Surveillance vs. Social Control Essay Example

is evidently escalating their observation measures, while also working towards enhancing societal control. The notion of pervasive surveillance is a disturbing one, mirroring the ever-present "Big Brother" from George Orwell's 1984. This omnipresence is underscored by the slogan "Big Brother is watching you", found beneath every poster or image of the Party's leader. Personally, I find the concept of being tracked incessantly and facing punitive measures for my actions, without the freedom to act autonomously, deeply alarming. However, I have a completely different perception concerning societal control. Social control as a concept does not instill fear in me whatsoever. In fact, it's frequently utilised in our design studios as a tool by students to eradicate any unsafe spaces in their proposed architectural designs. An additional example is the "Burgernet" scheme mentioned earlier, wherein citizens are mobilised via SMS alerts on their cell phones to assist law enforcement in solving crimes via citizen surveillance.

Since its initiation in 2008, this instrument has demonstrated significant advantages. Currently, the platform is operational in our nation's capital, Amsterdam. It appears that public management activities that encourage individual participation are generally viewed in a positive light. However, observation carried out by government entities or private firms can frequently be regarded negatively. The operation of these power structures deeply fascinates me. How does surveillance manifest as a form of power?

What distinguishes surveillance from social control? How can society accept the latter while repulsing the former? To understand these dynamics of power, we need to explore the Panopticon concept, an "elementary architectural idea" based on the work of British philosopher Jeremy Bentham. This concept significantly impacts our society's development,

posited by French philosopher Michel Foucault in his Panopticism theory. We'll review how this model applies to present-day surveillance and social control.

This essay won't delve into society's individualization tendency, the measures implemented, the reasons behind the increasing need for security, or the structure and laws of a disciplinary society. Instead, our concentration will solely be on the functioning and societal impact of power mechanisms, and the distinction between surveillance and societal control.

Before delving into the subjects of the Panopticon, surveillance and social governance, it is fundamental to first explain the psychological notions of angst and fear, as well as their linkage with authority. This is vital for appreciating how the Panopticon influences human behaviour and grasping how surveillance alongside societal control affects people's actions within our society.

The terms Angst and fear first require clarification to fully comprehend their meanings. The term Angst, which has its roots in German and signifies anxiety, was first introduced by philosopher Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) in his book “The Concept of Anxiety”(1844), where he described it as a profound sense of unease. There is a unique distinction between Angst and another German term Furcht, which means fear. Furcht denotes negative anticipation associated with a potential specific threat or object, while Angst, conversely, is a non-directional emotion that does not have any targeted object.

In the present discourse, we've opted for 'angst' over 'anxiety'. The selected term embodies a broader spectrum of psychological implications as initially conceived by Kierkegaard. We acknowledge that previous definitions of 'angst' do not sufficiently support our stance, prompting us to delve deeper into this concept. Our comprehension stems from

the anthropological clarification given by Gerrit Glas, a Dutch philosopher and psychiatrist, in his book "Angst" (2001). Glas thoroughly investigates various perspectives on 'angst', elaborated by diverse philosophers and psychologists, ultimately formulating an anthropological definition that fits seamlessly with psychotherapy - his field of specialisation. However, within this essay's scope, we confine our discussion solely to his portrayal of 'angst', omitting any psychological inferences derived from his work. To fully understand the wider context surrounding Glas's interpretation of 'angst', we refer to Freud, Goldstein and Kronfeld whose works are referenced in Glas's inquiry into fear and angst's conceptual relationship.

