23. 5. 2013
London Buses or Mobile Prisons?
Abstract
In the context of Michel Foucault’s book Discipline and Punish, the article
explores the nature of London public transport as a modern disciplinary institution. The
author analyses how CCTV cameras achieve passenger obedience through self-imposed
normalizing judgment. In other words, the aim is to understand how passengers turn their
bodies into subjection of their own minds. The research was conducted back in 2007 and
a questionnaire exploring the impact of CCTV cameras was addressed to seventy-five bus
passengers. Surveillance as a technique to control whole populations is not new, it
appeared well before Foucault in the writings of English philosopher, Jeremy Bentham,
but its application in the context of London transport is an innovation. Given the
resistance in the UK media against the increasing number of CCTV cameras, the article
also suggests that rather than increasing their number, the government officials should
take better care of convincing commuters about the CCTV camera benefits.
Introduction
As urban residents we encounter closed-circuit televisions (the term CCTV
cameras will be used from now on) everywhere – in the streets, transport, shops. In a
country where identity cards are not compulsory, average Briton is caught on camera 300
times a day1. Although sensational in nature, this headline highlights not only the
freedom vs. security dilemma, but it also invites discussion into the double-edged nature
of surveillance. On the one hand, CCTV cameras were designed to deter crime and to
counter terrorism, but on the other hand, and in extreme cases, they can lead to violation
of privacy. Managing these competing tensions requires solid theoretical framework. A
20th century French philosopher, Michel Foucault, exposed how government institutions
such as prisons, schools or hospitals, and CCTV cameras as will be discussed, exercise
power over our bodies and minds by transforming us into “docile bodies”. In many ways,
this notion is at the heart of his book Discipline and Punish.
In order to address the self-disciplining nature of CCTV cameras on London
buses, several theoretical underpinnings have to be explained. It has to start with the
1
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/how-average-briton-is-caught-on-camera-300-times-aday-572781.html
Foucauldian concept of power and how it works. The theoretical discussion of Foucault’s
conception of “disciplinary power” is probably clearest if one takes a historical approach.
Section 1 starts with an overview of how this power leads to a form of social control and
ends with the description of Panopticon – a diagram of power borrowed from the 18th
century English philosopher, Jeremy Bentham. Because Foucault´s idea of docile bodies
may not be easy to grasp, the Panopticon is key in demonstrating how CCTV surveillance
operates. Even though the spatial architecture of surveillance in the Panopticon and the
London buses is different, it will be argued that the disciplining processes are not
dissimilar and that the buses posses quite a Benthamite perfection.
With these theoretical underpinnings clearly laid out, application of Foucault’s
principles will be tested in the context of London transport. Back in 2007, in the
fulfillment of master´s degree in organizational and social psychology at the London
School of Economics and Political Science, the author conducted a series of seventy-five
interviews to examine the self-disciplining nature of CCTV cameras. Although
Foucaldian power is difficult to account for, the interviews helped to discover its abstract
and complex nature. While a number of studies inquire into the impact of CCTV camera
policies in various urban settings (e.g. Helten 2004), current study aims to apply
Foucault’s approach in yet to be explored territory. From personal point of view, the
interviews with passengers on the London buses were equally revealing and fascinating,
details of which are discussed in section 2.
In the UK, critics questioned the excessive number of CCTV cameras, which
could eventually lead to Orwellian-type of totalitarian society. In achieving common
good, privacy and security has to be balanced in order for the government to maintain its
legitimacy. It may be difficult to find prescriptive formula on how to determine the
adequate level of security, but this issue was addressed by researchers before and
acceptable level of risk will be established. The nature of security vs. privacy dilemma
will be discussed in section 3.To answer the question in the title, the London buses are
not mobile prisons in the material sense, but the CCTV cameras with their constant and
unverifiable gaze turn the commuters into their own subjects – a manifestation of social
control that should lead the authorities to stress their benefits, while ensuring institutional
accountability and safeguarding individual’s right to privacy.
2
1. Theoretical background
1.1. Foucault’s theory: from sovereign power to disciplinary society
In Discipline and Punish Foucault presents a historical account of how the nature
of punishment evolved over time. In the book’s four parts, he sought to explain how
human beings have historically become the subject and object of political, economic and
social practices. The book starts with a spectacular description of how a regicide convict
is executed: “the flesh will be torn from his breasts, arms, thighs and calves with 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, his limbs and body consumed by fire, reduced to
ashes and his ashes thrown to the winds” (Foucault, 3, 1977). This very detailed and
cruel example serves to define a certain penal style in the 18th century, which has
undergone a significant reform, in Europe and in the United States, a century later.
By the beginning of the 19th century, the punishment started to take a different
form and the body as the major target of penal repression was dying out – a tendency that
could be perhaps attributed to a process of “humanization” and the ongoing penal system
reform. If the punishment in no longer addressed itself to the body, what did it depend
on? Foucault has a simple and intuitive explanation for that. “Since it is no longer the
body, it must be the soul. The expiation that once rained down upon the body must be
replaced by a punishment that acts in depth on the heart, the thoughts, the will, the
inclinations” (Foucault, 16, 1977). This had nothing to do with kindness, but with a new
conception of the convict as a patient who needs to be re-educated. Given that physical
pain is no longer the goal, the “patient” metaphor is quite useful in understanding that
some kind of medication can be administered to the patient to neutralize his dangerous
mind and to alter his criminal tendencies. Punishment, in Foucault’s view, has negative as
well as positive effects on the human body – it is a complex social function.
Early in the book, Foucault creates a parallel with the nature vs. nurture debate in
social and political sciences and wonders how crime originates in one’s mind – is it
instinct, unconscious, environment or genes? The book itself is not only intended as a
3
history of punishment, but also as a history or genealogy of systems of constraint
developed by the society. The term “genealogy” helps us to understand where the power
to punish derives its base, justifications and rules. Genealogy should make us aware of
the bodies of knowledge behind the established social rules and norms. At this point, it is
crucial to introduce what lies behind the concept of Foucauldian “micro-physics” of
power: “We should admit […] that power produces knowledge […] that power and
knowledge directly imply one another; that there is no power relation without the
correlative constitution of a field of knowledge“(Foucault, 27, 1977). In genealogical
fashion typical to Friedrich Nietzche, Foucault's analysis shows how techniques and
institutions (e.g. schools, hospitals), developed for different and often quite innocent
purposes, lead to the modern system of social control.
The Foucaldian micro-physics of power is transmitted by the body and through
the body. The more organized or technically thought out the knowledge becomes, the
closer we get to a “political technology of the body”. In turn, these techniques carve the
soul and “the man […]whom we are invited to free, is already in himself the effect of a
subjection much profound than himself. A “soul” inhabits him and brings him into
existence, which is itself a factor in the mastery that power exercises over the body. The
soul is the effect and instrument of a political anatomy, the soul is the prison of the body
(Foucault, 30, 1977). This complex mechanism frames every day lives of individuals and
manifests itself through corrective techniques such as habits, regulations or norms that
are exercised continuously around and upon the individual. In other words, Foucault
points that low-intensity and routine activities have large effects on people. To punish,
according to Foucault, is to exercise the body. This a key turning point in Discipline and
Punish - the punishment itself is hidden and the soul is brought into obedience by training
and exercise.
The disciplinary power manifests itself not only through repetitive exercise, but
also through seemingly unimportant small gestures and movements of the body. “Small
acts of cunning endowed with a great power diffusion, subtle arrangements, apparently
innocent, but profoundly suspicious, mechanisms that obeyed economies too shameful to
be acknowledged, or pursued petty forms of coercion. […] Describing them will require
great attention to detail. […] They are the acts of cunning, not so much of the great
4
reason that works even in its sleep and gives meaning to the insignificant” (Foucault,
139, 1977). Foucault makes reference to several examples in the natural sciences, where
even small force may have a large impact over time (e.g. orthopedic body corrections).
Through this tendency a new object is formed. In the context of Foucault’s book, the
human object is slowly disciplined into his own subjection – docility and just like a wild
horse is trained into docility; discipline produces subjected and controlled bodies, “docile
bodies”. In the gradual extension of these mechanisms throughout the society, throughout
