The Public Domain: Social Surveillance In Everyday Life DRAFT VERSION

A profile on a social network site or a Twitter account is created and constructed against the background of an audience—as something to be looked at. This paper argues that the dual gaze of social surveillance—surveying content created by others and looking at one‘s own content through other people‘s eyes—is a normative part of constant ongoing social media use. Social surveillance is distinguished from ―surveillance‖ along four axes: power, hierarchy, symmetry, and individuality. Based on ethnographic work in the San Francisco technology scene from 2008-2009 and amongst teenagers in the Southeastern United States in 2010, I look at this surveillance, how it is practiced, and its impact on people who engage in it. I use Foucault‘s concept of capillaries of power to demonstrate that social surveillance assumes the power differentials evident in everyday interactions rather than the hierarchical power relationships assumed in much of the surveillance literature. Social media involves a collapse of social contexts and social roles, complicating boundary work but facilitating social surveillance. Individuals strategically reveal, disclose and conceal personal information to create connections with others and protect social boundaries. These processes are normal parts of day-to-day life in communities that are highly connected through social media.

[1]  M. Foucault The History of Sexuality , 1976 .

[2]  O. Gandy The Panoptic Sort: A Political Economy of Personal Information. Critical Studies in Communication and in the Cultural Industries. , 1993 .

[3]  M. Andrejevic The Work of Watching One Another: Lateral Surveillance, Risk, and Governance , 2002 .

[4]  Anthony Giddens,et al.  Power, the Dialectic of Control and Class Structuration , 1982 .

[5]  Celine Latulipe,et al.  Contextual gaps: privacy issues on Facebook , 2009, Ethics and Information Technology.

[6]  Paul Hodkinson,et al.  Online journals as virtual bedrooms? , 2008 .

[7]  P. Greenfield,et al.  Online Communication and Adolescent Relationships , 2008, The Future of children.

[8]  D. Lyon Surveillance Studies: An Overview , 2007 .

[9]  Christena E. Nippert-Eng,et al.  Islands of Privacy , 2010 .

[10]  Robert S. Tokunaga,et al.  Social networking site or social surveillance site? Understanding the use of interpersonal electronic surveillance in romantic relationships , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[11]  Emily Christofides,et al.  More Information than You Ever Wanted: Does Facebook Bring Out the Green-Eyed Monster of Jealousy? , 2009, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[12]  James B. Gerrie Was Foucault a Philosopher of Technology , 2003 .

[13]  D. Boyd Dear Voyeur, Meet Flâneur… Sincerely, Social Media , 2011 .

[14]  Elisheva F. Gross,et al.  Adolescent Internet use: What we expect, what teens report , 2004 .

[15]  A. Reed The Breakup 2.0: Disconnecting over New Media , 2011 .

[16]  Joseph Turow,et al.  Niche Envy: Marketing Discrimination in the Digital Age , 2006 .

[17]  Cliff Lampe,et al.  The Benefits of Facebook "Friends: " Social Capital and College Students' Use of Online Social Network Sites , 2007, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[18]  Anders Albrechtslund,et al.  Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance , 2008, First Monday.

[19]  Patricia S. Mann Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity , 1992 .

[20]  Cliff Lampe,et al.  Connection strategies: Social capital implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices , 2011, New Media Soc..

[21]  Christian Fuchs,et al.  Web 2.0, Prosumption, and Surveillance , 2010 .

[22]  M. Foucault The Subject and Power , 1982, Critical Inquiry.

[23]  Danah Boyd,et al.  I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience , 2011, New Media Soc..

[24]  Kate Crawford These Foolish Things: On Intimacy and Insignifi cance in Mobile Media , 2009 .

[25]  Nicole B. Ellison,et al.  Managing Impressions Online: Self-Presentation Processes in the Online Dating Environment , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[26]  Adam N. Joinson,et al.  Looking at, looking up or keeping up with people?: motives and use of facebook , 2008, CHI.

[27]  K. Strandburg Home, Home on the Web and Other Fourth Amendment Implications of Technosocial Change , 2011 .

[28]  Jessica E. Mullen Lifestreaming as a life design methodology , 2010 .

[29]  E. Goffman The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life , 1959 .

[30]  Jason Nolan,et al.  Sousveillance: Inventing and Using Wearable Computing Devices for Data Collection in Surveillance Environments. , 2002 .

[31]  Alice E. Marwick Status update: Celebrity, publicity and self-branding in Web 2.0 , 2010 .

[32]  Cliff Lampe,et al.  A face(book) in the crowd: social Searching vs. social browsing , 2006, CSCW '06.

[33]  Helen Nissenbaum,et al.  Privacy in Context - Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life , 2009 .

[34]  Toshimaru Ogura Electronic government and surveillance-oriented society , 2006 .

[35]  M. Hindman The Myth of Digital Democracy , 2008 .

[36]  Sonia Livingstone,et al.  Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers' use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression , 2008, New Media Soc..