The Analysis of Foucault’s Views in the context of the USA’s

Surveillance System after 9/11 Attacks

‘To what extend have Foucault’s views helped to explain 9/11 attacks’
influence on surveillance in the USA?’

Supervisor:
V. Davidov Ozum Iseri
ID: 0636894
Pigeonhole: 4083
Due date: 08.06.2009
Version: Final Paper
Table of Contents

I. Introduction...................................................................................................... 2
II. Foucault’s Views on Surveillance..................................................................... 4
III. Surveillance System in the USA....................................................................... 6
IV. An analysis of Foucault’s views on Surveillance in the case of the USA after
9/11....................................................................................................................9
V. Conclusion........................................................................................................11
References........................................................................................................12

1
I. Introduction:

Surveillance, according to Lyon, is the routine ways in which focused attention is paid
to personal details, by organizations that want to influence, manage, or control certain
persons or population groups. It can occur for many reasons, ranging from care to
control (Lyon, 2003, p.14).
Although surveillance changed drastically after September 11 th, the concept
itself is not a new one, and traces of surveillance date back to ancient civilizations.
For instance, roots of surveillance even were found in the ancient civilizations such as
Egypt, which was keeping population records to take control of governmental issues
such as taxation, military service and immigration (1994, p.21). Additionally,
surveillance was evident in the medieval Europe records of property transactions,
imperial rule and so on. (2003, p.24)
Even though surveillance is an old concept, surveillance as we use it today did
not appear until modern times (2004, p.24). Surveillance has been expanding since
modern governments started to register births, marriages and deaths, and since
modern business began to monitor work and to keep accurate records of employees’
pay and progress. Surveillance, in this sense, is more than bureaucracy. It is our
compliance to social order and it is a means of social control (1994, p.4). Though
modern surveillance originated in specific institutions such as the army, the
corporation and the government department, it has grown to touch all areas of life
(p.5). Thus, lives of ordinary citizens that are thought to be at risk form large and
powerful agencies can be also subject to expanding surveillance. In Victorian times,
for instance, fear was that elite people might be seen, and British royalty struggled
with privacy. With the development of technology however, equation was reversed.
( p.15)
The concept of surveillance has been discussed by different scholars, however,
in 1970s until Foucault’s studies on surveillance there was no appearance of this
subject among social theorists which puts surveillance it own right. Anthony Giddens
insisted that insisted surveillance is a power generator in itself. Before him, there were
two major traditions, Marxian and Weberian, in this subject. While Marxian tradition

2
focused on labour capital perspective,1 Max Weber took bureaucracy into his studies.
(p.7)
Surveillance, according to Michel Foucault, progressively replaces physical
coercing to maintain order and co-coordinating acts of large populations (Lyon, 1994,
p.37). He describes a paranoid, anxious society, arising from the various institutions
of modernity such as the prison, the school, sexuality, and the social sciences.
Foucault calls this society a “surveillance society,” in which everyone is watching
everyone else. (Abrams, 2004, p.242)
Particularly after 9/11, surveillance systems in ‘surveillance societies’ are one
of the controversial issues that have been discussed throughout societies, from
scholars to politicians. Now, surveillance affects all citizens. Response to 9/11
provided a reason for the spread and speed up the surveillance systems in societies
which we call ‘surveillance societies’. This rapid spread of surveillance began to
evoke questions about personal liberties, social trust and mutual care. It is certain that
surveillance has affected the lives of people long before 9/11. The post 9/11 policies
demonstrated more clearly what had already been happening around us. According to
Jacques Ellulu, for instance, the development of the surveillance societies began back
in the 1960s and George Orwell even recognized their beginning in the 1940s (Lyon,
2003 p. 14). Nevertheless the aftermath of the attacks policies demonstrated more
noticeably what had already been happening around us. For instance, the data mining
technologies were already available, however until the 9/11 attacks there were no
plausible reason to use them (Lyon, 2003 p.15).Thus the attacks of 9/11 and the
resulting war on terror led to the already existing ideas being reinforced and
intensified (p.15, 40).
In this essay we will address the question ‘to what extend have Foucault’s
views helped to explain 9/11 attacks’ influence on surveillance in the USA?’ The
essay first explains Foucault’s views on surveillance and then describes surveillance
system in the USA. Afterwards, the essay will analyse how Foucault helped to
describe surveillance systems in the USA after September 11 th and lastly paper
concludes that even though Foucault’s ideas on surveillance are able to help to
understand surveillance systems, it is obvious that the basing on Foucault’s ideas

1
For Marxian tradition, the capitalist manager was willing to maintain control of workers
therefore they would keep the business competitive by producing as much as possible within a
given time at the lower cost. (Lyon, 2004, p.25)

3
would not be sufficient for the further surveillance studies concerning USA
surveillance system after 9/11 attacks.

