Surveillance- The Social Credit System and Foucault- II

“I was a dreamer before you went and let me down” — Taylor Swift (White Horse)

Panopticon

“Under observation, we act less free, which means we effectively are less free.”
― Edward Snowden

An easy inference of assigning scores to human behaviour which later forces outcomes is that it leads simply to greater social conformity, a top-down determination of ‘good’ behaviour and the financial and social persecution of deviant behaviour- essentially, streamlined version of totalitarianism than the traditional ‘report of deviance by fellow citizen-sanction by state’ model exemplified in Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451.[1] The interdependent relationship between knowledge and power being established as ‘knowledge of subject resulting in accrual of power to observer’- Michel Foucault’s analysis of Bentham’s Panopticon is relevant in this regard. The Panopticon was a mid-19th Century Architectural design put forth[2] by English Jurist Jeremy Bentham for prisoners but also for other institutions as mental asylums, schools, hospitals etc. By virtue of its design[3], inmates of each cell would be separated and allowed no interaction or communication between the inmates or with the outside world. A high, central guard tower would be the vantage point for any observers who would be optically invisible to the prisoner so he would not know when he is being observed while knowing that the apparatus to do so exists. The Panopticon is thus an idea Foucault used to comment upon the dynamics between people subjected to discipline and systems of social control.

The primary purpose of this innovation of a prison is to instill a different consciousness within the prisoner and allow permanent visibility for the functioning of power. It arranges the dynamics such that surveillance has permanent effects even if the ‘action’ or sanction is not necessarily continuous.[4] The ultimate goal for perfection of power according to Foucault is that it should tend to make the exercise of power redundant and the system to prevail independent of the person(s) exercising power. The architectural apparatus should thus be a means or a tool for nurturing a power relation independent of the motivations of persons exercising it. Foucault framed it as “inmates should be caught up in a power situation of which they are themselves the bearers.”[5]

He also uses the same concept to make the dynamic between knowledge and power apparent. Knowledge that one gains from surveillance as a means to exert or create power is thus central to the Panopticon. The threat of discipline that arises from all pervasive surveillance results in a regularisation or a docility- fundamentally conformist behaviour within the person which earmarks a person’s transition into a ‘subject’- by a surrender of his individual sovereignty of free expression or thought. Power accrues to the observer from the knowledge he gains which reinforces the former, functioning in a circular fashion that to paraphrase Foucault, makes this dynamic reach a level where both regularly reinforce one another in a circular process.[6] The catastrophe here does not lie with the oppression of individuals by the social order but the normalisation of a repressive social order and the penetration of this knowledge power dynamic in individuals causing them to be fabricated in the same.

This eventually leads to the inevitable conclusion that one who is aware of being subjected to a field of visibility by external observers irrespective of motivation, assumes by himself, greater responsibility over the constraints that go with power that is exercised and makes them play upon himself. He then inscribes the power relation that he inevitably finds himself to be a part of and thus he simultaneously plays the role of the principle in his own subjection- something that would have been a dual role if the subjection did not deprive him of his own sovereignty. Power thus exercised tends to be non-corporal and entirely tend to a psychological exercise that the subject may himself not be consciously aware of- this makes the effects that arise from surveillance more profound and constant- it is thus a perpetual victory- the architecture and its designer has already won. Foucault noted that surveillance or ‘disciplines’ are essentially techniques for assuring the ordering of human multiplicities. It inherently gives to the authority by means of surrender by the individual, a ‘power over their mind’ and ensures the enforcement of a dictated order in the most efficient manner by pre-emptively eliminating any divergent thought by means of psychological coercion. This further causes the erosion of any other individual or group characteristics a person may hold beyond the one dictated by the initial enforcer of the surveillance apparatus.

