This particular post is going to be a compilation of several thoughts that came to me during the last few lectures of the semester. Though Kate has already heard them, I figured it would be nice to record them... for posterity. Most of them have to do with surveillance.
First, in class, Mel brought up the topic of washrooms. She told us how much she hates being able to hear the other women in the bathroom while they pee. When I heard this, it got me thinking. The dynamics of washrooms is completely different for men and women. Though women may be able to hear one another, at least they're separated by stalls. Most men's washrooms don't have any form of separation between urinals. Thus, there is that unwritten and unspoken code that men must avoid all eye-contact, and simply look straight ahead. This proximity also means that we can heard each other. Thus, men have the added factor of sight when conducting this particular business. A bit of extra surveillance (such as a guard) probably wouldn't hurt us nearly as much as it would the ladies. But then, am I saying that I would like to have surveillance even in washrooms? No. Never. It wouldn't be doing a favour to those with shy bladders.
The second thing that got me thinking was Jared's comment regarding God. He posited that with the disappearance of God in our societies (relatively speaking...), we have much less surveillance to put up with, since the eyes of God never leave you. As a result, the constant video surveillance we are under would constitute a downgrade of that, considering that these cameras (currently) do not cover every single location; you still have a good deal of privacy.
Though I don't quite know where Jared stands on this issue (I can guess though), I am an atheist, and I would disagree with his point. While I can agree that cameras may be a step down in terms of absolute surveillance, I do not agree that they are necessarily better, for two reasons. First, I never believed in God, even as a kid. Thus, I've never really felt the eyes of God on me, and never felt bound by that. This has never stopped me from trying to do what I think is right. Secondly, and more importantly, the footage captured by cameras is reviewed (or viewed, if live) by other humans like ourselves. God may be judging us based on our actions, but he is also omniscient, and probably doesn't care if you happen to pick your nose while you're at the mall. However, security guard #1 is probably laughing his ass off, and showing security guards #2 and 3. They may even have put it up on youtube. Thus, the problem with this type of surveillance is that although it is not absolute, the people doing the watching are just as fallible as we are, and you can be sure that they are casting hasty, uninformed judgements upon those they spy upon. Lastly, were it not for this type of surveillance, I would have even more privacy, given that I don't have God watching me, and I wouldn't have cameras recording my every move. Accepting cameras as a lesser evil to the surveillance of God would be like telling oneself that the Alberta Sterilization Act wasn't so bad, because at least we didn't kill any of the feeble-minded; we simply sterilized them.
This brings me to a point that Phil has made a few times, and that I have been mulling over. Phil claims that surveillance is only bad if you have done something wrong. I would argue that this is not the case. As I pointed out above, the people watching you through that camera are human, and prone to making fun of people. More importantly though, cameras actually RECORD what you do. Let's use a concrete example to illustrate my point: you're at a mall, in plain sight of a camera (though you probably haven't noticed it), and you sneeze without putting your hand in front of your mouth. Normally, if someone else had seen you do it, you'd have a chance to pass it off as something else, or otherwise redeem yourself in their eyes, by justifying yourself. However, that camera and its footage will not accept excuses, and won't be fooled by any of your attempts at saving face. Instead, that camera will remember what happened with completely clarity. More importantly, the person watching can access that footage. What happens if they post this footage on youtube? Next thing you know, you could be framed as a threat to public health, simply because of this, despite the fact that people everywhere are doing it all the time. Why you?
The problem with this kind of surveillance is that you are under much closer scrutiny than you otherwise would be, even surrounded by dozens of people. A camera will catch every single little thing you do, every slip up. Thus, with this kind of scrutiny, it is easy for people to become far more critical of one another, because we can more clearly see each other's flaws. We are all human, and we are all flawed (usually in much the same ways). However, we all have ways of hiding these flaws, or passing them off as something else. With cameras, these mechanisms cannot work, and so they are able to pierce this veil of perfection that we cast around ourselves. Thus, I would argue that constant surveillance can only lead to more problems, because we are being held to a much greater standard that none of us are capable of upholding.
No comments:
Post a Comment