Two of the readings on design really stood out to me, but for very different reasons. The first is Michael Rock's "Can Design be Socially Responsible?" He writes, "Perhaps the most significant environmental impact designers could instigate would be convincing their clients not to produce half the useless printed materials they are being commissioned to create" (192). In my publishing class (English 254) we have briefly touched on "green" publishing, and it occurred to me how much paper is printed, thrown away, and forgotten about. Think about the pages upon pages of proofs used in proofreading. During my internship, all three of the interns and our two supervisors each printed our own version of the proof we worked on. That's an entire magazine printed five times--and that was just one run-through of many! But this doesn't seem to be the burden of the designer, in my opinion--it is the burden of those that access the documents. If the magazine I interned for can be considered the designer, than yes, they were socially responsible for that waste--but what about the hundreds of other people that will read the magazine and make photo copies? It is the social responsibility of all people (both makers and users) of a document, in my opinion.
I also enjoyed reading Schriver's "What is Document Design?" While reading this essay, I was reminded how much I despise trying to navigate owner's manuals and instructions. Though these are not the only kinds of documents that he was discussing, I believe they are the kinds that provide the most strife to users. Whenever I have tried to assemble something on my own, I have never found the instruction manual helpful. The text may be concise but it is often meaningless without photos--and the photos are often black and white illustrated diagrams where actual photos of each step would be helpful. Going back to social responsibility, black and white diagrams are more cost efficient and require less energy and less harmful non-green supplies (like colored inks)--but if a user cannot navigate the meaning of such illustrations, does a good mark on the social responsibility factor really eclipse bad design?
It has certainly been the case for me that a combination of words and graphics is the most useful in an instruction-based document, but again, despite having both components, many documents such as these are simply useless to a vast majority of people. As a rule, I avoid any do-it-yourself type projects where assembly is required because I hate wrestling with documents that have been poorly designed. I never realized it was necessarily the design at fault, but I now see that issues like these can be largely blamed on design.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Representation Videos
**I got my supplemental readings mixed up and somehow failed to write a blog about the supplemental videos about representation the week we were supposed to, so I am doing so now.**
In Stuart Hall's video "Representation & the Media," he discusses the origin of the verb To Represent. He suggests that the very nature of the word implies that something is being re-presented, as if something already existed before and is now being restyled in some way. Though this is a very interesting way to look at it, it is the very definition he is trying to subvert. The definition he continues with is that representation means that something "stands in" for something else--which is the way I have always looked at representation. To me, representation has always been about symbolism. A painting can represent something; Picasso's blue paintings can represent sadness; the color stands in for the emotion rather than scrawling "this is what sadness looks like" on the canvas.
Hall later clarifies that representation is, "the way in which meaning is given to the things depicted." He also states that the gap of representation is the difference between the "true meaning" of something and the "media representation" of that thing. I found this video very helpful in understanding encoding and decoding especially. It is helpful to deconstruct a word like "representation" and discover what it truly means. In a way, this video is a representation of the word representation--Hall takes the common sense definition of the word and finds that other meanings can be represented within it. I wonder if he was aware of this work that he was doing, and I am surprised he didn't mention it.
In Stuart Hall's video "Representation & the Media," he discusses the origin of the verb To Represent. He suggests that the very nature of the word implies that something is being re-presented, as if something already existed before and is now being restyled in some way. Though this is a very interesting way to look at it, it is the very definition he is trying to subvert. The definition he continues with is that representation means that something "stands in" for something else--which is the way I have always looked at representation. To me, representation has always been about symbolism. A painting can represent something; Picasso's blue paintings can represent sadness; the color stands in for the emotion rather than scrawling "this is what sadness looks like" on the canvas.
Hall later clarifies that representation is, "the way in which meaning is given to the things depicted." He also states that the gap of representation is the difference between the "true meaning" of something and the "media representation" of that thing. I found this video very helpful in understanding encoding and decoding especially. It is helpful to deconstruct a word like "representation" and discover what it truly means. In a way, this video is a representation of the word representation--Hall takes the common sense definition of the word and finds that other meanings can be represented within it. I wonder if he was aware of this work that he was doing, and I am surprised he didn't mention it.
