1994) argue that a new ‘technology of power’ is emerging within the justice system. New approaches to social control come from a risk management perspective.

    Risk Management approaches to justice differ from Foucault’s theory of surveillance and social control:

    1. Focus on Groups Rather Than Individuals:
      It emphasizes the management of groups rather than addressing individuals.
    2. Prevention Over Rehabilitation:
      The goal is not to rehabilitate offenders but simply to prevent them from committing crimes.
    3. Actuarial Analysis:
      Borrowing from the insurance industry, this approach calculates the statistical risk of certain events occurring, such as the likelihood of drivers being involved in accidents.

    Feely and Simon claim that this actuarial method is increasingly being used in crime control.

    For example, airports pre-screen passengers before their arrival. Points are awarded based on factors such as gender, age, ethnicity, and criminal history. The higher the score, the more likely an individual is to be stopped at customs.

    Social Sorting and categorical suspicion

    David Lyon (2012) argues that the purpose of social sorting is to categorize people so they can be treated differently based on perceived risk. This leads to ‘categorical suspicion’—individuals become suspects purely because they belong to a particular age group, ethnicity, or combination of factors.

    In 2010, West Midlands Police proposed a counter-terrorism scheme to install approximately 150 surveillance cameras, including covert ones, in predominantly Muslim suburbs of Birmingham. This effectively placed entire communities under suspicion.

    One major issue with actuarial risk management in crime control is its potential to reinforce labeling processes and self-fulfilling prophecies, as highlighted by interactionists.

    Young Minds – An example of social control through actuarialism?

    The text below is taken from the Young Minds’ web site – how would Simon and Feely interpret this advice?

    Young People at Risk of Offending – Advice for Parents (Young Minds)

    No parent wants their child to become a ‘young offender.’ However, many young people do become involved in crime or antisocial behavior. Parents Helpline advisor Claire Usiskin offers guidance on how parents can support their children.

    The factors that contribute to offending are often complex. Both parents/carers and the young person may feel blamed and stigmatized, even though the causes are often beyond their control. Young people experiencing the following issues are at greater risk of offending:

    • Poor housing or living in a neighborhood with poor services
    • Financial hardship
    • Difficulties achieving at or attending school
    • Bullying (as either a victim or perpetrator)
    • Behavioral problems
    • Hyperactivity or poor impulse control (e.g., ADHD)
    • Specific learning difficulties (e.g., dyslexia)
    • Violence or conflict within the family or social environment
    • Drug or alcohol issues within the family or peer group
    • Family or peer attitudes that condone crime
    • Abuse or trauma in childhood
    • Time spent in local authority care

    These risk factors tend to accumulate. The more factors a young person experiences, the more likely they are to engage in criminal behavior.

    As a parent or carer, supporting your child to stay on the right side of the law can be challenging. Peer pressure can be powerful, and teenagers often prioritize social acceptance over respecting the law. However, parents can take steps to mitigate these risks:

    Seek Support for Yourself:
    If parenting feels overwhelming, seek help from your GP or local counseling services. Asking for support is not a sign of failure but a demonstration of strength and commitment to your child’s well-being.

    Build Strong Relationships:
    A single positive relationship with a caregiver can offset many other issues. Clearly communicate acceptable behaviors and the reasons behind them. Involve relatives or friends to reinforce these boundaries in a supportive manner.

    Seek Support for Education and Mental Health:
    Advocate for your child’s rights to access education and mental health services. If you suspect undiagnosed learning difficulties or conditions, request an assessment through your GP or school.

    Engage with Community Programs:
    Youth services, mentoring schemes, and anti-crime or gang prevention projects often employ experienced practitioners, including ex-offenders, who can effectively engage with young people and motivate them to change their behavior.

    Evaluation of Actuarial Approaches to Social Control

    Feely and Simon might interpret the advice from Young Minds as a form of actuarialism applied to parenting. By identifying and addressing risk factors, parents are encouraged to manage their children’s behavior through preventative strategies, mirroring the actuarial approach in crime control.

    This approach, however, raises questions about labeling and self-fulfilling prophecies. By focusing on risk factors, are young people unfairly categorized and subjected to suspicion?

    Moreover, are these strategies truly effective in addressing systemic issues, or do they shift responsibility onto individuals while overlooking structural causes such as poverty and inequality?

    Relevance to A-level sociology

    This material is mainly relevant to the Crime and Deviance module, usually taught as part of the second year of A-level sociology

    This fits in well with Ulrich Becks’ theory of the Risk Society.

