| “The Station: How spacial orchestration dictates human behaviour in the presence of others.”
By Jamie Avis
With over 36 million commuters passing under its CCTV every year, and over 100,000 passengers every day, Leeds City Station is the second busiest station outside of London. The dense current of commuters passing through the station every day are a common representation of modern life at its fastest, but it is the collective behavioural patterns and sociological theories behind a commuters experience in the station that is no doubt of more interest. It is by these certain theories around behaviour and panopticism that reinforces an idea of a modern social norm, present in all our mind-sets but varying on our situation and how “public” we are which determines how “panoptic” a public space can be.
As a setting that is so heavily monitored both technologically and by police presence, the hub of Leeds’ transport link to neighbouring cities seems the ultimate place to observe and reinterpret Foucault’s groundbreaking theory. In addition, I shall explore further the impact of surveillance as a form of social sorting, its result on our behaviour collectively, and the notion of the “norm” and what behaviour constitutes to successfully being perceived as ordinary.
By acquiring the historical analogy of a late seventeenth century town overcome by a plague outbreak, Foucault introduces the panoptic space in great detail, describing it as an “…enclosed, segmented space, observed at every point, in which the individuals are inserted in a fixed place, in which the slightest movements are supervised, in which all events are recorded, and in which an uninterrupted work of writing links the centre and periphery…” What Foucault is explaining here is the basic components of the panopticon - and how precisely a higher authority monitors it. He is also explaining the role of this authority and its supposed purpose of recording and regulating all occurrences within a pre-determined and controlled space. The quote from “Discipline and Punish” later goes on to explain that “… power is exercised without division, according to a continuous hierarchical figure, in which each individual is constantly located, examined and distributed among the living beings, the sick and the dead – all this constitutes a compact model of the disciplinary mechanism” (197).
Panopticism by definition is simply an area where all is visible to the controller of that space, therefore allowing this authority free reign to dictate the space and the individuals included within it. The examples of the classical panopticon are widespread in society – from the nursery to the nursing home. The modern life is experienced under a constant gaze. The panopticon is the ultimate example of this – a fear of judgement in a single space controlled by a designated authority to control the group – eventually moulding otherwise disobedient recipients in to the perfect “docile body” – a suggestible, shapable servant to society.
These ideas of conformity and compliance stem from the earliest stage in which we are institutionalized, the school. It is the first place we are regulated and are taught to naturally self regulate, living by many codes of negative suggestion and the omnipresence of warning and threat, which Foucault describes as “a relationship that is at the same time reciprocal incitation and struggle” (1982: 221-2). This statement describes the way in which we willingly shape our lives around the higher authority and become “docile” in the process, from the playground to the station.
Since the invention of the panopticon was visualized by Jeremy Bentham in to a sinister prison comprising of a central unlit watch tower gazing upon various illuminated but solitary and divided cells, the idea of panopticism has gradually transformed in to something that is almost strictly conceptual. This can be applied endlessly to modern workplaces, institutions and public spaces, and more specifically Leeds City Station.
It is in these earliest stages in our education that we become flooded with negative suggestions and associations, with commands such as “don’t talk to strangers” and to “walk, don’t run” that govern our earliest behavioural traits. Predictably, we are warned that if an individual, or child in this case, is to act against these regulations, then our actions will be met with a worthy punishment from the authority as a consequence, be it a teacher or a judge. It is from here the memory of such experience is carried on in adult life either consciously or unconsciously, with these warnings still resonant in daily life. Yellow lines dictate where we can and can’t park and the call of a train station tannoy reminds us to remain vigilant if a suspicious item is to be found.
We follow regulations without question or disobedience and therefore sustain the mundane norm that uniforms us all, but although this might seem apparent, there are in fact simple, discreet and lawful ways of challenging those that unconsciously control our abiding side. For instance, the occurrence of the “flashmob” trend intends to collectively rebel by forming surprise group activities involving dance and mime in the heat of the rush hour, causing disruption in the usual, proving that human behaviour extends far beyond how we are expected to act. It is only ironic that advertising agencies and large corporations that market and promote products that fuel society’s docility have since adopted the “flashmob” trend. But even the most intimate of exchanges, such as an embrace between friends in the midst of the station can for a moment change the space. Though they are familiar but rare, these interactions can quietly challenge the norm, remaining safe within what is deemed socially acceptable and legal.
