"Come See How Good I Look"

Because we are aware that we are being watched, we assume a different identity—one that is suitable for camera.  We refrain from running red lights, and we might be more honest if the cashier gives us back too much change.  However, I propose that our awareness is far deeper than directing our actions.  I fully believe that it has a profound impact on our mind, as well.  Playing havoc with the way we relate ourselves to the rest of society, our awareness leads us to wonder—as I posed in The Pen is Mightier than the Billy Club?, “Why are they watching me?”  The only logical answer I have found in my quest has been, “Because I am worth watching.” 

Narcissistic as this is, that is exactly my point.  We have become a consumer culture that is consuming ourselves.  We join social network sites so that we can “stay in touch” with other people.  What we are really doing, is publishing our activities so that our social contacts can stay informed about us and allowing other people to let us know they are thinking about us. 

My discovery that led to my theories was the widespread use of the “myspace shot”—upwardly extended arm at 145 degrees; held tilted away from camera; pouty expression suggested.  These self portraits became the myspace default pictures of girls everywhere—specifically young teens. 

This was, perhaps, the first generation—my generation—to grow up surrounded by surveillance cameras.  I have no recollection of the first time I saw a CCTV.  As far as my memory is concerned, they were always there.  I watched as my friends took dozens of pictures of themselves with the same expression and the same pose.

The girls’ awareness of the surveillance cameras made them comfortable with the personal camera.  Because of this, they were able to take pictures of themselves without regards to the how their self-portraiture habits reflect on how they see their place in the world.

Some may say that they joined a site because they felt left out.  I say that they joined a site because they want to receive attention, too.  Don’t get me wrong, I have a facebook.  I have a myspace.  Now, I have a blog.  I’m a consumer whore, and it’s a love-hate relationship.  But I don’t feel bad for my narcissism; everyone’s doing it. 

 

In closing, I would like to reflect upon two quotes.  While doing so, I urge you to be reminded of which of these fictional characters actually contributed to society.  Both are from movies that became popular among the masses as quickly as did the self-glorification/idolization of the “myspace shot”.  Both are from self-absorbed men who make a living off of their self-awareness in front of the camera: Derek Zoolander, who said, “I’m pretty sure there’s a lot more to life than being really, really ridiculously good looking,” and Ron Burgandy, with his self-declaration of “mmmmm….I look good.  I mean really good.  Hey, everyone, come see how good I look.” 

 

Slum Tourism

When I first heard of slum tourism, I was shocked and repulsed at the idea.  To me, it instantly seemed like a way for the upper class to go on a safari-type quest of ghettos—degrading the people of these ghettos to the level of animals and making them subhuman.  The thought of these people being gawked at as a way for the tourists to “see the way that those in slums live” seemed nothing more than a ploy for the tourism industry to make a quick—and cheap—buck.  There is no way of knowing how a person lives by simple observational methods that are quite short in duration.

            However, upon discussing the matter further, I found that, although not yet too common, had been in practice for many decades—at least more than a century.  They are currently now in foreign, highly exoticized cities—Mumbai, Rio de Janeiro, Nairobi, Johannesburg.  However, an interesting note about these cities is that their role as players in the global market is growing rapidly.  That means that these cities seem safe to intercontinental travelers while still having that appeal of uncharted territory.

            I maintain that these are exploitative and under represent the culture that they are trying to present.  Brief contact with a local resident gives no insight to the living conditions, general thought pattern of the people, or into the underlying themes of the culture.  To understand a culture, you must discuss, not observe.

            While this is by no means as invasive a form of surveillance, it involves a highly voyeuristic concept that will undoubtedly change the behavior of those cultures being observed.  Proponents of slum tourism say that slum tourism actually brings good to the neighborhoods by not only disseminating the truth about poverty, but also by bringing volunteers into the locale to make food and fill water jugs.

            However, with tourism always come souvenirs.  The latter seems harmless, but in combination with the former, it makes a deadly duo that has the potential of turning the economic well-being of the neighborhood—even if it is a slum—into a weak and fragile mess.  If a culture becomes reliant on tourism, even major tourism, any natural disasters, terrorist scares, or swine flu epidemic can virtually put the culture in ruins.

