Assemblage Negative - DDI 2015 ST - Case Case D Haggerty specific Haggerty misrepresents the surveillance subject as the operator of surveillance

Assemblage Negative - DDI 2015 ST - Case Case D Haggerty...

This preview shows page 1 - 5 out of 22 pages.

Image of page 1
Case
Image of page 2
Case D
Image of page 3
Haggerty specific Haggerty misrepresents the surveillance subject as the operator of surveillance systems. McGrath, 4 (John E. Loving Big Brother: Performance, Privacy and Surveillance Space . London: Routledge, 2004. 189. Print. Accessed 7/23/15) POTLUCK Spivak suggests that readings of the desiring machine which de- emphasize the subject in fact simply de-problematize it - reinstating a transcendental subject . We have seen throughout our analysis Of surveillance space that the self uptaking the performativity of this space finds itself ambiguously placed in relation to subject/object positio n. As in speech acts, when the object of an enunciation may need to be subjectively involved in the speech act for it to be 'happy', so in our relation to surveillance space we subjectively uptake our object position in the space. As noted particularly in Chapter 2, part of this uptake of our object position may involve the fantasy of a transcendental subject outside ourselves, perhaps linked to the role Of the super-ego in our psyches. Scher's installations remind us that this transcendental subject is indeed a fantasy. In fact, there is no Big Brother to watch us. Which is not to say (and Scher certainly would not say) that the effect Of surveillance systems cannot be real and ominous. Certainly, there are agents in the creation of surveillance systems whose intents of control are real; but they are not comprehensive and they are exceeded by the network of systems. Police chiefs may fantasize about total visual overview of city centres; banks may long to link our credit and medical records; politicians may wish to predict and marginalize trouble makers, but the growth of surveillance systems exceeds all Of these desires . It is understandable, then, if, as in Spivak's reading of Deleuze and Guattari, the desiring machine of surveillance seems to create a fantasy of a transcendental surveil- lance subject (Big Brother), but, following Spivak, it is dangerous if we confuse this subject with the subaltern operators of surveillance systems. The gaze isn’t unidirectional like Haggerty claims Caluya, 10 (Gilbert Caluya, "The Post-panoptic Society? Reassessing Foucault in Surveillance Studies." Social Identities 16.5 (September 15, 2010): 621-33. Accesed 7/24/15) POTLUCK Despite Haggerty and Ericson’s allusion to Foucault’s theory of power, it is clear that they have misinterpreted it when they suggest that Foucault’s panopticon could be read as an extension of Orwell’s Big Brother . Similarly, Mathiesen makes the mistake of fetishising the power of the gaze and failing to see how the gaze is only a mechanism of power within a certain concrete assemblage. Both articles presume the gaze to be unidirectional, both make the mistake of presuming the gaze to have an inherent power and, importantly, both reinstate a sovereign subject behind power. This is obvious from their fetishisation of the watcher as opposed to the watched. Far from moving ‘ beyond Foucault ’
Image of page 4
Image of page 5

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture