Is Surveillance Really That Bad Tegan Steane, Sociology

According to Jeremy Bentham “Surveillance is a disciplinary power involves regulation through new mode of obtaining power of mind over visibility (Koskela, 2003). In summary within mind in a quantity hitherto without example” the panopticon, the few watch the many. (Mattelart 2010: 7). By looking at the surveillance of celebrities, this critical Mathieson offered a parallel concept, the reflection will look at to what extent synopticon, where he takes into account surveillance is desired and if so, why celebrities electronic media within the development of want to be watched. Additionally within this new technologies alongside surveillance. critical reflection I will be discussing the Mathieson suggests that we live in a ‘viewer concepts of the panopticon, synopticon, society’, which is not a society where only the celebrity surveillance and the development of few watch the many, but it is simultaneously a new technologies to examine how power is mass media society where the many watch the inverted within the synopticon in comparison few (Lyon, 2007). As the watched are being so to the panopticon. Bentham formed the within a mediated society, the watched tend to concept of the panopticon, which to describe is be celebrities, media users keep famous people an architectural device including a of the global central point, the tower. This gives media the prison wardens a full view of under the entire circle of the building in order to watch over prisoners and surveillance. as a consequence discipline them (Mattelart, With the growth of new communication 2010). The panopticon imposes increased technologies, in particular the Internet and the control through the normalisation of the gaze, use of social networks, both the watched and which produces self‐control and disciplines the watchers become addicted to it (Koese et people to fit into a capitalist society al., 2010). Growing technologies has allowed us (Mathiesen, 1997). The accelerating to watch celebrities every move, from what development of the mass media coincides with they wear, places they go to, what they eat for the growth of the panopticon; the panopticon dinner. Gary T. Marx rightly reminds us and the media structure are parallel in that however, that just because a surveillance they are potential means of power. Power is system has been installed, do not mean people represented in individuals and groups who are cannot resist or challenge it (Lyon, 2007). represented in the mass media (Mathiesen, 1997). The most recognised panoptic principle Celebrities voluntarily put themselves under is the meaning of visibility; the basic nature of surveillance when they make a twitter profile. 15 The most followed twitter accounts are those 2014). In simple terms, celebrities are of pop stars, including Katy Perry, Lady Gaga commodities who are bought and sold by their and Justin Bieber all with more than 30 million fans. Either the celebrity is consumed directly followers each (Phua, 2014). A ‘follower’ and via concert tickets, sometimes they create the the nature of fandom is much more complex object to be consumed e.g. album, or they are than what it seems from the outset, the an endorser for an item of consumption e.g. relationship between the celebrity and their clothing lines (Piazza, 2011). fan is an active and productive association. The prominence of new technologies has enhanced In a postmodern society, focus has shifted fan culture even further; it has also enhanced towards controlling consumption and to visibility of the fans and their ability to express achieve this, controlling the thoughts and their devotion to their icon, through sending actions of consumers. Consequently, the focus them a tweet (Barron, 2014). Fans can be seen of capitalism has gone from exploiting workers as passive and easy to manipulate as they to exploiting consumers (Ritzer, 1997). When a consume various texts and products derived celebrity mentions a product or brand in a from popular culture. There are however fans tweet, their endorsement is potentially who are arguably actively and knowingly broadcasted to millions of people. Fans are bestowing upon popular cultures, they consumers of celebrities and celebrities can consume objects of popular culture and use exploit their fans by selling them more them to express a sense of products, not only their lives/identity (Barron, making them richer 2014). Research has however but also giving them argued that social a status. The tactic to networking sites like twitter, use celebrity which is unique in the sense endorsers is that it that it is from the perspective helps to achieve of the celebrity, means that what Baudrillard they still hold control and (1993, cited in Dant, power. For example, the 1996) called sign celebrity can choose who they follow back, who value onto they send tweets to, etc. When we analyse the commodities. If meanings are attached to a way twitter works in this context, the concept product, they are more likely to be consumed, if of the panopticon is inverted in the synopticon somebody’s favourite celebrity is using a so that it is the ones being watched who product then that product then has an attached maintain the power (Barron, 2014). value to that person (Gabriel, 1995). Part of Furthermore, celebrities have a superior social successful branding is determining what status, however this status could be seen as a followers admire about a celebrity and then the direct result of the capitalist economic system, brand will match products to that attribute. An as being watched can result in wealth through example that demonstrates this is L’Oreal’s use advertising and consumption. The more of Cheryl Fernandez‐Versini; she became the followers a celebrity has, the more companies endorser for their hair products in 2009. will want them to endorse their products, as a During September 2009, sales rose from wider audience will see it. Meaning the position 10,000 to 250,000 by the end of November of a celebrity is being a product of the culture (Mortimer, 2010). Research on celebrity industry, and being conveyed through endorsers and their followers concluded that technologies of mass communication (Barron, the more followers a celebrity had the more attractive and trustworthy they were perceived 16 to be. This leads us to question what this means surveillance can be alarmist however within for the society we live in if popularity and popular culture we see people deliberately attractiveness are the dominating traits to putting themselves under surveillance (Lyon, maintain (Phua, 2014). 2007). In recent years a new species of celebrities has evolved, people are increasingly It has been suggested that consumption is our becoming famous for the sake of being famous new religion; George Ritzer coined the term for example the Kardashian family (Piazza, cathedral of consumption in relation to 2011). The Kardashian’s malls/shopping centres. Ritzer actually have their own (2011) argues we have moved from TV programme where purchasing for necessity to they perform the labour worshipping the availability to of having their lives purchase. Consumption then gives recorded for money, us enchantment in a disenchanted similar to when the society. Similarly just like we Osbourne family did this consume from the influences of the leads me to think do people we worship‐ celebrities, so people want to be does a celebrity culture give us watched? On the something to believe in? By Kardashian programme, consuming celebrity culture, it gives Kim was flaunting the a way of connecting to other people fact she was the number in the fan base, or as they may see it one Google search that their religion. If this is how we really week, her sister then think, that the ‘best’ people to tell us asked her if she knew what to buy, and who we should be, then what she was also second on dumbest people list for does this really say about us? A celebrity New York post and her response was “as long culture may give people something to believe as they are talking about me honey” (McClain, in, but how realistic and attainable are these 2014). beliefs particularly when they cause pressure on young girls to look a certain way. For We seem to be in a society where people want example, celebrity culture in partnership with to become famous so they can fulfil their desire advertising has influenced an increase in to be watched by the many. In this context, it is radical body transformations, a recent example the watched who are the powerful and who being buttock implants popularised by Nicki gain control by being watched thus power is Minaj (Barron, 2014). With these ‘role models’ inverted in the synopticon, in comparison to portraying the body as a ‘plastic’ instrument in the panopticon. The more someone is watched, a consumer market through new technologies, the higher the status they gain and therefore there is no surprise the demands for cosmetic the richer they become through being surgery have risen. If we take Cher as another consumed by those doing the watching. example, cosmetic surgeries have enabled her Surveillance within celebrity culture is to look younger; this only reinforces the belief therefore important for them to gain power. In that the ageing female body is not sexy (Barron, today’s consumer society, aesthetic 2014). appreciation is a key factor in influencing what people consume. Thus, it is usually attractive, It would be naïve to think of surveillance and high status celebrities used for advertising popular culture as purely undesirable with commodities. So in conclusion, celebrity anxious and paranoid response. We know culture reflects a growing desire to be 17 surveyed, which opposes the panoptic Electronic Word Of Mouth On Consumers understanding that sees surveillance as Source Credibility Perception, Buying Intention imposed on us and where the watched are And Social Identification With Celebrities. viewed as powerless. Journal Of Advertising, 43(2), 181‐195.

