"Where you think no one sees you - do what you want!" - DIVA
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Bachelor thesis
“Where you think no one sees you –
do what you want!”
Nineteen Eighty-Four and Upper Secondary School Students’
Perception of Surveillance
Author: Tobias Svensson
Supervisor: Per Sivefors
Examiner: Anna Thyberg
Term: Fall 2020
Subject: English
Level: Bachelor
Course code: 2ENÄ2EAbstract The purpose of this essay is to juxtapose students’ perceptions of surveillance to the surveillance portrayed in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. By using Michel Foucault’s expansion of Jeremy Bentham’s discussion of the Panopticon, this essay shows that upper secondary school students modify their behaviour, like the characters in the novel, when they are under surveillance. Furthermore, this essay argues that even though there have been vast developments in the field of surveillance since the publication of Nineteen Eighty-Four, similar notions of concern regarding the impact of surveillance on the human psyche are still upheld by students. This essay expands upon current research which points to desensitization regarding the impact of surveillance on younger generations and a gap between current knowledge and necessary knowledge for an informed opinion. By juxtaposing students’ perceptions of surveillance and that portrayed in Nineteen Eighty-Four, this essay provides insights into why this topic could be dealt with in the EFL-classroom as a means of providing students with the opportunity to develop their knowledge on social issues and cultural features which could make them more aware of the cultural impact of constant surveillance. Keywords: George Orwell, surveillance, panopticism, post-panopticism, student perspective
Table of contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Overview of the implications of surveillance 3 2.1 Panopticism and post-panopticism 4 2.2 Surveillance and dataveillance 6 2.3 Students’ perceptions of surveillance 7 3 Juxtaposition of Nineteen Eighty-Four and upper secondary students’ perceptions of surveillance 11 4 Nineteen Eighty-Four in the EFL Classroom 17 5 Conclusion 20 Works cited 23
1 Introduction
One of the themes in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) is how constant
surveillance affects the human psyche. Written after the Second World War, Orwell’s novel
creates a futuristic dystopia where a totalitarian government rules through fear and
punishment. The protagonist, Winston Smith, reflects upon his experience of living in a
totalitarian state where surveillance by “Big Brother” is one of the key factors of the
government’s ability to control their subjects and tries to subtly rebel against it. In the story,
the reader follows Winton’s hate-filled rebellion against “the Party,” a rebellion that can only
take place in privacy. However, using “telescreens,” monitors that both send and receive
visual and auditory information, the notion of privacy is strictly limited by the ruling class.
The constant monitoring through telescreens, and additionally the constant reporting of
suspicious behavior, i.e., behavior that does not comply with the strict social norms imposed,
have made a code of law redundant. As everyone is constantly supervised by cameras,
microphones, and suspected by their peers, the novel portrays, among other themes, how to
comply with, and rebel against, such infringements of privacy.
The theme of constant surveillance in Nineteen Eighty-Four and its infringement of
privacy is a theme that have been examined countless times before. Many previous studies on
surveillance in Nineteen Eighty-Four have relied heavily on Michel Foucault’s expansion on
Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon.1 The Panopticon is a circular prison with a watchtower in the
middle from where all inmates can be seen at any time, hence the term panoptic, meaning all-
seeing. For the literary analysis, this thesis will follow the same trail as previous research, as it
will examine the panoptic aspects of the surveillance portrayed in Nineteen Eighty-Four.
However, surveillance today is no longer seen as merely a panoptic phenomenon. According
1
See e.g., Michael Yeo’s article “Propaganda and Surveillance in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four: Two
Sides of the Same Coin.”
1(24)to Kevin D. Haggerty and Richard V. Ericson, both the Panopticon and George Orwell’s Big
Brother have for a long time dominated the discussion related to the developments of
surveillance. They argue, however, that both Foucault’s and Orwell’s concepts must be
stretched beyond recognition in order to suit the current developments in the area and choose
thus to use different analytical tools to explore aspects of surveillance (607-08).
Technological advances, both in general and for the purpose of surveillance, have reached
further than Orwell and Foucault could imagine. The expansion of surveillance has been aided
by intensifications and variations in the capability of technology, and the vast and rapid
growth of monitoring devices. The introduction of smart phones, social media, and a vast
digitalization of ordinary life has also brought about new ways of surveilling individuals
through the collection of data and metadata, thus producing the field of dataveillance. Hence,
surveillance today is better understood by a post-panoptic framework than a panoptic, as
information about objects is no longer just collected from a literal all-seeing perspective, but
also through the collection of metadata. While panopticism focuses on the relation between
the observer and the observed, in Bentham’s and Foucault’s case the prison guard and the
inmate, post-panopticism broadens the view to a multiplicity of observers on a single object.
However, Orwell’s portrayal of how constant supervision affects the human psyche bears
resemblance to how students from around the world reflect upon being under constant
surveillance.
The aim of the study is to thematize upper secondary school students’ perspectives on
surveillance and privacy and to compare these with the perceived reactions to panoptic
surveillance portrayed in Nineteen Eighty-Four. Much research has been conducted on which
kinds of surveillance systems that are prevalent in school environments in different parts of
the world, but not much focus has been aimed at understanding how this affects the students
from the students’ own perspectives. Although a panoptic lens has been applied to Nineteen
2(24)Eighty-Four by others, this thesis claims that even though the structure of surveillance is
vastly different today, similar notions of concern are still held by students today as when
Nineteen Eighty-Four was first published in 1949. As students around the world have varying
concerns regarding surveillance, control, discipline, and privacy, it seems reasonable to
examine why Nineteen Eighty-Four can be used in the EFL classroom to deal with these
newly emerged and vastly expanding social issues and living conditions. According to the
syllabus for English in Swedish upper secondary schools, all students should be given the
opportunity to develop “[t]he ability to discuss and reflect on living conditions, social issues
and cultural features in different contexts and parts of the world where English is used” (Natl.
Ag. f. Ed. 2). This thesis argues that Nineteen Eighty-Four can be used in the EFL classroom
to give the students an outlet to deal with their issues related to constant supervision, which
over the years have become more and more prevalent in our society. Contemporary research
suggests that “students’ current understanding of surveillance, privacy and related concepts is
quite basic even though it is clear that they are concerned by current developments” (Eleyan
and Persson 24-25), but also that “[s]urveillance has become a normalized facet of young
people’s online lives” (Shade and Singh 9). Students’ own perception of surveillance is not a
heavily researched topic; however, being under constant surveillance has become a living
condition that many students have concerns about. This study aims to point to a small gap in
the field by juxtaposing of Orwell’s novel and students’ perspectives on surveillance, thus
trying to provide some new material that can be further developed by others.
2 Overview of the implications of surveillance
In this section, the foundations of the theoretical approaches panopticism and post-
panopticism will be outlined to provide a clear picture on how surveillance can be used to
monitor peoples’ behavior. Furthermore, a discussion on the two terms surveillance and
dataveillance will be conducted to make the distinction between the two terms clearer. This
3(24)will be followed by an overview of the research conducted on students’ perception of school
surveillance from three countries. The interviews published in these texts constitute the basis
for the upcoming analysis where they will be juxtaposed with segments of Nineteen Eighty-
Four and Michel Foucault’s discussion on the Panopticon.
2.1 Panopticism and post-panopticism
In the book Discipline and Punish, Foucault examines the development of the penal
institutions in the West and reflects upon the topic of surveillance in relation to this. Foucault
discusses the architectural structure of Bentham’s Panopticon, which is designed to observe
and control its inmates efficiently. The Panopticon is an annular building surrounding a
watchtower, from where one can see into the ring. The annular building is divided into cells,
from where one can only see the watchtower, as walls separate individuals from each other
(Foucault 200). From the point of view of the guardian, a mass of people is separated,
numbered, and supervised, while the individuals are isolated and observed in solitude. This
creates the major effect of the Panopticon: “to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and
permanent visibility that assures the automatic function of power” (Foucault 201). The inmate
is always an object of information. This will, according to Foucault, make sure that the inmate
is always on his best behaviour, since he may at any moment be observed. The effect of
panopticism is successful as the suppression is internalized by the inmates, thus making them
guard themselves. As will be shown in section three, the effect of panopticism is visible both
in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four and in interviews with upper secondary school
students from three different countries.
In contrast to panopticism, post-panopticism sees a vast network of surveillance and
data gathering that do not necessarily comply with the top-down surveillance, observer-
observed, subject-object relation put forth by Foucault. This newer stance on surveillance is
described as rhizomatic, a concept developed by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari. In their
4(24)book A Thousand Plateaus, Deleuze and Guattari argue that all things do not form a cohesive
whole, but instead that there are multiplicities that cannot be subsumed under a guiding
principle or totality. They connect this to bulbs and tubers, which are rhizomes. Rhizomes are
plants which grow in surface extensions with interconnected vertical root systems, in contrast
with arborescent plants which usually grow with deep roots and above surface level branch
out from the trunk. What they mean by this is that rhizomatic structures do not have a mapped
trajectory. They seem to grow in which direction they please, they do not have a beginning
nor and end, and do not necessarily follow the normal ideas of cause and effect – there seems
to be no proper way to understand it: “The rhizome operates by variation, expansion,
conquest, capture, offshoots” (Deleuze and Guattari 21). When you engage with a rhizome,
you do not engage with a single unit or individual, you are engaging with multiplicities of
things, which are all interconnected. This presents a kind of radical egalitarianism where
everything is recognized as being just part of everything else, or at least having the potential
to be connected to everything else. A structure that is rhizomatic is thus also very difficult to
remove, in contrast to an arborescent. An arborescent structure may be plucked out by the
roots and tossed aside, while “[a] rhizome may be broken, shattered at a given spot, but will
start up again on one of its old lines, or on new lines” (Deleuze and Guattari 9). To
summarize, a rhizomatic structure differs from a traditional arborescent one mainly in the
sense that the former operates through connections on a multitude of levels whereas the latter
has an easily identifiable structure, often following a mapped trajectory, making it easier to
eliminate. In contrast to panoptic surveillance, where there generally is a top-down relation
between the observer and the observed, a post-panoptic structure of surveillance will have
multiple observers, and the observers might themselves be observed by others.
5(24)2.2 Surveillance and dataveillance
Surveillance can be defined in a few different ways. Traditionally, there are two approaches to
examining surveillance: a neutral approach, and a negative approach (Fuchs 135). Neutral
approaches to surveillance argue that any form of systematic information gathering is
surveillance, and that surveillance is both necessary for organization and a fundamental aspect
of all societies. Based on a neutral surveillance concept, all gathering, and storage of
information is crucial for both sustenance and development. In contrast, negative approaches
to surveillance regard it as:
a form of systematic information gathering that is connected to domination, coercion,
the threat of using violence or the actual use of violence in order to attain certain goals
and accumulate power, in many cases against the will of those who are under
surveillance. (Fuchs 135)
Strictly speaking, negative approaches to surveillance focus solely on how gathering of
information may be used as a leverage against the person being observed, while neutral
surveillance simply collects and stores information. Discussions regarding what impact
surveillance has on the observed mainly uses the negative approaches to surveillance, a trend
that will be followed by this thesis.
Post-panoptic surveillance techniques are conducted mostly through dataveillance.
Dataveillance is described by José van Dijck as “a form of continuous surveillance through
the use of (meta)data” (198). In contrast to surveillance, according to van Dijck, dataveillance
is not conducted for any specific purpose, but rather just the collection of data for unspecified
purposes (205). However, not all researchers wholly agree on this. According to Sara Degli
Esposti, there are four categories of action which define dataveillance (211). Recorded
observation is the first step in the process of dataveillance, which refers to paying close
attention to a group or an individual by either watching or listening, in order to store and
6(24)gather information. Closed-circuit television (CCTV) systems are a typical example of a
technology used for this purpose. Secondly, identification and tracking are conducted to
identify the object and track its movements and/or motives. Identification is done by
recognizing a person’s identity through analysis of the person’s unique features. Tracking is
done by tracing the individual once it has been identified. The third category is analytical
intervention. This refers to the transformation of the collected data into knowledge through
analysis. Problems might arise in this step of the process if the knowledge produced is
considered as absolute truths and used as a basis for recommendations of public policies or
business decisions. According to Esposti, “when the knowledge produced through analytical
intervention is translated into organizational strategies, procedures and practices, we are
observing the last and most controversial category of action of dataveillance - i.e. behavioral
manipulation” (212). Behavioral manipulation refers to the ability to influence people’s
actions intentionally, however, the term “manipulation” does not take into consideration if the
influence is positive or negative on the individual’s life (Esposti 220). In contrast to van
Dijck, Esposti identifies dataveillance as not just neutral data gathering for unspecified
purposes, but rather that the unspecified collection of data becomes a tool for behavioral
manipulation through analysis and application. However, regarding dataveillance used in
schools, analysis and application are not always needed to modify students behavior, as will
be shown in the analysis.
2.3 Students’ perceptions of surveillance
Many schools around the world utilise different methods of surveillance and dataveillance to
monitor their students. According to Andrew Hope, such surveillance systems include
fingerprint identification, palm vein scanners and iris recognition to identify students’
physical bodies and using them as both a form of debit card, but also as identification for
registration upon arrival to school, and for loaning books at the library (888-89). Radio-
7(24)frequency identification (RFID) is also used to some extent to monitor where the students are
located. Hope states that RFID microchips are “embedded in uniforms, backpacks and
identity cards in Japan, the United states and the United Kingdom” to enable school
administrations and parents to track students’ location (890). Furthermore, in some schools in
Melbourne, students swipe their RFID card upon arrival to school which sends an automatic
email to their parents notifying them that their child has arrived at school (Hope 890). The
most common form of surveillance in schools however is through CCTV, as cameras are used
to improve security globally (Hope 892; Nemorin 248). On the whole, different forms of
surveillance techniques are used around the world to monitor students’ locations and actions,
but not much has been written on the students’ own perceptions of being constantly
monitored. This creates an interesting opportunity to use literary texts to give the students an
opportunity to reflect upon cultural features of their own society in relation to surveillance,
which will be discussed further in section four. First, however, students’ perceptions of
surveillance must be identified. The interviews presented in the texts below will be juxtaposed
to the portrayal of surveillance in Nineteen Eighty-Four in section three.
A recent Israeli article, “School Surveillance in Context: High School Students’
Perspectives on CCTV, Privacy, and Security” by Michael Birnhack and Lotem Perry-Hazan
examines high school students’ perception of school CCTV. The article shows that students’
conceptualization of school surveillance and the way students resolve the conflict between
their own privacy and security concerns “are embedded in their perceptions of their overall
schooling experience” (1324). The students’ statements of resistance to CCTV portray
feelings of mistrust and alienation, while the students who supported the school’s CCTV
monitoring reflected trust in their educators and school (1321). Some students regard the
CCTV as legitimate if they were used “when schools’ property is vandalized . . . or in cases of
a fight [among students]” to assist the police in their work, but not as a means of constant
8(24)supervision (Birnhack and Perry-Hazan 1321). Some students agree that security of school
property and students can be a justifiable cause for CCTV, but still remain sceptical whether
their own school installed them for this reason and were concerned that their own school used
the CCTV mainly for school discipline (Birnhack and Perry-Hazan 1322).
In an Australian article, “Post-panoptic Pedagogies: The Changing Nature of School
Surveillance in the Digital Age,” author Selena Nemorin argues that the digital dimensions of
new modes of surveillance no longer focus solely on discipline and control. While panoptic
forms of surveillance can be present in schools, for example CCTV, the more immaterial
surveillance in form of e-learning and content management platforms becomes more and
more prevalent. Surveillance of collected data – dataveillance – “is becoming increasingly
foundational to the school as an institution of discipline and control and merits attention”
(249). According to Nemorin, hybrid modes of surveillance, a mix of panoptic and
rhizomatic, have gained momentum and are spreading rapidly in school environments,
monitoring both students and educators (251). Nemorin’s study shows that in a school
surveillance context, students also take part of the surveillance by monitoring and reporting
each other. The article focuses mostly on interviews with teachers and headmasters on three
different schools in Australia. However, some students are also quoted, and some parts of the
article focus on the students’ perception of the surveillance inflicted upon them.
In a master’s thesis from 2019, Student Perspectives on School Surveillance – an
Explorative Study Using A Mobile Application Prototype, Swedish authors Ahmed Eleyan
and Anton Persson state that school surveillance is a hot topic in which a lot of ethically
questionable experimentation is taking place. Besides this master’s thesis I have not been able
to find quality resources that investigate how Swedish upper secondary students perceive
surveillance, as this topic is not heavily researched. Despite a lot of research on the benefits of
dataveillance in schools, most of it fails to consider student input, even though they are the
9(24)target users. The authors have a neutral view on surveillance and examine which ways mobile
surveillance applications can offer value from an upper secondary school students’
perspective, and how an understanding of this perspective can inform the design of mobile
surveillance applications intended to be used in schools. Twelve Swedish upper secondary
school students were interviewed, with varying response towards surveillance. The responses
correspond well with Selena Nemorin’s interviews with students, teachers, and headmasters in
Australia. The responses also correlate with the interviews conducted by Birnhack and Perry-
Hazan. This indicates that students’ concerns with surveillance is not isolated in some parts of
the world but is applicable to a Swedish context. Surveillance, whether CCTV or
dataveillance, is seen by students as a means of security, where the surveillance is interpreted
to create a safer environment (Birnhack and Perry-Hazan 1321; Eleyan and Persson 22;
Nemorin 243). By being under constant surveillance, norm-breaking behavior, such as acts of
violence and vandalization, can be punished by the school administration, which according to
many students, is a good thing. One Australian student states that “if a fight happened or
something and the teacher needed to see who did it or on the weekend like some burglar or
something” (Nemorin 244), CCTV would be necessary to find the culprit. This aspect,
however, does not fall in line with the intention of the panopticon, as the observed do not
change their behavior to monitor themselves and will consequently not be analysed and
compared to Nineteen Eighty-Four. As will be shown by the analysis, the panoptic
surveillance portrayed in Nineteen Eighty-Four corresponds well with the concerns shown by
upper secondary students from around the world, rather than with the sense of security, thus
making it a useful tool to examine the emotions connected to infringement of privacy and
modification of one’s own behavior as a result of feeling observed.
10(24)3 Juxtaposition of Nineteen Eighty-Four and upper secondary
students’ perceptions of surveillance
In Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell creates a dystopian future in which the reader can
follow the inner thoughts and actions of Winston Smith. Winston is a middle-aged citizen of
Airstrip One, the region of Oceania which had previously been called England (Orwell 32).
Oceania is one of three Cold War influenced superpowers and consists of “the Americas, the
Atlantic islands including the British Isles, Australasia, and the southern portion of Africa”
(Orwell 185). Oceania is run by “the Party” and is under scrutiny by a totalitarian government
which enforces total control upon its citizens. In this society, privacy and individuality is
frowned upon to the extent that it simply no longer exists: “In principle a Party member had
no spare time, and was never alone, except in bed . . . to do anything that suggested solitude,
even to go for a walk by yourself, was always slightly dangerous” (Orwell 81-82). Being seen
outside of the area of your home or place of work is considered suspicious behavior and
enough to draw the attention of the Thought Police (Orwell 83). Every private space in
Oceania is monitored by two-way television screens, called telescreens. The inhabitants of
Oceania must assume that there may be hidden microphones everywhere they go, or that their
behavior is closely monitored by other Party members who may report them to the Thought
Police if they act in a way that does not follow the norm. Winston Smith describes it as:
There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given
moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any
individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody
all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to.
You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that
every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement
scrutinized. (Orwell 3)
11(24)This description comes very early in the novel and can thus be regarded as a foundation upon
which the reader stands during the rest of the novel, together with an earlier introduction of
the Party slogan “Big Brother is watching you” (Orwell 1); which can be seen accompanied
by a picture of Big Brother on large posters all over London. Wherever any character moves,
they are always aware of where the closest telescreen is located; and if no telescreen is in
range, they must assume that there might be hidden microphones in the surrounding area. The
all-seeing surveillance is almost anticipating Foucault’s explanation of the Panopticon:
Hence the major effect of the Panopticon: to induce a state of conscious and
permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power. So to arrange
things that the surveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its
action; that the perfection of power should tend to render its actual use unnecessary;
that this architectural apparatus should be a machine for creating and sustaining a
power relation independent of the person who uses it; in short, that the inmates should
be caught up in a power situation of which they themselves are the bearer. (201)
In both these passages, the observed become their own means of oppression as the observed
are being controlled by surveillance even though they may not be under observation. The ones
under surveillance, even though they are not aware if they are being watched or not, act as if
they were. Thus, the effect of panopticism is successful. The watchtower in the Panopticon is
in Nineteen Eighty-Four represented by Big Brother. He is never seen in person but rather
presented through large posters and voices from the telescreens. The inhabitants of Oceania
can not be sure that he is a real person, or if he is just a method to keep the population under
control. Either way, he creates the effect of being everywhere, constantly watching them.
Orwell describes him as:
Big Brother is infallible and all powerful. Every success, every achievement, every
victory, every scientific discovery, all knowledge, all wisdom, all happiness, all virtue,
12(24)are held to issue directly from his leadership and inspiration. Nobody has ever seen
Big Brother. He is a face on the hoardings, a voice on the telescreen . . . . Big Brother
is the guise in which the Party chooses to exhibit itself to the world. His function is to
act as a focusing point for love, fear, and reverence, emotions which are most easily
felt towards an individual than toward an organization. (208)
As Big Brother’s identity is covered in a supernatural mist, the citizens of Oceania experience
a similar surveillance by an unknown entity as the prisoners of the Panopticon do. In the same
way as the guards in the watchtower in the Panopticon, Big Brother acts as an omnipresent
observer and thus affects the behavior of the observed.
Similar conceptions can be seen in the interviews with upper secondary school
students both in Sweden, Israel, and in Australia. Regarding dataveillance through mobile
applications, a Swedish student states that “[i]f people know that they are under surveillance,
then they would guaranteed know that if they do something, they would get into trouble for it.
And then they wouldn’t do that” (Eleyan and Persson 23). Just like the inhabitants of Oceania,
the student identifies that awareness of surveillance makes the observed objects modify their
behavior. The constant surveillance is seen as an infringement on the students’ own privacy
and makes them uncomfortable, and the panoptic effect is portrayed. Many students are
quoted saying that they feel uncomfortable being under constant surveillance, whether it is
through CCTV or through collection of data and metadata. Mistrust against the intentions of
the surveillance is visible in all three examined texts. As one Israeli student states, “[t]hey
place cameras . . . for security, but, in fact, it’s just an excuse to spy . . . to see that we’re not
doing things they don’t like” (Birnhack and Perry-Hazan 1321). Another Israeli student stated
that:
13(24)“[s]ometimes, when I’m at school alone after classes, doing homework . . . I’m not
even sure whether there are cameras; but if there are . . . it’s a bit unpleasant. It’s as if
someone is constantly watching me.” (Birnhack and Perry-Hazan 1323)
This can be compared to a Swedish student who also showed mistrust against surveillance
implementations: “It feels like they are spying on you, especially in older ages when you
should be allowed to do whatever” (Eleyan and Persson 19). In the Australian schools
examined by Nemorin, CCTV were installed in corridors, and sometimes in classrooms. One
Australian student noted that she did not believe that cameras were used in the classroom but
that “[t]here might be voice monitors or something . . . My maths teacher said it . . . but he
was probably making it up so that we didn’t do anything” (Nemorin 243). Nemorin further
states that cameras were not used in all classrooms of the schools she examined, but “the
threat of implementation of surveillance equipment was used to discipline and control
students” (243). The threat of being caught makes the students change their behavior when
they assume that they are being monitored, similar to what is discussed by Foucault (201),
thus recreating the effect of the panopticon by making the students monitor themselves.
Various instances like this are portrayed by Orwell in Nineteen Eighty-Four. One
noticeable instance is portrayed through the interaction between Winston and his lover Julia.