II. Foucault’s Views on Surveillance

Surveillance, according to Foucault, is one of the ways of disciplining and managing

bodies. Additionally, Foucault discusses the concept of the Panopticon, which is a
concept established by Jeremy Bentham in the late eighteenth century. Bentham’s
model of the Panopticon was a tower placed in a central position within the prison.
From this tower the guards are able to observe every cell, which are all separated from
each other (Danaher, Sheraton, Webb, 2000, p.53). In each cell the person would be
madman, a patient, a condemned man, a worker or a schoolboy. In the Panopticon,
each person is alone, individualized, and constantly visible (Foucault, 1979, p. 200).

(Foucault) Full lighting and the eye of a supervisor capture better than
darkness, which ultimately protected. Visibility is a trap (1979, p. 200).

Prisoners inside them never can know they are observed or not (Danaher,
Schirato, Webb, 2000, p.53). Each individual is restricted to a cell from which he is
seen by a supervisor. At the same time, the cell walls prevent him from coming into
contact with others. Hence, he is an object of information however not a subject in
communication. The separation of the cells also guarantees order and a sense of
invisibility, though the prisoners’ actions are always monitored (p. 200).
The Panopticon arranges things so that surveillance is permanent in its effects
even if it is discontinuous in this action. To accomplish this, its effects of permanent
observation should be visible and unverifiable. Visible since surveillance is constant
and unverifiable because the person who is under surveillance never can be sure he is
being looked at, however he must be sure that he may always be so (Foucault, 1979,
p. 200). Even ‘enables everyone to come observe any of observers’ (p. 207).
Additional, surveillance connects closely with knowledge, particularly; take
into consideration various tasks of bureaucrats or business managers. Observation
allows for advances in power. Thus for Foucault, the Panopticon must be understood
as a general model for defining power relations in terms of everyday life of men

4
(Foucault, 1979, p.204; Lyon, 1994, p.37). In short, surveillance is part of gaining
knowledge and power for Foucault.
The panoptic schema which was proposed by Bentham makes any apparatus
of power more intense: it assures its efficacy due to its preventative character, its
continuous functioning and its automatic mechanisms (Foucault, 1979, p. 206).
However there is no risk that the increase of power due to the panoptic machine will
contribute to tyranny, since the disciplinary mechanisms will be controlled
democratically; it will be constantly accessible to great majority of others (Foucault,
1979, p.207).
The Panopticon, besides arranging power, intends to make institutions more
economic and more effective. Its aim is to strengthen social forces, to increase
production, to develop the economy, to spread education, and to raise the public
morality (p.207).
Bentham presents the Panopticon as a specified institution, although Foucault
considered it to be a model of functioning. For Foucault, the Panopticon is not ‘dream
building: it is the diagram of a mechanism of power reduced to its ideal form; its
functioning, abstracted from any obstacle, resistance or friction, must be represented
pure architectural and optical system and it is in fact a figure of political technology
that might or must be detached from any specific issue’ (p.205). The logic of this
authoritative gaze is not based on only prison; it is part of the main surveillance
systems throughout the various institutional spaces in society (Danaher, Schirato,
Webb, 2000, p.54). It can be integrated into many systems, such as education, medical
treatment, production, and punishment (p.205).
Modern societies developed rational systems for ordering society in contrast
with traditional methods like brutal punishment. Rather than relying on external
controls and constraints, modern institutions employ a range of disciplinary practices,
which ensure life continues in proper way (Lyon, 1994, p.7). According to Foucault,
the Panopticon is the key figure of the modern project, panopticism social trajectory
formed by the Panopticon, it drives to self monitoring through the belief that a person
is constantly under scrutiny. This mechanism of power (Panoptic schema) penetrates
all people’s behaviour. (Foucault, 1979, p.204) Thus surveillance becomes both a
driving force and a key part of the modernist project (Wood, 2003, p.2).