Artifact
I am doing my module 4 project on the Biore advertisements for a product line called "Skin Preservation." The tagline for these ads is: "Too old for acne? Too young for wrinkles? Your skin has been ignored--until now." These ads not only reinforce gender stereotypes that women should be flawless and should appear a certain way, but they also manipulate consumers into believing there is something wrong with them when essentially, there is not. Biore is creating a condition about the absense of a condition.
Despite this, the ads are successful because they not only manipulate consumers into believing that there is something wrong with them, but they also gain the credibility of consumers by offering scientic facts and by utilizing pathos in creating a community for "sufferers" of this skin malady to band together. If the ad campaign made women feel directly bad about themselves by telling them there was something wrong with the way they looked, they would not flock to this brand--but instead, the message that these consumers are imperfect is so discreet and so well masked with a we-mean-well attitude that consumers are actually drawn to the products rather than repelled by them. It is this manipulation that successfully gains and keeps the business of these women who really have nothing wrong with them.
One of the main features of the web site is a community that can be joined to discuss having "In Between" skin (the made-up skin condition of women who have nothing wrong with their skin). This gives women a place to discuss their skin problems as well as discuss other parts of their lives--i.e. jobs, relationships, friendships, etc. By offering a safe haven to consumers, consumers are drawn to this product because they feel as though Biore really cares about their concerns, even outside of their skin concerns. This is part of Biore's branding--compassion.
By interpellating women to believe that they are flawed, but by offering enough hope and compassion so as not to completely off-put potential consumers, the Biore brand is stronger than ever. This skincare line has been going strong for several months and has not yet faltered or been discontinued. It is amazing to me that a brand can successfully market a product designed for a condition that does not exist. This just goes to show the power of successful marketing.
Despite this, the ads are successful because they not only manipulate consumers into believing that there is something wrong with them, but they also gain the credibility of consumers by offering scientic facts and by utilizing pathos in creating a community for "sufferers" of this skin malady to band together. If the ad campaign made women feel directly bad about themselves by telling them there was something wrong with the way they looked, they would not flock to this brand--but instead, the message that these consumers are imperfect is so discreet and so well masked with a we-mean-well attitude that consumers are actually drawn to the products rather than repelled by them. It is this manipulation that successfully gains and keeps the business of these women who really have nothing wrong with them.
One of the main features of the web site is a community that can be joined to discuss having "In Between" skin (the made-up skin condition of women who have nothing wrong with their skin). This gives women a place to discuss their skin problems as well as discuss other parts of their lives--i.e. jobs, relationships, friendships, etc. By offering a safe haven to consumers, consumers are drawn to this product because they feel as though Biore really cares about their concerns, even outside of their skin concerns. This is part of Biore's branding--compassion.
By interpellating women to believe that they are flawed, but by offering enough hope and compassion so as not to completely off-put potential consumers, the Biore brand is stronger than ever. This skincare line has been going strong for several months and has not yet faltered or been discontinued. It is amazing to me that a brand can successfully market a product designed for a condition that does not exist. This just goes to show the power of successful marketing.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Artifact
My artifact this week is actually an event that occurred today rather than a visual I saw. As I mentioned in my previous post, marketing that is directed at children can be construed as being unethical. However, since it is such a strong marketing ploy, companies continue to market their products toward children. One reason for this is that it helps the company build a loyal consumer base from an early age. A second reason for this is that children have surprising pull when it comes to the products their parents purchase--many times, as I have seen as an employee of Fannie May, gifts and toys are bought for children just to quiet them when they are being unruly. This, too, is problematic, but that is besides the point.
At a work meeting today, my manager told us that we would be giving out free pieces of candy for Trick-or-Treaters on Halloween night. She actually said to us, "Hopefully this will really get us some more business, because kids will tell their moms, 'oooh, that was yummy, let's go there again!'" She didn't even realize the implications of what she had said, because it is so widely accepted in our culture to market to children.
