Criminology European Journal Of: The 'Surveillance Society': Questions of History, Place and Culture

http://euc.sagepub.
com/
Criminology
European Journal of
http://euc.sagepub.com/content/6/2/179
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/1477370808100545
2009 6: 179 European Journal of Criminology
David Murakami Wood
The `Surveillance Society' : Questions of History, Place and Culture
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
European Society of Criminology

can be found at: European Journal of Criminology Additional services and information for
http://euc.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://euc.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:
http://euc.sagepub.com/content/6/2/179.refs.html Citations:
by Bruno Machado on September 19, 2010 euc.sagepub.com Downloaded from

The Surveillance Society
Questions of History, Place and Culture
David Murakami Wood
Global Urban Research Unit (GURU), Newcastle University, UK
ABSTRACT
The concept of the surveillance society has become a central part of the emerg-
ing transdisciplinary narrative of surveillance studies, and is now to be found as
much in criminology as in many of the other domains upon which it draws. This
piece takes on two key problems generated by contemporary use of the term
surveillance society; those of its historical novelty and its general geographical
or cultural generalizability. In this article, I show that the historical development
of arguments about surveillance have created particular and changing ideas of
the surveillance society. However the contemporary period opens up questions
of geography and culture. With reference to the comparative case of Japan, I
argue both that a contextual understanding of both surveillance and surveillance
society is crucial. While surveillance is involved with processes of globalization,
it is also not necessarily the same surveillance society that one sees in different
places and at different scales. Surveillance is historically, spatially and culturally
located.
KEY WORDS
Comparative Studies / Globalization / Japan / Surveillance / Surveillance Society.
Introduction
It is often held that the contemporary use of the term surveillance society
originated in Gary Marxs very deliberate attempt to characterize the new
surveillance brought in by the digital (Marx 1985, 1988). Surveillance
society was taken up as a term of social analysis by Oscar Gandy (1989)
and then given further substantial life mainly in the work of David Lyon
(1994, 2001). It has become a central part of the emerging transdisciplinary
Volume 6 (2): 179194: 1477-3708
DOI: 10.1177/1477370808100545
Copyright 2009 European Society of
Criminology and SAGE Publications
Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC
www.sagepublications.com
180 European Journal of Criminology 6(2)
narrative of surveillance studies (Lyon 2007), and is now to be found as
much in criminology (Norris and Armstrong 1999; Fox 2001; Wilson and
Sutton 2004; Walby 2005a; Zedner 2007) as in many of the other domains
upon which it draws.
By the early 2000s it had became part of public discourse in North
America largely through the work of the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) (e.g. Stanley and Steinhardt 2003)
1
and in Europe through Liberty,
Privacy International and others. In the UK, the term was thrust into
the political mainstream by the UK Information Commissioner, Richard
Thomas, who argued in an interview with The Times newspaper in 2004
that Britain was sleepwalking into a surveillance society (Ford 2004).
Thomass critique, surprising for a state regulator, was taken up by the
media and campaigning organizations such as the Consumers Association
(Lace 2005), and then extended through an Information Commissioners
Officer (IOC)-commissioned report written by, among others, David Lyon,
for the Surveillance Studies Network. This Report on the Surveillance
Society (Murakami Wood et al. 2006) provided an opportunity to take
stock of the contemporary state of surveillance, and as it was distributed in
seven languages, has strengthened the increasing hold this term has across
Europe. The term has even come in for substantial criticism from the Home
Affairs Committee of the UK House of Commons (2008), whose report on
surveillance rejected the contention that Britons were already living in a
surveillance society.
In academic, media and politics, worldwide there is now regular talk
of the surveillance society as a point of critique. To take just one small
example that occurred as I was writing this article: in Japan in mid-2008
kanshi shakai (surveillance society) was scrawled in protest on a vandalized
automated drinks machine that had a police camera installed.
2
Surveillance
society would appear to be becoming as ubiquitous as surveillance itself.
As with many such ideas however, surveillance society can appear
to be somewhat monolithic. In popular media, it is often used as a direct
replace ment or synonym for the older more totalitarian notions of the
security state or Orwellian references to Big Brother and in academia for
often simplistic and misapplied versions of Foucaults (1975) interpretation
of Benthams Panopticon. That is not the fault of the originators, however
it does bring up several issues regarding the work that a concept does
1
ACLU now even has a surveillance society clock in the manner of the old nuclear annihilation
clock, with the hands at five minutes to midnight as I write this piece! One might suggest that
perhaps their clock is a little slow
2
This incident has been widely reported in Japan. For a brief English-language explanation
with embedded Japanese television news report, see this blog: http://www.japanprobe.com/
?p=6651
Murakami Wood The surveillance society 181
once released into the wild, and indeed its totalizing potentials. There are
two major assumptions of this rather too simple narrative that need to be
addressed.
