Surveillant Assemblage - Essay Example

SURVEILLANT ASSEMBLAGE Lecturer Address Surveillant Assemblage Surveillance can be defined as the collecting and processing of personal data from a target population for the purpose of managing or influencing the selected group of persons. The word assemblage could be used to mean a group of people in one place. Therefore, Surveillant Assemblage is levelling the hierarchy of surveillance in a systematic manner to the point that individuals or groups who were previously exempted from surveillance are now being monitored. Previously, surveillance was only directed to specific groups of individuals in the society and for a particular reason. For instance, law enforcers would monitor an individual’s whereabouts and movements if the individual is under criminal investigation. In the contemporary world, more people are subjected to surveillance and not necessarily the individuals who are under investigation. There are more ways and more sources that are being used to monitor the activities carried out by many individuals in the modern environment. Moreover, the purpose of surveillance in the modern perspective has also changed as compared to the past. In the past, surveillance was used primarily by the government for security as well as safety issues (Ericson 2007, p. 2). However, in modern day, the purpose of monitoring has changed as superior techniques of tracking movements and collecting information on any individual have emerged. Contemporary surveillance is the same as mass surveillance, which is intended to convert the population into commodities and consumers who contribute in the market, instead of a discipline that characterized more personal or traditional surveillance. The business world has also benefitted from the idea of mass surveillance (Lyon 2009, p. 55). This is because the corporations can monitor purchase patterns or consumer spending behaviours to develop updated and targeted advertising. These corporations use a range of extensive information, which is acquired with minimal efforts. This implies that the modern forms of surveillance are less concerned with the physical body but more concerned with electronically obtained information that the institutions use in creating an individual’s image with respect to needs and behaviours such as purchase behaviours (Williams & Johnson 2007, p. 31). Most scholars view the modern society as a surveillance society because surveillance has become part of everyday functioning in the modern world. Simply put, almost all activities that an individual undertakes are recorded. For instance, the most common areas in the modern society where individual’s activities are recorded include when making purchases using debit or credit cards, operating smart-phones and when checking an email in the internet (Fuchs 2012, p. 27). While these have become part of the contemporary society, it implies that almost all instances in the modern life are recorded for different purposes. Other instances of monitoring incorporate the state monitoring its citizens while looking for threat hints and the employers who monitor their employees to ensure maximum employee productivity and prevention of organization based crimes. Moreover, monitoring is also in the homes when the parents monitor their children’s activities especially involving the internet to ensure that inappropriate content is not available for their children to see (Dutton 2013, p. 1820). Surveillance is also applicable in other organizational benefits including allowing companies to monitor records and transactions that help them in confirming the acceptable credit ratings of clients. The contemporary nature of data and information gathering approaches has improved to incorporate the idea of assemblages, which indicates an advancing convergence of the once discrete surveillance systems (Bakir 2010, p. 19). The modern expansion of surveillant assemblages is intended to not only enable the purposeful and intentional transformation of surveillance ideas but also alleviate partial democratization of surveillance hierarchy (Bernard-Wills 2013, p. 29). The surveillant assemblage works through abstracting the human bodies from their normal territorial settings and separating them to form a series of discrete flows. The resulting flows are then assembled again in different areas as virtual and discrete data double. Surveillant assemblage usually transforms the function and the intention of surveillance as well as the hierarchies of surveillance. Additionally, the notion of privacy is also transformed. The modern society has experienced constant advancement in technology, which has made it possible for surveillance approaches to become advanced and form the surveillant assemblages (Kroker & Kroker 2008, p. 232). The modern population has now transformed into a signifier for a multitude of coordinated surveillance systems. During the previous two decades, significant improvements and alterations have been undertaken in surveillance practices where the researchers have started considering the dominant theoretical as well as conceptual assumptions with regard to the state. Then, the notion of surveillant assemblages, which represents a conceptual benchmark in surveillance literature, indicates