On a similar note, it is somewhat shocking the amount of parents that come into the store with very young children who point to what candy they want, knowing exactly what it is they like and want, and having no problem whatsoever receiving it. I also have a regular customer who comes in any time she's at the mall to buy a milk chocolate lollipop, and every time I see her, she tells me the story of how her mother always would buy her one when they were at the mall when she was a kid, so now she has to come in any time she sees the store because it's "just like old times." Again, this is a case of a lasting and loyal consumer relationship with the brand.
I still believe that marketing to children is unethical, but I can understand how it works and why companies continue to do it. Marketing isn't all done by the companies themselves--sometimes, children market to other children. This fits in with marketing of "belonging." For example, when I was young, all my friends had barbie dolls. I didn't really like playing with dolls, but I asked for them as a Christmas gift because that was a socially acceptable toy to play with. If I owned and played with them, I "belonged" to the group of socially normal young girls. From a young age, we are spoon fed expectations and norms, and it is my opinion that we reinforce them until we are old enough to know better--and even still, some of us continue to reinforce those norms because we are comfortable fitting in and belonging.
At a work meeting today, my manager told us that we would be giving out free pieces of candy for Trick-or-Treaters on Halloween night. She actually said to us, "Hopefully this will really get us some more business, because kids will tell their moms, 'oooh, that was yummy, let's go there again!'" She didn't even realize the implications of what she had said, because it is so widely accepted in our culture to market to children.
On a similar note, it is somewhat shocking the amount of parents that come into the store with very young children who point to what candy they want, knowing exactly what it is they like and want, and having no problem whatsoever receiving it. I also have a regular customer who comes in any time she's at the mall to buy a milk chocolate lollipop, and every time I see her, she tells me the story of how her mother always would buy her one when they were at the mall when she was a kid, so now she has to come in any time she sees the store because it's "just like old times." Again, this is a case of a lasting and loyal consumer relationship with the brand.
I still believe that marketing to children is unethical, but I can understand how it works and why companies continue to do it. Marketing isn't all done by the companies themselves--sometimes, children market to other children. This fits in with marketing of "belonging." For example, when I was young, all my friends had barbie dolls. I didn't really like playing with dolls, but I asked for them as a Christmas gift because that was a socially acceptable toy to play with. If I owned and played with them, I "belonged" to the group of socially normal young girls. From a young age, we are spoon fed expectations and norms, and it is my opinion that we reinforce them until we are old enough to know better--and even still, some of us continue to reinforce those norms because we are comfortable fitting in and belonging.
Pharmaceuticals, School Advertising
One of the most interesting parts of our supplemental reading for this week was the video entitled, "Big Bucks, Big Pharma: Marketing Disease & Pushing Drugs." It is a topic that most everyone is familiar with, because as the video points out, as consumers we are bombarded with drug ads all day long. It seems that a commercial break doesn't pass without at least one drug commercial that states, "To find out if ___ is right for you, talk to your doctor." I now wonder how many patients schedule appointments and ask if such-and-such medication is something they should take.
Especially deceptive is the commercial that the video featured for Adult ADD. The commercial tries to simulate the brain and thoughts of a patient that suffers from ADD, but the ways in which ADD is represented, it seems as if any busy human being could suffer from the disease. All that is truly represented by the commercial is that being busy and being stressed can equal disease--which is not the case. How many over-worked, over-stressed adults are convinced that they have adult ADD just based on that commercial? Should we really be running to our doctors to stock up on pills we don't need?
I have always been skeptical of medications, but now I am even more so. Typically, the possible side effects sound worse than the effects of the disease itself.
Another interesting point brought up in "Captive Audience: Advertising Invades the Classroom" is how invasive, perverse, and unethical it is to market toward children. I didn't realize how bad it was until I watched the video and saw the montage of brands and logos in the school hallways of the school featured in the video. It reminded me instantly of middle school because we were required to use book covers on our textbooks, and the covers given to us were sponsored by Got Milk? An especially disturbing ad showed a teenage girl with a tagline to the effect of, "If so-and-so keeps drinking her milk, it won't be just her milk mustache the boys will be staring at."