Julia is stated to have had multiple forbidden lovers before meeting Winston (Orwell 125),
whereas Winston has followed Party doctrine by having a loveless marriage to a wife he has
not seen in years (Orwell 64). Julia’s experience in evading the Thought Police, the
telescreens, and snooping Party members, has made her an expert in what she calls “talking
by instalments” (Orwell 128). By talking in instalments, Winston and Julia can carry a
conversation by walking openly in the streets while making sure to not have eye contact, and
by turning silent when close to a telescreen or a Party member, only to pick up the
conversation midsentence, sometimes minutes later (Orwell 128). Winston and Julia’s subtle
14(24)rebellion against the Party also shows that there is an anger towards the Party and everything
it stands for. Winston’s love for Julia is largely based in her disregard of Party principles. This
is exemplified by her numerous former lovers, upon when Winston hears this, “[h]is heart
leapt. Scores of times she had done it: he wished it had been hundreds—thousands. Anything
that hinted at corruption always filled him with a wild hope” (Orwell 125). For Winston, any
act that goes against the Party doctrine is a rebellion, no matter how small. In a similar way to
Winston and Julia, some students chose to rebel against the surveillance, here portrayed by a
quote from an Israeli student:
If we want to do something, we’ll do it somewhere . . . Cameras make it worse
because we feel that [people] control or follow us. It’s like a baby that someone took
his lollypop away. He still wants it . . . We want freedom . . . We’ll do it because of
the cameras. It’s kind of a protest. (Birnhack and Perry-Hazan 1323)
Much like Winston’s rebellion portrayed in Nineteen Eighty-Four, some students will rebel
against their monitors simply because they are being monitored, as their anger against their
monitors is what drives the rebellion. However, rebellion cannot always take place in plain
sight, because of the fear of retribution if caught in action. Winston and Julia manage to find
privacy, either in the woods, hiding in plain sight by talking in instalments, but also in an
apartment without a telescreen which they secretly rent. They can only express themselves
freely when they are not supervised. Consequently, they break all social norms in privacy, as
a result of anger towards the fact that they are constantly supervised. This shows that the
effect of the panopticon only works when the object believe they are being monitored but
does not fully change the behavior of the object when they believe that they are by
themselves. The threat of implementation of surveillance equipment used to discipline and
control students noted by Nemorin (243) is comparably visible in Winston and Julia’s
15(24)interaction. However, it does not change their behavior once they feel some sense of privacy.
Similarly, an Israeli student states that:
[t]here are some places in the school that are more public, and some that are more
private and personal. So yes, outside, behave normally, and where you think no one
sees you—do what you want. (Birnhack and Perry-Hazan 1323)
This quote further indicates that students change their behavior when they suspect that they
are being monitored, somewhat mirroring Foucault who states that:
He who is subjected to a field of visibility, and who knows it, assumes responsibility
for the constraints of power; he makes them play spontaneously upon himself; he
inscribes in himself the power relation in which he simultaneously plays both roles; he
becomes the principle of his own subjection. (202-03)
In this passage, Foucault cements the idea that the surveillance in the panopticon becomes
internalized, as the observed monitor their own behavior to suit what is expected of them.
This is further demonstrated by Orwell through a, by the Party imposed, punishable offence:
Facecrime. Winston describes it as:
It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public
place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A
nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself—
anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to
hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous
when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offence. (Orwell
62)
Eleyan and Persson also note that being monitored makes the students consider their actions
more carefully, quoting a student stating that “[t]hey [students] would think a little bit more
before trying to do some things” (21), if they know that they are being monitored. This may
16(24)seem to be a drastic parallel to draw, but in its essence the fear of retribution is similar. Both
Winston and the students must behave at their best when they are in front of surveillance
equipment and internalize the expectation put upon them in fear of some disciplinary action.
However, as noted by both Winston and Julia’s interaction through talking by instalments,
and both the Israeli, Australian, and Swedish students, the self-regulation is only internalized
when the objects suspect that they are being monitored. As they do not suspect that they are
always monitored, the self-regulating effect of the panopticon fails to control the object at any
given time.
4 Nineteen Eighty-Four in the EFL Classroom
As previously stated, the Panopticon and George Orwell’s Big Brother have for a long time
dominated public discussion regarding surveillance. The subject of English in Swedish upper
secondary schools aims at helping students develop knowledge of the target language, but
also knowledge about the surrounding world so that the students can develop the ability,
desire, and confidence to use English in different situations (Natl. Ag. f. Ed. 1). The students
should be faced with a variety of learning situations in which they encounter a diversity of
written and oral representations of the English language through different media. To be able
to understand the content, the students need training and practice in vocabulary, grammar,
phonology, and basic syntax knowledge, as well as the ability to put these skills to use in
different contexts. Reading, reflecting upon, and discussing a literary text can aid the students
in their language development. In their article “Literature and Critical Literacy Pedagogy in
the EFL Classroom: Towards a Model of Teaching Critical Thinking Skills,” authors Jelena
Bobkina and Svetlana Stefanova argue that a teacher should be careful when choosing which
texts to work with in the EFL classroom to avoid teaching literature as a way of only
developing students’ language skills. To be truly beneficial for the students, literary texts
should be connected to the students’ own lives (678-79). An important question for teachers
17(24)to ask themselves when teaching English literature is what literary text to choose. The teacher
needs to justify their choice for themselves, for their students, and in some cases for their
colleagues and administration. What is the purpose of using this particular text? How can this
text help students develop their language skills?
As shown by research on surveillance and its impact on the surveyed, technological
advancements in the field of surveillance have taken place without much consideration of its
impact on the observed, especially regarding surveillance systems used in school contexts.