an increasing convergence in the once discrete surveillance systems (Lyon 2006, p. 67). The resulting surveillance system brings together a limitless ambit of information which formulates categorical images that render opaque flows of data or information comprehensible. Viewing surveillant assemblage as a succession of processes that access the human body as flesh amalgamation allows individuals to conclude that there has transpired several important changes from the perspective of surveillance (Gates 2011, p. 122). Extensive monitoring is coordinated by police as a way to maintain conformity and social order, where the upper and middle classes of individuals are continuously and intensely monitored. The desire to perform surveillance is directed by certain ideas. These include the desire for governance, control, profit, security as well as entertainment. The surveillance analysis focuses on a number of distinct technologies or social practices. Analysts state that the proliferation of this phenomenon could pose threats to the civil liberties (Hier & Greenberg 2009, p. 20). The major factor that allows individuals to view surveillance as assemblage is the tendency to appreciate the fact that surveillance is motivated by the desire to join or bring systems together or to combine technologies and practices and integrate them to form a larger whole (Cilano 2009, p. 123). These combinations provide for exponential advancements in the extent of surveillance capabilities. The discrete monitoring of offenders incorporates different surveillance capabilities in many devices that include programmed contact, remote alcohol testing as well as automated reporting station. The defence departments are constantly looking for ways that could be used in integrating their computer systems so as to link databases together. An example is the ongoing FBI efforts to link databases that would facilitate the monitoring of individuals in several areas such as the finger prints, DNA and ballistics. Another example of database combination is the Central Scotland’s regional police computer system. This shows that the monitoring is already in practice assisting the law enforcers in executing their tasks easily. A seamless geographic information system also referred to as the GIS, inputs all data including phone bugging, crime data, tip-offs and hunches (Nyerges et al, 2011, p. 75). This enables a relational simulation of time space choreography of an area to be used in conducting investigations as well as to be monitored. To the law enforcers, intelligence is all the information that is gathered relating to an issue. In cases where it is not applicable to link surveillance systems, the human contact is then used to not only align but also combine or merge discrete systems. For instance, several multi-agency procedures to policing are institutionalized. Most of the surveillance is directed towards the human body (Chall 2001, 720). The modern form of surveillance incorporates a technological interface and a surface of contact or an interface between the organic and non-organic orders or between life forms and information webs. The surveillance in this perspective could include the tagging of the human body so as to record its movements through space. The surveillance can also include a reconstruction of an individual’s habits, lifestyles and preferences for the information perspective that has become important in the contemporary life. Here, the surveillant assemblage acts as a visualizing device that is intended to bring the flows of auditory, chemical, scent, ultraviolet as well as informational stimuli to the register. Most of the visualization relates to the human body, which exists beyond the normal range of perception. The issue of monitoring individuals has brought criticisms such as a common slogan, which states that human beings are born free but are immediately monitored. For instance, this is the case with the latest ankle bracelet, which is electronically monitored and activated once secured around a child’s ankle. The activation immediately alerts the staffs to enter the pertinent information on the young child concerning the child’s health or medical conditions and their names (Haggerty & Samatas 2010, p. 63). These bracelets allow individuals to move around a predetermined region. To move the child out of the designated region, a password authorization is provided. This allows the staff to record all movements made by the child and warns if the child is taken close to an open door without provision of the password. Other forms of monitoring or surveillance also exist such as the magnetic door locks, which are automatically activated. These systems have innovative features such as low battery warnings, easy interfacing with CCTV cameras as well as paging systems (Carlen 2013, p. 24). In the past, this surveillance technology has been applied to monitor the movements of pets and not humans. In the U.S a proposition had been made to people willing to own guns. This would have been helpful because if an individual wished to own a gun, they were supposed to have a monitoring implant, which would alert an institution if the individual accessed the facility without proper permissions while in possession of the weapon. This