“Nothing is more deleterious to a man’s physical happiness and health than a calculated interference with his privacy.”- Subba Rao, J.[7]

This may be best demonstrated by facts of the now partly overruled Kharak Singh case decided by the Supreme Court of India.[8] After being ‘challaned’ in a case of armed dacoity, the petitioner Kharak Singh was released as there was a lack of evidence. The police compiled a “history sheet” as defined in Regulation 228 of Chapter XX of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations against him. These were essentially personal records of people deemed to be ‘history sheeters’ (habitual offenders) under surveillance. Kharak Singh, who was thus subject to regular surveillance among other things by the enforcement agency sought legal and Constitutional remedies for relief. The measures of surveillance contemplated by Regulation included, picketing of the house- meaning preventing communication of the inhabitant Mr. Singh from outsiders or subjecting them to arbitrary interrogations or other modes of deterrence, nightly visits and random knocks on the door which would inevitably interfere with his quality of life, periodical inquiries by officers into behavioural traits, associations, finances etc and a constant reporting of his movements and absences and the collection and record on all specific activities on conduct. The petitioner here was thus subject to a near totalitarian surveillance architecture as Foucault had contemplated. The optical invisibility of the surveillance system while simultaneously being made aware of its existence, the continual tracking of his movements, associations and finances- essentially modes by which the Police gains knowledge over him in order to exert power would ultimately culminate in the petitioner himself regulating his behaviour- that is curb his own freedoms and be the bearer of his own subjection.

Foucault noted that in medieval society[9], only physical sanctions- essentially corporal punishment caused a restraint in exercise of individual liberty, but with time psychological restraints display greater efficiency than physical punishments and also escape scrutiny and evokes no sympathy due to its invisible nature. Psychological means used to condition a person’s mind need to be seen as sanctions as they engender physical fear and dictates one’s actions through anticipated and expected threats. Thus, perpetuation of circumstances which cause inhibitions and fear complexes must be precisely described as physical restraints as a more accurate characterisation. The idea of liberty is defeated when it only exists in name but cannot be realised due to encroachments on private lives. Physical encroachments on a person’s private life by means of pervasive surveillance affect the quality of life and restrict the catalogue of choices a person may freely exercise and is thus a greater restriction than physical sanctions.

Surveillance at first may seem to be a legitimate exercise as certain techniques of surveillance are expected to pre-emptively neutralize troubles and problematic but intelligible populations but just beneath the surface, one would find throughout history that it was always asked to play a positive role to increase the defined ‘utility’ of individuals and gain greater power over them.

Discipline and internalised conformity is not a mere means of preventing crimes for fear of getting caught but it has become a basic technique to enable a rigid group of subjects to exist by preventing deviant behaviour or thought from ever occurring. The individual’s awareness of the surveillance he is subject of and his eventual conformity by becoming the primary enforcer of behaviour that is externally determined or prescribed is what sets apart a Foucauldian idea of surveillance from a system that merely collects information and the subject is completely unaware of the surveillance in question is thus psychologically free to perform the actions he would have otherwise have performed.

The Social Credit system subjects the individual in a population to an all-pervasive institutionalised surveillance architecture which continually gathers information with the intent to socially or financially sanction non conformity. This contains within itself the characteristics of all other previously described surveillance or mass surveillance systems albeit with greater technological improvements which make it more efficient and thus creates a stricter compliance standard. It differs from a purely negative model as it also provides incentives for conforming to behaviour deemed ‘good’- these are smaller concessions made to ensure greater conformity in individuals who may initially think of adherence to prescribed behaviour as small concessions to gain rewards. The psychological effect however, is similar in that it compels a self-enforced conformity within an individual to ultimately sustain the behaviour without any physical restraints or coercion. The difference is thus immaterial to the broad conclusion that the Foucault’s observations on surveillance are overwhelmingly applicable to the outcomes that may be observed as a result of this great new leap in surveillance technology.

[1] Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451

[2] Andreea Cutieru, The Architecture of Surveillance: The Panopticon Prison, April 18, 2020, available at- https://www.archdaily.com/937611/the-architecture-of-surveillance-the-panopticon-prison (Last visited on September 24, 2021)

[3] id

[4] Foucault, supra, page 201, 202

[5] Foucault, supra, page 201

[6] Foucault, supra, page 206

[7] Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295 ¶28

[8] Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295

[9] Foucault, supra, page 3–14