Integrating subjects: Linking surveillance experiences to social patterns using Ethno‐Epistemic Assemblages

Abstract

Surveillance can be experienced in a variety of ways, but how these experiences might be linked to broader social patterns is currently underdeveloped. There is a growing body of research exploring the surveillance subject and how individuals may (dis)engage with surveillance practices. This includes (but is not limited to) surveillance as a bargaining process (Pallitto 2013), counter surveillance activities such as sousveillance (Mann, Nolan and Wellman 2003), and surveillance as a process of exposing subjects (Ball 2009). But while shedding light on the experiences of surveillance subjects, how these experiences might be placed in relation to broader social and surveillance structures is not always automatically evident. This paper presents an initial engagement with this topic, and suggests that a possible angle for linking surveillance subjects to broader social patterns may be achieved through concepts from science and technology studies, specifically Irwin and Michael's (2003) concept of the ethnoepistemic assemblage (EEA). The EEA is a theoretical heuristic originally envisioned to help understand the blurred relationships between science and society, emphasising the heterogeneous composition and relationship of technoscience and society. The EEA specifically links an individual's contexts (ethnos), and the forms of knowledge relevant to their contexts (episteme), into assemblages, highlighting the interwoven, dynamic, and fluid nature of ethno-epistemes against and in conjunction with other EEAs, and other social narratives. A brief exploration of the marginal positioning of surveillance subjectivities is presented, followed by a detailed description of the EEA, and how it may contribute to structuring and placing the complexities of surveillance subjects in society. IntroductionAs surveillance practices become increasingly prominent in modern society, questions about the interplay between individual lives and surveillance structures are raised. Specifically, what is the relationship between individual perspectives and experiences of surveillance, and those structures that conduct surveillance? "As the systematic attention to personal detail" (Lyon 2007: 14), surveillance occurs through a variety of systems in modern society (Haggerty and Ericson 2000: 608). Many examples are found in the social structures and technical infrastructures of society, such as through regimes of state sponsored surveillance or consumer data collection (Wood et al. 2006). Just as it is unreasonable to suggest that the growing array of surveillance structures can be understood under any one logic or rationale, it is also unreasonable to suggest that surveillance can be understood as being uniformly experienced. There is a growing body of literature that highlights not only the multiplicity of surveillance practices, but also the multitude of ways surveillance can be engaged with by subjects. For example, surveillance subjects have been found to purposefully adopt and use surveillance as a part of (post)modern social rel...

Surveillance as information practice

“…Surveillance scholars have also framed surveillance as an information problem. For example, Austin (2015, p. 296) directly referred to “state surveillance practices” as “information practices,” and Lee (2015) described “the informatic practice of surveillance” (p. 388, citing French, 2014). Surveillance is defined by its inherent links to the concepts of data and information.…”

Surveillance, Technology, and American Conceptions of Freedom

“…As Lee (2015) noted, this has motivated an increase in qualitative research, including study of the experiences CCTV camera operators (Smith 2015), analysts involved in online consumer surveillance (Andrejevic 2002), computer based performance monitoring (Ball 2001), and in young people's negotiations around surveillance (boyd 2014).…”