the whole “social body”, the formation of what might be called “disciplinary society”
emerges.
At the core of Foucault's disciplinary society are three primary techniques of
control that ensure success of disciplinary power: 1) hierarchical observation, 2)
normalizing judgment and their combination – 3) the examination. The most distinct
feature of the disciplinary regime is hierarchical observation, implemented at the heart of
the surveillance system. “The exercise of discipline presupposes a mechanism that
coerces by means of observation, an apparatus in which the techniques that make it
possible to see induce effect of power, and in which, conversely, the means of coercion
make those on whom they are applied clearly visible” (Foucault, 171, 1977). The old
problematic of punishment meant imprisonment behind thick walls, which prevents
movement, but the Foucaldian discipline underlines the necessity for specific
architectural aspects of control, imposing continuous surveillance.
Secondly, the normalizing judgment refers to the enforcement of established or
desired norms of behavior through specific techniques designed to correct slightest
departures from the correct behavior. “By way of punishment, a whole series of
procedures was used, from light physical punishment to minor deprivations and petty
humiliations. […] The disciplinary mechanism secreted a “penality of the norm” […]
The Normal is established as a principle of coercion. […]” (Foucault, 178-184, 1977).
By setting out what is “normal”, the norms also create the idea of abnormality or
deviation. Much of Foucault´s work is to analyze how these categories structure modern
life. The political motivations behind the CCTV regime could be also interesting to
explore, but such inquiries are beyond the scope of this article.
5
By combining the techniques of hierarchical observation and normalizing
judgment, “examination” is a procedure which constitutes the individual both as object
and subject of power. “Disciplinary power is exercised through its invisibility, at the
same time it imposes on those whom it subjects a principle of compulsory visibility. In
discipline, it is the subjects who have to be seen. Their visibility assures the hold of that is
exercised over them. It is the fact of being constantly seen, of being able always to be
seen, that maintains the disciplined individual in his subjection” (Foucault, 187, 1977).
Examination is a process that turns the prisoner, the student, the patient or the bus
passenger into self-subjection. The examination process may not be easy to identify, but
the interviews elicited clear instances of changing passenger behavior as a result of being
observed and on the basis of what is considered a normal behavior.
Foucault then discusses Bentham´s Panopticon as an example of the three abovementioned techniques of control. Panopticon is a building that has circular structure,
which allows a person at the centre to watch all the other people without them being able
to tell whether or not they are being watched. “Visibility is a trap. […][Individual] is
seen, but he does not see […] The arrangement of his room, opposite the central tower,
imposes on him axial visibility, but the divisions of the ring, those separated cells, imply a
lateral invisibility. And this invisibility is a guarantee of order. […] The major effect of
the Panopticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that
assures the automatic functioning of power (Foucault, 200-201, 1977)”. Discipline, for
Foucault, operates through calculated gaze, not force. A person who is within the field of
visibility plays simultaneously two roles: object of observation and bearer of his own
subjection. Whenever the government has to find cost-effective measures to deal with
multiplicity of individuals, the panoptic architectural scheme may be used.
Power affects everyone, from the prisoner to the supervisor; no one can actually
control it. “In fact, power produces, it produces reality, it produces domains of objects
and rituals of truth” (Foucault, 194, 1977). In the context of the disciplinary society, if
majority of citizens consider their government as democratically elected and legitimate,
then the effects of power cannot be described in negative terms. Power “makes”
individuals and one cannot exist outside of social institutions that exercise control upon
us whether we like it or not. Foucault’s work should be understood mainly as a critical
6
approach, exposing the taken-for-granted aspects of human behavior. His aim is to give
the subjects of power voice, to make them aware about the unstoppable machinery of
society and to give them the possibility to question the underlying principles of power.
1.2. Foucault´s theory: Context of London transport
With Foucault´s theory now clearly laid out, it remains to be demonstrated what
are the similarities and differences between the Panopticon and the London bus, and
which one of them is more efficient in creating power relations. By mapping the three
techniques of control, an underlying question offers itself: to what extent do London
buses resemble mobile Panopticons? In fact, in June 1837 – well ahead of the CCTV
cameras on public transport, a meticulously designed machine was conceived: “A central
corridor divided it along its entire length: on either side were six cells in which the two
rows of convicts sat facing one another.[…] On the corridor side, the door of each cell
was provided with a hatch, divided into two compartments: one for food, the other,
covered by a grill, for surveillance” (Foucault, 263, 1977). By the image of it, the
London buses resemble mobile equivalent of the Panopticon. For better clarity, like-forlike features of the Panopticon and the London bus are compared in a table and discussed
below.
Panopticon
London bus
Diagram
Hierarchical
- constant gaze from the watch
- constant gaze from the CCTV
observation
tower
cameras
- individualizing architecture
- individualizing architecture
(prison cells)
(bus seats)
7
Normalizing
- corrective punishment through
- corrective punishment through
judgement
regulations, exercises, fines,
regulations, but also realtime
(norms)
solitary confinement, etc.
CCTV footage projection on the
screen
Examination
- instead of using physical force
- instead of using physical force
on the subjects, they are
on the passengers, they are
disciplined by the mechanism of
disciplined by the mechanism of
objectification (general
CCTV surveillance (specific
examination)
examination)
Technology may have changed since the 18th century, but the underlying
disciplinary mechanisms of surveillance remain. Although Bentham´s Panopticon
presupposes exact circular architecture, the CCTV cameras are better in ensuring constant
gaze. There are up to six CCTV cameras, which provide the very “perfect disciplinary
apparatus that make it possible for a single gaze to see everything constantly” (Foucault,
173, 1977). In keeping with the Panopticon, the CCTV camera gaze is also omnipresent,
constant and unverifiable. When the buses operate business as usual, the CCTV cameras
only record the footage, leaving the passengers to guess as to who may be behind the
camera. When necessary, however, the police authorities can gain access to these
materials. Another striking similarity with the Panopticon resides in the respective
individualizing architectures, where convicts are confined in individual cells and the
passengers remain fixed in their seats. In this respect, the principle of hierarchical
observation is ensured and successfully mapped onto the London bus.
As indicated in the table, both in the Panopticon and the London bus, there are
regulations and norms that have to be respected. The disciplinary measures in the
Panopticon have coercive character for obvious reasons, but on the London buses there is
a TV screen is installed at front part of the bus upper deck that projects footage from the
installed cameras. This is a perfect technique for sanctioning irregular behavior by not
only making the passengers aware of any behavioral deviations, but it also entails them in
intersecting gazes where every passenger can survey all the other passengers by watching
them on the screen. Essentially, Foucauldian power is a relationship between people in
8
which one affects another’s actions. The problem in understanding or even detecting
disciplinary power on London buses is because it enters our consciousness only at
abstract level, but it can be captured through subtle disturbances, normalizing judgments
or acts of resistance – details of which are discussed in section 2.2. A particular attention
was given to pinpoint instances of resistance – where there is a power, there is also
resistance.
Now that CCTV cameras are established as Foucauldian technology of power and
instances of normalizing judgment were found to be operating on the London buses, how
does one become disciplined into docility? As pointed out earlier by Foucault, repetitive
habits and routines are means for correcting the individual deviating from the norm.
Timetables and ranks into which soldiers are arranged are examples of this regulation.
Similarly, regularity of commuting is the medium for the gradual “dressage” of the
ordinary commuter. As will be tested later, the more we travel, the less aware we are
about the disciplining influence of surveillance. Every seat on the bus resembles a cage,
in which each passenger is alone, perfectly individualized, visible and his body and
movement controlled.
By way of rounding up the theoretical part, another interesting parallel between
the Panopticon and the London buses can be asserted. While history witnessed the
gradual transition from sovereign power to disciplinary society, where Panopticon
offered efficient means of social control, the London buses that were once supervised by
a conductor are now equipped with CCTV cameras, which could be interpreted as a
decisive shift in the balance of power from the conductor to a sophisticated CCTV
surveillance regime. The CCTV cameras on London buses, however, go even further,
they not only produce discipline – with some hindsight, they also produce joy by turning
the travel experience into a Big Brother TV show.
2. Findings and Interpretation
2.1. Methodology:
Interviewing technique was chosen for this study, because it was particularly
useful in eliciting detailed insights into the disciplining nature of power, its origins and
consequences for the passengers. Section 2 presents both qualitative and quantitative
9
findings with supportive evidence from the interviews. The questions were structured in
order to understand how the CCTV cameras entered the passengers’ consciousness and
how the technology of Foucaldian power turns them into “prisoners”. In total seventyfive interviews were conducted, each about ten minutes in duration. It was also possible
obtain frequency for several attitudinal responses on a standard five point Likert scale –
useful input to test a variety of statistical hypotheses in section 2.3.
Modern technology changed they way that power is exercised, but it remains to be
demonstrated that the more London commuters travel, the more they are disciplined into
obedience
and
docility
(“cunningness”
hypothesis
H1).
Another
hypothesis
(“voluntariness” hypothesis H2) tests whether the passengers’ positive perception of
CCTV cameras as a security measure is associated with their stated voluntariness to be
under surveillance. The final hypothesis (“CCTV goodness” hypothesis H3) seeks to
determine whether the increase in the number of cameras also proportionally improves
passengers’ sense of security on the buses.
In the questionnaire, one question also dealt with the definition of privacy. The
objective is to resolve the dilemma between security and privacy and to find out whether
urban security can be achieved without compromising individual freedom and privacy.
While the CCTV cameras were designed as a security measure, they can be instrumental
in creating new insecurities. It will be demonstrated how passengers explained the
paradox between the protective and intrusive sides of CCTV surveillance. In face of such
complexity, additional questions concerning the ownership and footage management
have to be addressed.
2.2. Qualitative results
Most interviewees deny that CCTV cameras could influence their own behavior,
suggesting little impact on their cognitive processes. 78% of passengers responded “no”
to question “Do you change your behavior as a result of seeing yourself on the screen?”
As they see themselves on the TV screens, however, it turns out that they make some
adjustments, even by saying that they were ignoring or forgetting about the CCTV
cameras. At one instance, there was an explicit example of hierarchical observation: “It is
like Big Brother, everybody just watching everybody. I probably do watch others without
10
thinking, because you are looking there and they make you watch other people. If you are
on the bus, then you are interested only in yourself, but with the screen you have got the
tendency to look and probably observe others”. In other words, the passengers are caught
up in Foucauldian power relations and they become overseers of each other. In fact, 37%
of the respondents admitted that they could be looked at any one moment and 21% were
convinced that it is always so.
A particular emphasis was placed on detecting acts of resistance in transcribing
the interviews, because they are direct proofs of the underlying power dynamics. In
Power and Knowledge, Foucault reminds us that resistance is inscribed in the
power/knowledge regime and not outside it. Subtler aspects of riots, illegal behavior and
indiscipline on the buses are clear demonstrations of power and resistance against the
creation of docility. To the question “Do you try to resist the monitoring of the cameras
in any way?” nine passengers (12%) responded “yes”. The resistance to CCTV cameras
varied in intensity from discomfort, refusal to look at the TV screens to conscious attempt
to change one’s seat. An example: “If I have an option between seat that makes me
visible and a seat that makes me less visible, I would take the one that makes me less
visible”.
Discipline brings into effect a coordination of all elementary Foucaldian aspects
of power to constitute the obedient subject-passenger. Four cases of docility were
recorded: 1)“If we are at the back of the bus, we would mess around or would do stuff,
but when you see the little camera up front you just makes you sit down still, because you
can see it you are thinking that someone else can see it. It does change my attitude on the
bus;” 2) “Normally, you are casual. When you are on the screen, you are aware that you
are watched, so you are more calm and sit down.”, 3)”Usually I listen to music and I
mime the words. Once, I was doing it and I saw myself on the screen. I was like “ohhh”,
trying to look cool all of sudden”, 4) “I don’t want to change my way of behavior,
because people may start thinking that I may be up to something, so I just behave
normally.” Even the act of resistance eventually gives way to the power of habit, “At
first, [I tried] to get into a position where I can’t be seen by the camera, but you cannot
think like that 24/7. Eventually, you get used to it.” In this respect, the London buses are
marvelous machines, which produce normalizing effects of power through concerted
11
distribution of bodies, gazes and relations. Force is not used, yet it makes free subjects do
something that they would not have done otherwise.
The collected interview responses also revealed the double-edged nature of
surveillance. Fifty (67%) of the interviewed passengers felt that cameras help to prevent
crime, while twenty-one (28%) passengers felt spied on and observed in some way due to
possible abuse of privacy and lack of observer accountability2. The attitudinal mean
agreement with the statements “I feel more secure as a result of the CCTV cameras”,
“The CCTV cameras are overall a good thing” and “My privacy is threatened due to
CCTV cameras” were 3.56, 3.89 and 2.67, respectively3. The privacy issue, however,
cannot be underestimated for two important reasons. There was a large disparity in
understanding who is behind the CCTV cameras, ranging from responses such as “don´t
know”, “no one, only recording”, the bus company” to “police authorities”. More
importantly, however, the level of trust to the authorities behind the CCTV cameras was
rather weak. To the question “Do you trust them?” only 33 passengers (44%) answered in
affirmative.
While strong in perceived deterrence, the attitude of the daily commuter towards
the deterrence effect of cameras is fatalistic. As one passenger noted, CCTV cameras are
ineffective against certain crimes: “If somebody is going to blow up the bus or rob
somebody, they are going to do it regardless”. The daily commuter has to be fatalistic,
because he has no choice but to take the bus to work, to school, etc. – on average the
passengers take the bus 2.5 times a day. With respect to voluntariness, the mean
agreement with the statement “I am voluntarily under surveillance” was only 3.13, which
refers to the response “neither”. In words of one passenger, the CCTV cameras are
perceived as “a necessary evil” rather than as a welcomed enhancement of passengers’
travel experience.
2
A recent online poll (19/5/2013) on a popular news server Novinky.cz reported on the CCTV cameras
installation on Student Agency buses, resulting into very similar findings.
The total of 25.126 respondents answered to the question “Would you find the CCTV cameras annoying?“
in the following way: 68% respondents said “No, it improves security”, 32% respondents said “Yes, it
threatens privacy” http://www.novinky.cz/ekonomika/302244-student-agency-chce-uvnitr-autobusukamery-urad-to-zatrhnul.html
3
On a standard Likert scale: Strongly disagree (1)/Disagree (2)/Neither (3)/Agree (4)/Strongly agree (5)
12
The evil side of the cameras could stem more from the frustration at their
ineffectiveness than their intrusion into the passengers’ personal space. “So often when
there is actually a problem and they look at the CCTV cameras, often is it is not working
and that can be really frustrating”. At other instance, signs of aversion were recorded in
response to CCTV surveillance: “[I feel] very uncomfortable, but just because they are
so ubiquitous, I tend to forget about them. […] It is their potential that makes me feel
watched”. Again, it is precisely the unverifiable potential of constant gaze that underlines
the CCTV cameras´ panoptical effect on bus passengers.
Two main passenger types were identified: a) people have nothing to hide and
always behave right, which refers to a “conformist type” of urban behavior; b) people
who get on the bus, but feel suspicious about observer’s motives, which suggests more a
“reflexive type” of behavior. Whereas some regard commuting on buses as a functional
activity, for others the bus is a place where not to expose oneself. In this sense, the bus
can be perceived as a stage where one decides how to interact with others, determining
how one defines privacy. “You see, privacy is relative. I think one’s private life is like
putting on clothes, so that other people cannot see. […] It depends on whether you are in
a room, in work or if you are just walking. The way we see privacy, maybe different from
someone else’s view of privacy, so I can’t give you definition of privacy here. As I told
you, if your conscience is clean, you don’t think about these things”.
For most of the sampled passengers, buses are accepted as public spaces, where
even close contact with other passenger’s does not represent a threat. It is the lack of
clarity over the observer’s motives and his or her accountability that was repeatedly
raised. “My only worry that we become too much of a police state with them having
knowledge about our movements and activities.” While most passengers accept the
public nature of London transport and so the majority of people behaves “normally”, a
bottom line threshold of privacy remains. “At the end of the day, the cameras offer a
fairly good level of privacy, but if it gets to the level where you go to the toilet and
somebody is monitoring you, I would not feel too good about that”. Most interviewees
also described the CCTV cameras through an “eye” metaphor, something that it out there,
looming in the background in the sub-conscious terrain. The role of this metaphor is
further discussed in section 3.
13
2.3. Quantitative results:
H1: The “cunningness” hypothesis:

The CCTV camera awareness/threat to privacy diminish with travel frequency
To test the Foucauldian principle that habits, routines or “small acts of cunning”
create self-discipline, Figures 1 and 2 were constructed to find out whether the CCTV
camera awareness and perceived sense of threat to privacy diminish with travel
frequency. If Foucault’s theory holds, then the more the passengers travel, the less aware
and the less threatened they should feel. It can be observed from the slopes that
increasing travel frequency has stronger effect on the diminishing perceived sense of
threat to privacy than on the diminishing CCTV camera awareness. More specifically, the
Figure 3 shows that as the frequency of passenger’s travel per day increases from twice a
day to five or more times a day, the proportion of respondents who agree with the
statement “My privacy is threatened due to CCTV cameras” drops from 36.7% to 11.1%.
Conversely, the proportion of passengers who either disagreed or stated their indifference
increased from 63.3% to 88.9%.
As Figure 4 shows, the hypothesis that perceived sense of threat to privacy
diminishes with travel frequency has to be considered cautiously with regards to
statistical significance levels. Given χ2 value of 8.945 on 4df and the P-value of 0.063,
the null hypothesis of no association between the perceived threat to privacy and the
travel frequency in the population cannot be rejected at conventional 5% significance
level. Because both variables are ordinal, the gamma measure of association is
appropriate. As shown in Figure 5, the sign of γ =–0.141 verifies the negative association
between travel frequency and the perceived sense of threat to privacy, in that the more
frequently passengers travel, the less likely they are too feel their privacy to be
threatened. Its absolute value suggests that only 14.1% of all variation in perceived sense
of threat to passengers’ privacy is explained by travel frequency. The value closeness to 0
agrees with the low measure of association strength, suggesting influence of additional
factors that will be investigated further in this section.
Figure 1:
14
Cunningness hypothesis
6
5
Awareness
4
3
2
1
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Travel frequency
Figure 2:
Cunningness hypothesis
6
5
Threat to privacy
4
3
2
1
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Travel frequency
Figure 3:
Frequency_banded * My privacy is threatened due to CCTV cameras. Crosstabulation
Frequency_banded
Twice or less
Three or four
Five or more
Total
Count
% within Frequency_
banded
Count
% within Frequency_
banded
Count
% within Frequency_
banded
Count
% within Frequency_
banded
My privacy is threatened due to CCTV
cameras .
Neither
agree or
Dis agree
disagree
Agree
27
4
18
Total
49
55.1%
8.2%
36.7%
11
0
6
100.0%
17
64.7%
.0%
35.3%
100.0%
5
3
1
9
55.6%
33.3%
11.1%
100.0%
43
7
25
75
57.3%
9.3%
33.3%
100.0%
Figure 4:
15
Chi-Square Tests
Pears on Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Ass ociation
N of Valid Cases
Value
8.945 a
8.756
4
4
Asymp. Sig.
(2-s ided)
.063
.068
1
.413
df
.671
75
a. 4 cells (44.4%) have expected count les s than 5. The
minimum expected count is .84.
Figure 5:
Symmetric Measures
Ordinal by Ordinal
N of Valid Cases
Gamma
Value
-.141
75
Asymp.
a
Std. Error
.188
b
Approx. T
-.757
Approx. Sig.
.449
a. Not as s uming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the as ymptotic standard error as suming the null hypothes is .
H2: The “voluntariness” hypothesis