The first is that of the novelty of concern about the surveillance
society and the novelty of surveillance itself.
3
The notion of moral panics
(Cohen 1972) is well-known and these kinds of fears, particularly around
crime, often generate surveillant responses.
4
Wood et al. (2003) combined
Gary Marxs (1988) idea of surveillance creep with Martin Innes (2003)
notion of trigger crimes to suggest that there were periods of surveillance
surge in response to particular events. It has been several times during these
periods, and not just recently, that one finds talk of surveillance society.
In order to tackle these questions the history of the term surveillance
society, both temporally and spatially, is examined in the four periods of its
development: the late 1960s and early 1970s; the mid-1980s to early 1990s;
from the mid-1990s until 2001; and from 2001 until now.
The second assumption is the potentially totalizing descriptive power
of surveillance society. Instead I argue that there is an immense cultural
and geographic variety of surveillance societies, both in historic and contem-
porary contexts. Here again, the different kinds of criminality, or reception
of perceived fears of crime, thought to be addressed by surveillant policy
and technological solution, are crucial.
Databases and wiretaps: from the 1960s to 1970s
The first use of surveillance society that I can find in a non-academic setting
long predates even Marxs credited coinage, coming from an earlier period
of moral panic about both perceived social breakdown and about the states
surveillant response and its consequences for everyday life. The Los Angeles
Times in 1970 ran a comment piece entitled The Surveillance Society: Just
How Far Can It Go? (Miller 1970) written by the expert on procedural
law, Arthur R. Miller.
5
The concerns in the 1970 piece were very similar
3
This piece will concentrate on the idea of surveillance society. Several historians have
criticized claims to the novelty of surveillance or at least its placement within modernity,
notably Edward Higgs (2004). See also: Coaffee et al. (2008), who provide a longue dure
global historical background to questions of urban security, surveillance and social control.
This piece will make occasional reference to this longer history, but it is surveillance society
rather than surveillance, which is the primary focus.
4
I will not delve into the immense literature on what constitutes or explains the fear of crime,
but for an excellent recent account see Murray (2007). Here I am more concerned with what
social fears produce, and how institutions and academics use them.
5
Ironically, Gary Marx (1999) himself wrote an op-ed piece for the very same paper along
similar lines about the introduction of caller ID technology for home telephones, 19 years
later.
to some contemporary fears, largely those of how personal data was being
col lected, stored and used by private companies. However, the context of
the late 1960s and early 1970s was larger than this. As Deleuze (1990) later
stressed in his famous Postscript on the Societies of Control, this period
was a time of generalized crisis. This included the end of colonialism; the
Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) Cold War stand-off; the Vietnam
War; the crisis of the modern institutions that Foucault described in his
many works; the beginnings of the end of the Golden Age of Fordist
capital ism; the growing recognition of the oppressive or even totalitarian
character of many of the alternatives presented by Communist regimes;
and the rise of new forms of political action and organization in response to
the perceived limitations of class politics.
In the USA, in particular, it was two entirely different kinds of fear
that were important. The first, for the establishment, was of a dystopia
of dis order, the supposed threats of communism, civil rights and black
radical activism and anti-Vietnam protests, as well as the more diffuse and
unspecified threats to moral order of the sexual revolution and feminism,
that so concerned the political and social establishment. The contemporary
moral panic especially after the Watts Riots (see Loo and Grimes 2004)
generated many responses, including new defensive architecture and urban
design (Newman 1972).
However the responses were also surveillant. Moves had been made
to create a new central state database of personal information first in the
1960s by President Lyndon B. Johnson, and then again in the 1970s by
President Gerald Ford (Solove et al. 2006). The potential of the database saw
a further, lengthier and more sustained critique from Miller in The Assault
on Privacy (1971), which some claim should be seen as the first work in a
chain that would lead to both surveillance studies and the multitude of
more journalistic works on surveillance and privacy. That title is, however,
usually given to James Rule, who produced a systematic sociological study
of the database, Private Lives, Public Surveillance, in 1973.
The outcry about the potential for misuse of databases was not based
on speculation. Already the wiretapping and monitoring activities of the
military and civil intelligence services the Central Intelligence Agency
(CIA), National Security Agency (NSA) and the Federal Bureau of Investi-
gation (FBI) was suspected and eventually led to a massive outcry. This
generated a second fear a fear of the state; a nightmare of order. Abuse
and at times outright criminality by state operatives came to be expected;
the notorious Watergate affair is only the best known of many black oper-
ations conducted by a variety of different organizations (Davis 1992;
Churchill and VanderWall 2002). By 1975, this concern led to a slew of
official investigations,
6
a period termed the Season of Inquiry by American
intelligence researcher Loch Johnson (1988).