is another innovative feature of the surveillant assemblage, which indicates that the monitoring system relies on computer system and machines to record and undertake discreet observations. With regard to the human body, surveillance begins with comparison space as well as the introduction of breaks in the flows emanating or circulating within the human body. For instance, “drug testing striates flows of chemicals, photography captures flows of reflected light waves, and lie detectors align and compare assorted flows of respiration, pulse and electricity” (Haggerty & Ericson 2000, P. 612). Therefore, the human body in itself is an assemblage composed of countless component parts as well as processes, which are broken down for the purpose of observation. The scholars state that the concept behind assemblage can be regarded as an abstract notion of bodies of all kinds; a notion that refrains from discriminating between inanimate and animate bodies (Ryan & Mitsilegas 2010 p. 319). Cultural theorists have acknowledged the existence of fragmentation in the human body. For instance, this is evidenced when individuals view bodies and cities as a collection of parts that have the capabilities of crossing the entrance or the threshold between substances so as to form associations or linkages. The interaction between the two incorporates a primarily disjoined series of systems; a series of different flows, events and energies that either draw apart or bring together their temporary alignments. In the same way, the surveillant assemblage standardizes capturing of information flows in the human body. Here, the surveillant assemblage is not immediately concerned with the normal relocation of the body or the person but with the transformation of the body into information so that it can be interpreted or depicted as comparable and more mobile. This brings up the issue of heterogeneous objects working together as a practical of a functional entity (Schermer 2007, p. 39). Surveillant assemblage requires centres of calculation that include statistical institutions, forensic laboratories, police stations, military headquarters as well as financial institutions. In the centres of calculation, information which is derived from surveillant assemblage flows is reassembled as well as scrutinized as individuals hope to develop strategies of control, governance and commerce (Sonda 2010, p.27). At the same time, the implications of mass surveillance of the public continue to emphasize the dark side of the involved scientific innovations. However, in today’s environment, a new form of being that transcends the human corporeality reducing bodily fresh to information exists. This new formation is the data double as it is a double that incorporates manipulation of the individual and constitution of an individual self. The data doubles are important in surveillance assemblage (Norris & Wilson 2006, p.75). This is because they serve as markers, which help in accessing services, resources and power in ways unknown to its referent. In addition, the data doubles are increasingly becoming the objects where governmental as well as marketing practices are directed (Seddon et al, 2012, p. 173). Rather than becoming accurate or inaccurate depictions of real individuals, the data doubles represent a form of pragmatics, which is differentiated as per usefulness in allowing and enabling institutions to make discriminations in the populations. The most common justification for surveillance is related to safety and risk management. For instance, when the government monitors the activities of individuals in the internet, it claims that it is usually looking for hints concerning terrorist activities or national security matters. Therefore, surveillance is portrayed as appropriate for ensuring citizen safety from the risks posed by the individuals who use the internet for harmful activities. Here, most of the time, the justification for surveillance is risk management. For instance, when the parents monitor their children, they are shielding their children from the risks that the internet is believed to hold that include pornographic content, online predators and cyber bullying. The media is said to hold many threats that surveillance shields from harming the young minds. Therefore, such allegations based on the sole benefit of the surveillance being the monitored individual, ensure that surveillance is protected and continues to record the movements of individuals. Evidently, surveillance could present many benefits. However, it could also present unidentified negative consequences for the monitored individuals including function creep, social sorting, data flows as well as the lessening of trust in the social relationships. While considering the benefits, the negative outcomes presented by surveillance should also be considered. This is because they represent the major features of surveillant assemblage (Ericson et al, 2003, p.360). Data flow is the cross boundary transmission of data. It could become problematic if the country or the state’s privacy laws allows the transmission of personal information across the borders. It could also be problematic if there are differences in the existing legislative approaches of different countries (Badesha, 