The panoptic situations of both the classroom (being governed by the all seeing eye of a teacher in a strategically arranged room), and the station (also being governed by the all seeing eye of a security network) essentially both carry the same role in monitoring, regulating, and in essence controlling the behaviour of those below its glare.
The quote “…Let the idea of torture and execution be ever present in the heart of the weak man and dominate the feeling that drives him to crime…” from Cesare Beccaria distinctly depicts the authoritarian fear and warning of impending punishment if we are to step out of line and break both rules and social norms. This warning is manifested in police presence, surveillance systems such as closed circuit TV and the eye of the public, which stands as a judge of its own.
It is with this instinctive observational attitude that we all inhabit that reinforces public expectation of social norms and image. If a commuter is to behave irrationally and erratically, it is bound to summon suspicion upon those that assume against this individual. By comparison, the contrast between the need to project the cumulative image of the “normal” if such a commuter is to behave in such a way is heightened.
The standard of public self-image has received a kick since the 9/11 attacks, enforcing us to feel suspicion against what may constitute towards our definition of “normal” or that, which is familiar. Based on the degree of xenophobia that both the British media and the American news projected in disgust towards an incorrectly defined “enemy” of these attacks, our perception of a culture that may be unknown or at least less known to the white middle classes, but nevertheless as peaceful as our own, as “alien” has regrettably become a standard for the cultural outlook of many. It could be said that this has also motivated and intensified our judgement of our fellow man, regardless of cultural background, as our suspicion has since grown increasingly sensitive, and created rifts and divides not only on a global level, but on a local level. We abolish that which is unfamiliar and brand it as peculiar and strange based on our own inability to understand one another, with the signs and commercials that surround us daily reassuring us that these assumptions that we all make are somehow “right”.
The detail in which our behaviour can be moulded simply by our spatial awareness of both surveillance and the presence of others at Leeds City Station’s peak hours creates a greater burden to conform to the seemingly normal traits displayed by others. This can also be explained through the phenomenon known as “collective effervescence” – a theory created by Emile Durkheim which best defines the accumulation of energy amongst crowds that heavily influences our way of acting in said crowds, particularly in the surroundings of a bustling station. This collective change could be applied to the most extreme forms of group behaviour, ranging from football hooliganism and gospel church service, to the attention of a school assembly and the London riots of August 2011. Perhaps it is by comparison of some of these situations that we can develop and understanding of the impact of collective effervescence within the confines of Leeds City Station.
In times of modernity, these social norms were factors such as religious and political stance, but now in the latter stages of post-modernity, our social norms and social facts are heavily influenced by a world of overbearing messages to consume and willingly do so. Building on this notion that society is a product of our past and its development to its post-modern point today, we can then understand that as a western society still living in the surveyed shadow of 9-11, the aftermath conjured by these attacks have since provoked further a fear of the abnormal and unfamiliarity in the people we see and how they behave.
As the theoretical text “Surveillance as Social Sorting” states, “Surveillance is not simply a contemporary threat to individual freedom but that, more insidiously, it is a powerful means of creating and reinforcing long-term social differences.” In essence, close-circuit television not only reinforces the existence of a high law that governs our every move behind remote surveillance, but significantly distances us from the law. This doesn’t involve society abandoning its laws or vice-versa, but the height of authority’s control of us becomes steeper and much more powerful. The further quote “… The spread of CCTV heralds a massive expansion of the disciplinary – and inclusionary – social control. That is, the ever present threat of authoritative intervention to any acts of deviancy on a scale unthinkable on the basis of mere co-presence…” (253 – Surveillance as Social Sorting) strengthens this core idea of CCTV reign over collective social behaviour.
Valid in their observations and systems of analysing and recording society’s absurdity, many of the previously mentioned theoretical opinions conflict somewhat. Baudrillard for example states that “… To control the masses, Baudrillard argued, the State no longer needed either surveillance cameras or the spectacle. To Baudrillard's eyes, the masses had internalized the functions of both surveillance camera and spectacular monitor: the two merged into a single simulacrum of reality, a "hyper-reality." Foucault’s theories surrounding surveillance in society strengthen this notion of psychological surveillance by a stating that "… An inspecting gaze, a gaze which each individual under its weight will end by interiorizing to the point that he is his own overseer, each individual thus exercising this surveillance over, and against, himself." Foucault is explaining here is that each individual can overcome the gaze by becoming the gaze, and so the process of social surveillance from individual to individual, without the intervention of an authority.