There also seems to be a gap between Swedish students’ current knowledge and the
knowledge required to make an informed opinion as they have little to no experience
discussing the topic (Eleyan and Persson 25). The students themselves might not have
reflected upon this subject, as it has been a normalized aspect of young people’s lives (Shade
and Singh 9). However, the studies on students’ perception on surveillance seem to indicate
that they are aware of how it can affect whoever is being observed. This creates an
opportunity to use a literary text to reflect on their own living situation. As stated by Beach
and others:
We want to help young people understand the social, political, and cultural contexts
that shape their lives. We want to help them see that the literary texts we assign them
to read are inscribed with issues of power and shaped by ideological influences as they
are created and as they are read. (153)
Studying literary texts can provide the reader with a deeper understanding of oneself, but also
of the world around them. It might also lead to a greater understanding of different social
issues and cultural features, thus increasing tolerance and respect for others. Learning a
language through reading and discussing the material being read might therefore enrichen the
students understanding of their own lives. Further, Bobkina and Stefanova state that a
personal response to a fictional work urges the pupils to respond and interact with the text and
18(24)interact with other students to communicate their interpretation of the text (680). By focusing
on themes that are close to the students’ personal lives, in this instance the ambivalent
perceptions on surveillance with its pros and cons, Nineteen Eighty-Four can serve this
purpose, if handled well by the teacher. Bobkina and Stefanova also argue that it is expected
of pupils to develop skills that will help them to understand implied or hidden meaning, apply
what they have learnt to other aspects of their life, and separate facts from opinions (680). By
using Nineteen Eighty-Four in the EFL classroom and discussing how surveillance is
portrayed, and how the inhabitants of Oceania react to the surveillance, the students would be
given an outlet to reflect upon their own perceptions of surveillance, and how it affects them
in their daily life. According to Beach and others, interpretations and understanding of a text
must be linked to the students’ personal beliefs, attitudes, and their understanding of the world
(121), and as shown by the analysis, students seem to have a basic understanding of how
panoptic surveillance impacts the human psyche without having read Foucault. To create this
link, however, it would be useful for the teacher to check both what surveillance techniques
the students are aware of, and their attitudes towards them before introducing Nineteen
Eighty-Four to the EFL classroom. By organising the students’ reflections and providing them
with examples that they might not have thought about themselves, the teacher can provide a
scaffold for the students to work from. As indicated by the limited research on students’
perceptions of surveillance, the teacher can expect their students to have an ambivalent stance
on the pros and cons of surveillance. Surveillance, whether CCTV or dataveillance, is seen by
students as a means of security, where the surveillance is interpreted to create a safer
environment (Birnhack and Perry-Hazan 1321; Eleyan and Persson 22; Nemorin 243).
Simultaneously, the students may regard the same surveillance as an infringement of their
privacy. This can lead to interesting and beneficial classroom discussions as an introduction to
one of the main themes of Nineteen Eighty-Four. By providing the students with other
19(24)material regarding contemporary surveillance before and during the reading of Nineteen
Eighty-Four, the teacher can create more awareness about the topic and further make the
theme of surveillance portrayed in Nineteen Eighty-Four more relatable to the students. At the
same time, the students would be encouraged to reflect upon the society of which they take
part of. To further aid the students to reflect upon their own situation, the students would
benefit from taking notes in a personal journal during their reading. By complementing a
reading journal with questions focused on analysing why the plot turns out the way it does,
provided by the teacher, we encourage critical thinking (Harmer 108-09). By doing this, the
students’ reflections on the novel can create a basis for smaller oral discussions where the
students share their thoughts on surveillance. This exercise would require the students to
formulate and structure their own thoughts about the topic of surveillance both written and
orally. This would give the students opportunities to develop the ability to adapt their
language to different purposes, recipients, and situations, and to develop the ability to reflect
on living conditions, social issues, and cultural features of both their own and other societies
(Natl. Ag f. Ed. 2). The students might also, by some degree, obtain greater knowledge on the
topic and thus be more able to follow the discourse in news and politics, considering that both
the Panopticon and George Orwell’s “Big Brother” have for a long time dominated the public
discussion regarding surveillance.
5 Conclusion
The aim of this study has been to thematize upper secondary students’ perspectives on
surveillance and privacy and to compare these with the perceived reactions to panoptic
surveillance portrayed in Nineteen Eighty-Four. This has been done by juxtaposing these two
viewpoints with Foucault’s discussion on the impact of the architectural structure of
Bentham’s Panopticon. This thesis claims that even though the structure of surveillance is
vastly different today, which is a result of rapid technological developments in the field,
20(24)similar notions of concern are still upheld by upper secondary school students today as when
Nineteen Eighty-Four was first published in 1949. Consequently, this makes Nineteen Eighty-
Four a steadfast text to use in the EFL classroom to help students deal with these issues, at the
same time as it provides them with a greater understanding of contemporary discussions
regarding surveillance and privacy.
Not much research has been done on students’ perception on surveillance, thus making
the base upon which this thesis can stand fairly limited. However, the research that has been
published all point in the same direction. Students from three different countries show similar
reactions to surveillance. Many see it as a means of security, where surveillance is interpreted
to create a safer environment. By being under constant surveillance, norm-braking behavior,
such as acts of vandalism or violence, can be punished by the administration, which according
to many students is a good thing. Simultaneously, the students may regard the same
surveillance as an infringement of their privacy. Overall, the research indicates that students
seem to understand the basic concept of panopticism, i.e., how constant surveillance shape the
behavior of the observed, as this paper has shown clear similarities between student’s
perception of surveillance and the panoptic surveillance portrayed in Nineteen Eighty-Four. It
also points to a gap between current knowledge and the knowledge required to form an
informed opinion, as the students do not seem to be used to discussing this subject. By giving
the students an opportunity to structure and reflect upon their thoughts regarding this subject
in the EFL classroom, the teacher might give them the tool needed to lessen the
aforementioned gap and help the students develop their ability to reflect on living conditions,
social issues, and cultural features of both their own and other societies.