In a 6th grade classroom, that is obscene. If Got Milk? was sponsoring or providing any kind of funding for any program, at least their contributions should have been age-appropriate. Marketing in the classroom is clearly a problem. A school should be a safe place for kids and not a place where their wants and needs are exploited and taken advantage of.
Especially deceptive is the commercial that the video featured for Adult ADD. The commercial tries to simulate the brain and thoughts of a patient that suffers from ADD, but the ways in which ADD is represented, it seems as if any busy human being could suffer from the disease. All that is truly represented by the commercial is that being busy and being stressed can equal disease--which is not the case. How many over-worked, over-stressed adults are convinced that they have adult ADD just based on that commercial? Should we really be running to our doctors to stock up on pills we don't need?
I have always been skeptical of medications, but now I am even more so. Typically, the possible side effects sound worse than the effects of the disease itself.
Another interesting point brought up in "Captive Audience: Advertising Invades the Classroom" is how invasive, perverse, and unethical it is to market toward children. I didn't realize how bad it was until I watched the video and saw the montage of brands and logos in the school hallways of the school featured in the video. It reminded me instantly of middle school because we were required to use book covers on our textbooks, and the covers given to us were sponsored by Got Milk? An especially disturbing ad showed a teenage girl with a tagline to the effect of, "If so-and-so keeps drinking her milk, it won't be just her milk mustache the boys will be staring at."
In a 6th grade classroom, that is obscene. If Got Milk? was sponsoring or providing any kind of funding for any program, at least their contributions should have been age-appropriate. Marketing in the classroom is clearly a problem. A school should be a safe place for kids and not a place where their wants and needs are exploited and taken advantage of.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Representation
Because we are discussing representation, and because one of the examples in Chapter 7 was an iPod ad, I decided to dig up other similar iPod ads. The one I found was this:
"iPod: If you don't have one, you're a loser."
I don't think this is a true Apple ad, but rather a play on the message Apple ads convey. However, I am going to analyze it as if it were a true Apple advertisement.
This ad ties in with the discourse about "coolness" in ads on page 293. This ad is very blatant: if you don't have an iPod, you're not cool. Because the iPod (the only non-silhouetted object that the silhouette dons) is worn and used by a very particular person, this statement states more than iPod = coolness. It is also stating that:
Men are cool
Musicians are cool
People that listen to music are cool
People that play guitar are cool
People that play acoustic guitar are cool
These statements make other statements, like:
It's possible that women aren't cool
People that don't listen to music are uncool
People that aren't musicians are uncool
People that favor an instrument over acoustic guitar are uncool
The ad aims to target a specific type of audience: men that like music and play musical instruments. If there is a member of this group that doesn't own an iPod, Apple hopes to persuade him that he should--otherwise, he is a "loser." Normally, I would say that targeting such a narrow audience is a bad idea--but because Apple released a series of ads to appeal to several gender and cultural groups, this ad was probably very successful. Nobody wants to be seen as uncool, so why risk it?--go buy an iPod!
PL 7
One passage in chapter 7 that really rang true to me was:
"Lawyers refer to the way that trademarks become part of public culture as genericide. The owner of the mark loses rights to the name if it takes on a meaning for the generic type in the market, rather than for the particular branded product" (292).
The examples the authors cite are "Kleenex" and "Coke," which I found to be very fitting examples because the only two examples of genericide in my own life are those. I rarely call tissue anything besides "Kleenex," and every soft drink to me is "Coke," even if it's a competing brand like Pepsi. I had never thought of it as being anything other than a case of, "you say tomato, I say tom-ah-to," but now I realize the cultural implications of what we choose to name things in our speech and writing.
