Ompare and contrast two examples of surveillance culture, drawing on Foucaults notion of disciplinary societies and Deleuzes societies of controla.

How you will be assessed:
a? You must demonstrate that you understand the theoretical debates you have chosen to address. You should do more than a?name checka theories on simulation, networks, remix culture or whatever else you discuss in your essays. You need to discuss those theories in your own words, and show you understand the theories by explaining why they are useful for an analysis of your chosen media example.

a? You must take a position of your own in relation to the theoretical debates you have chosen to address. This means that you should provide a consideration of alternative arguments, and an attempt to synthesize other viewpoints with your own. Your argument should reflect dialectical thinking (this includes exploring contradictions, oppositions and tensions between viewpoints).
a? You must articulate your position in the form of an argument, supported by evidence drawn from the media examples you have chosen to explore. Remember: You must provide evidence for your assertions. Essays full of unsupported opinion will not receive a passing mark.

a? You must display university-level grammar and spelling.

a? You must employ proper Cite Them Right citation style throughout.

Here is a brief summary of the topic..
Early examinations of the evolution of surveillance society were most often framed by the perception
that surveillance is one of the main threats of digitalisation. Today, it is perhaps a somewhat oversimplified clichA© to suggest that all digital culture is surveillance culture. As an implication of what it
means to live in a networked society, computers allow the collection and circulation of all types of
information about individuals and they are often linked up to analogue technologies such as Closed
Circuit Television (CCTV). Databases are used to refine the techniques of marketing and there have
been repeated questions about the potential of the Internet for surveillance (e-mail snooping; cookies;
encryption, etc). In turn, this has engendered a culture of panic not just about the implications of the
(ab)use of digitized information or of how new social media technologies might groom, propagate
socially unacceptable desires, induct and radicalize individuals but also, as increasingly more
governmental agencies and other organizations become networked, sharing our most personal identity
details, intensify concern about the loss of such data and the fragility of the network. Our often
surprising consensuality, in recent years, to this surveillance comes at the price of the erosion of our
civil liberties to ensure the spectral threat of the a?Othera is contained. This lecture argues that it is time to
move critical debates regarding surveillance culture away from narratives of victimization and is 16
underpinned by framing surveillance in terms of a larger historical shift from disciplinary societies,
(Michel Foucaults Panopticon), to societies of control, (Gilles Deleuzes hypothesis on cybernetics).
Are these developments to be understood as a radicalisation but nonetheless continuation of Foucaultas
panopticon, or is cybernetic control a different entity altogether? And how might the rise of what Howard
Rheingold terms a?smart mobsa? a new technologically-savvy and politically-informed social formations a
deploy surveillance technologies for their own ends? We will examine recent events such as the
WikiLeaks affair and the recent political upheavals in Tunisia and Egypt to speculatively offer some
Required Reading
a? Best, K. (2010) a?Living in the control society: Surveillance, users and digital screen technologies,a?
International Journal of Cultural Studies, 13(1), 5-24. Available at:
a? Deleuze, G. (1995) Postscript on the Society of Controlin Negotiations. New York: Columbia
University Press. Sections on line at /
Rhiengold, H. (2002) a?Smart Mobs: The Power of the Mobile Manya? in Smart Mobs: The Next
Social Revolution Transforming cultures and communities in the age of instant access,
Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing, pp.157-182.
(Summary available online at 2003) a?Surveillance and Capture: Two Models of Privacya, in Wardrip-Fruin, N