    Actuarialism is normally taught after these two topics…

    Find out More…

    You can read more about this here: The New Penology: Notes on the Emerging Strategy of Corrections and Its Implications

  • Sociology in the News 6 (Surveillance and Crime Control)

    Last week, millions of mobile phones across New York City got a text alert. It read

    “Wanted: Ahmed Kham Rahami, 28 year old male. See Media for pic, call 9-1-1 if seen”

    The message related to a man suspected of planting the previous weekend’s bombs in New York and New Jersey, and he was picked up later that day.

    Headline News - Suspected Terrorist Apprehended after the NYPD hijacked the WEA
    Headline News – ‘Suspected Terrorist Apprehended after the NYPD hijacked the Wireless Emergency Alert System’

    NYPD commissioner James O’Neill said the alert had given the police an edge, and hailed it as ‘the future’.

    In most cases the WEA (Wireless Emergency Alerts) text alert system is used to warn people in specific neighbourhoods about dangerous weather or missing children, but this was the first time it had been used to hunt down a suspect for a crime.

    The obvious pros of this crime control technique are that it worked – the suspect was apprehended, but there are also several downsides:

    • It could spread unnecessary panic – with the public already on edge about terrorism
    • People in the US are already routinely harassed for just appearing to be Muslim, this just adds to this problem – perpetuating the Muslim terrorist stereotype.
    • If it’s upscaled it could just become ineffective and people ignore such texts due to information overload.

    This is a useful example to illustrate how the NYPD have essentially hijacked an emergency alert system and turned it into a technology of surveillance. You could also use it to criticise the theory that synoptic surveillance is mainly used to hold the authorities to account – this is in many ways the opposite of that. 

  • Foucault – Surveillance and Crime Control

    Michel Foucault is one of the most influential sociological thinkers of the last half century. One of his key contributions to criminology is his focus on how the nature of crime control has shifted from using the threat of violence and the fear of being physically punished to control through surveillance – fear of being seen to be doing something wrong.

    Punishment has changed from being a violent public spectacle (such as hanging) to being hidden away, behind closed doors. It has also changed from being swift and physical, done on the body, to being more drawn out and psychological – punishment today is typically about changing the mind and the soul.

    This reflects a change in how power is exercised in society – we have moved away from what Foucault called ‘sovereign power’ – which is control through the threat of force, to ‘disciplinary power’ – which is control through the monitoring and surveillance of populations.

    Sovereign power was typical of the period before the 18th century when the monarch had power over people and their bodies, and thus inflicting punishment directly on the body was the means of asserting control.

    Foucault illustrates the use of sovereign power by describing a particularly gruesome execution which took place in 1757, which forms the introduction to his classic book ‘discipline and punish’ (see appendix below).

    Foucault points out that by the end of the 18th century this type of extreme public punishment no longer took place, instead punishment took place in prisons, behind closed doors and there was more of an attempt by authorities to control and reform criminals through the use of timetables and other interventions such as educational programmes.

    Foucault argues that disciplinary power evolved significantly in the late 19th century with Jeremy Bentham’s new design of prison known as the panopticon – which consisted of a central observational tower and prison cells arranged around it in such a way that the prisoners could potentially be under observation at any time, but could not see whether they were being observed or not. Because of this, prisoners had to self-monitor their behaviour so that, in effect, they ended up disciplining themselves as a result of being under constant surveillance (or because they were subjected to disciplinary power in strict Foucauldian terms)

    The significance of Foucault (the important bit)

    Foucault argues that the use of disciplinary power has extend everywhere in society – it is not only in prisons that disciplinary power (surveillance) is used to control people; and it is not only criminals who are subjected to disciplinary power.

    Disciplinary power (surveillance) is now everywhere and everyone is subjected to it – the most obvious examples are the use of CCTV in public spaces; but disciplinary power is also at work in schools – through the use of electronic registers and reports; we can see it in workplaces – through the use of performance monitoring; and we can even see it in our personal lives – both pregnancy and childhood are highly monitored by health care professionals and social workers for example, and most of us just accept this as normal.

    Most people now obey the rules because they know they are being watched – they regulate their own behaviour for fear of becoming the wrong kind of person – a failing student, an unproductive worker, a bad mother, an obese-person, for example.

    What we have today, according to Foucault and his followers, is the automatic exercise of social control through generalised surveillance.

    NB – This is quintessentially sociological – it is only in very recent human history that we have become so obsessed with monitoring every aspect of our daily-lives, and one of Foucault’s points is that this constant surveillance doesn’t necessarily improve our lives – there are both winners and losers.

    Surveillance, social control and increasing inequality

    One important dimension of increasing surveillance is increasing inequality.