2012). This makes it more difficult for the individuals to know the correct national agency to contact or the legislation in which their information is held or governed if privacy issues emerge. Function creep occurs if information is gathered for a specific purpose but then used for other different purposes without notifying the owner. Most of the times, this creep emerges as a way to consolidate or optimize existing practices. Information collected by a single source for specific purpose could be unobjectionable and may not alarm the individual users (Ball 2012, p. 94). However, because technological advancement allows it, information collected from different sources can be combined allowing the analysts to present an accurate picture of an individual’s behaviours and interests. Social sorting is another underlying feature of surveillant assemblage. People can be placed in biased or predetermined categories, basing the categories on both aggregated and anonymized data. The predetermined labels are usually hard to change or challenge. Additionally, institutionization of these labels is made possible by the existence of surveillant assemblage, which also reinforces differences across a certain number of lines such as gender, age, ethnicity as well as socioeconomic status (Barak 2009, p. 321). Surveillance brings the issue of trust in play. This is because when an individual is being monitored either by the parent or the government, it implies that the individual is not trustworthy and that others are not trustworthy either (Hier 2003, p. 399). For instance, a parent monitoring the child especially concerning the content they access in the internet implies that the parent does not trust the child to conduct themselves well and does not trust the internet publishers to provide appropriate content for the child to see. Therefore, surveillance especially in the past involved lack of trust as individuals in the modern world have other agendas behind monitoring including improving their profit margins through assessing how the customers buy. Particularly, the young generation in the contemporary world grows up with their online activities being monitored in certain ways (Elden & Crampton 2007, p. 250). However, most of the individuals accept these forms of surveillance as a condition put in place for using the technology and view it as completely normal. Although some of them employ certain techniques to evade surveillance, it is still a major issue of concern. Normalization of surveillance implies that the act that was once unordinary has increasingly become common to the point that most do not realize it. Additionally, it is also not easy to evade surveillance as it is included in the devices that are central to the running of the modern world; cell phones. The network coverage has improved in the contemporary environment to cover more areas implying that whenever the phone is usable, the owner of the phone is under surveillance. This is also a form of survaillant assemblage. Beyond the mobile phone, there are more and more CCTV cameras in the major cities as well as red light cameras in many businesses that monitor individuals (Haggerty & Ericson 2006, p.219). Simply put, there are numerous ways to track and monitor the activities of an individual using the technology. The information collected by the technologically advanced electronic device such as the CCTV or debit card transaction records constitutes that person’s data doubles and is used to break the subject from the context of a living thing to a series of numbers and points used for theorizing or creating another form of the individual at hand; the information form (Haggerty & Ericson 2000, p. 605). The issue of surveillance is in some form horrifying and fascinating in the other. For instance, in 1999, an individual living in Britain could be caught on tape every five minutes since there were approximately half a million cameras in operation by then (Bjorklund & Svenonius 2012, p. 63). With the present advancements in technology, this number might have increased and the time between which an individual is recorded, reduced. Due to the increase in the number of surveillance techniques, creative freedom has reduced since the emergence of credential systems where the individual is broken down into data flows for diverse purposes including management, entertainment and profit (Lyon 2008). The resulting data doubles has recently become a virtual currency that can be used by any person who has access to the surveillance systems. According to Haggerty and Ericson, the privacy advocates state that the individuals who do not wish to be monitored should not work, use the internet or use credit (Webster & Ball 2003, p. 112). However, this is unrealistic for almost everyone as people need to earn descent lives. It is also not worth ‘disappearing’ just to live such kind of a life. Moreover, the chances of disappearing or being away from monitoring are reducing with the increase in the number of monitoring devices. This implies that there are no chances of disappearing from survaillant assemblages (Broeders 2009, p. 45). A survaillant assemblage spreads and grows like weeds. This is the case emphasized by Haggerty and Ericson when they talked about the rhizomes