Mass surveillance and the global Panopticon
In 1786 the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham came up with the Panopticon, a prison design where the warden’s tower is located in the middle of a round chamber of open cells. The warden can look into any cell at any time, but the prisoner never knows if they’re being watched. The design was based on the internalisation of power, an idea central to Bentham’s work; he described his project as ‘a new mode of obtaining power of mind over mind, in a quantity hitherto without example.’ In this essay I will explain how the mass surveillance that the modern age has enabled has put us on the fast track to a global panopticon of unforeseeable scale, and what implications this may have.
Fundamentally, the internalisation of power is based on the ever present feeling of being watched. In a panopticon, the prisoner never knows if the warden is looking at their cell, and must therefore always act as if he is. It has the goal of making the dominance that the warden has over the prisoner central to the prisoner’s character, so that the behavioural changes made during their incarceration persist after their release. With this, Bentham attempted to reform social undesirables into law-abiding citizens, and while not many Panopticons were actually built, the idea became very popular as a way of describing the influence invisible surveillance has on people. However, many people with less noble intentions than Bentham picked up on it as well. Mass surveillance of civilians by state intelligence agencies as a way of neutralising ideological nonconformists became a hallmark of the totalitarian socialist states of the 20th century, and was resoundingly condemned by the west. Almost three decades later, this seems ironic, as the west has become the world’s most pervasive perpetrator of mass surveillance.
Although the world has already changed in myriad ways since the beginning of the 21st century, most would agree that the rise of the information age constitutes the biggest shift yet. It has transformed almost every aspect of our lives, including surveillance. While mass surveillance was certainly possible before the advent of the internet, its scope has changed radically. The 9/11 attacks and the subsequent perceived rise in the threat of Islamic terror made governments across the globe anxious about their internet intelligence infrastructure, especially as more and more terrorists started organising themselves via social media. This prompted a strong response from intelligence agencies, as the civil liberties that were always a central aspect of real-world surveillance seemed less important than the very real threats they faced. This prompted the rolling out of major internet surveillance programs such as the American PRISM and the international Five Eyes projects, the scope of which has only been revealed in the past decade.
While the leaks about these enormous programs have certainly provoked a backlash, the main public reaction seems to be a kind of begrudging acceptance of the government’s interference in our lives, along with an increased awareness that everything that one says or does on the internet may be flagged as potentially extremist by an algorithm. This reluctant acceptance is the first step in the gradual process of the internalisation of power that inevitably comes with mass surveillance.
While the slow march towards a global Panopticon may seem inevitable in light of recent developments, we have to remember that the world has tackled threats to our freedom before, and that striving for freedom is more human than anything else. We’ve seen this before, and we know how to stop it.
A better world starts with?
On February the 7th approximately 15,000 high school students from all over the Netherlands took to the streets in The Hague to march for the future of our planet. The march was peaceful, in contrast to the twitter activity it sparked. Right-wing politicians and news platforms called it an act of utter hypocrisy, as these youngsters afterwards swarmed to the McDonald's and Burger King to have lunch. The students were accused of double standards: marching for climate action on one hand and contributing to the problem on the other.
These statements carry some truth. Most importantly, they confirm something that, ironically, their writers often try to rebuke: we need to radically change our behaviour to properly address climate change. The unavoidable question follows: whose responsibility is it? Is it the government or big business that should regulate the economy in such a way that we have no choice but to adapt, or is it an individual responsibility to take action? The inconvenient truth in this debate is that the vast majority of participants will say the latter is important, but rely on the first. Or even worse, they blame climate change on large enterprises only, while at the same time consuming their goods.
The fight against climate change is both a collective and an individual responsibility. But individuals often discard action on their part as too expensive, too difficult or without significant effect on the climate as a whole. They see government action, especially regarding big business, as an easy way out. This way the debate turns into a finger-pointing match. The one who is responsible the most, should take action first. This is a trap. Climate change wouldn't be a reality if we didn't drive our cars everyday, go on holiday multiple times a year and consume as much as we do right now. We all contribute to climate change. It is the system that is flawed, but this system is made up of billions of individuals. It is not about who should act first, but about finding a way to change the lifestyle of our collective with minimal economical loss.