The most important of these investigations was undoubtedly the
Church Committee (United States Senate 1976), which was set up to in-
vestigate abuses by the American intelligence services, particularly the
establish ment of targeted surveillance operations through Watch Lists
(established by the NSA and the FBI) of individuals thought to be a threat
to national security. These lists covered a wide range of dissenters in-
clud ing parenting expert, Dr Benjamin Spock; the actress Jane Fonda (a
prominent spokesperson against US involvement in Vietnam), as well as
more sweeping categories of people for example, all black student union
members regardless of their involvement in actual activity or protest, and
more generally, any student activist (Johnson 1989).
The question raised by the Church Committee was whether the
operations contravened two laws: the Fourth Amendment to the Consti-
tution of the United States, which prohibited unreasonable searches and
seizures; and Section 605 of the Communications Act 1934, which regulated
the interception of communications. In both cases the question was left
unresolved: the Fourth Amendment perhaps did not apply to telecom-
munications tapping and other non-intrusive searches; the Act of 1934
perhaps prohibited only the public or in-court revelation of information
obtained by telephone-tapping.
Workplace monitoring and the return of the database:
from 1984 to the panoptic sort
Despite these inquiries, there was thereafter an extension of US military
surveillance in ways that had not been possible in 1970. Prompted at least
in part by military research and a development drive for better missile
guidance systems, early warning and espionage satellites, and resilient com-
muni cations that could survive nuclear attack, the computer shrunk to a size
where it could fit on a desktop yet increased in power and connectivity. The
neoliberal economic revolution of Thatcherism and Reaganomics also saw
a surge in financial, workplace and consumer management (and in entertain-
ment) that also provided a driver for, and exploited, increasing computing
power. Mainstream academics concentrated on the latter and largely missed
the former, which was left to investigative reporters (Bamford 1983) and
6
In particular, the Pike Committee in the House of Representatives; the Church Committee
in the Senate; the Abzug Committee in the House of Representatives; and an inquiry by the
Attorney General into the NSA.
activists. Giddens (1985) and Dandeker (1990) were interested in the role
of the military in surveillance but only in a very high-level way.
The earliest glimmerings of a resurgence in academic interest were
signalled this time by Marxs 1985 article and the collection edited by
Chilton and Aubrey (1983), both of which were centred around the real
calendar date of Orwells Nineteen Eighty-Four, that exemplary fictional
nightmare of order. However the locus of concern was the changes to work
practices. Particularly significant here was another congressional inquiry:
the September 1987 US Congress Office of Technological Assessment report
on workplace surveillance, The Electronic Supervisor. The report itself did
not use the word surveillance or the term surveillance society, instead it
referred to monitoring. However the New York Times reported a press
release from the chair of the Congressional Committee that commissioned
the report, Representative Duncan Edwards, which argued that we are be-
coming a surveillance society (New York Times 1987). It is no surprise
therefore to find Gary Marx amongst both the advisory board and con-
tractors in the study, and looking further into the list of contributors
and reviewers one finds several people still active in what is now called
Surveil lance Studies, notably Andrew Clement and Pris Regan. As with the
congressional inquiries into wiretapping and watch lists, the 1987 inquiry
concerned itself a great deal with constitutional and legal issues, but also
with the prospects of emerging technologies for example it spent what in
retrospect seems rather like too much time on the possibility of brainwave
analysis (as a replacement for the increasingly discredited polygraph), an
area which even now remains technologically dubious.
Scholars struggled with concepts however, mainly those of how to
theorize the database. This period saw other contrasting analyses from post-
modernist historian Mark Poster, philosopher Gilles Deleuze, information
scientist, Roger Clarke (1988) and communication specialist Oscar Gandy
(1989, 1993). Posters super-panopticism, and Gandys panoptic sort
also relied rather too heavily on analogical reference to the infamous
prison design used by Foucault. However Deleuze, regarded by Foucault
him self as the most important philosopher of the late 20th century, in the
Post-scriptum sur les socits de contrle (Postscript on the Societies of
Control) (1990), did not make the mistake of transposing the mechanisms
of surveillance that Foucault considered exemplary of the 18th century, but
rather he produced his sketch with Foucauldian methods and recognized the
database as the exemplary new control mechanism in itself. Clarke (1988)
also recognized this, although he did not deal with Foucauldian concepts.
The tabulation and sorting permitted by the database was something he
called dataveillance not in itself panoptic or even surveillance but a
form of subveillance, which joins up and provides a common foundation to
other forms of surveillance. In his last work before he emerged as a scholar
of Surveillance Studies The Information Society Lyon (1998) tackled
the issues of surveillance, but did not however suggest that there was a
surveillance society at present. Instead, drawing at least on the suggestive
final pages of Discipline and Punish rather than simply the Panopticon
chapters, his conclusions were that we were in the age of the carceral com-
puter. Why then did the term surveillance society come to dominate?
