Management Culture and Surveillance

As the modern workplace increasingly adopts technology, that technology is being used to surveil workers in ways that can be highly invasive. Ostensibly, management uses surveillance to assess workers’ productivity, but it uses the same systems to, for example, map their interpersonal relationships, study their conversations, collect data on their health, track where they travel on and off the job, as well as monitor and manipulate their emotional responses. Many of these overreaches are justified in the name of enterprise control. That justification should worry us. This Article aims to make us think about how surveillance is being used as a management tool. It raises broader questions about how management may use its tools if unchecked, especially given what we know about the origins and development of modern management from its roots in the slave plantations of the U.S. South and the West Indies. Given this history, the Article argues for a new framework of analysis based on requiring better justifications for why managers need each piece of data that they collect on workers. “Everything is tracked, recorded and analyzed, via vertical reporting systems, double-entry record-keeping and precise quantification. Data seems to hold sway over every operation. It feels like a cutting-edge approach to management, but many of these techniques that we now take for granted were developed by and for large plantations” to control slaves. —Professor Matthew Desmond, describing the roots of modern management systems

Le scandale Cambridge Analytica contextualisé: le capital de plateforme, la surveillance et les données comme nouvelle « marchandise fictive »

L’objectif du présent article est de situer le scandale récent autour de la société Cambridge Analytica dans le contexte plus large de l’importance de la surveillance dans la phase actuelle de développement du capitalisme. La thèse développée ici est que le capitalisme d’aujourd’hui se caractérise par deux évolutions significatives : d’une part, l’importance croissante d’une nouvelle « marchandise fictive » – les données –, en plus du travail, de la terre et de la monnaie, précédemment identifiés par Karl Polanyi comme objets ayant été transformés en « marchandises fictives » par la société capitaliste ; d’autre part, l’importance accrue d’un nouveau type de capital appelé ici « capital de plateforme », par référence aux plateformes numériques qui opèrent en tant que moyens de production à part entière (par exemple, Facebook) ou auxiliaires (par exemple, Uber). Ce capital de plateforme ne devient capital que lorsqu’il est combiné à cette nouvelle « marchandise fictive » qui lui tient lieu de « matière première ». Pour paraphraser Marx, le capital de plateforme doit rencontrer sur le marché un type de marchandise spécial – les données (en particulier, les données utilisateur) – afin de croître et de produire de la valeur. Ceci signifie que la surveillance et l’invasion constante de la sphère privée sont inhérentes au fonctionnement du capital de plateforme ainsi qu’à celui d’autres entités (par exemple, courtiers en données ou sociétés de conseil tels que Cambridge Analytica), dont le modèle commercial se fonde également sur cette nouvelle marchandise. Ces dernières, de même que certaines entités gouvernementales telles que les services de sécurité, compte tenu du volume d’informations détenues par les plateformes, sont incitées à accéder à ces données et peuvent être tentées de le faire de manière dissimulée, comme cela a été fait dans le cas de Cambridge Analytica. Lorsqu’elles sont révélées, de telles actions suscitent une condamnation et un tollé général, alors que l’acquisition quotidienne de données par le capital de plateforme et les entités qui lui sont liées, de manière continuelle et sans cesse croissante, ne génère par elle-même que très peu de critique. Celle-ci est au contraire de plus en plus normalisée et des campagnes telles que celle qui a été menée contre Cambridge Analytica ne font que contribuer à sa normalisation et à son objectivation croissantes.The objective of this article is to place the recent Cambridge Analytica data scandal into the larger context of the growing importance of surveillance in modern-day capitalism. It is argued here that the current phase of capitalism is characterized by two significant developments: first, the rise and increasing importance of a new ‘fictitious commodity’ – data – in addition to labor, land and money, as previously identified by Karl Polanyi; second, an increased significance of what is termed here ‘platform capital’ – digital platforms that act as independent (e.g. Facebook) or auxiliary (e.g. Uber) means of production. Platform capital becomes capital only when it is combined with this new fictitious commodity which acts as its main ‘raw material’; to paraphrase Marx, platform capital must meet a special kind of commodity (i.e. data, particularly user data) in the market place to reproduce and valorize itself. This means that surveillance and continuous privacy invasions are intrinsic to the operation of platform capital, as well as of other entities (i.e. data brokers or consultancies such as Cambridge Analytica) whose business models also depend on this new commodity. Because data possessed by platforms is gigantic, the latter (as well as non-business actors, such as security services) are interested in getting access to it and may be tempted to do so in some covert fashion, as happened in the case of Cambridge Analytica. When revealed, such actions tend to generate widespread condemnation and public outcry, as demonstrated in the aftermath of the Cambridge Analytica scandal. However, it is important to emphasize that continuous and ever-growing ‘overt’ acquisitions of data by platform capital and other entities do not generate even remotely comparable amounts of criticism. On the contrary, it is more and more normalized and campaigns, such as the one that has targeted Cambridge Analytica, actually contribute to its further normalization and objectification

