Gestural Dystopia

-- By FinnLansink - 25 Nov 2024

Big Brother is watching you

This infamous line (from 1984 of course) represents one of the most consumed genres of media, dystopia. Books from this genre have one common theme surveillance. It matters little if it’s a literary masterpiece from 1949 or if it’s a children’s animation movie (WALL-E), surveillance is always paramount. Building on these themes it seems safe to assume that there is a consensus that surveillance – at least to a certain degree – is bad. If this is the case, why do we continue carrying our phones, using software that mines our data and surveil our every move? Studies tend to conclude that a lack of knowledge / understanding to the degree of surveillance contributes greatly in this issue. This essay will argue that these conclusions are incorrect and that awareness is not the issue and that gestural dystopia (with this I mean all forms of media with a dystopian world/pathway to one, e.g. Social media studies, WALL-E or 1984) actually reinforces the usage of our smartphones and compliance in surveillance.

We know Big Brother is watching

Studies have found that on average eighty percent of people are concerned with the data collected online. Following these findings they tend to draw a conclusion that people do not know how to deal with these concerns or do not understand how much data is really being collected. Thus, the logical way to combat the issue would be to spread awareness ways to get out of this state of surveillance. But I believe both of these conclusions to be false. In fact, I believe these conclusions perfectly illustrate the root of the issue; the overvaluing of belief. This would make perfect sense as this issue of surveillance is interwoven with the cause, capitalism. This ‘overvaluing of belief’ is the keeping of an ironical distance in our heads between our beliefs and actions. In the case of capitalism this is the belief that money has no intrinsic value while we fetishize it in our actions. In the case of surveillance, it’s the belief that we all have a right to privacy while we ‘willingly’ sell our data. Perhaps even the writing of critical essays on technology while continuing to use the very same. The ironic distance we have taken in our heads allow us to act the exact opposite way to our beliefs. This presents the first issue of gestural dystopia; it actually entrenches this ironic distance. It creates a Baudrillardian type of control where subordination is no longer coming from an outside source but rather encourages to participate and interact. Another way this type of control is supported by gestural dystopia is through ‘interpassivity’. Žižek describes it as a situation where individuals delegate their emotional or physiological engagement with the world to external objects or systems (e.g. movies or books). By having (social...) media doing our criticizing of the systems for us we are free to ‘consume with impunity’.

The devil we know

Another way gestural dystopia – this time more in the forms of literature or movies - reinforces the current state of surveillance is through the use of: ‘it could be worse’ train of thought. This is when these depictions of dystopia give us a way of defending the current state of affairs through presenting reality as the only alternative. This way of thinking is commonly paired with a false dilemma fallacy and often goes along the lines of: ‘Our democracy is not perfect but it’s better than bloody dictatorships. Capitalism is unjust. But it’s not criminal like Stalinism.’ Which could be translated to: this level of surveillance is not great but it’s better than despotism. This reinforces the current state by acting like innovation and/or change is something we need to be shielded from. E.g. If we just keep following the course we won’t create Stalinism or despotism.

Framing the issue

The last way gestural surveillance contributes to the issue is by framing the question of surveillance as if the problem is not inherent to the existing surveillance or the technology, but by our interaction with it. An example of this can be found in studies who commonly suggest to employ treaties or to create other kinds of regulation to regulate the way data is processed. (e.g. GDPR, CCPA, HIPAA, PDPA) This shifts the focus completely from trying to create a system where our privacy is inherent to a system where we regulate who can access this surveillance. The issue with this system becomes apparent when we realize how fragile our democracy really is and how easily the democratic system can be dismantled from within.

Engineering privacy

In conclusion spreading awareness – whether its through various means of media or handing out pamphlets – is not the way towards a solution but the opposite. Overvaluing its worth has the danger of entrenching the problem. That is not saying awareness is insignificant (because it is important to a certain degree), but our focus should be on enabling people without any/elemental software knowledge to engineer their own privacy. Only when individuals are empowered to create their own privacy can the problem be solved without creating a weak link of potential corruption.

This last point is the raison d'etre of your theorizing, but it's a little trickier than you let on. Cars can be engineered to be safer, but they cannot be made completely safe, and lives will inevitably be lost if people cannot be convinced to use seat belts. Robert MacNamara's Ford Motor Corp did not see any profit advantage in killing its customers. Hence the belts. But if one runs either a tobacco company or a social network, harming those who trust you is an essential part of the business. If the leading global electronics manufacturer is also the world's most powerful despotism, how can we meaningfully speak about engineered privacy?

---

You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:

• Set #ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, FinnLansink
• Set #DENYTOPICVIEW = TWikiGuest

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.