This expands on the notion that Bentham’s Panopticon, as the perfect prison, was essentially able to operate unattended, powered by paranoia inherent in all its individuals, whether they are prisoners of the state or commuters. I undoubtedly agree with both Michel Foucault and Jean Baudrillard, but align my own opinion close to the former – preferring to acknowledge that a natural progress in the human mind has led us to elevate ourselves away from constantly being the object, and joining those that are subjects as a consequence. In defence of close circuit television, Michael Howard, the home secretary responsible for the national launch of the surveillance system in the early 90’s, defended his plan that embraced CCTV, stating, “CCTV catches criminals. It spots crimes, identifies lawbreakers and helps convict the guilty.” The reduction and prevention of crime on a national scale is not to be disregarded in the slightest, but Howard’s intention is only the passive role that closed-circuit television plays.
One particularly fascinating product of the station as a panopticon is the presence of police officers and the guilt that occurs when a perfectly innocent law abiding citizen walks past these officers, consciously acknowledging they themselves as innocent, but experiencing a troubling guilt and desire to submit to the arms of the law. It is in the immediate moment that we see a uniform, a symbol, or a police vehicle that we draw upon negative associations of imposing authority and an instant defence for one’s self, innocent or guilty, concealing our real selves under the glare of the police in such a situation due to a constantly reinforced fear of authority. This notion can be explained by the previous quote “…Let the idea of torture and execution be ever present in the heart of the weak man and dominate the feeling that drives him to crime…” by Cesare Beccaria, which again explains the burden of the idea of authority on the legally innocent as a warning that one must remain docile and unchallenging towards the law above.
In exploring the work of various great theorists of the last two centuries, the public observation of such panoptic situations and more importantly experiencing them first hand, we can then form an understanding of what constitutes to a present day definition of familiar and normal behaviour, and how exactly this norm is formed from the overbearing influences of those that surround us as a collective judge and the authority that watches us from each corner of the station’s walls. Once we have comprehended these presences, we can then establish options to challenge the popular conformity inherent in the speeding blur of the public. In a society that is gradually abandoning its need to worship the advert and the news broadcast wherever it may follow us and place its influence throughout our daily lives, there is a hope for those that do not wish to passively follow and become the perfect model of the western world’s ideal docile body. We all have the potential for tenaciously holding on to our identities, however observed we are.
Books:
Orwell, G (1949), '1984', Martin Secker & Warburg Ltd, UK.
Foucault, M (1975), 'Discipline and Punish', Editions Gallimard, France.
Ericson, R.V and Haggerty, K.D (2006), 'The New Politics of Surveillance and Visibility', University of Toronto Press, Canada.
Weibel, P (2002) 'Ctrl [space]: rhetorics of surveillance from Bentham to Big Brother', The MIT Press, Massachusetts.
Le Bon, G (1994) 'The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind', Cherokee Publishing Company, USA
Lyon, D (2006) 'Theorising Surveillance: The Panopticon and beyond', Willan Publishing, USA
Lyon, D (2003) 'Surveillance as Social Sorting', Routledge Publishing, UK
Lefebvre, H (2005) 'Critique of Everyday Life: Volume 3', Verso Publishing, UK & USA
Lefebvre, H (1991) 'Critique of Everyday Life: Volume 1', Verso Publishing, UK & USA
Lefebvre, H (2003) 'Key Writings', Continuum Publishing, UK & USA
Online sources:
Gray, M (2003) 'Urban Surveillance and Panopticism: will we recognize the facial recognition society?',
http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/articles1(3)/facial.pdf
Watkins, F.M (2008) 'The Truth About CCTV', http://freebritain.wordpress.com/2008/04/26/the-truth-about-cctv/
Brown. N, (Date Unknown) ‘Robert Park and Ernest Burgess: Urban Ecology Studies, 1925’, http://www.csiss.org/classics/content/26
Unknown Author, (Unknown date) ‘Emile Durkheim – Society, collective consciousness and culture’, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Émile_Durkheim#Society.2C_collective_consciousness_and_culture
Butler, C.J (2009) ‘Authoritarianism and Fear of Deviance’, http://www.smsu.edu/FacultyStaff/JamesButler/rwa.pdf
Unknown Author (2009) ‘My Paper: Foucault in the School Setting’, http://www.scribd.com/doc/23444617/My-Paper-Foucault-in-the-School-Setting
Unknown Author, (1999) ‘Time in the Shadows of Anonymity – Against Surveillance, Transparency and Globalized Capitalism’, http://www.notbored.org/transparent.html
No comments:
Post a Comment