The passengers’ positive perception of CCTV cameras as a security measure is
associated with their stated voluntariness to be under surveillance
With reference to Figure 6, there is a statistically significant evidence that positive
perception of CCTV cameras as a security measure, suggested by a) feeling of increased
security, b) evaluation of the CCTV overall goodness, c) threat to privacy, d) the benefits
and e) the risks accrued from the CCTV cameras, is associated with passengers’ stated
voluntariness to be under surveillance. One can assert, at 95% confidence level, that
feeling of increased security, benefit and risk assessments are dependent on the
passengers’ prior sense of voluntariness, rising to 99% in confidence level for their
evaluation of perceived sense of threat to privacy and overall goodness. Having proved
the distinction between these two groups of passengers, this finding will further serve to
conduct risk and benefit analysis in section 3.
Figure 6:
16
Group Statistics
I feel more s ecure as a
res ult of the CCTV
cameras.
Voluntarines s_Y_or_N
Involuntary
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
25
2.20
.816
.163
Voluntary
42
2.50
.804
.124
My privacy is threatened
due to CCTV cameras.
Involuntary
Voluntary
25
2.16
.987
.197
42
1.40
.767
.118
The CCTV cameras are
overall a good thing.
Involuntary
Voluntary
Involuntary
Voluntary
Involuntary
Voluntary
25
42
25
42
25
42
2.32
2.86
1.92
1.74
2.40
2.74
.748
.354
.862
.798
.764
.544
.150
.055
.172
.123
.153
.084
Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
Ris k_band
Benefit_band
Independent Samples Test
t-tes t for Equality of Means
t
I feel more s ecure as a
result of the CCTV
cameras .
Equal variances
ass umed
My privacy is threatened
due to CCTV cameras .
The CCTV cameras are
overall a good thing.
Ris k_band
Equal variances
ass umed
Equal variances
ass umed
Equal variances
ass umed
Equal variances
ass umed
Benefit_band
df
-1.469
65
.147
-.300
.204
3.498
65
.001
.755
.216
-3.977
65
.000
-.537
.135
.876
65
.384
.182
.208
-2.111
65
.039
-.338
.160
H3: The “goodness” hypothesis

