Surveilling the marginalised: How manual, embodied and territorialised surveillance persists in the age of ‘dataveillance’

Abstract

The emergence of new forms of data-driven surveillance – often referred to as ‘dataveillance’ – is reshaping how marginalised social groups are governed. It is generally thought that dataveillance replaces the manual monitoring of specific individuals and spaces with automated monitoring of disembodied and deterritorialised populations. This article challenges this view. Drawing on an ethnographic study of surveillance and homelessness governance in Brisbane, Australia, we argue that embodied surveillance persists in the age of dataveillance due to its capacity to address certain ‘power/knowledge challenges’ associated with the governance of marginalised social groups. We show how the manual monitoring of individuals and spaces is central to how governing actors keep track of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness, and prevent them falling into ‘surveillance gaps’ arising from the extreme social and spatial marginalisation that homelessness entails. We also show how these practices are experienced as a ‘mixed blessing’ by people experiencing homelessness, as they have the capacity to result in both punitive targeting, as well as protection and housing-focused support.

Automated Government Benefits and Welfare Surveillance

“…Instead, welfare surveillance has primarily been carried out to meet government's organizational goals, such as increased efficiency and limiting payments to the "undeserving." Even if we accept that welfare surveillance can have benefits, focusing on making "better" surveillance systems can distract us from more fundamental structural and political issues that underlie the production of poverty (Clarke, Parsell, and Lata 2021). Marginalization cannot be meaningfully addressed through better data collection and tinkering with algorithms to make them more fair or inclusive.…”

Fulfilling and desperately needed: Australian media representations of responses to homelessness

“…The city has experienced rapid population growth over the last few decades, which has led to a subsequent growth in challenges typical of urban settings, such as increased homelessness. While responses to homelessness in Australia have shifted since early 2020 due to the COVID‐19 pandemic (Parsell et al, 2020), they have been typically characterised by supportive housing and Housing First approaches (Clarke et al, 2020; Johnson et al, 2012; Parsell et al, 2017), on‐movement or other punitive responses (Walsh, 2011), surveillance (Clarke et al, 2021; Parsell, 2016), and services that provide temporary alleviation of symptoms (rather than addressing causes) of homelessness (Parsell, 2019; Parsell & Watts, 2017). Brisbane therefore represents a useful case for analysis.…”

“…Less frequently examined, however, is how the media represents responses to homelessness. Responses to homelessness range from the provision of housing and support, to temporary accommodation, to “bottom‐up” charity initiatives, to surveillance and policing interventions (Clarke et al, 2021; Parsell, 2018; Stuart, 2014). Importantly, research demonstrates that such responses are not all equally effective at addressing the issue (Padgett et al, 2016; Parsell, 2019; Parsell & Watts, 2017).…”

In or against the state? Hospitality and hostility in homelessness charities and deportation practice

“…The ability to garner information can be attributed to trusted, grassroots relationships between local practitioners and beneficiaries, thus constituting a unique tool of data-driven surveillance for the governance of socially marginalised groups (see e.g. Clarke et al , 2021; Cooper et al , 2016).…”