| Nome: | Descrição: | Tamanho: | Formato: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.7 MB | Adobe PDF |
Orientador(es)
Resumo(s)
Many theorists have argued that surveillance has become the dominant organizing method of social
activities in late modernity. Given the increased prevalence and employment of surveillance
systems around the world, this thesis seeks to trace and contextualize the developments in
surveillance, both theoretically and practically, that have led to its current extent and nature. We
begin by analyzing the philosophical theories that provide the normative frameworks which
condone, recommend, limit and make it meaningful. This comprises Jeremy Bentham’s
“Panopticon,” Michel Foucault’s “Disciplinary Societies” and “Panopticism,” Fredrick Winslow
Taylor’s “Scientific Management,” and Gilles Deleuze’s “Societies of Control.”
Next, we describe the difference that digital technologies make to surveillance systems, namely
that the former greatly enhance the latter’s ubiquity. As we shall see, COVID-19 is an important
subject of analysis regarding surveillance since it has triggered an acceleration of technological
development and influence. This second chapter will hence examine surveillance on three levels,
describing the contexts in which surveillance has developed in each level, and how it is developing
as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The first concerns surveillance on a National Level,
with a focus on government surveillance. The second involves surveillance on a City Level,
including smart city operations and workplace surveillance, and the third assesses surveillance on
a Personal Level, covering social media surveillance and smart home technology.
In the final chapter, we underscore certain aspects of modern surveillance practices where either
Bentham, Foucault, Taylor, or Deleuze’s principles are implicit. For social media surveillance, we
also draw from Shoshana Zuboff’s concept of “surveillance capitalism”. Lastly, the inherent
differences and impact of surveillance operations for the current geopolitical and social order are
highlighted, drawing from accounts that shed light on Autocracy’s empowerment with such
technology, on Democracy’s increased potential for misuse, and on the likely repercussions of
politically and socially employing surveillance systems. The conclusion then argues that
surveillance, as it stands, has major potential to inherently and permanently alter the global
political and social landscape.