This blog post will discuss J. Macgregor Wise’s article “A Hole in the Hand Assemblages of Attention and Mobile Screens”. Wise claims, mobile screens are assemblages and it is important to locate them in the “Clickable World” which is a social imaginary where actors navigate themselves in ‘real life’. A main characteristic of the Clickable World being that, it provides humans with feelings of agency. In saying this, mobile screens have the ability to capture our undivided attention, but they are not attentive to us. In fact mobile screens rely on other forms of attentiveness, such as wifi signals, cable connectivity, or other forms of technologies. Wise discusses assemblages of attention, one of them being the attention of the Camera to Object/Subject. This form of attention discusses how a ‘mobile screen’ such as the camera, can be set up as an assemblage to surveil a particular landscape. Here, I thought of the article “Strategies for Materializing Communication” by Jeremy Packer and Stephen Wiley. This made me think back to their claim within aspects of technology and our relations, given that communication (content captured in camera) is always manifested through technology (camera itself). They mention Foucault,“…wherein media are mechanisms for extending and organizing governance and the formation of subjects” (109). One can see how the development of certain communicational technologies also creates new forms of public governance.
With the rise of new communicational technologies, do you think we are more inclined to being agents or subjects?
The traffic camera is set up by institutional authorities and due to this, the cameras placement has a dominance on those whom it surveils. People seemingly act ‘freely’ in public spaces, but it the objective experience i.e. knowing we are being surveilled, which dominates our subjective experiences i.e. how we demonstrate the self in the public sphere, Once can see how surveillance objects act as a form of control and governance over our bodies.
Upon finding external sources, I discovered the ‘smart city’ which is an urban development that uses information and communication technologies (ICT) and Internet of Things (IOT) to manage cities assets. The smart city uses resources such as cameras that examine cities quality and flow for the purpose of improving city livability. As data accumulates through examining living spaces, it informs others to see if the city is reaching its peak in productivity and meeting peoples needs. On one hand this form of surveillance can enhance living situations, but also, can be controversial upon the discussion of surveillance.
Here is the link for few ‘smart city’ participants today: http://smartcities.ieee.org/about.html
I also found an article that discusses how Singapore is taking the ‘Smart City’ to whole new level: http://www.wsj.com/articles/singapore-is-taking-the-smart-city-to-a-whole-new-level-1461550026. Singapore appears to be collecting data on daily lives of beings, and the government use sensors and camera to monitor the density of crowds and movements of vehicles.
Do you think conditions of the smart city are necessary to improve public life in cities? Or is this yet another way for people to take advantage of our privacy and a new development to govern us? What sort of agency do we have in the environment if we are surveilled and controlled by devices?
Olivia, this was an excellent post tying in Wise’s article as well as our past reading by Packer and Wiley. While reading your post, I thought back to my own personal life in which I found various connections. Specifically, when you mentioned Foucault’s statement that media are mechanisms for extending and organizing governance and the formation of subjects I thought of the red light cameras that are strategically placed in Waterloo as well as my hometown. These red light cameras act as a form of surveillance as they have the ability to track the movement of cars and govern red light violations by giving the driver a ticket. In regards to your question, I believe that this form of surveillance is twofold. Red light cameras as a condition of the 'smart city' are necessary to improve public life as their locations are strategically chosen in places that would be most beneficial due to the number of collisions that have occurred. In this case, I do not feel that surveillance is taking advantage of our privacy as our data is being collected to serve an important purpose. However, on the contrary, in your link to the article addressing Singapore, I believe that some ‘smart city’ technologies are going beyond what is necessary to benefit citizens and are rather taking advantage of our privacy. This is demonstrated in the statement, “This will allow the government to monitor everything from the cleanliness of public spaces to the density of crowds and the precise movement of every locally registered vehicle”.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to your last question, I believe that technologies such as the red light camera and toll calculators for highways provide humans with a feeling of agency where, similar to mobile screens, they capture our attention but are not attentive to us. For example, because red light cameras are required to have signs that tell drivers the intersection is being surveilled, this captures our attention as we alter our behavior. Personally, when I see these signs I become more aware of my driving because I know I am being watched, similar to the idea of the Panopticon. Here, the development of surveillance technologies forces us to be subjects which as I previously mentioned, can be beneficial to society but also intrusive on our private lives.