Family Surveillance:Understanding Parental Monitoring, Reciprocal Practices, and Digital Resilience

Parents who grew up without digital monitoring have a plethora of parental monitoring opportunities at their disposal. While they can engage in surveillance practices to safeguard their children, they also have to balance freedom against control. This research is based on in-depth interviews with eleven early adolescents and eleven parents to investigate everyday negotiations of parental monitoring. Parental monitoring is presented as a form of lateral surveillance because it entails parents engaging in surveillance practices to monitor their children. The results indicate that some parents are motivated to use digital monitoring tools to safeguard and guide their children, while others refrain from surveillance practices to prioritise freedom and trust. The most common forms of surveillance are location tracking and the monitoring of digital behaviour and screen time. Moreover, we provide unique insights into the use of student tracking systems as an impactful form of control. Early adolescents negotiate these parental monitoring practices, with responses ranging from acceptance to active forms of resistance. Some children also monitor their parents, showcasing a reciprocal form of lateral surveillance. In all families, monitoring practices are negotiated in open conversations that also foster digital resilience. This study shows that the concepts of parental monitoring and lateral surveillance fall short in grasping the reciprocal character of monitoring and the power dynamics in parent-child relations. We therefore propose that monitoring practices in families can best be understood as family surveillance, providing a novel concept to understand how surveillance is embedded in contemporary media practices among interconnected family members.</p

ANALISIS GOVERNMENTALITAS DAN REPRODUKSI WACANA DALAM SEJARAH MUNCULNYA PROGRAM KELUARGA BERENCANA DI INDONESIA TAHUN 1970

Abstract This article tries to apply the concept of governmentality in Michael Foucault's perspective in analyzing the Family Planning discourse which began to be implemented in 1970, precisely under the "New Order" regime under President Suharto in Indonesia. This Governmental analysis tries to reveal the existence of efforts to regulate society and change their paradigm about child ownership which in the "Old Order" regime was fully supported by the government under President Soekarno. This paper finds that the initial initiation of the Family Planning program and the discourse of small happy and prosperous families is an attempt by the new regime to change their paradigm. This paper highlights how discourse is produced, how the process works and how the process is successful in controlling the Indonesian population Keywords: Keywords; Governmentality, Discourse on Happy and Prosperous Small Family, Family Planning Program, PostmodernismThis article tries to apply the concept of governmentality in Michel Foucault’s perspective in analyzing the Family Planning discourse which began to be implemented in 1970, precisely under the "New Order" regime in Indonesia. This governmental analysis tries to reveal the existence of efforts to regulate society and change their paradigm about child ownership which in the "Old Order" regime was fully supported by the government under President Soekarno. This paper finds that the initial initiation of the Family Planning Program and the discourse of small happy and prosperous families is an attempt by the new regime to change its paradigm. This paper highlights how discourse is produced, how the process works and how the process is successful in controlling the Indonesian population

History of the Yogyakarta Monarchy: From the Islamic Kingdom to Being Imprisoned in the Indonesian Democratic System

Collaboration between democracy and monarchy occurs in government systems in several countries. What happened in Yogyakarta was a monarchy system that originated from the Islamic Mataram kingdom, which was later recognized as a political institution that held executive power in the democratic system of the Indonesian state. The King of Yogyakarta acts as the holder of executive power (Governor) in the Special Region of Yogyakarta. With the method of literature review and theoretical elaboration, this paper seeks to explore how the history of monarchy in Yogyakarta can collaborate and operate in the democratic system in Indonesia. This paper also looks at and analyzes how the development of the Yogyakarta Palace and Sultan Hamengku Buwono, who played the role of King and then at the same time held the position of Governor of the Special Region of Yogyakarta. From the analysis, it is found that Yogyakarta is an Islamic kingdom that later joined the Indonesian state as one of the provinces with a special status. The current position of the Special Region of Yogyakarta is a "prison" for Sultan Hamengkubuwono. As a King, the Sultan is always supervised by the regional people's representative council in the implementation of regional governance. The King of Yogyakarta, who appears to have dual powers as a King as well as a Governor, is, in fact, nothing more than prisoners imprisoned within the palace walls under the strict supervision of the representative council and the central governmen

Éditorial

Ce numéro de Cultures & Conflits, une fois n’est pas coutume, ne présente pas un dossier thématique mais rassemble des contributions isolées qui chacune à leur manière éclairent des thématiques chères à la revue et trouvent des résonances avec des numéros antérieurs. La première d’entre elles, celle de Didier Bigo, propose un éclairage sur la notion de « guildes transnationales » que l’auteur utilise pour penser des formes de solidarités au-delà des frontières qui reposent sur des sociabilit..

KRITIK TERHADAP TEORI KEKUASAAN-PENGETAHUAN FOUCAULT

Power is one of the topics of study in political science. In fact, not a few political science figures state that political science is a science related to power, how to gain power and how to maintain power itself. In political science, power is an ontology that must be achieved, possessed and can be inherited. For Foucault, power is not an ontology but rather a strategy. Power works from the bottom up, not the other way around; power is not concentrated in one person or group of people but its form is spread and is everywhere. Power is practiced in everyday life through discourse. Power is related to knowledge because knowledge does not exist if power does not exist. On the other hand, there can be no power without knowledge. Power and knowledge are an inseparable unity. Science is constructed through discourse. This paper is done through the library method. Through a literature study, it is concluded that Foucault’s thinking is a new view of power. The weakness of Foucault’s view is that he sees everything related to power, power is positive but always experiences resistance. Foucault’s thinking provides a new paradigm in the social sciences in general and political science in particular. Keywords : power, knowledge, discours

THE EFFECTS OF VIRTUAL PANOPTICISM

As technology further integrates into everyday life, the effects of technological advancement surface. The research contained in this thesis places philosopher Michel Foucault’s ideas of the panoptic, discipline, punishment and a carceral society in a virtual reality thus creating a virtual panopticon. Adapting Foucault’s theories to the present-day technological climate allows researchers to begin understanding the why behind humans’ interactions with various forms of technology (e.g. iPhone usage, Smart TVs, online banking, Alexa/Echo, etc.). Additionally, virtual panopticism sheds light on the corruption of those who manipulate information online to wield power, maintain control and make money. I discuss surveillance capitalism and highlight Foucault’s main influencers such as Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche. By conducting a voluntary survey, participants revealed how they operate within a virtual panopticon specifically in the areas of religion, personal technology usage, literature and film and education. Since thinking directly affects actions, the importance of understanding this information is critical to interpreting modern-day culture. The goal of this research is to reveal the effects of virtual panoptical structures on thinking, while simultaneously emphasizing the need for technological accountability