One of the main reasons was that there were other significant trends
that started to emerge around the late 1980s. The first was the end of the
Soviet Bloc, revealing the extent of the surveillance state that had operated
in many of those countries, and confronted with such extreme empirical
evidence it was far less clear that Nineteen Eighty-Four style metaphors
were appropriate for democratic society. The second concerned the bastard
child of Oscar Newman and Milton Friedman, the Los Angeles of the 1980s,
which found its nemesis in Mike Davis (1990), again a passionate activist
journalist as much as a scholar. As Davis (1998: 364) made even more clear
later, bourgeois moral panic generated a neoliberal urbanism characterized
by privatization of public urban space through commercial management
and private security, which he described as padding the bunker and public
space video surveillance using closed-circuit television (CCTV), the tech-
nological trope of the 1990s version of surveillance society.
Cameras, cameras and more cameras: the 1990s
So far, it seems, we have a very American story, in which the fears of state
actors, the wealthy and their responses, largely in American social contexts.
Despite occasional outlier warnings (McBride 1994, on New Zealand),
another set of developments took place largely in the UK, and in the 1990s
led to the UK becoming the archetypal emerging surveillance society.
This was almost entirely because of the massive extension of public
open space video surveillance using CCTV. Ironically, given all the concerns
of the 1970s and 1980s, it was to the UK that the USA looked after 9/11,
and to the UK that Frances incoming President Nicolas Sarkozy referred in
2007 shortly after his election, stating when I compare our network to the
one in Britain where, since 1990, over 4 million cameras have been installed,
I say to myself that we must do much more to increase our vigilance.
7
7
Speech by M. Nicolas Sarkozy, President of the Republic, at the ceremony to remember
victims of terrorism (Excerpts), Paris, 19 September 2007, French Government Portal, Prime
Minister http://www.premier-ministre.gouv.fr/information/coups_oeil _sur_les_23/armee_
terre_premier_partenaire_57575.html (accessed 25 January 2008).
How did the UK come to acquire this almost mythical status? Even the
figures involved seem to be have been plucked out of the air.
8
The reasons,
as Clive Norris and collaborators (1998, 1999) and Coleman (2004)
argued, lay both in exactly the kind of neoliberalizing urban politics and
the effective semi-privatization of urban spaces and the sanctification of
shopping that Davies had identified in LA, but also in the more cynical,
hier archical, secretive and constitution-free environment of the UK (Ponting
1990) and the emergence of what Simon and Feeley (1994) identified as
a new actuarial justice. In the UK, in particular, Norris and Armstrong
(1999) identified the response of urban authorities to the environment-
controlled brandscapes (Sherry 1988) of out-of-town shopping centres as
crucial.
These changes cannot simply be the neoliberal relaxation of planning
laws and expansion of out-of-town shopping however. The entire contem-
porary political economy of surveillance could be argued to derive from the
changes that occurred in the military industrial complex towards the end
and immediately after the Cold War, with corporations involved in military
supply seeking to find new civilian markets and exploit governments in the
risk society. The first uses of public open street CCTV predate the end of
the Cold War officially, CCTV was first introduced into public space in
Bournemouth, a resort town on the south coast of Britain in 1985 (Norris and
Armstrong 1999). It was however the movement of arms corporations into
civilian markets, often using wars as test beds, that allowed governments
to be able to fund working technologies of video surveillance. Again this
helps to explain the rise of CCTV with the automated number plate rec-
ogntion (ANPR) systems put into place in London after Provisional IRA
terrorist attacks in the early 1990s, which used technologies tested in the
Gulf War of 1991 (Coaffee 2003; Coaffee et al. 2008). The terrorist attacks
were one trigger for the surveillance surge.
That CCTV soon penetrated British towns and cities so thoroughly
was not entirely due to the fear of terrorism. Other fears were also used to
justify the installation of CCTV systems, especially football hooliganism
and high-profile crimes against children, in particular the kidnapping and
murder of the Liverpudlian toddler James Bulger in 1993. However, crucial
to this process was the relationship between the central state and the local
authorities who largely operate the systems, both in terms of state funding
and of regulation (Webster 2004). Regulation in the UK was lacking until
1998, and thus while CCTV was expanding it was also able to be normalized
8
The figure for the 4, or more usually 4.2 million, cameras comes from a guesstimate of
4,285,000 cameras for the UK made by Norris and McCahill (2002); see also Norris et al.
(2004). Webster had however estimated that over 85 per cent of local authorities now have at
least one system in place (Webster 2004).
as an expected feature of public space, which goes a long way to explaining
the ennui with which the British public seem to greet critiques of video
surveillance. In addition, the UK historically lacked any constitutional right
of privacy in public spaces (Gras 2004).
Global surveillance society?