Another portion of the chapter that I found interesting was page 276, where it is written that:
"We can say, then, that advertising asks us not to consume products but to consume signs in the semiotic meanings of the term...Ads set up particular relationships between the signifier (the product) and the signified (its meaning) to create signs in order to sell not simply products but the connotations we attach to those products."
I find this to be absolutely true. The first example I thought of was skincare commercials that advertise younger, more vibrant skin. When we make the choice to purchase that product, it's not because of the actual chemical potion, but the promise that we will look better, feel better, and be better versions of ourselves if we use that product. As the text says, it is the signified, not the signifier, that we are after.
"Lawyers refer to the way that trademarks become part of public culture as genericide. The owner of the mark loses rights to the name if it takes on a meaning for the generic type in the market, rather than for the particular branded product" (292).
The examples the authors cite are "Kleenex" and "Coke," which I found to be very fitting examples because the only two examples of genericide in my own life are those. I rarely call tissue anything besides "Kleenex," and every soft drink to me is "Coke," even if it's a competing brand like Pepsi. I had never thought of it as being anything other than a case of, "you say tomato, I say tom-ah-to," but now I realize the cultural implications of what we choose to name things in our speech and writing.
Another portion of the chapter that I found interesting was page 276, where it is written that:
"We can say, then, that advertising asks us not to consume products but to consume signs in the semiotic meanings of the term...Ads set up particular relationships between the signifier (the product) and the signified (its meaning) to create signs in order to sell not simply products but the connotations we attach to those products."
I find this to be absolutely true. The first example I thought of was skincare commercials that advertise younger, more vibrant skin. When we make the choice to purchase that product, it's not because of the actual chemical potion, but the promise that we will look better, feel better, and be better versions of ourselves if we use that product. As the text says, it is the signified, not the signifier, that we are after.
Artifact: PL 5
While I was reading the chapter on reproductions of art, I recalled visiting Paris and witnessing the sight of the "true", original Mona Lisa. Spectators were asked not to take flash photos of the artwork, both to preserve the copy as well as to be courteous to other guests of the museum. What I found interesting was the ways in which people reacted to the sight of the original Mona Lisa. Despite the rule against flash photography, nearly everybody took photos, even if it got them kicked out of the museum. It got me thinking about the purpose of taking the photo of the painting--a photo of the painting is, essentially, a reprint of the work, and it is probably no better than the quality of a cheap reprint one can buy in the museum souvenir shop. In fact, it is probably worse quality, especially considering that this was 2005 and digital cameras were not nearly as high-tech as they are now.
Even though guards were kicking people out left and right of the exhibit due to their breaking of the rules, it didn't stop anybody that really wanted a photo of the "true" Mona Lisa. It also reminded me that many people take the museum's word for granted. They could have falsely advertised the "true" Mona Lisa and displayed a reprint, and many of the guests would have been fooled. Though true art scholars may not have been, it seemed that many of the guests were not art scholars and probably wouldn't have noticed a difference. There is obviously a fixation with original pieces of art--as seen by the mad museum crowds and the prices of original art pieces--even if the reprint is more accessible. For example, in my house, my parents only display original artwork from their favorite folk artists. They have followed the artist Will Moses all around the state to purchase his original artwork and to have his picture books signed.
I wonder if we like original artwork because it makes us feel richer and more elite, or if we prefer it simply because we're told we should. There is a similar phenomenon with "fake" and "real" purses. Some people would say, "a purse is a purse," but others would admit that it's all about the label. I have to admit, I'd prefer the label--but I'm trying to rhetorically analyze why that is, and I'm coming up short.
Even though guards were kicking people out left and right of the exhibit due to their breaking of the rules, it didn't stop anybody that really wanted a photo of the "true" Mona Lisa. It also reminded me that many people take the museum's word for granted. They could have falsely advertised the "true" Mona Lisa and displayed a reprint, and many of the guests would have been fooled. Though true art scholars may not have been, it seemed that many of the guests were not art scholars and probably wouldn't have noticed a difference. There is obviously a fixation with original pieces of art--as seen by the mad museum crowds and the prices of original art pieces--even if the reprint is more accessible. For example, in my house, my parents only display original artwork from their favorite folk artists. They have followed the artist Will Moses all around the state to purchase his original artwork and to have his picture books signed.