citing that the rhizomes grow across a sequence of interconnected roots that throw up shoots in diverse locations (Stoddart 2011, p. 22). Since the surveillant assemblages are interconnected, it is appropriate to equate them with rhizomes. The rhizome metaphor emphasizes on two major factors with regard to surveillant assemblage. These factors include the phenomenal growth by expanding uses as well as levelling effect on the hierarchies (Firmino et al, 2011, p. 282). Similar to rhizomes, the survallant assemblage has its unique characteristics. These include expansive and regenerative aspects. The rhizomes regenerate on new or old lines if they are cut or broken on other lines. In the same way, they spread fast covering large areas. With regard to survaillant assemblages, the case is the same as the techniques for expanding surveillance have increased recently. Likewise, as the rhizomes operate through variation, conquest, capture, offshoots and expansion, the case is the same with the surveillance assemblages (Graham 2004, p. 309). The expansion of survaillant assemblage is aided by the subtle variations as well as intensifications in technological advancements and connections with additional monitoring devices such as computers. The rhizomatic offshoots from the perspective of the surveillant assemblage come from the efforts by some individuals to search new target populations, which requires a greater degree of monitoring. With regard to such populations, the list is limitless as it focuses on caregivers, commuters, the elderly, the young, employees among others (Lippert 2009, p. 506). Here, the expansive aspect of surveillance is driven by the financial need of finding new markets for surveillance technologies where these devices were originally designed to cater for military purposes (Lyon 2007, p. 220). Although it appears as if surveillance is intended for the good of the people, it is usually intended to help in maintaining a hierarchical social control. The panoptic surveillance has moved from the case of being monitored to facilitation of self monitoring through the use of important devices such as the cell phones and the internet where these tools represent some of the most important tools in the modern society (Coleman & Mccahill 2010, p. 25). The monitoring which is extensively undertaken by the business world is intended to limit access to places as well as information, which enables the production of consumer contour or profile through reconstruction of an individual’s behaviour, actions as well as habits. This is the same as managing the individual’ s behaviours from a distance and influencing he individuals’ decision making processes for the purpose of profit making. Surveillance helps the employers in other additional ways including the concept of surplus value. Surplus value means the employers make additional profit from the employees’ excess labour power, which is not compensated. Here, surveillance helps the employers in establishing monitor production norms. The concept of surplus production has taken new course from the previous labour orientation to the language of cybernetics in the modern world. Surprisingly, the public is slowly wakening to the issue of profits being made from the sale of their personal information. For instance, the citizens as well as the economists are now reflecting on compensations, if any, that should be awarded to individuals from the sale of their personal information. This is happening in Britain. Close to 70% of the Britain population is happy and comfortable having the companies use their personal information in business ventures so long as they receive some compensation in return (Haggerty & Ericson 2000, p. 216). This shows that privacy is being traded for products where the compensation that the individuals receive range from personal services or rewards. Surveillance has also made massive contributions towards the entertainment sector. For instance, video clips from CCTV’s contribute to the main topics broadcasted by the programme America’s Dumbest Criminals. In addition, home videos collected by the hand held cameras also contribute to the program America’s Funniest Home Videos (Haggerty & Ericson 2000, p. 218). As the issue of survaillant assemblage surpasses institutional boundaries, the systems originally designed to serve a different purpose are now monitoring individuals. In the bigger perspective, the surveillance tools are being applied in non-criminal justice institutions. For instance, in Canada, efforts to discourage money laundering require institutions to not only monitor but also report suspicious transactions. In conclusion, survaillant assemblage incorporates a system of surveillance tools that monitors almost all activities that individuals undertake in their day to day lives. The surveillance tools are almost in all institutions from banking institutions to homes. It is becoming evident that individuals cannot evade surveillance because the forms of monitoring individuals are increasing by the day. Survaillant assemblage has similar characteristics as the rhizome that regenerates upon breakage and spread quickly. The surveillance focuses on the body of the individual and transforms it into information used in controlling the decisions of the individual. The public is well aware of this situation and comfortable with it on condition that they receive compensation. It is clear that surveillance is not intended to benefit the public but monitor their activities so as to improve business ventures for personal benefits. References Badesha, R. (2012). The Surveillant assemblage: Possible long term effects. Accessed 10 May 2013, http://redfile.