5
 Social discipline stretches from enclosed disciplines, or social
quarantine, to the mechanism of Panopticism (Foucault, 1979, p.216).

It is not that the will of the individual is repressed, or altered; instead it is

formed accordingly; the individual willingly accepts the modes of control. Thus
people are part of the “panoptic machine, invested by its effects of power, which we
bring to ourselves since we are part of its mechanism” (Foucault, 1979, p.217).

III. Surveillance System in the USA

In the United States, before 9/11, surveillance was practiced to enhance efficiency,
productivity, participation, welfare, health, or safety (Lyon, 2004 p.24). Now,
surveillance is applied ordinary citizens. As a result, the citizens also expect certain
welfare benefits from surveillance, such as preventing terrorism. This is especially the
case after September 11th attacks (p. 4). The attacks and the following war on
terrorism led already existing ideas on surveillance to be reinforced and intensified
due to concern of ‘security risk’. (2003, p.15, 40) The society is now ‘suspect’ of the
whole ‘securitization’ process in the USA.
The surveillance measures main aim is to increase security and to diminish
fears after September 11. Additionally, they intend to mainly predict and pre-empt
dangers through controlling access to the country. They define certain numbers of
people from each country who are eligible to enter. Also, they screen persons, using a
more rigorous screening process when granting entry. As mentioned in preceding
paragraphs, the measures are not new; however, most of them have been focused and
intensified in the airports borders to improve security. The key feature of these
measures is their being automated and widening the areas of surveillance as much as
possible. Automated surveillance is a means of social sorting to find someone in
advance who is planning on committing a crime or attack. Because these measures are
being used in an increasing number of places, ordinary people in everyday life
exposed to more monitoring (p.64).
This increase in surveillance also has served to raise in the selling and consumption of
high-end technological surveillance systems. As a result, large shares in the
government budget have been allocated to this cause particularly after 9/11, in the
USA (p.66-67). The US administration and its allies are working for data sharing in

6
the war against terrorism data obtained form both federal and state sources and private
sector databases. Additionally, the FBI and CIA are being moved into a single
complex in order to coordinate the analysis and tracking of information (p.103)
The preceding paragraphs have broadly discussed surveillance and the impact
of 9/11 on its practice. Now, discussion will shift to the specific measures which are
used in the US, and which show that the US is an extensive surveillance society
(International privacy ranking, 2007).
Since 9/11 three main surveillance measures have been proposed. First,
biometrics, which is the use of data extracted from the body such as an iris scan,
digital image, or fingerprint were implemented. Second, identification (ID) cards with
embedded programmable chips (a smart card) which aim to ensure personal identity
with the card holder and to prevent unauthorized use. Such cards after 9/11
increasingly popular among business and are seen as means of identification as well
as a system against war on terrorism. The up version of this mechanism would depend
on biometrics (Lyon, 2003, p.72). ‘Terrorism threat’ put such cards on the national
agenda (p. 73); Third, Closed Circuit Television, or video surveillance, was proposed,
often enhanced by facial recognition software; Communicational measure, such as
wiretaps and other message interception methods including Web-based surveillance
(p.68). Biometrics is implicated in new generation CCTV systems, where face-
recognition software implemented rapidly (p.77).
While many new measures have been proposed, and while much technology
has been implemented, there have also been many new polices that make the USA a
surveillance society. First, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act
(CALEA) requires that all U.S. telecommunications companies modify their
equipment to allow easy wiretapping of telephone, VoIP, and broadband internet
traffic. It should be noted that Congress passed the CALEA in 1994 however after the
attacks it greatly expands the reach of CALEA. (Electronic Frontier Foundation)
Additionally, a controversial National Security Agenda (NSA) call database is
a common method of surveillance in the USA. It is controversial mainly because it is
used for collecting phone calls secretly from millions of Americans who are not
suspected of any crime or terrorist attacks (USA Today, 2006).
In addition, 45 days after the attacks, FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act) amended following terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon
in 2001, Congress passed the Uniting and Strengthening America with the Providing

