While critical political economy is a fairly well-developed approach to communications studies generally, and media specifically, it is not as well developed in relation to surveillance studies, which itself is an emerging field that studies how the collection, storage and processing of information have become integral to the functioning of contemporary society.42 A world in which privacy is truly respected will be impossible without successful struggles for justice and equality, as the ability to enjoy rights such as privacy will remain the preserve of a select few. Owners of the means of production will continue to define the conditions under which this right is enjoyed on a widespread basis. We must not resign ourselves to thinking that a world where privacy is invaded on a routine basis is the way things necessarily are, and cannot be changed. We must not accept unquestioningly the statement made by Steve Rambam that ‘privacy is dead – get over it’.43 What is needed to mount an effective fightback is a thorough understanding of why the world looks the way it does at this current conjuncture. This requires not just analysis, but theory.
The problem, though, is that some of the key concepts that have been used to describe the surveillance state have not been particularly empowering. The panopticon, for instance, does not encourage people to identify the agents involved in surveillance. Theories of resistance to surveillance are underdeveloped, which makes it more difficult to see the world differently from how it currently operates. While surveillance has always been a feature of the capitalist system, its importance as a mechanism of social control has grown massively over the past two decades. This means that there are still many people who have experienced a world where pervasive surveillance was not such a problem. As a result, we are challenged to identify the particular political-economic and technical conditions that have given rise to the forms of surveillance being experienced today. Through an examination of surveillance in South Africa, this book seeks to address some of these broader theoretical questions.
THE RESEARCH PROCESS AND ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
The collection and analysis of information amassed through the research and journalism incorporated into this book have been guided by an analytical framework based around the following organising concepts: actors, interventions or actions, relationships, and outcomes or impacts. A series of sub-questions were then posed in relation to each concept. The frame directed the researchers to collect information about the different surveillance actors and their roles and responsibilities, the relationships between these different actors and how they were changing over time, and relationships between these actors and the broader political environment. The questions that guided the research process were as follows:
Interest groups
• The different actors: the main state surveillance ‘clients’ (the police, military and intelligence, and other state agencies), surveillance oversight bodies, communications companies, surveillance subjects, civil society and social movements. Who are the main actors, and what are their roles and responsibilities? Is there any evidence of other actors becoming active in relation to surveillance?
Interventions or actions
• The surveillance perpetrators: Who is undertaking surveillance and how often? What is motivating the surveillance? What forms of surveillance do they use (including the technologies), and are these changing over time? Are the organisations and individuals that are being placed under surveillance changing over time, and why? Where do they stand in relation to key power-holders in the state and society? Are some organisations or individuals more likely to be subjected to surveillance than others, and why? How much surveillance is warranted in that it is legal and pursues a legitimate aim, and how much is not?
• The surveillance oversight bodies: What interventions do they engage in to keep the perpetrators under review? How are they set up, and how independent and accountable are they? How effective are they at holding perpetrators to account if there are abuses?
• The surveillance subjects: How are surveillance subjects chosen? How do subjects respond to surveillance? Are particular social groups more likely to become subjects of surveillance, and, if so, who are they and why are they groups of interest? Do different categories of victim respond differently to surveillance? Under what conditions do subjects resist surveillance, and how?
• Communications companies: What are the roles of these companies in relation to surveillance, and are there shifts in their roles over time, and why? If they themselves engage in surveillance, what technologies do they use and how is this changing over time? Under what conditions do they enable surveillance, and under what conditions do they resist it?
• Civil society and social movements: What are the roles of these actors in relation to surveillance, and are their roles shifting over time? Under what conditions do they take up advocacy in relation to surveillance, what are the main organising concepts they use, and how successful have they been in resisting surveillance abuses?
Relationships
• The relations between these different actors: What are the relationships, if any, between private and state surveillance? Is decision-making among these different actors static or is it changing over time, and why? Are roles and responsibilities of these different actors clear? Which actor or actors seem to hold the power in relation to decision-making about surveillance? How are surveillance practices impacting on relationships among the different actors? Why do different actors support or resist surveillance? Do they act alone, or do they build coalitions of interest around this issue?
• Relationships between actors and the broader political environment: What are the relations of different surveillance actors to the broader political environment, and how are they impacting on this environment? What do the uses of surveillance tell us about broader political shifts?
Outcomes and impacts
• Outcomes and impacts of surveillance: How have different actors responded to surveillance or the threat of it? What are the impacts and consequences of surveillance? What are the impacts and consequences of resistance to surveillance? What forms of resistance work, and what concepts are the most empowering? What is the broader political significance of surveillance, and how does this significance (or lack of it) impact on civil society and social movement responses? If surveillance is being used for positive purposes, are positive impacts evident, and, if so, what are they? If surveillance is being used for negative purposes, are negative impacts evident, and, if so, what are they?
These sub-questions are then used to answer the overall question. These key elements of the analytical framework allowed me to develop an answer to the broader question of whether South Africa is becoming a surveillance society governed by a surveillance state, to construct some general explanations or theories about the contributions of surveillance to social control, and to propose some theoretical points about elements of resistance to surveillance.
Theorising the surveillance state
This chapter examines possibly the most important concept used in this book, namely surveillance. It identifies some of the ways in which surveillance has been conceptualised and theorised, and how these theorisations