Freud's theory distinguishes neurotic anxiety as a response to an internal menace, while true anxiety arises from the consciousness of external peril (p. 23). In a similar vein to Kierkegaard, Freud makes a distinction between two types of anxieties: neurotic and genuine, which correspond to Kierkegaard’s concepts of Angst and Furcht. From Goldstein's perspective, anxiety is more than just an indeterminate kind of fear. He elucidates this by asserting that anxiety plays a pivotal role and characterizes it as posing danger to an organism's life activities. The root cause of unease in an organism is the development of anxiety itself. Fear embodies the notion of potential escalation into anxiety and provides a strategy for managing such terror. Fear incites action, on the other hand, anxiety immobilizes the organism (p. 42-43). Essentially: Fear acts as an escape route from anxiety, geared towards preventive measures against devastation and paralysis. Kronfeld explores understanding anxiety as an emotion echoing Goldstein's existential outlook. Emotions usually have ties with an object but since no specific object can be correlated with it,

its scope extends beyond that emotional state. At its core level, it invariably signifies fears associated with death:

Anxiety symbolizes the psychological manifestation of a person's innate essence vanishing. The underlying foundation is based on the fear of death, which becomes apparent during profound destruction (Kronfeld 1935, 378). Anxiety should not be simply classified as an aimless form of fear as per Glas' view (p. 46-48), indicating that such direction-less emotions are found within the sphere of intentionality. As Kierkegaard proposes, the self is fundamentally a relation to oneself. This act of introspection shapes our identity and imbues personal interpretation with meaning, anchored in its ability to resonate with itself while also linking with something transcendent.
(...)

This principle essentially establishes the essence and aim of the psychology of intentionality. Context and goal have now become factual-psychological categories, rather than philosophical ones. (Kronfeld 1935, 386) Anxiety is intrinsic within an individual, it represents an inherent component of that individual's mind and its connection to the individual is analogous to how fear links to other objects on which it is projected to exist.

Glas ultimately states that anxiety deprives an individual of their liberty. It through anxiety that it becomes evident how deeply embedded freedom is in human nature. Anxiety isolates individuals and detaches them from their very essence. Those who exist in a state of anxiety, live in desolation. This indirectly underscores the pivotal significance of connecting with others and maintaining self-awareness. In essence, anxiety is an inescapable aspect of human existence: it is impossible to grow personally, form relationships with others, or interact with the world without experiencing anxiety. Conversely, anxiety illustrates

the potential danger of the disintegration of structures that facilitate and preserve freedom, connection, and familiarity. (Glas 2001, 59)

Fear, stemming from the projection of unease onto external elements, drives humans to counter these exterior threats with the goal of managing their fear, hence achieving liberty through their actions. To elaborate further: exercising control over external situations and items is an inherent aspect of human existence geared towards liberating oneself. Consequently, complete surrender of control and freedom can provoke unease, fear and potentially lead to paralyzing anxiety. Humans will eternally possess an innate need to govern circumstances to avoid living in desolation; they wield influence over external factors to pursue a life of liberty.

The French philosopher Michel Foucault (1926-1984) interpreted power, often perceived as the capacity to dictate external elements or occurrences, as a "complicated strategic situation within a specific societal framework" (1980). This concept aligns with the notable theory of Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) in his renowned book "Il Principe", also referred to as "The Prince" (1517). Both intellectuals agree that the intricacy of power – striking a balance between causing detriment and fostering benefit – is crucial in wielding influence over others.

Foucault's "technologies of power" principle, first introduced in his seminal piece, "Discipline and Punish" (1977), highlights the shift in the model of authority during the 18th and 19th centuries. It suggests that wielding power isn't about enforcing certain behaviors on others but rather inspiring them to voluntarily alter their regular patterns. This instigation of behavioral modification and subsequent management doesn't solely rely on threats or physical force; it incorporates strategies such as advertising and branding too. Such

tactics aim to persuade individuals into believing that certain possessions, like an 'iPad', are essential for their happiness. Each situation also involves imposing particular forms of fear onto people.