Subsequently, by using Nineteen Eighty-Four as reading material in the EFL
classroom, teachers can provide their students with an outlet to deal with their own concerns
regarding surveillance and privacy in a digitalized world. By taking notes in a personal
21(24)journal throughout the reading of Winston’s rebellion against Big Brother, the students would
be given the opportunity to structure and formulate their thoughts. These notes can later be
used as a basis for smaller oral discussions. A minor exercise like this would give the students
an opportunity to develop the ability to adapt their language to different purposes and
situation, while the extensive reading would benefit the students’ overall learning of the target
language.
For further research I would suggest more extensive studies on upper secondary
school students’ perception of surveillance and how these can be challenged by using
literature. With rapid growth in the field of surveillance and a vast digitalization of everyday
life, younger generations might become desensitized to the impact of surveillance on human
behavior, but simultaneously not fully aware of how monitored they might be. As literature
can be a way of reflection upon one’s own life and culture, the EFL classroom can be used as
a tool to better cope with one’s existence in a digitalized world.
22(24)Works Cited
Beach, Richard, et al. Teaching Literature to Adolescents. Routledge, 2011.
Birnhack, Michael, and Lotem Perry-Hazan. “School Surveillance in Context: High School
Students’ Perspectives on CCTV, Privacy, and Security.” Youth & Society, vol. 52, no.
7, 2020, pp. 1312-1330. DOI: 10.1177/0044118X20916617 Accessed 1 Oct 2020.
Bobkina, Jelena, and Svetlana Stefanova. ”Literature and Critical Literacy Pedagogy in the
EFL Classroom: Towards a Model of Teaching Critical Thinking Skills.” Studies in
Second Language Learning and Teaching, vol. 6, no. 4, 2016, pp. 677-696. DOI:
10.14746/ssllt.2016.6.4.6 Accessed 28 March 2020.
Deleuze, Gilles, and Felix Guattari. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia.
University of Minnesota Press, 1987.
Eleyan, Ahmed, and Anton Persson. “Student Perspectives on School Surveillance – An
Explorative Study Using A Mobile Application Prototype.” Umeå University, 2019.
Esposti, Sara Degli. “When Big Data Meets Dataveillance: The Hidden Side of Analytics.”
Surveillance & Society, vol. 12, no. 2, 2014, pp. 209-225. DOI:
10.24908/ss.v12i2.5113 Accessed 16 Nov 2020.
Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish. 1975. Translated by Alan Sheridan, Vintage Books,
1995.
Fuchs, Christian. “New Media, Web 2.0 and Surveillance.” Sociology Compass, vol. 5, no. 2,
2011, pp. 134-147. DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2010.00354.x Accessed 03 Oct 2020
Haggerty, Kevin D., and Richard V. Ericson. “The Surveillant Assemblage.” British Journal
of Sociology, vol. 51, no. 4, 2000, pp. 605-622. DOI: 10.1080/00071310020015280
Accessed 28 Oct 2020.
Harmer, Jeremy. The Practice of English Teaching. Pearson Longman, 2015.
23(24)Hope, Andrew. “Biopower and School Surveillance Technologies 2.0.” British Journal of
Sociology of Education, vol. 37, no. 7, 2016, pp. 885-904. DOI:
10.1080/01425692.2014.1001060 Accessed 03 Jan 2021.
National Agency for Education. 2013. “Syllabus for English 5, 6, and 7.”
https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.4fc05a3f164131a74181056/1535372297288/
English-swedish-school.pdf Accessed 17 Feb 2020.
Nemorin, Selena. “Post-panoptic pedagogies: The Changing Nature of School Surveillance in
the Digital Age.” Surveillance & Society, vol. 15, no. 2, 2017, pp. 239-253.
https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v15i2.6033 Accessed 1 Oct 2020.
Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. 1949. Signet Classics, 2003.
Shade, Leslie Regan, and Rianka Singh. ”’Honestly, We’re Not Spying on Kids’: School
Surveillance of Young People’s Social Media.” Social Media + Society, vol. 1, no. 12,
2016, pp. 1-9. DOI: 10.1177/2056305116680005 Accessed 5 Oct 2020.
Van Dijck, José. “Datafication, Dataism and Dataveillance: Big Data Between Scientific
Paradigm and Ideology.” Surveillance & Society, vol. 12, no. 2, 2014, pp. 197-208.
https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v12i2.4776 Accessed 5 Oct 2020.
Yeo, Michael. “Propaganda and Surveillance in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four: Two
Sides of the Same Coin.” Global Media Journal - Canadian Edition, 2010, vol. 3, no.
2, pp. 49-66.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49596464_Propaganda_and_Surveillance_in
_George_Orwell's_Nineteen_Eighty-Four_Two_Sides_of_the_Same_Coin Accessed 1
Oct 2020.
24(24)You can also read