The USA or the UK, or a particular technology, may at any particular
time be held to be exemplary of some wider trend in crime and/or social
control that we might define as a surveillance society. But does this justify
the general ization of such a description? Lyon (2004), Ogura (2005) and
Mattelart (2007) have been clear on the idea that there is a globalization
of surveillance. And certainly when societies other than the places where
surveil lance studies academics are concentrated are examined, one can see
similar developments. But is this as simple as Anglo-American concep tions
spreading to other nations? I will take here the example of Japan, which I
will compare with recent developments in the UK.
As Murakami Wood et al. (2007) noted, recent theoretical work on
surveillance in Japanese would seem to support the standard narrative (e.g.
Sakai 2001; Saito 2004), but there are important differences. Saitos critique
of people who want to be controlled is not simply an echo of Foucauldian
docile bodies but has a very particular place within the understanding of
the historical role of hierarchy and sameness in Japanese culture, in which
tradition one can also see Abes (2001) critique of the information society
in Japan or Iidas (2004) assault on media politics.
Does the Japanese situation conform empirically to the standard
narrative? Certainly, there has been an increase in the numbers of surveil-
lance cameras (Goold 2002, Igarashi 2004; Ogura 2005; Murakami Wood
et al. 2006). However the numbers and density of CCTV cameras as a
proxy for the extent of surveillance society is limited and none of the
authors listed above rely on such as assumption despite what the media may
assume. Counting takes no account even of the functionality, linkages, the
identity and motivation of controllers, the storage and analysis of mages,
and so on. Observation of numbers also makes no assessment of the policy
context and the ways in which CCTV relates to other surveillance practices
and technologies from door-to-door police family surveys (junkai-ren)
(Bayley 1976; Miyazawa 1992; Goold 2004) which are unlike anything
seen in most western countries, or to proposed identity cards which do
relate to international developments in identification and border control
(Tajima 2002; Ogasawara, 2008) but have their own state dynamic playing
on racial fears of the non-Japanese other (Clammer 2001).
Other numbers also tell other stories. Despite the obvious and much
discussed issues concerning crime rates (Haggerty 2001), it is generally
acknow ledged that Japan is a nation with official crime rates that are much
lower than any comparable western country (UNODC 2007). Certain
parallels can be traced, for example, fear of football hooliganism was a factor
in the systems put into place around the JapanKorea World Cup 2002 (Abe
2004), and many public space video surveillance systems are run by private
or semi-private organizations as with the UKs Town-Centre Management
(TCM) or US Business Improvement Districts (BIDs). Terrorism and fear of
rising crime was also vital in particular the Aum Shinrikyo gas attacks on
the Tokyo subway and elsewhere in 1995. However, these superficial simi-
larities hide development trajectories and rationalities that are not identical,
and a strong sense of social assurance (Miller and Kanazawa 2000).
Government experiments with CCTV cameras have not yet spread to
the extent of the UK or even the USA; in fact there is some evidence that
the state is attempting to back away from such involvement in favour of
volunteeristic bohan machizukuri (community safety development). This
draws in entities that look a little like TCMs and BIDs and policies that
could bear some comparison to the trends identified by Raco (2003) in
the securitization of the policies on sustainable communities in the UK.
However, this volunteerism has a much longer record that one can see in
several historical developments in the history of Japanese governance. One
example is the use of kyouka (moral suasion), the way in which actions
considered desirable by the state were inculcated in the population through
campaigns and cultural artifacts (Garon 1997). Another is the encouragement
of group responsibility for urban management, first, through the various
shopkeepers associations (shoutenkai), and, second, through community
associations (chounaikai). Both are are now being encouraged to take
responsibility under the bohan machizukuri policy. Shoutenkai tend to be
particularly keen on CCTV and running most of the public space schemes,
but they derive their rights over the management of public space not from
recent political economic trends to privatization in a Los Angeles style but
from much older conflicts over the left-over space of the street in Japanese
cities (Shelton 1999).
Community associations (chounaikai) are similarly long-standing.
However they vary in their attitudes. In my own discussions with such
groups, there is a marked difference in the way female members in parti-
cular conceptualize what CCTV represents. In many cases, CCTV is being
presented as a symptom or even a cause of the loss of social assurance and
feelings or safety, rather than a solution. In other words, there is a differ-
ent sense of the natural moral order from that of the UK, reflecting a
preference for softer forms of control, encompassing both mutual support
and surveillance (Garon 1997). Certainly these dense webs of communitarian
order can be far more sustainable than a simply authoritarian order.
Of course then there is protest. The incident mentioned in the intro-
duction is characteristic of a growing consciousness in Japan of kanshi
shakai, which is in some ways a challenge to the kind of homogenizing
thinking identified by Abe (2001) as lying behind so much of state policy
towards technological developments in Japan. Such protests are not isolated.
