THE CHANGING TYPES OF SOCIAL SURVEILLANCE THROUGH GLOBALIZATION
Keywords:Globalization, Surveillance, Panopticon, Synopticon, Omniopticon
Each individual takes part in social surveillance both as the watcher and the watched. The degree of watching and being watched, however, shows a substantial change as the world becomes more globalized. There are three main types of social surveillance, based on whether the space that is being watched is somewhere local, global or a cyberspace. The first type of surveillance is considered a Panopticon emerged with modernism, where a small group of people watches over a larger group of people. The second one is the Synopticon where the many watch over the few. Emerged especially with the growth of the mass media, the Synopticon is the product of a more globalized world when compared to the concept of Panopticon. The third type of surveillance is the Omnipticon, where both Panopticon and Synopticon are applied simultaneously. While the globalization has stripped a minority of the privilege of watching and conferred it on the whole of society, surveillance has gradually begun to evolve from a mean of psychological pressure into an alluring psychological desire. As the world becomes more globalized, the grip of social control becomes firmer and stronger than thought even though the physical local pressures on the individual seem to have been diminished. While it might seem liberating at first sight, the globalization also leads to an anti-emancipatory world.
Bauman, Z. (2017). Küreselleşme. İstanbul: Ayrıntı .
Bentham, J. (2010). Panopticon: Or The Inspection House. Kessinger Publishing, LLC.
Çam, A. (2015). Al Gözüm Seyreyle Dünyayı. Varlık (1295), 12-16.
Foucault, M. (2000). Hapishanenin Doğuşu . Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
Garland, D. (2008). Panopticon Days. Criminal Justice Matters , 20 (1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1080/09627259508552708
Johnson, D. G. (2001). Computer Ethics. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc. https://doi.org/10.1086/233589
Lyon, D. (2003). Fear, Surveillance, and Consumption. The Hedgehog Review, Critical Reflections on Contemporary Culture , 5 (3), 81-95.
Marwick, A. E. (2012). The Public Domain: Social Surveillance in Everyday Life . Surveillance & Society , 9 (4), 378-393.
Mathiensen, T. (1997). The Viwer Society: Micheal Foucault’s “Panopticon” Revisited. Theroical Criminology , 1 (2), 215-234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480697001002003
Pimenta, E. D. (2011). Low Power Society. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Romele, A., Gallino, F., Emmenegger, C., & Gorgone, D. (2017). Panopticism is not Enough: Social Media as Technologies of Voluntary Servitude . Surveillance & Society , 15 (2), 204-221.
Rosen, J. (2004). The Naked Crow, Reclaiming Security and Freedom in an Anxious Age. New York: Random House.
Senett, R. (2005). Otorite. İstanbul: Ayrıntı.
Turow, J. (2006). Niche Envy: Marketing Discrimination in the Digital Age . Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Tutal, N. (2015). İktidarın Bakışını Cezbetmek. Varlık (1295).
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2018 Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.