I wonder if we like original artwork because it makes us feel richer and more elite, or if we prefer it simply because we're told we should. There is a similar phenomenon with "fake" and "real" purses. Some people would say, "a purse is a purse," but others would admit that it's all about the label. I have to admit, I'd prefer the label--but I'm trying to rhetorically analyze why that is, and I'm coming up short.
PL 4-5
Something that really stood out to me in chapter 5 was the following passage:
"Benjamin argued that the result of mechanical reproduction was a profound change in the function of art. He stated, 'Instead of being based on ritual, [art] begins to be based on another practice--politics.'...It is central to the concept that reproduction allows images to circulate with political meaning and that mechanically or electronically reproduced images can be in many places simultaneously and can be combined with text or other images or reworked. These capabilities have greatly increased the ability to captivate and persuade" (199).
Given this passage, it seems that Benjamin (and if not Benjamin himself, then many others) were against reproduction capability because it polluted the world and spread propaganda--but I believe the opposite. Though original art works are more costly, more difficult to obtain, and more precious than reprints, I believe the world would be a much different place without access to artwork. One of the central purposes of art is to provide the world with a looking glass and a perspective, and without wide availability of said artwork, art would be even more of an elitist field.
There are several works of art that are easily recognizable to most people. One of these is "Starry Night." Though the majority of the world has probably not seen the original piece, it is widely recognizable because of the reproductions of the work. Reproducing the work gives scholars the opportunity to teach the work to students in a medium that can be studied. In my opinion, these are all positive "consequences" to reproducible art. The comment that Benjamin makes that reproducibility offers the opportunity for artwork to "captivate and persuade" is a very truthful statement, but this technology is much more positive and deserves much more credit than he gives it. Passing art over into the realm of politics is one of the many facets of the discipline.
"Benjamin argued that the result of mechanical reproduction was a profound change in the function of art. He stated, 'Instead of being based on ritual, [art] begins to be based on another practice--politics.'...It is central to the concept that reproduction allows images to circulate with political meaning and that mechanically or electronically reproduced images can be in many places simultaneously and can be combined with text or other images or reworked. These capabilities have greatly increased the ability to captivate and persuade" (199).
Given this passage, it seems that Benjamin (and if not Benjamin himself, then many others) were against reproduction capability because it polluted the world and spread propaganda--but I believe the opposite. Though original art works are more costly, more difficult to obtain, and more precious than reprints, I believe the world would be a much different place without access to artwork. One of the central purposes of art is to provide the world with a looking glass and a perspective, and without wide availability of said artwork, art would be even more of an elitist field.
There are several works of art that are easily recognizable to most people. One of these is "Starry Night." Though the majority of the world has probably not seen the original piece, it is widely recognizable because of the reproductions of the work. Reproducing the work gives scholars the opportunity to teach the work to students in a medium that can be studied. In my opinion, these are all positive "consequences" to reproducible art. The comment that Benjamin makes that reproducibility offers the opportunity for artwork to "captivate and persuade" is a very truthful statement, but this technology is much more positive and deserves much more credit than he gives it. Passing art over into the realm of politics is one of the many facets of the discipline.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
PL Chapter 3
The chapter entitled Modernity: Spectatorship, Power, and Knowledge was extremely interesting to me because it expanded on concepts I have learned in my sociology and post-modern courses. Something new that I learned was the concept of the panopticon. It is written on page 107:
"This concept of seeing without being seen and of imagining oneself being seen when in fact no human subject is looking is what Bentham had in mind when he described this as a plan for gaining power of mind over mind. Because prisoners would come to imagine themselves being seen by the guard, there was no need for an actual guard to be present to keep the community of prisoners under control."