7
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, or the USA
PATRIOT Act (USAPA). The act intends to allow streamlined acquisition of
surveillance orders protecting against international crime and terrorism. The
Department of Justice granted greater power for federal law enforcement and
intelligence gathering agencies to monitor communications under USAPA, along with
modifications to diverse concerns such as border control, immigration, and money
laundering (Chris, 2008, p.2-3).
Besides, the Department of Homeland Security funded the Total Information
Awareness System in 2002. It aims to find suspects in the country, in other words, as
Lyon states it offers to find ‘enemy within’. The classification and identification of
foreign terrorists and the detection of their plans are the main missions of the TIA. Its
program is being constructed to document nearly every detail, such as bank machine
purchases, credit cards receipts, web cookies, school transcripts, medical files,
magazine and newspaper subscriptions, airline manifest, property deeds and address
and telephone number. (Lyon, 2003, p.91)
Even in 2003, The "Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening System"
(CAPPS II) was a controversial program proposed by the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) to combat terrorism and prevent another hijacking of U.S.
flights. It was controversial would allow TSA to access personal information about
you available in both government and commercial databases. CAPPS II utilise the
information to assign each passenger a colour-coded score. Green means that you do
not appear to pose a threat to safety and are free to board the plane. Yellow means
that you appear to pose a potential threat and must undergo further security checks
before being allowed to board. Red means that you are likely to pose a threat will not
be allowed to board the flight. Thus with such a classification it would determine the
people who is allowed to pass or not to another country (Electronic Frontier
Foundation [EFF] ).
The USA as a surveillance society largely improved and intensified its policies
and measures about the surveillance system which was on the way long years ago.
The 9/11 attacks just gave reason to intensification of the above-mentioned polices
and surveillance measures. However how Foucault’s views extend can help us to
understand whole situation in the USA 9/11 next section tries to discover it

8
IV. An analysis of Foucault’s views on Surveillance in the case of the USA after
9/11

In the following paragraphs Foucault’s views on Surveillance will be analysed in the

context of the surveillance system in the USA after the 9/11 attacks.
Foucault’s image of the Panopticon prison plan was also accepted as an
example of electronic surveillance by many commentators (Lyon, 1994, p.8). Since
Electronic surveillance, as Dubbeld states (2003), put the body as an important
element in surveillance, and as Foucault put it, the body is the main source of power.
Nevertheless since the body as a subject of surveillance involves judgmental,
discriminatory processes of categorisation (Dubbeld, 2003, p.151). Thus it targets the
mostly minority; marginalized group in the society after 9/11. As an example, after
9/11 in the USA, as in many countries, the mostly ‘suspected’ group would be Arabs
and Muslims. For instance, the USA and the introduction of the ID card is based on
biometrics and using searchable databases. High technology companies promote
these, governments seek them for administrative efficiency, and post-9/11 demands
for ‘security’ provide a rationale for their introduction. But as the crux is, as Lyon
puts it (2007) in his article, this kind of sorting system mechanism always
differentiated people as terrorist/non terrorist. Mostly minority groups in the
population were considered suspect. New IDs, as Didier Bigo mentioned (2004), does
not link with a surveillance Panopticon to include everyone in the gaze, but with a
banopticon that takes relatively marginalized people into account (Lyon, 2007).
Besides, Foucault’s view that the observer (guards) even can be observed by
other people is still debatable in the current situation. Since it based, as Dubbeld states
(2003), on asymmetrical relations between observers and observed. For instance, it is
not easy to observe an operator of surveillance in the USA. Particularly as ordinary
citizens, it is too difficult to get information about operators of surveillance, as seen,
for example, in CCTV. (Dubbeld, 2003, p.151-162)
Additionally his concept of the Panopticon is linked to disciplinary
interventions, such as training the body, some regimes which regulate schedules of
activity, and interventions that punish deviations from given norms as he mentioned
regarding corrective techniques of “normalisation”. These disciplinary interventions
simply do not meet understanding of surveillance in the USA. Thus the argument that