Several organizations and individuals have been crucial in creating a public
discourse of the surveillance society, including campaigning journalists like
Midori Ogasawara (2008); activist legal scholars like Yasuhiko Tajima,
founder of the Kanshi Shakai o Kyohisuru Kai, an anti-surveillance society
group of lawyers, activists and scholars; and the No! Kanshi activist network,
which was set up in response to the deployment of surveillance cameras
in 2002. These developments are not unconnected to western networks:
Tajima translated David Lyons Surveillance after September 11, Ogura and
Abe have worked both worked with various scholars from outside Japan,
and the latter is also on the board of the international Surveillance Studies
Network. If nothing else in this story can be said to be conclusively the
product of globalization, certainly critique and protest is creating its own
global networks.
Ways forward
The development of surveillance societies is undoubtedly connected to the
current wave of capitalist restructuring in the post-industrial era of global-
ization and flexible accumulation (Mattelart 2007). However, there needs
to be rather more concentration on how particular places are con structed
in the encounter with surveillance, and to unpick the scalar elements of
this story; to acknowledge and better understand the fact that surveil-
lance operates and operates differently at different socio-spatial levels from
orbital space right down to the individual body. We now need clear, em-
pirically informed accounts, which can examine the degree to which the
evolving standard narrative of surveillance society, as outlined here, is
valid in different contexts. The narrative has evolved in analyses of North
America and Europe, particularly the UK, yet the focus is now shifting.
Massey (2005) made a compelling case for empirically informed relational
studies of the multiple, hybrid and conflicted nature of places, whose char-
acteristics can then be followed outwards. New theoretical and empirical
accounts therefore need to be developed that take into account the specifi-
city of non-western, non-Anglophone and global south experiences and
cul tures of surveillance, ways of understanding surveillance societies
and re flective application of appropriate methods for doing so. Some ap-
proaches will be more ethnographic (Walby, 2005b), some of these will
involve measurement. Indeed some suggestions for better indicators of what
constitutes surveillance society exist already. Privacy International (2007)
produced a limited, broad-brush set to coincide with the launch of the Report
on the Surveillance Society; and pioneering surveillance researcher Gary
Marx, has for a long time been advocating such an approach (suggesting,
for example, 27 different characteristics of surveillance [Marx 2003]). Some
will potentially problematize elements that Anglophone researchers regard
as foundational in social science. As far back as 1985 Hamaguchi et al. were
calling for attention to the culturally located understanding of subjectivity
and social relations in the context of research into Japan. Yet by 2003, Rosen
(2000) was still able to detect an orientalist tendency in Japanese studies in
which Japan was simply studied as an exotic mirror for theorization about
western societies. In a complex mutli-scalar, interconnected world where
particularity and globality are always rubbing up against each other, such
approaches must now be untenable.
References
Abe, K. (2001). The Information Society Without Others: A Critique of Informatiza-
tion in Japan. Kwansei Gakuin University Social Sciences Review 5, 5374.
Abe, K. (2004). Everyday Policing in Japan: Surveillance, Media, Government and
Public Opinion. International Sociology 19, 21531.
Bamford, J. (1983). The Puzzle Palace. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Bayley, D. H. (1976). Forces of Order: Policing Modern Japan. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Chilton, P. and Aubrey, C. (eds) (1983). Nineteen Eighty-Four in 1984: Autonomy,
Control and Communication. London: Routledge/Comedia.
Churchill, W. and VanderWall, J. (2002). The COINTELPRO Papers: Documents
From the FBIs Secret Wars Against Dissent in the United States. Boston MA:
South End Press.
Clammer, J. (2001). Japan and its Others: Globalization, Difference and the Critique
of Modernity. Melbourne: Trans Pacific Press.
Coaffee, J. (2003). Terrorism, Risk and the City: The Making of a Contemporary
Urban Landscape. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Coaffee, J., Murakami Wood, D. and Rogers, P. (2008). The Everyday Resilience of
the City. London: Palgrave.
Cohen, S. (1972). Folk Devils and Moral Panics. London: MacGibbon and Kee.
Coleman, R. (2004). Reclaiming the Streets: Surveillance, Social Control and the
City. Uffculme: Willan.
Davis, J. K. (1992). Spying on America: The FBIs Domestic Counterintelligence
Program. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Davis, M. (1990). City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles. London:
Verso.
Davis, M. (1998). Ecology of Fear: Los Angeles and the Imagination of Disaster.
New York: Metropolitan Books.
Deleuze, G. (1990). Post-scriptum sur les socits de contrle. Lautre journal 1,
mai.
Ford, J. (2004). Beware Rise of Big Brother State, Warns Data Watchdog. The
Times 16 August. URL (accessed 28 October 2008): http://www.timesonline.
co.uk/tol/news/uk/article470264.ece
Foucault, M. (1975). Surveillir et Punir: Naissance de la Prison. Paris: Gallimard.
Fox, R. (2001). Someone to Watch Over Us: Back to the Panopticon? Criminal
Justice 1, 25176.
Gandy, O. H. (1989). The Surveillance Society: Information Technology and
Bureaucratic Social Control. Journal of Communication 39, 6176.