This conversation explores two perspectives. The first perspective pertains to someone who constantly lives in fear of possibly falling victim to violence, while the second revolves around the discomfort that can arise from failing to obtain a specific item, potentially leading to an unfulfilled existence. These dynamics of power fundamentally depend on manipulating human behavior by inducing fear and potential chaos subsequently. This concept is aptly symbolized by the Panopticon, an idea conceived by Jeremy Bentham that will be elaborated upon later. Niccolo Machiavelli also clarified the relationship between fear and exertion of power; he argued for being both feared and loved as more desirable but posited if one has to choose between these two conditions, it's safer to be feared than loved due to the difficulty in achieving both.

People often tend to upset those they love more than those they fear, a pattern that emerges due to the association of affection with obligations which can be conveniently breached when it suits one's needs. Conversely, fear remains constant over time because of the enduring worry about retaliation. Therefore, fear is essential in effectively exercising authority. Interestingly, even individuals in power function from a place of fear - specifically the horror of losing control, being dethroned by others and facing discomfort. In terms of leadership, exerting control over others entails actively limiting their freedom through instilling fear.

Absolute authority is gained when the entity is immobilized and its capability to function independently is

restricted. Each individual can assume the position of the sovereign, everyone can wield authority and attempt to regulate outside impacts. Besides, authority can be enforced not merely on humans or other life-forms, it extends to circumstances and objects and natural phenomena as well.

We delve into the topic of the correctional system used within the Panopticon. This prison architecture was a brainchild of Jeremy Bentham, an English philosopher, which employs intimidation, strain, and control as foundational factors to govern and sway inmate behavior. The layout of the Panopticon is circular with well-lit cells arranged around its boundary to instill a sense of seclusion in prisoners. At its core lies a spacious courtyard and a strategically positioned observation tower for guards to oversee each prisoner. A hallmark attribute of this jail design is that while guards can effortlessly observe every cell from their position in the watchtower, inmates are left unsure whether they're under surveillance or not.

This led to the creation of a "visible trap." He is observed yet unable to observe, becoming a subject of information but never participating in communication (Foucault 1977: p. 201). In the context of the panoptic principle, something that Foucault doesn't directly state but is crucial is the perpetuation of terror/fear due to the ignorance of the person trapped within this visible snare. Bentham proposed that power should be both visible and unverifiable. Visible, so that the person under surveillance constantly has before his eyes the imposing silhouette of the observation tower from where he is watched.

Undemonstrable: the inmate is constantly uncertain about his scrutiny status at any particular time, yet he must believe

that such a possibility always exists. The Panopticon functions as a tool to differentiate between the watcher and the watched: on the outer ring, one remains entirely exposed without ever observing; while in the central tower, one sees everything without being seen. (Foucault 1977, p. 202) This final statement is crucial for instilling dread among those under panopticon observation. These subjects are not only incapable of identifying who's watching them but also remain unaware of their observers' actions, moral benchmarks and conduct - how they function.

The prisoners, while understanding the game and its guidelines, lack awareness of how these rules are interpreted and employed. The blend of complete transparency, individuality, and unpredictability can be the root cause of unease, dread, and eventually, the fear can manifest as a debilitating sense of anxiety when there's no specific entity to ascribe this fear to. An individual who is subject to visible judgement and cognizant of it, willingly takes on the restrictions inflicted by power. It results in them autonomously activating these restrictions upon themselves. They embed within themselves the dynamics of power where they simultaneously embody both the roles, becoming the architect of their own subservience" (Foucault 1977, p. 202-203)

Although incarcerated individuals might lack knowledge about the actions of their presumed watchers, causing fear and anxiety, these watcher's actions are also scrutinized. The perfect panoptic system also inspects the routines of those watchers in the tower. As such, they are under perpetual surveillance by all, thereby inhibiting self-governing power and preventing the augmentation of authority through the panoptic process from becoming despotic.