This is especially true if the disaster strikes that specific locale.  Not only will no money be generated by tourists venturing through, but there will not be enough resources to create or buy supplies needed to solve the problem.  If an economy is based on the manufacture of steel or the mining of coal, those goods can be used throughout the region and can also be exported to raise revenues to buy food.  If an economy is the dominant supplier of a specific good in the world market and that supply is affected by a natural disaster, the global population is more likely to take notice.  However, if the economy is based on the sale of woven baskets, jewelry, and other common knick-knacks sold at souvenir stands that lack demand in the market, the world might not take substantial notice, the goods cannot be exported, and the goods cannot be used to sustain the livelihood of the region.

Some might say that an economy based off of tourism is better than having no economy.  However, I believe this type of economy to be based artificially.  In order to have one that thrives, it requires the culture to compromise to the extent that the voyeurism exemplified through slum tourism is no longer simply looking, but creating a view of what the tourists want to see.

Each person is directly affected by having strangers gawk, point, and say, “How pitiful.”  Of course, I have never been on a slum tour, so I cannot adequately account for how the tourists react to what they see.  In fact, most of these tourists could even be humanitarian aid workers in the making.  I am a cynic, but I have also observed many tourists.  They stop dead in their tracks when they see something interesting, get in the way of the locals, and spend too much money on things they do not need.  In fact, you could say that my tourism consists of watching tourists.  That’s how I found out where the Sear’s Tower was located after living here for a year and a half.

 

[Disclaimer: The non-tourist behavior only applies to when I am in Chicago.]

The Pen is Mightier than the Billy Club?

As I have discussed cameras as a method to deter crime, I feel compelled to discuss their inherent nature as being a threat.  Constant surveillance, as Big Brother as it may seem, also gives us a sense of protection.  However, this sense of protection also comes with a large threat.  If we commit come crime that ends up being caught on camera, there is always the threat that someone will review that film and use it as evidence against us.

            When we become aware of the cameras, we wonder why we are being watched.  What are we doing that could warrant the need to have them recorded?  And, most importantly, why does there need to be proof?

            Throughout the 1968 National Democratic Convention in Chicago, police saw the press as the enemy.  The press agents were specifically targeted by the police force during the riots.  In the aftermath, the city contended that they were not targeting any groups deliberately and that, in the chaos that the parks were at night, the police could not be expected to correctly identify the victims *ahem* rioters.  However, any reasonable person is able to discern between a press badge waving reporter pointing a camera at you while his friend takes notes and the real enemy—the long haired hippie shouting, “Pig!” and throwing rocks.

            It seems perfectly clear and is widely uncontested throughout the general population that these police officers truly were scheming against the press corps.  It is undisputed because most of us think the same way.  If we are initiating riots and subsequently committing police brutality, we may as well club some more Lincoln Park holdouts in order to be sure our badge numbers aren’t recorded. If the camera was not present, there would have been no threat to the camera holder.

            This is the same logic that drives convenience store robbers to break the CCTV.  They are already committing far worse crimes than vandalizing a piece of security equipment; they might as well protect themselves from being visually identified.

Big Box is Watching You

With the prevalence of chain-stores in our economic world also comes a prevalence of closed circuit televisions (CCTV). This widely used monitoring device is employed by all the big box stores, chain restaurants, banks, many smaller stores, and anywhere that security might be a threat—government buildings, tourist destinations, mass transit, etc. To live normally in our society, CCTVs are inescapable; wherever we go, we are being videorecorded.

However, it is quite widely known that many CCTVs tape over themselves at set intervals. At my high school, this interval was set at every 20 minutes. A person with average detective skills might find it achievable to solve a crime within twenty minutes of discovering a misdeed, but to grant only twenty minutes to actually discover that a misdeed occurred before erasing evidence seems contrary to the proposed purpose. In essence, the users of CCTVs are saying, “Yes, we are watching you, but we’ll forget everything we see in 20 minutes.”