Although critics of the climate demonstration are right in pointing out the need for this lifestyle change, it is short-sighted to say that the march was redundant. Collective action often is brought about by demonstrations or other clear signs of the wishes of the public. Besides, we ought to be glad that at least the youngsters of today give climate change the attention it desperately needs. Moreover, it is dangerous to dismiss the opinions or expressions of people based on their behaviour. It would then only be allowed to say something if all of your actions back up your opinion. This does not only scare off people to speak up about climate change, but it covers up the real debate by an overarching ad hominem attack.
So what is the right way forward? We have to realise that the only way to make this world a better place is by accepting both the individual and collective responsibility. This means that we need to refrain from accepting the implications of only one of them, like the left only wants collective action and the right only individual adjustments. A careful balance must be struck between the need for system change and the need for change in individual behaviour. A better world starts with the consciousness of us all. It thus also starts with you.
Planet or Plastic?
One of man’s most revolutionary and ridiculously popular creations, has become one of its most devastating problems. Plastic is everywhere around us. We eat, we drink and we breathe plastic. Even if it isn’t always visible, microscopic plastic particles surround us. Globally, we produce nearly 300 million tons of plastic every year of which over 50% is for single use! More than 8 million tons are dumped into our oceans creating enormous floating garbage dumps, with sickening consequences for the health of marine life and not surprisingly for our own. For too long we have been ignoring the mess we have made by our continuing easy consumption of plastic. ‘We made plastic. We depend on it. Now we’re drowning in it.’ This is mankind's dilemma as concisely defined by National Geographic[1].
Plastic is a material that never biodegrades so it has this long-lasting and fatal effect on marine wildlife when we dump it into the sea. On any given day there is now over 8 million tons plastic particles, micro- and nano-plastics, and more than one trillion plastic bags floating in our oceans. These plastic invaders are having a tremendous effect on the life of Earth’s marine species.
Not surprisingly with such an influx, more than 1400 marine species have already been adversely affected by plastic. Animals must deal with the burden of plastic in different ways. Entanglement and swallowing it lead to, among other things, limited freedom of movement, injuries, diseases and, in many cases, death. Sea turtles suffocate and whales are found stranded on beaches with more than six square meters of plastic bags in their stomachs! Need I say, as marine life is part of our food chain, we will be increasingly suffering from the consequences of this pollution as well.
Year in, year out even more plastic is being produced than there is floating in the sea. This must be drastically reduced world wide in order to stop the enormous stream of plastic and to make this work we need two sorts of innovation. Firstly, there is social innovation which includes reducing our daily plastic usage by raising awareness about plastic's environmental and health consequences. Secondly, we need to promote and support the technological innovations that are producing new recyclable and biodegradable plastics along with more sensible packaging. One of the stars of plastic innovation is our own Boyan Slat who started the Ocean Cleanup in the summer of 2018, in order to reduce the amount of loose plastic particles in the sea. This huge project has produced a world wide awareness of the plastic soup and expects to have cleaned half of the floating plastic trash within 5 years.
To conclude, left unchecked, this plastic soup will be catastrophic for life in the oceans and on dry land. For too long we have believed in the non-existing recyclable cycle of the plastic industry. We are now in danger of destroying the planet with our 'fantastic' creation. There is still time to modify our plastic use through social and technological innovations if we say yes. Say yes to making the drastic production changes needed to stop the plastic streaming into the oceans but do think twice before you say yes to that plastic bag.
[1] Parker, L. (2018, May 16). We Depend On Plastic. Now, We’re Drowning in It.
En blijf op de hoogte van onderwijsnieuws en de nieuwste wetenschappelijke ontwikkelingen!
Inschrijven