A Panopticon functions effectively only if everything is well-balanced and

fully transparent, with visibility from the top tier to the bottom. • If individuals at lower levels (such as prisoners) can see their overseer, it undermines the "visual trap" - there's no uncertainty, no trepidation, no distress, and therefore, no command exists. • If the overseer is unable to maintain constant vigilance and misses something, consistent penal measures are compromised and complete control is lost. The prisoners become aware of this lapse, ultimately breaking down the "visual trap", removing any fear or distress, thereby diminishing authority. • If there isn't any scrutiny of the observer's actions, he gains the capacity to make independent decisions which could potentially lead to absolute power and subsequent tyranny. This dictatorship may breed injustice resulting in hatred (as per Machiavelli), fuelling insurrection often ending in overthrowing of power. This cycle then comes full circle from the dominion.

In the same way that prisoners are examined, observers undergo scrutiny while preserving their anonymity within familiar settings. The opportunity to observe any observer is accessible to all. This has transformed into a transparent entity where societal control's execution can be monitored by society itself. (Foucault 1977, ...) Despite Bentham's plan never becoming a reality, its principles were highly influential. By comprehending the concept of the panopticon, we see how deeply rooted this theory of panopticism is in our society. For social regulation to work effectively, members of society must fear possible disciplinary repercussions leading to behaviour standardisation.

The notion that participating in activities considered illegal by the authorities could adversely impact one's lifestyle and limit personal liberty should ideally deter individuals from taking such steps. According to the panoptic theory,

it's vital for an individual to understand they might be observed or listened in on at any time. This awareness of potential monitoring should prompt them to modify their behavior.

The use of surveillance versus social control is well demonstrated by the 4.2 million CCTV cameras situated in public spaces across Great Britain. This is a prime example of the ongoing use of the Panopticon approach in our current society. The connection to the idea of a visible snare is clear: individuals are perpetually visible and unaware if they are being watched by an assumed observer or what their purpose might be.

The escalating invasion of personal privacy can result in feelings of anxiety and unease, especially when people believe they lack any privacy. This situation is clearly demonstrated by the UK's widespread deployment of CCTV surveillance, a practice that leaves virtually no public spaces unmonitored. While this method of surveillance could be perceived as an effective control measure, it also draws comparisons to George Orwell's dystopian fiction 1984 and the monitoring tactics used by East Germany's Stasi. The problem with such extensive surveillance lies not in its embodiment as an ultimate panopticon where power is most acutely displayed at "the bodies that can be individualised by these relations", but rather in "the person of the king" (Foucault 1977, ...), or in this case, the government or private institutions.

This results in a loss of transparency, leading to an imbalance, a condition that the panoptic mechanism depends upon for proper functioning. Although social control is also grounded on the same panoptic principle and utilizes the concept of the visual trap, it differs

from the concept of surveillance. The distinguishing factor is that those who are being observed also serve as observers. The acceptance of this mechanism is due to the shared power which does not vest solely in "the person of the king". Therefore, it can be seen as a democratic panoptic system, unlike surveillance which is an oligarchic panoptic system. Additionally, the motives behind behaviour control mechanisms are not concealed. By being both an observer and an observed individual, they understand the likely intentions, operations, and ethical behaviours. Instead of becoming information objects, individuals involved in this process transform momentarily into communication objects.

Presumably, the impressive outcomes achieved by "Burgernet" can be attributed to its approach in engaging civilians as active cogs within its setup rather than relegating them to passive bystanders. In order for a societal structure to operate effectively, it necessitates a regulatory device like the panoptic mechanism. People are only able to coexist harmoniously within a well-structured nation when each individual's behaviour is moderated to an extent that no one feels their personal liberties infringed upon due to the actions of others.

Hence, monitoring and societal regulation are essential aspects that are inseparably associated with these societies for managing their actions. These mechanisms need to be put into place in a way that doesn't impede the feeling of personal liberty. It is incumbent upon the authorities to ensure that the citizens do not find themselves confined within their own disciplinary society turning into isolated personalities. Encouraging participation and group collaboration within society is crucial to achieving this goal.