    The wealthy are able to afford to live in mass private security enclaves. They can afford to pay to live in gated communities with private security. And many of the places where the wealthy spend their leisure time are protected by extensive surveillance. Examples include more expensive parts of city-centres (think of central London), shopping malls, as well as airports and hotels. Such places have security cameras, private security and often a police presence.

    In contrast poorer parts of cities (the ‘estates’) are increasingly becoming ‘badlands’. They are no-go areas which are not protected by any type of surveillance. These are the places where poorer people live, the kind of places where crime rates are higher, but the authorities have largely given up on them.

    Appendix: An extract from the beginning of Michel Foucault’s ‘Discipline and Punish’

    Cover of discipline and punish by Foucault.

    On 2 March 1757 Damiens the regicide was condemned “to make the amende honorable before the main door of the Church of Paris”, where he was to be “taken and conveyed in a cart, wearing nothing but a shirt, holding a torch of burning wax weighing two pounds”; then, “in the said cart, to the Place de Grève, where, on a scaffold that will be erected there, the flesh will be torn from his breasts, arms, thighs and calves with red-hot pincers, his right hand, holding the knife with which he committed the said parricide, burnt with sulphur, and, on those places where the flesh will be torn away, poured molten lead, boiling oil, burning resin, wax and sulphur melted together and then his body drawn and quartered by four horses and his limbs and body consumed by fire, reduced to ashes and his ashes thrown to the winds” (Pièces originales…, 372-4).

    “Finally, he was quartered,” recounts the Gazette d’Amsterdam of 1 April 1757. “This last operation was very long, because the horses used were not accustomed to drawing; consequently, instead of four, six were needed; and when that did not suffice, they were forced, in order to cut off the wretch’s thighs, to sever the sinews and hack at the joints…
    Bouton, an officer of the watch, left us his account: “The sulphur was lit, but the flame was so poor that only the top skin of the hand was burnt, and that only slightly. Then the executioner, his sleeves rolled up, took the steel pincers, which had been especially made for the occasion, and which were about a foot and a half long, and pulled first at the calf of the right leg, then at the thigh, and from there at the two fleshy parts of the right arm; then at the breasts. Though a strong, sturdy fellow, this executioner found it so difficult to tear away the pieces of flesh that he set about the same spot two or three times, twisting the pincers as he did so, and what he took away formed at each part a wound about the size of a six-pound crown piece.

    “After these tearings with the pincers, Damiens, who cried out profusely, though without swearing, raised his head and looked at himself; the same executioner dipped an iron spoon in the pot containing the boiling potion, which he poured liberally over each wound. Then the ropes that were to be harnessed to the horses were attached with cords to the patient’s body; the horses were then harnessed and placed alongside the arms and legs, one at each limb.

    “The horses tugged hard, each pulling straight on a limb, each horse held by an executioner. After a quarter of an hour, the same ceremony was repeated and finally, after several attempts, the direction of the horses had to be changed, thus: those at the arms were made to pull towards the head, those at the thighs towards the arms, which broke the arms at the joints. This was repeated several times without success. He raised his head and looked at himself. Two more horses had to be added to those harnessed to the thighs, which made six horses in all. Without success.

    “After two or three attempts, the executioner Samson and he who had used the pincers each drew out a knife from his pocket and cut the body at the thighs instead of severing the legs at the joints; the four horses gave a tug and carried off the two thighs after them, namely, that of the right side first, the other following; then the same was done to the arms, the shoulders, the arm-pits and the four limbs; the flesh had to be cut almost to the bone, the horses pulling hard carried off the right arm first and the other afterwards.

    “When the four limbs had been pulled away, the confessors came to speak to him; but his executioner told them that he was dead, though the truth was that I saw the man move, his lower jaw moving from side to side as if he were talking. One of the executioners even said shortly afterwards that when they had lifted the trunk to throw it on the stake, he was still alive. The four limbs were untied from the ropes and thrown on the stake set up in the enclosure in line with the scaffold, then the trunk and the rest were covered with logs and faggots, and fire was put to the straw mixed with this wood.

    “…In accordance with the decree, the whole was reduced to ashes. The last piece to be found in the embers was still burning at half-past ten in the evening. The pieces of flesh and the trunk had taken about four hours to burn. The officers of whom I was one, as also was my son and a detachment of archers remained in the square until nearly eleven o’clock.

    Signposting

    This post has been written primarily for A-level sociology students. This topic is part of the crime and deviance module, usually studied in the second year.

    Critics argue Foucault’s theories of surveillance are out of date and we have moved on to new types of surveillance system such as:

    Please click here to return to the homepage – ReviseSociology.com