Piazza, J. (2011). How Famous People Make Money (1st Ed.). New York: Open Road.

Ritzer, G. (1997). Postmodern Social Theory (1st Bibliography Ed.). New York: Mcgraw‐Hill.

Barron, L. (2014). Celebrity Cultures ‐ An Ritzer, G. (2011). The Concise Encyclopaedia Of Introduction. Los Angeles: SAGE. Sociology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Baudrillard, J. (1993). Symbolic Exchange And Storey, J. (2006). Cultural Theory And Popular Death. London: SAGE. Culture (4th Ed.). Edinburgh: Pearson.

Gabriel, Y. (1995). The Unmanageable Images: Consumer (1st Ed.). London: SAGE. Pixabay (2015a). Available at: Koese, H., Han, T., Bakan, U. (2010). The https://pixabay.com/static/uploads/photo/20 Changing Nature Of Communication And 15/07/27/08/19/social‐media‐ Surveillance Phenomena At Synopticon Stage. 862133_960_720.jpg [Accessed 02 Mai 2016]. Journal Of Alternative Perspectives In The Social Sciences, 2(2), 523‐549. Pixabay (2015b): Available at: https://pixabay.com/static/uploads/photo/20 Koskela, H. (2003). Cam Era‐ The 15/07/15/13/15/follow‐846171_960_720.png Contemporary Urban Panopticon. Surveillance [Accessed 02 Mai 2016]. And Society, 1(3), 292‐313. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_consume Lyon, D. (2007). Surveillance Studies (1st Ed.). ricus Cambridge: Polity.

Mathiesen, T. (1997). The Viewer Society: Michel Foucault's 'Panopticon' Revisited. Theoretical Criminology, 1(2), 215‐234.

Mattelart, A. (2010). The Globalisation Of Surveillance (2nd Ed.). Cambridge: Policy Press.

McClain, A. (2014). Keeping Up With The Kardashians Brand: Celebrity, Materialism And Sexuality (1st Ed.). Lanham: Lexington Books.

Mortimer, R. (2010). A‐List Stars Give Brand Campaign The X‐Factor. Marketing Week, 33(6), 22‐23.

Phua, J. (2014). Following Celebrities Tweets About Brands: The Impact Of Twitter Based

18