So, perhaps the purpose of a CCTV is not to collect data and evidence. Perhaps the owners of these cameras just want us to think that we are being videorecorded. By keeping us afraid that our actions will end up being videotaped and, thus, caught in whatever transgressions we may have been plotting to commit, they think we will remain complicit to the standards set by the corporate world of “integrity” and “honesty.” They think we will feel that we should not have anything to hide, and, if we do, we are the blisters on the heels of society.

But, wait! These anti-theft devices, in reality, serve to reinforce the idea of thievery as commonplace. By placing them in every nook and cranny of a store, they simultaneously shout, “People steal from us all the time; that is why we need to constantly watch you.” Through this, we can infer that it is not too bizarre if we steal, too. The mere presence of the camera gives the customer societal approval.

Despite our knowledge that we are capable of committing crimes without being caught, the cameras still act as a deterrent. We see the unforgiving veracity of CCTVs to be a large enough obstacle to walking out of the store with a pack of gum and a magazine in our hands to adequately prevent us from shoplifting. Fortunately for all those frequent “shoppers,” Walgreen’s has already taped over you.

Scandal Mongering

Most surveillance is done with discretion, both in the process of taking the photographs as well as the distribution of them.  For instance, the surveillance tapes of stores are generally used only in prevention and punishment of crimes.  Having—generally—the same goal of prevention and punishment, governmental surveillance is not distributed to those who do not “need-to-know.”

            However, the paparazzi are a unique example of a surveillance type.  With the paparazzi, discretion after the image is taken is virtually non-existent.  The pictures are purposeless if they are not disseminated.  Massive dissemination has led to the creation of tabloids—publishing units with dedication to simultaneously making a mockery of the photographic medium and avant-garde journalism. 

            With regards to sensationalism in the media, the paparazzi are the leading force behind our hedonistic view of “world news.”  In this sense, paparazzi act as catalysts in the photo-surveillance realm that arguably affect the viewed as much as those who are viewing. 

As I see it, the tabloid have played a tremendous role in Western culture’s emphasis on instant gratification and easy absorption of information while also turning it away from details, evidence, and depth of knowledge.  With the recent phenomenon of twitter, the country is relying more and more on one-liners that use catchy or dramatic phrases to grab the attention of its “readers”—if that is what they truly can be called.

By repetitive viewing, we have created a demand for yellow journalism that only stifles itself when we contradict our instincts and turn away from The Enquirer, turn off TMZ, and opt for “legitimate” news.

The Birth of My Paranoia

Growing up in a small to average sized town along the Mississippi, I had little to worry about when it came to surveillance.  The only time photo surveillance came into my life was at the local big box stores and the cameras in my high school.  I thought of these as more of a friendly security measure than any sort of threat to my privacy.  However, after I realized the extent to which voyeurs go to watch their “victims,” I started paying more attention to my surroundings.  Especially in restrooms and dressing rooms, I started looking in vents and became skeptical of large cracks in between the tiles—thinking that someone might have hidden a camera.  So far, my paranoia has not led to a dramatic revealing of any underground surveillance rings.  However, I persist. 

The cameras in my high school were covered by a translucent black semi-sphere.  The translucence allowed anyone standing underneath it to see which way the camera was pointing.  It became a game to my group of friends—seeing if we could predict the camera’s direction based on that of the previous day’s.  Mocking the system took away any fear we had of the cameras.  All authority was stripped.  

But how are we to do that when we can’t see where the camera is pointing?  How do we remain calm when we don’t know who is watching us or with what type of equipment?  How clearly defined are the images produced by the cameras?  Is there talk of putting low radiation x-ray machines in stores so that a security guard could see what is in our bags?  Maybe employees are already wearing smart-glasses that have video cameras and voice recognition devices in them capable of instant transmission to the local police authorities.

 These are the questions that plague my daily excursions into the “real” world.   I certainly am not up to date on the current trends in surveillance.  I don’t know what exactly the limits are of this frighteningly trusted technology.

The only thing of which I am positive is that most of the public is in the same boat as I am—none of us have any idea of how or how closely we’re being watched.  The only thing we do know is that there are cameras everywhere.  We have come to accept this as a fact of life and have modified our behavior around this knowledge.  This change in behavioral patterns has reached a massive scale that has led to an all over cultural change to which the rest of this blog will be dedicated.