An increase in the number of cameras proportionally improves passengers’ sense
of security on the buses
Paradoxically, while 91% of respondents thought that the number of CCTV
cameras on the buses is increasing, only 45% people feel more secure today than in the
past on the buses. As Figure 8 shows, one can assert, at 95% confidence level, that the
correlation between the increasing number of cameras and the increased feeling of
security is 0.254. The correlation between the increasing number of cameras and their
preventive role is non-significant, suggesting public skepticism against the worth of
CCTV cameras as an effective deterrent. Could this be a consequence of something rather
than a mere contradiction? If so, is it possible to assume that passengers feel threatened as
a result of ever-increasing CCTV surveillance? Or did terrorism, which tended to have
little importance prior to 7th July 2005 bombing, now come together to form a new
threat? These considerations will now be tested using a multiple linear regression model.
17
Figure 7:
Correlations
Increasing_number
Feeling_more_s ecure
Prevention
Pears on Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pears on Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pears on Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Increasing_
number
1
75
.254*
.028
75
-.085
.467
75
Feeling_
more_s ecure Prevention
.254*
-.085
.028
.467
75
75
1
.162
.164
75
75
.162
1
.164
75
75
*. Correlation is s ignificant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Based on Figure 8, the following multiple linear regression model was produced,
requiring careful explanation with respect to coefficients, nature of variables and the
significance levels. Strictly speaking, this model caters most appropriately for continuous
rather than discrete ordinal variables, but considering the self-reported attitudinal
variables as continuous may equally provide meaningful results.
MODEL 1: YGOODNESS = 2.929 + 0.191*SECURITY – 0.213*THREAT TO
PRIVACY + 0.176*VOLUNTARINESS – 0.204*RISK + 0.221*BENEFIT
The P-values are small for most coefficients except for “awareness”, which was
involved for completeness. Although only 23% of passengers admitted to be consciously
“thinking” about the CCTV cameras during the whole journey, the mean agreement with
the statement “I am aware about the CCTV cameras” of 4.01 suggests more of a
subconscious and subtler form of acceptance of the CCTV cameras, which while nonsignificant is pertinent to the research question. All the other explanatory variables have
a significant effect4 on the overall “goodness” of the CCTV cameras, so none of the
variables should be removed from the model. The coefficients from Figure 8 are
interpreted as follows:
a) Controlling for “THREAT TO PRIVACY”, “VOLUNTARINESS”, “RISK”
and “BENEFIT” perceptions, increasing the perception of “SECURITY” by one
4
At 0.05 significance level for THREAT TO PRIVACY, VOLUNTARINESS, RISK and BENEFIT; at 0.1
significance level for SECURITY
18
percentage point increases perception of CCTV “GOODNESS” by 0.191 percentage
points.
b)
Controlling
for
“SECURITY”,
“VOLUNTARINESS”,
“RISK”
and
“BENEFIT”, increasing the perception of “THREAT TO PRIVACY” by one percentage
point decreases perception of CCTV “GOODNESS” by 0.213 percentage points.
c) Controlling for “SECURITY”, “THREAT TO PRIVACY”, “RISK”
“BENEFIT”, increasing the perception of “VOLUNTARINESS” by one percentage point
increases perception of CCTV “GOODNESS” by 0.176 percentage points.
d)
Controlling
for
“THREAT
TO
PRIVACY”,
“VOLUNTARINESS”,
“SECURITY”, “BENEFIT”, increasing the perception of “RISK” by one percentage
point decreases perception of CCTV “GOODNESS” by 0.204 percentage points.
e) Controlling for “THREAT TO PRIVACY”, “VOLUNTARINESS”, “RISK”,
“SECURITY”, increasing the perception of “BENEFIT” by one percentage point
increases perception of CCTV “GOODNESS” by 0.221 percentage points.
As Figure 8 indicates, R2 = 0.566 denotes that about 56.6% of the observed
variation in CCTV “GOODNESS” among passengers is explained by the variation in the
levels
of
perception
for
“SECURITY”,
“THREAT
TO
PRIVACY”,
“VOLUNTARINESS”, “RISK” and “BENEFIT”. Adding dummy variables for
FEMALE and MALE in Model 2, improves R2 from 0.566 to 0.592, which together with
the P-value of 0.044 for the “SEX” coefficient suggests partial association between
“SEX” variable and CCTV “GOODNESS, determined by these two models:
MODEL 2: YGOODNESS = 2.694 + 0.180*SECURITY –
0.206*THREAT TO PRIVACY + 0.194*VOLUNTARINESS –
FEMALE
0.208*RISK + 0.228*BENEFIT
MODEL 2: YGOODNESS = 2.694 + 0.180*SECURITY –
0.206*THREAT TO PRIVACY + 0.194*VOLUNTARINESS –
MALE
0.208*RISK + 0.228*BENEFIT + 0.329
It is worth emphasizing that most associations in social sciences involve much
unexplained variation, so the R2 value has to be treated with caution. Using “SEX” in
19
addition to the other exploratory variables to predict CCTV “GOODNESS” in Model 1
reduces the prediction errors by additional 3 %. Interestingly, being a MALE passenger
adds another 0.329 percentage points to the predicted value of CCTV “GOODNESS”,
denoting differential perception of goodness on part of the sexes. Perhaps, an issue of
increased vulnerability comes into play for female passenger when assessing the role of
CCTV cameras and by extension danger of voyeurism, when being watched by the
CCTV cameras.
Figure 8:
Model Summary
Model
1
2
R
.752
.769
R Square
.566
.592
Adjus ted
R Square
.528
.549
Std. Error of
the Es timate
.693
.677
Coefficientsa
1
2
(Cons tant)
AWARENESS
SECURITY
THREAT TO PRIVACY
VOLUNTARINESS
RISK
BENEFIT
(Cons tant)
AWARENESS
SECURITY
THREAT TO PRIVACY
VOLUNTARINESS
RISK
BENEFIT
MALE (Reference group
- FEMALE)
Uns tandardized
Coefficients
Std.
B
Error
2.929
.627
-.001
.089
.191
.097
-.213
.097
.176
.078
-.204
.086
.221
.107
2.694
.624
-.003
.087
.180
.095
-.206
.094
.194
.077
-.208
.084
.228
.104
.329
.160
t
4.670
-.007
1.972
-2.201
2.238
-2.377
2.077
4.320
-.031
1.896
-2.182
2.511
-2.479
2.191
Sig.
.000
.994
.053
.031
.028
.020
.042
.000
.976
.062
.033
.014
.016
.032
2.051
.044
95% Confidence
Interval for B
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
1.677
4.180
-.179
.178
-.002
.384
-.405
-.020
.019
.332
-.375
-.033
.009
.434
1.449
3.938
-.177
.172
-.009
.369
-.395
-.018
.040
.348
-.375
-.040
.020
.437
.009
.648
a. Dependent Variable: The CCTV cameras are overall a good thing.
3. Discussion
Ironically, the theme of the Panopticon, at once spying and security mechanism
has become extremely widespread in the contemporary British society, where Bentham
himself was born. For the purposes of this discussion, the Panopticon has to be treated as
a metaphor, helping to highlight similarities and to support the suggested intuition. While
it may help to understand the key patterns, its danger resides in overemphasizing the
prison effect. In the final part, the discussion will aim to answer the question of how to
20
increase the legitimacy of the CCTV cameras and where to draw the diving line between
their risk and benefit.
The Foucauldian scheme of individualizing power that would carry the effects of
power right to the passengers is somewhat obsolete. The old schema of confinement and
enclosure began to be replaced by a fluid environment where cameras seamlessly
objectify human behavior. In fact, half of the passengers saw no difference between the
cameras on the buses and in the streets. The UK government created a machinery of
control that makes it possible for a multiplicity of gazes to see everything constantly.
This power had been given permanent, exhaustive and omnipresent capacity by covering
every aspect of life. On the whole, therefore, one can speak of the formation of a
disciplinary society. Clearly, there is a risk that the current surveillance society may
degenerate into a totalitarian society that Orwell has warned us so much against. Trust,
therefore, is vital in accepting that any panoptic institution will be democratically
accountable and regulated.
It becomes evident that privacy and security go side by side, each requiring the
other. Legitimacy of the surveillance technology appears as the ultimate aim of a