Gandy, O. H. (1993). The Panoptic Sort: A Political Economy of Personal
Information. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Garon, S. (1997). Molding Japanese Minds: The State in Everyday Life. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Giddens, A. (1985). The Nation State and Violence. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Goold, B. (2002). CCTV and Public Area Surveillance in Japan. Hosei Riron [The
Journal of Law and Politics, Japan] 34, offprint no page numbers.
Goold, B. (2004). Idealizing the Other? Western Images of the Japanese Criminal
Justice System. Criminal Justice Ethics 23, 1424.
Gras, M. (2004). The Legal Regulation of CCTV in Europe. Surveillance and Society
2, 21629.
Haggerty, K. (2001). Making Crime Count. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Higgs, E. (2004). The Information State in England. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Igarashi, T. (2004). Kabo bi Toshi [The Over-protected City]. Tokyo: Chuko
Shinsho.
Innes, M. (2003). Understanding Social Control: Deviance, Crime and Social Order.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Johnson, L. K. (1988). A Season of Inquiry: Congress and Intelligence, 2nd edn.
Chicago, IL: Dorsay.
Johnson, L. K. (1989). Americas Secret Power: The CIA in a Democratic Society.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Lace, S. (ed.) (2005). The Glass Consumer: Life in a Surveillance Society. Bristol:
Policy Press.
Loo, D. and Grimes, R. (2004). Polls, Politics, and Crime: The Law And Order
Issue of the 1960s. Western Criminology Review 5, 5067. URL (accessed 28
October 2008): http://www.wcr.sonoma.edu/v5n1/loo.htm
Lyon, D. (1988). The Information Society: Issues and Illusions. Cambridge: Polity
Press/Blackwell.
Lyon, D. (1994). The Electronic Eye: the Rise of the Surveillance Society. Cambridge:
Polity Press/Blackwell.
Lyon, D. (2001). Surveillance Society: Monitoring Everyday Life. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Lyon, D. (2004). Globalizing Surveillance. International Sociology 19, 13549.
Lyon, D. (2007). Surveillance Studies: An Overview. Cambridge: Polity Press.
McBride (1994). The Emerging Surveillance Society in New Zealand. Privacy
Law and Business Reporter 1(8 and 9). URLs (accessed 28 October 2008):
http://search2.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/PLPR/1994/112.html and http://
search2.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/PLPR/1994/125.html
Marx, G. T. (1985). The Surveillance Society: The Threat of 1984-style Techniques.
The Futurist 6, 216.
Marx, G. T. (1988). Undercover. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Marx, G. T. (1989). Protecting Telephone Anonymity. Los Angeles Times 13 May,
Metro 9.
Marx, G. T. (2003). Whats New about the New Surveillance? Classifying for
Change and Continuity. Surveillance and Society 1, 929.
Massey, D. (2005). For Space. London: SAGE.
Mattelart, A. (2007). La Globalisation de la Surveillance: Aux Origines de lordre
Scuritaire. Paris: La Dcouverte.
Miller, A. R. (1970). The Surveillance Society: Just How Far Can It Go? Los Angeles
Times, 6 September. C12.
Miller, A. R. (1971). The Assault on Privacy: Computers, Data Banks, and Dossiers.
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Miller, A. S. and Kanazawa, S. (2000). Order by Accident: The Origins and Conse-
quences of Conformity in Contemporary Japan. Boulder CO: Westview.
Miyazawa, S. (1992). Policing in Japan: A Study on Making Crime. Albany, NY:
SUNY Press.
Murakami Wood, D. (ed.), Ball, K., Lyon, D., Norris, C. and Raab, C. (2006).
A Report on the Surveillance Society. Wilmslow: Office of the Information
Commissioner.
Murakami Wood, D., Lyon, D. and Abe, K. (2007). Surveillance in Urban Japan: A
Critical Introduction. Urban Studies 44, 55168.
Murray, L. (2007). Inventing Fear of Crime: Criminology and the Politics of Anxiety.
Cullompton: Willan.
New York Times (1987). Report Says Computers Spy on 7 Million Workers in US
28 September. URL (accessed 28 October 2008) http://www.query.nytimes.
com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE6DE143BF93BA1575AC0A961948260
Newman, O. (1972). Defensible Space: Crime Prevention through Urban Design.
New York: Macmillan.
Norris, C. and Armstrong, G. (1999). The Maximum Surveillance Society: The Rise
of CCTV. Oxford: Berg.
Norris, C. and McCahill, M. (2002). CCTV in London, UrbanEye Working Paper 6
(June 2002). Berlin: Berlin Technical University. URL (accessed 1 November
2008): http://www.urbaneye.net/results/ue_wp6.pdf
Norris, C., McCahill, M. and Wood, D. (2004). Editorial: The Growth of CCTV.
Surveillance and Society 2, 11035.
