You are on page 1of 4

Image from Reuters : A City of Nice employee monitors screens with images from surveillance video cameras in a supervision

center in this file photo. Professor Hille Koskela argues that

Western societies have reached a point where surveillance of everyone, by everyone, is possible at any place and at any time

Children as actors, in an age of images

As cell-phone pictures become ‘proof’ of reality, academics and philosophers around the world debate
effects of ‘surveillance culture’

By Matthaios Tsimitakis (1)


Kathimerini - 26 November 2006

Cell phones equipped with cameras have brought Big Brother into every person’s pocket,
allowing the children of the TV generation to become directors, producers and stars of their own films
by simply pressing a button. Feigning shock, society is trying to understand what will happen in the
rest of the film.

In October 2004 a group of teenagers – three boys aged between 17 and 20, and a girl of just
14 – spread panic through the streets of London by beating a 40-year-old man to death and assaulting
another four people. One of the attacks was caught on video by the girl on her cellular phone. During
the fifth and final attack launched by the gang, police recognized the young woman – as she kicked a
homeless man in the head – thanks to the closed-circuit television (CCTV) system operating in the city.
The news of the violence shocked British society to its core, a society that had already become
familiarized with so-called “happy slapping,” whereby youths would assault passers-by for no reason
other than to film their reactions with their cell phone cameras and publish the images on the Internet.
The events of that October, however, were the first time this “game” had gone so far. “What could have
led a 14-year-old girl to such raw, unprovoked violence?” wondered the reporter on the BBC who read
the news item. The group said that they were making a documentary about happy slapping that they
wanted to release on the Internet.

The debate, as can be expected, became heated. What is to be done about youngsters and their
cell phones? Is there some connection between the device and violence? Was the fact that they were
arrested with the help of the CCTV camera a positive or negative development? As a new
technological environment appears around us, what kind of society are we looking toward?
In order to curb what has become known as cyber-bullying, the British banned mobile phones from
many schools.
In Greece, events that took place last month at a high school in Amarynthos, Evia, (the alleged
rape and filming of the attack against a schoolgirl by a group of her peers) should hardly come as a
surprise. This is but one more in a string of such occurrences around the world that cause no small
amount of discomfort to society, but which also reveal a new state of things.

In Greece, as in many other parts of the world, schoolchildren acquire their first cell phone
either by saving up their allowance and paying for it themselves, or because it is given to them by their
parents, who say they want to be able to have direct contact with their children at any time. According
to the consumer group EKATO, this trend is so widespread that it is estimated that some 90 percent of
schoolchildren possess a cell phone. In Norway, statistics say that nearly 100 percent of children under
the age of 14 have a cell phone. In Hong Kong, 25 percent of all cell-phone users are under the age of
13, while in Italy it is more than half of the country’s teenagers and in Japan 80 percent who have such
a device. In the UK, 91 percent of children get their first cell phone by the age of 12.

Future consumers

For mobile telephony companies, children aged 10-14 represent the future of their new
services. This is the age group of consumers that require their phones to have a television and MP3
player, as well as Internet access. In short, the mobile phone should function as a full audiovisual
system.

What this deep saturation into the lives of the world’s young people has resulted in is that cell
phones have also become one of their most important means of communication. What for parents is
simply a device that reassures them – in an increasingly confusing world – of their child’s safety, for
children is a status symbol, a means to become a part of society and a game. Children lead in the
evolution of technology.

This observation means nothing more than the fact that we and our children simply have more
tools of communication. What matters is that the environment around us is also changing dramatically.
We are surrounded by screens on a daily basis. One or two televisions at home, a computer at home, in
the office and at school, surveillance cameras on the streets and in shops, and the occasional camera or
video on a cell phone compose a mighty technological environment, whose aim is not just to meet our
need for direct communication and information, but also to perform a part of our social and consumer
functions and our work, while furthermore controlling the new status quo. In order to achieve this, the
simple cell phone has been equipped with “surveillance tools” that complement what experts call our
“surveillance culture.” At the same time, under the excuse of the terrorist threat, Western societies are
increasingly hedging personal and social freedoms in the name of national security. From the dogma of
“innocent until proven guilty,” we have passed on to the idea (with the help of technology) that “if you
have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.” Surveillance is legitimized both politically and
morally. All this is leading us into a dynamic but uncharted new environment of new possibilities, but
also of new dangers.

Professor Hille Koskela, a senior lecturer at the University of Helsinki’s Department of


Geography, argues that Western societies have reached a point where surveillance of everyone, by
everyone, is possible at any place and at any time. Some examples are:
In Great Britain, parents can observe their children at kindergarten through kindercam.com, which has
installed cameras in kindergartens around the country. They can check up on their children at any time
and from any place in the world via the Internet. They can see when a child is behaving badly toward
their own peers and vice versa.

After September 11 and the London train bombings, television stations aired hundreds of
images taken by videocam showing scenes from the attacks. Media experts believe that the number of
such images will increase greatly in the near future.

The American invasion of Iraq was broadcast across the world by videophones on tanks.
The torture of inmates at the Abu Ghraib prison was shown through images taken by cell phones,
forcing the US Ministry of Defense to ban new-generation cell phones from all American bases in Iraq.
Education monitoring groups in Germany, New Zealand and Norway note that the most important
problem of violence in schools concerns cyber-bullying – photographs or videos of children during
gym class or changing in the locker rooms, or scenes of sex that are then put on the Internet. In some
cases, allegations have even been made against children as young as 8 years old, while there have also
been reports of such acts of cyber-bullying leading to children becoming suicidal.

Time of transparency?

The concept of a surveillance culture first appeared in Michel Foucault’s 1975 “Discipline and
Punish.” Analyzing the 18th century “Panopticon” prison system designed by legal reformer Jeremy
Bentham – who proposed a hive-like structure in which the guard can observe the inmates without their
knowledge – Foucault argues that all social systems of hierarchy are constructed in this manner and for
this same purpose.

Foucault’s observations and Bentham’s suggestions have found their mark at the dawn of the
21st century, when under the shadow of the terrorist threat, the cities of the Western world have been
filled with cameras that broadcast their images to police headquarters. However, the spread of these
technological means brings us no closer to one another. Academics around the world are talking of a
“poly-panoptical’ society, in which not only is everyone under the spyglass, but also in which the
concepts of people-watching and surveillance are taking on a whole new meaning. Are we therefore
heading toward a transparent society where the boundaries of our personal freedoms will shrink, as
opined by public ethics and applied philosophy Professor David Green of Australia’s Charles Sturt
University?

What is certain is that despite the fact that for years many have feared an Orwellian state of
surveillance, Internet users are showing a much greater interest in observing the lives of others through
services such as YouTube. Are we looking at a society of small brothers?

Reality losing ground?

An event described by the 16-year-old student in Amarynthos as a rape was recorded on video
via cell phone. What began as an exploration of sex (that allegedly turned into sexual assault) became a
televised event. The simple push of a button became a second type of rape – of the girl’s privacy and
character, possibly even more serious than the first – as the events that took place after the girl made
her allegations showed.

How, though, have children ended up becoming the directors, producers and actors of their
own lives? And even more significantly, with what criteria do they cast the roles? Academics and
philosophers ask whether reality is being transformed into a reproduction of the images on television.
Do the endless reconstructions and broadcasts of images blur the lines between truth and fiction, reality
and simulation?

According to French cultural theorist Paul Virilio, as our new technological culture unfolds,
natural presence is being replaced by the telepresence. Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek believes
that reality is losing ground to the new technologies and the tele-images that promise reality. Hille
Koskela adds that we are seduced by the idea that what we see on the screen is real. Perhaps more real
than our daily lives. Real people, she says, are increasingly disappearing into the “televisation” of their
lives.

“Being a part of the show has become perfectly acceptable. That is the work of reality shows
on television, so we really shouldn’t wonder where our children got it from when we have accepted it
ourselves,” says Minas Samatas, professor of political sociology at the University of Crete.

The roles are not all the same in this televised world. The role of producer is different to that
of director or actor. The participants distance themselves emotionally from their acts, they embrace the
stereotypes assigned to them and become mechanisms of production. In Amarynthos what we saw was
a racist and sexist television drama that expressed, albeit in the wrong way, the ideals championed by
our television and the deeply rooted prejudice of Greek society. Unfortunately, it was all very real.

Does human experience have to be caught on film in order to be legitimate? Has the screen
become the “ecosystem” of experience?
On the other hand, it is also likely that exhibitionism is also on the rise as a reaction to the
philosophy of surveillance and panoptic observation. Many academics note that we are increasingly
experiencing a rift between our corporal self and our image of our self. In his book “I Am a
Videocam,” Professor Phil Tabor of University College London argues that surveillance gives rise to
exhibitionism, voyeurism and narcissism.

Violence, sex and all sorts of deviations from social norms make for great television fare. But,
when we begin participating in these acts through interactive means, such as cell phones, the acts
become pornography. By watching an event we are actually participating in it.

Is technology to blame? Certainly not, agree the scientists. “This phenomenon, which is
completely new, has found children uneducated in how to deal with it and parents, teachers, services
providers, politicians and the legal framework unprepared,” says Michalis Meimaris, president of the
Media Communications Department at Athens University.

“The relationship between the device and fact is organic (and not causal) because of the fact
that nowadays we cannot talk of a society that does not pass through the filters of visual technology,”
says Athina Athanassiou, social anthropology professor at Panteion University. “But technology is not
a symptom, as is often presented. It is the tools we have built.”

Minas Samatas argues that we must connect all these facets of the argument to the dire
educational system in Greece, to the content of children’s studies, to their relationship with their
teachers, to the buildings and the overall atmosphere that prevails in the country’s education system.
“Our children are using technology as an expression of a skewed revolution. They are kicking back.
We shouldn’t be talking about children breaking the rules. It is our, the parents’, fault that we don’t
spend time with them, don’t take an active interest in their lives, that we pay for others to shoulder the
burden of raising them. This is the crisis that our children are expressing and sending their own
message.”
(1) Both these articles first appeared in the November 26, 2006 issue of K, Kathimerini’s Sunday supplement. The illustration is by

Alexandros Tzimeros / www.smartmagna.gr.

You might also like