precisely adapted balance between the two mechanisms, which permits the intersection of
these two divergent phenomena. In theory, the legitimacy of surveillance will solve the
problem, but how is one to persuade particular individuals? “Forms of domination
become legitimized as normal, socially acceptable power relations […] when rulers see
themselves as having the right to rule, and those subject to this rule see it as their duty to
obey” (Morgan, 304, 1996). One passenger critically asks: “How can it be abused in
relation to the good it does? One ought to balance the books by saying that crime is
down, because of the surveillance cameras, which outweighs their intrusiveness. The
number of people wishing they were not filmed, however, should not be as many as those
whom it could solve the crime for and were not assaulted or robbed”.
It is still difficult to find a prescriptive formula on how to determine the adequate
level of security, which defends both public and private interests. In their study, Fishhoff,
Slovic and Liechtenstein proposed a methodology for resolving the core paradox. To ask
“How safe is safe enough?” means to assess the most common societal risks in face of the
benefits that they provide. An acceptable risk is when: “you think that the advantages of
21
increased safety are not worth the cost of reducing risk by restricting or otherwise
altering the activity” (Fishhoff at al., 132, 1978). Fishhoff at al. used risk and benefit data
to determine patterns of acceptable risk-benefit tradeoff. While they compared
“perceived” and “revealed” assessment data to draw the line between risk and security,
passengers’ self-reported attitudes towards CCTV risk and benefit were used in the
present case.
Starr (1969) also hypothesized that the tradeoff between risk and benefit is
mediated by degree of voluntariness, where voluntariness is presumably a result of
passengers’ approval, serving as an authority in defense of the CCTV cameras.
Conversely, those who stated their “involuntariness” provided an anchor for arguing
against the cameras. Adopting this rationale as a way of differentiating between two
groups of passengers who consider themselves either to be “voluntarily” or
“involuntarily” under surveillance, these judgments were used to construct best-fit lines
in Figure 9, an intersection of which was interpreted as the “level of acceptable risk”.
According to this relationship, the optimal values for risk and benefit were 2.5 and 4.2.
respectively on the standard Likert scale5. These values imply that even for fairly low
values of risk, the perceived benefit has to be high, which is possibly a key finding in
educating the authorities about the surveillance sustainability in the long-term and in
justifying to the public why UK ranks as the most monitored society in the world!
Figure 9:
CCTV Cameras Risk and Benefit Analysis
6
5
4
Perceived risk
X, Y intersection
at (4.2,2.5)
INVOLUNTARY
y = -0.3836x + 4.1349
R2 = 0.1171
3
2
VOLUNTARY
y = -0.1315x + 3.0768
1
2
R = 0.0105
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Pe rce iv e d be ne fit
Voluntary
Involuntary
Linear (Voluntary)
Linear (Involuntary)
There are limits to one’s right to privacy even in Bentham’s utilitarianism. If
someone’s private activities interfere with public safety, then it is in the public interest to
5
Very low (1)/Low(2)/Neutral (3)/High (4)/Very high (5)
22
take care of it. So long, as both public and private expectations are reciprocally adjusted,
then legitimacy is not problematic. The essence of legitimacy resides in trusting
authorities to deliver the public good. In the context of public transport, this means
informing passengers about the costs and benefits of surveillance and about who is
watching them. The cameras are installed for safety reasons and while they may be
intrusive and considered risky, it is a matter of persuading the public about their positive
net effect. If surveillance is to provide its intended benefits, the matter of who is watching
the footage and how it is used ought to be clearly communicated. In words of one
passenger: “The privacy would be that only people who would need it would have access
to it. No one of the street would randomly take that and take it home and watch it that
would be private. If the police is just using it, then it is still private use. I would feel okay
about that”.
In order to be considered as legitimate, the procedures of surveillance have to be
transparent and supervised by society as a whole. One could infer that if passengers’ trust
the authorities watching over them, then the number of passengers feeling more secure
would increase. Unfortunately, to control for trust in testing the association between the
increased number of cameras and the sense of increased security was not possible,
because most cells had lower expected count than 5. Rather than weakness, this
shortcoming should serve as an option for further research.
Having presented and discussed both qualitative and quantitative findings, the
picture remains ambiguous, because what constitutes the private sphere will be always
open to question. Even if privacy could be pinned down it would form an inadequate
platform to analyze surveillance. The proportion of interviewed passengers (79%)6,
perceiving CCTV cameras as an “eye”, implies overall neutrality of CCTV cameras as an
urban technology of power. At one extreme, however, the cameras were also perceived as
a “gun” (4%) meant to spy on and control. At the other extreme, some passengers (28%)
perceived the cameras as “shield” – a facility meant to improve security by deterring and
recording the incidence of crimes. Without undue simplification, one can discern a near
perpetual oscillation between the defense of privacy and security.
6
Sum of the proportions does not add up to 100%, because some passengers stated more than image
23
4. Conclusion
Given the severity of physical imprisonment, it would not be true to say that buses
are mobile prisons. While not equal in the deprivation of liberty, the Panopticon and the
London buses are egalitarian in the nature of their punishment. It is not so much a
paradox to be a “free prisoner/passenger”, because one has to understand the Foucauldian
modality of power, which operates at different levels and through different media – the
habits and the mind. To restate, one becomes prisoner to one’s own subjectivity.
Whenever one is dealing with social management issue, the panoptic schema may be
used. It is applicable to all establishments in which multiplicity of individuals requires a
simple technique for discipline.
Daily commuters on London buses are not much concerned about the impact of
these cameras on their privacy, a typical result of the fast-paced urban life-styles. CCTV
cameras do not represent threat to privacy, but some concerns of observer accountability
and the possibility of misuse were raised. In line with similar research in the city of
Berlin, it appears that the “urban condition is framed by the fact that there always is a
synoptical gaze of the generalized other when experiencing the big city. And most people
understand CCTV cameras as technological add-on” (Helten, 32). In wake of the recent
Boston marathon attacks, however, the author’s opinion is such that opposing voices to
CCTV cameras are misguided. Those who question these developments in defending the
human right to privacy forget that the very presence of CCTV cameras guarantees such
rights in the first place!
The implication for future research is to find out how significant these effects are
through an all-encompassing quantitative study in order to avoid falling into paranoia
about surveillance or taking the issue too lightly. The results could help to educate the
authorities about the course of their policy-making and also increase passengers’ trust in
those who are watching them. With rise of other technological advances (e.g. social
media), the security vs. privacy dilemma is to stay – nothing which may seem more
interesting to the student of Foucault and of institutional economics at the Economics
University in Prague (VŠE).
24
Bibliography:

Burrell, G., “Modernism, post-modernism and organisational analysis: the
contribution of Michel Foucault”. Organization Studies, Vol. 9(2), 221-235, 1988.

Fischoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., & Combs, B., “How safe is
safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and
benefits”. Policy Sciences, 9, 127-152, 1978.

Foucault, M., Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. London: Penguin,
1977.

Foucault, M., Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 19721977. New York: The Harvester Press, 1988.

Foucault, M., “On power”. In L. Kritzman (ed) Politics, philosophy, culture:
interviews and other writings, 1977-1984. London: Routledge, 1988.

Fournier, Valerie. “Stories of development and exploitation: Militant voices in an
enterprise culture”. Organization, Vol. 5(1), 55-80, 1998.

Helten, Frank and Bernd Fischer. “What do people think about CCTV? Findings
from a Berlin survey.” The Urban Eye Working Paper No.13, 2004.
<http://www.urbaneye.net/results/ue_wp13.pdf>

Hook, Derek. “Foucault, disciplinary power and the critical pre-history of
psychology.” In Critical Psychology: the basic coordinates, edited by Hook,
Derek, 210-238. Landswone South Africa: UCT Press, 2004.

Koskela, Hille. “Cam Era – the contemporary urban Panopticon”. In Surveillance
& Society, Vol.1(3),292-313, 2003.

Lyon, D., Surveillance society: monitoring everyday life. Buckingham: Open
University, 2001.

McKinley, A and Guerriero Wilson, R., “‘Small acts of cunning’: Bureaucracy,
inspection and the career, c. 1890-1914”. In Critical Perspectives on Accounting,
Vol.17, No.5, pp 657-678, 2006.

Morgan, G., Images of Organization, 2nd ed. California: Sage Publications, 1996.

Munro, I., “Non-disciplinary power and the network society”. In Organization,
Vol.7(4), 679-695, 2000.

Rose, N., “Governing the enterprising individual”. In Inventing ourselves, edited
by Rose, Nikolas, 150-168. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1996.

Starr, C., “Social benefits vs. technological risk.” In Science, 165, 1232-1238,
1969.

Yar, Majid. “Panoptic Power and the Pathologization of Vision: Critical
Reflections on the Foucauldian Thesis.” In Surveillance & Society, Vol.1(3),254271, 2003.
25