9
CCTV is based upon the Foucauldian model of discipline would be an overstatement.
(Yar, 2003, p.3)
Clearly, the panoptic principle of observation has been extended to pervasive
information systems which serve to identify and classify large populations, and this
sorting serves to coordinate the allocation or refusal of opportunities to citizens, as in
cases of the USAPA, and the proposed CAPPS II in USA. Thus Panoptic observation
behaviour in the USA was constructed via the collection of data from individuals
(p.4). The data gathering and information sorting can be evaluated as the extension of
Foucault’s views on surveillance but it does not help to explain more than this.
In addition, Foucault’s views on surveillance combining with an inter
disciplinary system mostly describes institutions and its application to the general
society. He gave mostly examples of schools, armies, hospitals and so on. All of these
institutions are part of the general regulation and part of the order in the society.
However, providing in home security as a reflection of global terror -as the US
declared to do so in her country- is completely different from what Foucault designed
in his article. Even if he elaborated well on the surveillance system within modernity,
he fails to explain global terrorism’s reflections on the surveillance system in the
global context. Since the September 11 th attacks, the influence on the surveillance
systems are not only about the institutional designs or order in society. Surveillance
systems after 9/11 are also about preventing global terror. Hence, it is more than
arranging power relations in certain systems, and more than providing productivity,
safety, and welfare as the USA was willing to attain before the 9/11 attacks.
He also guaranteed there would be no risk of an increase in power since all the
disciplinary powers controlled by democratically; by the vast majority of people. But,
the point is that such a globalised and intensifying surveillance system in the world –
as exemplified in one particular country such as the USA- there is no such control
system on the surveillance. There are still illegal surveillance systems in the USA
(Wall Street Journal, 2008).
Thus as Roy Boyne (2000) claims that “the panoptical principle is not fading
away, and that developments in screening and surveillance require the retention of the
Panopticon as an analytical ideal type”(Yar, 2003, p.5). Thus, following investigations
on surveillance would be necessitating a further analytical ideal type than Foucault’s.

10
V. Conclusion:

In this essay we tried address question ‘to what extend have Foucault’s views helped
to explain 9/11 attacks’ influence on surveillance in the USA?’ by considering
Foucault’s views on surveillance and surveillance system in the USA after 9/11.
We concluded that the war on terrorism’s new surveillance system, which was
introduced in the USA, makes the existing surveillance system more intensified and
dense, and also introduced new concepts which were not mentioned by Foucault.
However it does not mean that Foucault cannot help us at all to explain the
surveillance system in the USA. Nonetheless, it is obvious that the basis of Foucault’s
ideas would not be sufficient to make further surveillance researches in the USA.

11
References

Abrams J. J. (2004). Pragmatism, Artificial Intelligence, and Post human Bioethics:

Shusterman, Rorty, Foucault, Human Studies 27, 241–258.

Bigo, D. (2004). Globalized in-security: The Field and the Banopticon.

Retrieved May 29, 2009 from
http://www.ces.fas.harvard.edu/conferences/muslims/Bigo.pdf

CAPPS II: Government Surveillance via Passenger profiling (n.d.) Retrieved May 30,
2009, from http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/cappsii/background.php

CALEA: The Perils of Wiretapping the Internet Retrieved May 30, 2009, from
http://www.eff.org/issues/calea

Cauley, L. (2006). USA Today. NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls.
Retrieved May 31, 2009, from http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-
10-nsa_x.htm

Danaher, G., Schirato, T. & Webb, J. (2000). Understanding Foucault. London [etc.]:
Sage Publications

Dubbeld, L. (2003) Observing bodies. Camera surveillance and the significance of the
body. Ethics and Information Technology, 5, 151–162.

Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. New York:
Vintage Books.

Gorman, S. (2008). Wall Street Journal. NSA's Domestic Spying Grows

As Agency Sweeps Up Data. Retrieved 1 June, 2009, from
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120511973377523845.html

International Privacy Ranging (n.d) Retrieved May 29, 2009, from

http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-559597

Lyon, D. (1994). The Electronic Eye: The Rise of the Surveillance Society. Cambridge
UK/Malden MA: Polity/Blackwell.

Lyon, D. (2003). Surveillance after September 11. Blackwell: Polity.

Lyon, D (2007). National ID Cards: Crime-Control, Citizenship and Social Sorting,

Policing, 111 - 118.

Matz, C. (2008)'Libraries and the USA PATRIOT Act: Values in Conflict', Journal of
Library Administration, 47, 69— 87

Wood, D. (1998). Surveillance & Society. Foucault and Panopticism Revisited.

Retrieved May 29, 2009 from
http://www.zeit.de/bda/int/zeit/print/199851.wiesel_.html

12
Yar, M. (2003). Surveillance & Society. Panoptic Power and the Pathologisation of
Vision: Critical Reflections on the Foucauldian Thesis.
Retrieved May 29, 2009 from http://www.surveillance-and-society.org

13