Ogasawara, M. (2008). A Tale of the Colonial Age or the Banner of New Tyranny?
National Identification Card Systems in Japan. In C. J. Bennett and D. Lyon
(eds) Playing the Identity Card: Surveillance, Security and Identification in
Global Perspective, 93111. London: Routledge.
Ogura, T. (ed.) (2003). Rojou ni Jiyu o [Freedom in the Streets!]. Tokyo: Impact
Shutsupankai.
Ogura, T. (ed.) (2005). Guroubaluka to Kanshi Keisatsu Kotsuka eno Teiko
[Resistance against Globalization and the Surveillance/Police State]. Tokyo:
Kinohanasha.
Ponting, Clive (1990). Secrecy in Britain. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Privacy International (2007). The 2007 International Privacy Ranking. URL
(accessed 28 October 2008): http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.
shtml?cmd[347]=x-347559597
Raco, M. (2003). Remaking Place and Securitising Space: Urban Regeneration and
the Strategies, Tactics and Practices of Policing in the UK. Urban Studies 40,
186987.
Rosen, S. L. (2000). Japan as Other: Orientalism and Cultural Conflict. Intercultural
Communication 4. URL: (accessed 28 October 2008): http://www.immi.se/
intercultural/
Rule, J. B. (1973). Private Lives, Public Surveillance: Social Control in the
Information Age. London: Allen Lane.
Saito, T. (2004). Anshin no Fasizumu [The Fascism of Safety]. Tokyo: Iwanami
Shyoten.
Sakai, T. (2001). Jiyu Ron [Discourse on Freedom]. Tokyo: Seidosha.
Shelton, B. (1999). Learning from the Japanese City: East Meets West in Urban
Design. London: Spon Press.
Sherry, J. F. (1988). The Soul of the Company Store: Nike Town, Chicago and
the Emplaced Brandscape. In J. F. Sherry (ed.) Servicescapes: The Concept of
Place in Contemporary Markets, 30536. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Books.
Simon, M. and Feeley, S. (1994). Actuarial Justice: Power/Knowledge in
Contemporary Criminal Justice. In D. Nelken (ed.) The Future of Criminology,
173201. London: SAGE.
Solove, D. J., Rotenberg, M. and Schwartz, P. M. (2006). Privacy, Information, and
Technology. Aspen Publishers Online.
Stanley, J. and Steinhardt, B. (2003). Bigger Monster, Weaker Chains the Growth of
an American Surveillance Society. Washington, DC: ACLU.
Tajima, Y. (ed.) (2002). Kojin-Joho Hogo-ho to Jinken [Personal Information
Protec tion Law and Human Rights]. Tokyo: Akashi Shoten.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) (2007). The Ninth United
Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice
Systems (200304). New York: UNODC. URL (accessed 28 October 2008):
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/Ninth-United-Nations-
Survey-on-Crime-Trends-and-the-Operations-of-Criminal-Justice-Systems.html
United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1987). The Electronic
Supervisor: New Technology, New Tensions. Washington, DC: Congress of
the United States Office of Technology Assessment / DIANE Publishing.
United States Senate (1976). Hearings before the Select Committee to Study
Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities of the United
States. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Walby, K. (2005a). Open-street Camera Surveillance and Governance in Canada.
Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice/La Revue Canadienne
de Criminologie et de Justice Pnale 47, 65584.
Walby, K. (2005b). Institutional Ethnography and Surveillance Studies: An Outline
for Inquiry. Surveillance and Society 3, 15872.
Webster, W. (2004). The Diffusion, Regulation and Governance of Closed-circuit
Television in the UK. Surveillance and Society 2, 23050.
Wilson, D. and Sutton, A. (2004). Watched Over or Over-watched? Open Street
CCTV in Australia. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology
37, 21130.
Wood, D., Konvitz, E. and Ball, K. (2003). The Constant State of Emergency:
Surveillance after 9/11. In K. Ball and F. Webster (eds) The Intensification
of Surveillance: Crime, Terror and Warfare in the Information Era. London:
Pluto Press.
Zedner, L. (2007). Pre-crime and Post-criminology. Theoretical Criminology 11,
26181.
David Murakami Wood
David Murakami Wood is an ESRC Research Fellow in Cultures of Urban
Surveillance, in the Global Urban Research Unit at Newcastle University,
UK. He is a co-founder and Managing Editor of Surveillance & Society and a
Director of the Surveillance Studies Network (SSN).
d.f.j.wood@newcastle.ac.uk

Criminology European Journal Of: The 'Surveillance Society': Questions of History, Place and Culture

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Criminology European Journal Of: The 'Surveillance Society': Questions of History, Place and Culture

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

http://euc.sagepub.

European Society of Criminology

http://euc.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

by Bruno Machado on September 19, 2010 euc.sagepub.com Downloaded from

Você também pode gostar