Later, it is written that, "There were 4.2 million...cameras in Great Britan in 2006, approximately one for every fourteen people" (107). These concepts really got me thinking about the ways that we act in accordance to those that we perceive are watching. I remembered seeing at the gas station a few days ago, "Smile! You're on camera!" with a warning that stealing fuel is punishable by up to one year in prison. Surely, this persuades me against stealing, as I'm sure it does to everyone, even if there is no camera in actuality.
Additionally, when I used to work for the pharmacy/drug section of a grocery store, we had a problem with people stealing razor blades. The managers imposed a system with locked windows, but they weren't actually locked--but once the door was lifted up, an slow alarm would sound. If the door was open too long, the alarm would get louder and faster, and as employees, we were supposed to go and assess the situation to see if anybody was stealing. This, too, is like a surveillance camera, but it is a different iteration. Over time, the employees ignored the alarm, but customers still felt as though their actions were closely monitored, and the theft diminished.
It is unsettling to imagine the amounts of security cameras that are present in our every day lives. Most stores have them, and they are a great safety and security measure--but this makes me think of all the movies that poke fun at the security guards in the camera room that sit with their legs propped up on the counter eating donuts. Is their attention to detail unnecessary because the mere thought of a camera watching people monitors these people's actions more direct discipline? At my store, we had several cameras, but nobody ever monitored them unless an issue had already occurred. Nobody was monitoring the cameras in real time.
According to Foucault's panopticon theory, the absense of monitoring is the whole point. Actually, according to Foucault, not only is the monitoring unnecessary--but so are the actual cameras. As people, the thought that we are being watched is enough to keep our actions in check. Being watched is unsettling for most people, and getting caught is even worse. However, this theory works better in real life scenarios (outside of prisons), in my opinion. It seems to be, though this is strictly opinion, that criminals have less of a desire to "play by the rules" and stay out of trouble than non-criminals.
"This concept of seeing without being seen and of imagining oneself being seen when in fact no human subject is looking is what Bentham had in mind when he described this as a plan for gaining power of mind over mind. Because prisoners would come to imagine themselves being seen by the guard, there was no need for an actual guard to be present to keep the community of prisoners under control."
Later, it is written that, "There were 4.2 million...cameras in Great Britan in 2006, approximately one for every fourteen people" (107). These concepts really got me thinking about the ways that we act in accordance to those that we perceive are watching. I remembered seeing at the gas station a few days ago, "Smile! You're on camera!" with a warning that stealing fuel is punishable by up to one year in prison. Surely, this persuades me against stealing, as I'm sure it does to everyone, even if there is no camera in actuality.
Additionally, when I used to work for the pharmacy/drug section of a grocery store, we had a problem with people stealing razor blades. The managers imposed a system with locked windows, but they weren't actually locked--but once the door was lifted up, an slow alarm would sound. If the door was open too long, the alarm would get louder and faster, and as employees, we were supposed to go and assess the situation to see if anybody was stealing. This, too, is like a surveillance camera, but it is a different iteration. Over time, the employees ignored the alarm, but customers still felt as though their actions were closely monitored, and the theft diminished.
It is unsettling to imagine the amounts of security cameras that are present in our every day lives. Most stores have them, and they are a great safety and security measure--but this makes me think of all the movies that poke fun at the security guards in the camera room that sit with their legs propped up on the counter eating donuts. Is their attention to detail unnecessary because the mere thought of a camera watching people monitors these people's actions more direct discipline? At my store, we had several cameras, but nobody ever monitored them unless an issue had already occurred. Nobody was monitoring the cameras in real time.
According to Foucault's panopticon theory, the absense of monitoring is the whole point. Actually, according to Foucault, not only is the monitoring unnecessary--but so are the actual cameras. As people, the thought that we are being watched is enough to keep our actions in check. Being watched is unsettling for most people, and getting caught is even worse. However, this theory works better in real life scenarios (outside of prisons), in my opinion. It seems to be, though this is strictly opinion, that criminals have less of a desire to "play by the rules" and stay out of trouble than non-criminals.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
