Leisure time surveillance
and technology
Regulating Leisure Behaviour
Internalising the ‘gaze’

The theorisation of surveillance most commonly associated with
the work of Michel Foucault (1977):




He argued that surveillance constituted a new discipline of ‘norms’ and
‘behaviour’
Disciplinary power ‘produces’ disciplined obedience, as subjects learn to survey
themselves, in effect becoming self-regulating
The ultimate exercise of power is to make its exercise unnecessary
Norris and Armstrong (1998) identify three types of power
created by surveillance:
1.
2.
3.
Direct, authoritative punishment (i.e. telling a ‘fan’ to sit down)
Deterrence (I can be seen and identified)
Abolition of potential for deviance (self regulation)
Internalising the ‘gaze’

This is tied up with what Foucault saw as an escalation in the various forms of
surveillance in the modern episteme, drawing on the work of Bentham and his
Panopticon:




Surveillance essentially enhances the ‘calculability’ of individuals, not by repressive
control, but by extending their visibility (e.g. EPOS systems)
For many, rather than been freed by technological advance, it has simply extended the
reach of the ‘gaze’ into more and more areas of social life
Lyon (2002) argues that numerous data (including biometric, genetic and video data) are
abstracted from people and manipulated to create profiles and risk categories in a
networked, rhizomatic system
Surveillance works through ‘objectification’, ‘normalisation’ and leads to regulation
through the construction of routine:
‘…its object, previously the goods possessed or produced by the subject, was now the
subject himself, his daily rhythm, his time, his bodily actions, his mode of life…the
power reached now towards the body and the soul of its subjects…it wished to
regulate, to legislate, to tell the right from the wrong, the norm from deviance, the
ought from the is…it wanted to impose one ubiquitous pattern of normality and
eliminate everything and everybody which the patterns could not fit…’ (Bauman, 1982)
Monitoring consumption

The cultural industries have in place systems of surveillance which
facilitate control of both consumers and producers



Many of these systems emerged from either military practice or
developed during Industrial Revolution
They have as their raison d’etre the regulation of behaviour, often to
facilitate the means of consumption


Academic debate rages as to the determining effects of these systems vis-à-vis
resistance (see Bryman, 2004)
BUT: they can also be seen as a means of securing space for particular consumer
groups (albeit in the process excluding others)
The cultural industries also use the self-same technologies to
construct a picture of the consumer and their specific tastes, which
they then use to design an individualised offering: this is known as
‘customer relationship management’ (CRM)
WATCHED OVER OR OVER-WATCHED? (Wilson & Sutton, 2004)
Techno-control of consumers


Disney epitomes of a consumption space where the ‘American
Dream’ and its association with technological progress is played
out (e.g. the Epcot Centre)
Yet, conversely, these self-same technologies are employed to,
i) restrict access and ii) regulate behaviour:



Restricting access: CCTV cameras and two-way communication
mechanisms allow employees to intervene to prevent ‘the
underclass’ from gaining access to these secure leisure spaces
Regulating behaviour: A ‘visible’ presence is complemented with
an invisible presence to facilitate the internalization of particular
norms of behaviour (e.g. direction of movement, noise, dress etc)
This is emblemic of what Brymer (2004) calls a Disneyization of
Society: where these control systems extend from their originator
(Disney) to a plethora of sites
Techno-control of consumers

The gaze on our consumption is all-pervasive and omnipresent:
Our calls are recorded…our credit cards betray our consumption
patterns…these patterns are collated on global databases into
which interested parties invest in order to access our consumption
blueprints…even our interaction with television tells them about
what we are like – they have an avenue into our minds, all
facilitated by technological advance



The essential principle of the disciplinary consumer paradigm is
that we internalise/conform to the rules of consumption
without the need for repressive action
Technologies also facilitate standardization (see Lecture 2) so
that we all enjoy a similar experience (e.g. theme park rides)
Surveillance is now ‘an everyday experience, run by a myriad of
agencies for multiple purposes and exempting no one’ (Lyon,
2002) (e.g. Enemy of the State, Brazil)
Techno-control of consumers (2)

Public leisure spaces as sites for overt and covert surveillance


As we celebrate the urban entertainment nightscape we are watched by a
regime of surveillance. In malls, Willis (1995) argues that we “are in an
environment where there is probably more surveillance per square inch than
in any of today’s underfunded public prisons”. But what about in the
outdoors or as we watch sport?
Surveillance is justified on the prevention of crime and security: it’s
for your own safety (e.g. Minority Report)





Lighting the cityscape: enhancing visibility or an aestheticising process?
What about theories of displacement (Lyon, 2000): merely moving the
problem elsewhere whilst sanitizing and gentrifying city centre spaces
Surveillance in and around sport stadia: regulate ‘inappropriate’ behaviour
(albeit, in the process, alienating the ‘traditional’ fan base)
Online surveillance: email and internet usage (our leisure choices are visible
and often judged by law as ‘illegal leisure’)
Global Positioning Systems: an enhancement of safety/security or a
technological tag?
Techno-control of leisure workers

As employees ‘perform’ their labour, they are increasing being monitored:






Call centres: performance efficiency/effectiveness recorded
CCTV: initially to secure space, but now to spy on employee performance (the leaky
container phenomenon)
New key controlled till systems whereby each employee has their own ‘key’ which
allows them to ring up an order. In the process, the individual is made visible and
aware of the ‘gaze’ upon their every action
The problems is that, especially for the service encounter, this monitoring can
affect the way in which employees interact with the customer. Inflexible
systems can lead to customer frustration as the ‘system’ is blamed for the poor
quality of customer service
It also has an effect on notions of ‘trust’ and ‘loyalty within work situations
Can also lead to the replacement of workers with machines, because the
machine never lies…
The future…?


Societies ‘obsessed with security’ (Gray, 2003)
Facial recognition systems (e.g. Minority Report): our biological password


But these systems potentially alter our sense of social consciousness:


Not only can we use cameras to see, but also to recognise and ‘warn’
“Electronic means have more and more often been used to replace informal social
control in an urban environment; the eyes of the people on the street are replaced by
the eyes of surveillance cameras” (Koskela, 2002: 259)
“public spaces will increasingly be replaced by pseudo-public spaces like those
in shopping malls, where commercial imperatives dominate and what goes on,
and who participates, is intensely regulated and tightly-controlled so that
profitable consumption is maximised (McCahill, 1998: 52)

The ‘problem’ or ‘threat’ is often teenagers, the homeless, or any other ‘low value’
set of consumers. In short, anyone who threatens the smooth operation of the
means of consumption
Key questions



In analysing the pervasive nature of surveillance in our
lives, do you see it as a dark evil or an emancipatory
force?
Given the focus of this module, how can surveillance be
utilised by producers, consumers and regulators to
influence behaviour?
How can we make judgements about the appropriate
level of surveillance in our everyday lives? Does this
depend upon our position in the social system?
References





Foucault, M (1977) Discipline and
Punish
http://www.cartome.org/foucault.
htm)
Lyon, D (1993) The Electronic
Eye: The Rise of Surveillance
Society
Lyon, D (2002) ‘Everyday
Surveillance: Personal data and
social classifications’, Information,
Communication and Society, 5 (2):
242-257
Dandeker, C (1990) Surveillance,
Power and Modernity: bureaucracy
and discipline, Polity Press

Koskela, H (2000) 'The gaze
without eyes': video-surveillance
and the changing nature of urban
space’, Progress in Human
Geography, 24 (2): 243-265