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/the-surveillant-assemblage-possible-long-term-effects/ Bakir, V. (2010). Sousveillance, media and strategic political communication: Iraq, USA, UK. New York, Continuum. Ball, K., Lyon, D. & Haggerty, K. (2012). Routledge Handbook of Surveillance Studies. New York, Routledge. Barak, G. (2009). Criminology: an integrated approach. Lanham, Md, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Bernard-Wills, D. (2013). Surveillance and Identity: Discourse Subjectivity and the State. Farnham, Ashgate Publishing. Bjorklund, F. & Svenonius, O. (2012). Video Surveillance and Social Control in a Comparative Perspective. New York, Routledge. Broeders, D. (2009). Breaking down anonymity: digital surveillance of irregular migrants in Germany and the Netherlands. Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press. Carlen, P. (2013). Imaginary Penalties. New York, Routledge. Chall, L. P. (2001). Sociological abstracts. San Diego, etc, Sociological Abstracts. Cilano, C. (2009). From solidarity to schisms: 9/11 and after in fiction and film from outside the US. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Coleman, R., & Mccahill, M. (2010). Surveillance and crime. London, SAGE. Dutton, W. H. (2013). The Oxford Handbook of internet Studies. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Elden, S., & Crampton, J. W. (2007). Space, knowledge and power: Foucault and geography. Aldershot, Hants, England, Ashgate. Ericson, R. V., Barry, D., & Doyle, A. (2003). Insurance as governance. Toronto, University of Toronto Press. Ericson, R. V. (2007). Crime in an insecure world. Cambridge, UK, Polity. Firmino, R. J., Duarte, F., & Ultramari, C. (2011). ICTs for mobile and ubiquitous urban infrastructures: surveillance, locative media, and global networks. Hershey, PA, Information Science Reference. Fuchs, C. (2012). Internet and Surveillance: The Challenges of Web 2.0 and Social Media. New York, Routledge. Gates, K. (2011). Our biometric future: facial recognition technology and the culture of surveillance. New York, New York University Press. Goold, B. J., & Zedner, L. (2006). Crime and security. Aldershot, Ashgate. Graham, S. (2004). Cities, war, and terrorism towards an urban geopolitics. Malden, MA, Blackwell Pub. Haggerty, K. D & Ericson. R. V. 2000, “The surveillant assemblage” British Journal of Sociology, Vol.51, No.4, pp. 605–622. Haggerty, K. D., & Ericson, R. V. (2006). The new politics of surveillance and visibility. Toronto, University of Toronto Press. Haggerty, K. D. & Samatas, M. (2010). Surveillance and Democracy. New York: Routledge. Hier, S. P. 2003, “Probing the Survaillant assemblage: on the dialectics of surveillance practices as processes of social control” Surveillance & Society, 1(3): 399-411. Hier, S. P., & Greenberg, J. (2009). Surveillance: power, problems, and politics. Vancouver, UBC Press. Kroker, A., & Kroker, M. (2008). Critical digital studies: a reader. Toronto, University of Toronto Press. Lippert, R. 2009, “Signs of the Surveillant Assemblage: Privacy Regulation, Urban CCTV, and Governmentality” Social Legal Studies, 18(4):505-522. Lyon, D. (2006). Theorizing surveillance: the panopticon and beyond. Cullompton, Willan Pub. Lyon, D. (2007). Surveillance studies: an overview. Cambridge, UK, Polity. Lyon, D. (2008). Theorizing Surveillance: The Panopticon and Beyond. Accessed 10 May 2013, < http://www.angelacrow.com/2008/01/12/lyon-david-ed-theorizing-surveillance-the-panopticon-and-beyond/> Lyon, D. (2009). Identifying citizens: ID cards as surveillance. Cambridge, UK, Polity. Norris, C. & Wilson. D (2006). Surveillance, crime and social control. Aldershot, Ashgate. Nyerges, T., Couclelis, H., & Macmaster, R. (2011). The SAGE Handbook of GIS and Society. London, SAGE Publications. http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=689540 Ryan, B., & Mitsilegas, V. (2010). Extraterritorial immigration control: legal challenges. Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Schermer, B. W. (2007). Software agents, surveillance, and the right to privacy: a legislative framework for agent-enabled surveillance. Leiden, Leiden University Press. Seddon, T., Williams, L., & Ralphs, R. (2012). Tough choices: risk, security and the criminalization of drug policy. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Stoddart, E. (2011). Theological perspectives on a surveillance society: watching and being watched. Farnham, Surrey, Ashgate. Sonda, G., Coletta, C., & Gabbi, F. (2010). Urban plots, organizing cities. Farnham, Surrey, Ashgate. Webster, F., & Ball, K. (2003). The intensification of surveillance: crime, terrorism and warfare in the information age. London, Pluto Press. Williams, R., & Johnson, P. (2007). Genetic policing: the use of DNA in chemical investigations. Cullompton, UK, Willan. Read More