What’s on your mind? Facebook, voluntary surveillance, and the global panopticon
Feb 17th, 2011 | By Dr. Michael Sosteric | Category: Columnists, Lead, Michael Sosteric
As a sociologist I’ve always been interested in surveillance. Jeremy Bentham, Foucault, Orwell. Like it or not surveillance is an aspect of the industrial and post-industrial world. It’s been talked about for centuries and dystopian authors like Orwell, sociologists like Foucault, and others have worried about the future directions and the implications of total surveillance and control. Well, almost 30 years after 1984 is the Ministry of Truth finally here and right under our noses? Don’t be shy. Show us your face and tell us “what’s on your mind” today.
Tell us, "what's on your mind today"
In 1948 George Orwell wrote the novel 1984, a novel about a dystopian future society where total control of thought and action was the name of the game. A docile worker population, a subdued under class, and constant and uninterrupted war meant total submission to The System. The whole thing hinged on thought control and the elimination of thought crime. According to George there were a number of ways thoughts could be controlled, from the ongoing revision of history and reality to the surveillance of the population. The goal was to use “psychology [and] surveillance to find and eliminate members of society who are capable of the mere thought of challenging ruling authority.” (ref)
So, “what’s on your mind?”
Share with us.
Tell us!
What are you thinking today?
Submit to observation!
Don’t want to?
Find that a little creepy, maybe even a little scary?
We understand!
The trick in surveillance and observation, the secret of the Panopticon is, as Jeremy Bentham pointed out, to hide the surveillance from the prisoners (ref). If you don’t know you’re being watched then, as the saying goes, what’s gonna hurt you.
So, “what’s on your mind today?”
Share with us.
Tell us.
It’s not that we’re observing you, it’s that you are sharing.
Expose yourself to the world and never mind that Google bought Doubleclick and now everything you do online becomes a permanent record of your life. And never mind the fact that by “using our software” you consent to the transfer of your data to the U.S. of A. and the unlimited “processing” of said data by nobody in particular. Never mind the fact that is is possible to link every click you make with every online profile you build.
Never mind that every time you login your data is collected, collated, connected, and your path through this life dutifully logged and archived.
Accept our cookies and relax!
No no, don’t turn around.
Don’t look away.
It’s just a social network after all, there’s no such thing as global surveillance and besides, you have nothing to hide, right?
So tell us, “what’s on your mind.”
Share with us your likes and dislikes.
Let us follow you around a bit.
If you listen to subsersive rock and roll, we’d like to know.
If you liked that critical social documentary you saw on Netflix, by all means tell us.
Saccharine and non-threatening entertainment keeps you docile, that’s good!
That’s what we like to see.
So don’t be afraid.
We’re only here to help and we can’t do that unless you tell us, “what’s on your mind today?”
Tweet This Post
Related posts:
The difference between 1984 and the social-networks is that now you can freely organize the fall of the government just by “twitting” what is in your head etc…
Well we’ll have to see about that. So far the only thing that Facebook and Twitter has accomplished on that front is to help replace a civilian dictatorship with a military one. Hmm. I guess we’ll have to wait and see just how progressive current events turn out in the long run.
facebook is much like a panopticon that bentham used. you are constantly surveiling your friends seeing what they are doing but at the same time they are watching you right back. using facebook you are then on both sides of the panopticon
No, that’s not it. It’s not users watching other users, it’s other organizations watching users. Take a look at the facebook user agreement. It specifies that by using facebook you allow your data to be transferred to the US and processed. That’s a pretty wide legal statement. It doesn’t specify who can process, or for what reason, or anything, it just says processing. Which means that Facebook can process your data in any way it sees fit, or hand it over to other organizations (CIA, FBI, Homeland) for processing as well. That’s where the panopticon arises. Prisoners can always observe prisoners close to them, but it is the authorities who have access to the entire data set and that is what makes Facebook a panopticon! The surveillance is not symmetric as you suggest, but asymmetric in a most profound and disturbing way. It’s a system agents dream, really. The public willingly reveals its private likes, dislikes, interests, and activities. Don’t even have to hire data entry people since you enter the data into the database on your own!
I must admit that i haven’t come across such an invitation to the defiance to anything this social networking and panopticum superstructural surveillance model might or might not mean. I believe that there is not a great need to monitor individuals these days, even if it would be so easy done by some program that may collect and collate and synthesize informations provided by a source/individual. We have come a long way these days and the system already established its ways to control and subdue or tame restless spirits. Only then when something becomes politically important then the red lamp flashes. In the end, who is ready for a sacrifice these days, who is ready to devote himself/herself to a higher cause, who believes in higher cause, The crisis of meaning, identity, pluralism and gamut of informational bombardment made us numb and weak. Who is able to become a victim for an ideal, who is modest enough. These things are now archetypes and nothing more, the just rebellion is not something that gathers many followers. On the other hand it may turn into aggression and devastation if it is lead by the people of “interest“ and not by “people of meaning“. I appreciate the call and I’ll participate in “sharing“, to quote Dr Sosteric.