The discourse of surveillance has been a cornerstone of culture studies since the discipline's very inception, tracing its lineage to Michel Foucault's foundational Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (1977). In the following, this discussion is considered in terms of the modern workplace and the pervasive technologies of surveillance that employers use as means to police the actions of their workers. Considering the testimony of the subject of these technologies, Bilge Yesil explores the insections of the discourse of surveillance employed by the corporation and the rationalizations of the employee to allow for this systematized objectification of the corporate subject.

Workplace Surveillance, Inc.: Implications on Autonomy and How "the Watched" Experience Surveillance Technologies [printable version]

Bilge Yesil

<1> In recent years the use of surveillance technologies in the workplace has become widespread. According to an annual survey by the American Management Association (AMA) on workplace monitoring and surveillance (2001), more and more U.S. companies are keeping tabs on employees by checking their e-mail, Internet, or telephone connections or by videotaping them at work.

<2> Of 1,627 large and mid-sized firms AMA has surveyed, 63% now monitor workers' Internet connections, up from 54% in 2000, and 47% store and review employee e-mail, an increase from 38% a year ago. More than a quarter of the companies surveyed (27%) say that they've fired employees for misuse of office e-mail or Internet connections, and nearly two-thirds (65%) report some disciplinary measure for those offenses. Other forms of surveillance include telephone numbers called and time spent on the phone (43%), logged computer time (19%) and video surveillance for security purposes (38%).

<3> Employers justify surveillance practices by claiming that they ensure increased productivity, and reduce theft and pilferage in the workplace. However, given the complex social phenomena surveillance technologies produce, employees' point of view remains to be explored. In this study, I investigate how the particular configurations of workplace surveillance lead to privacy issues, particularly in terms of the philosophical dimensions of privacy, such as personal autonomy and agency. I explore the surveillance -- privacy nexus from the perspective of "the watched" -- employees who are subject to surveillance in the workplace, and investigate the lived experiences of "the watched" with specific attention to issues of personal autonomy and human agency. In particular, I attempt to unveil how employees make sense of surveillance, privacy, and personal autonomy.

Existing Knowledge & Analyses

<4> This study is situated at the intersection of two bodies of literature: studies of surveillance systems, particularly those focusing on discipline and social control, and theories of privacy, particularly those focusing on identity and personal autonomy.

<5> Information gathering systems and databases have been widely used since the 1970s, and with the recent technological advances in computers, database and network infrastructures and communication systems, they have coalesced into a dominant electronic monitoring paradigm. With the automation of personal data records and their linking to networked communications, privacy problems in terms of personal information have surfaced and drawn remarkable attention among scholars. Diverse fields such as law, sociology, and public policy studies have examined surveillance in relation to privacy legislation, public policies, information technologies, and the information society (Gandy 1993; Simson 2000; Etzioni 1999; Lyon 1988; Lyon 1994; Lyon 2001; Rule 1980; Whitaker 1999).

<6> Gandy (1993) and Lyon (1994) assert that surveillance is borne out of the need to document and register knowledge, and produce further knowledge about individuals in modern societies. Dandeker (1990) argues that bureaucratic surveillance in modern societies emerge out of the need to monitor the behavior of those under supervision, and to organize power and knowledge.

<7> Norris and Armstrong (1999) argue that surveillance is the building block of all societies. They assert that without surveillance children cannot be fabricated into competent members of a society, and socialization of adults cannot be achieved. As such, surveillance is linked to the notion and practice of social control. It also seeks to channel individual behavior and/or to manage risks and maintain systems. Lyon (2001) asserts that surveillance systems expand as a result of the desire to reduce uncertainties and control outcomes. To manage risks or to "administer populations in relation to risk," agencies and organizations keep track of individuals' daily activities as consumers, employees, and citizens. Therefore, surveillance is also linked to risk management and system maintenance.

<8> In contemporary societies, Lyon argues, surveillance manifests itself as the production of further knowledge about individuals and the management of risks associated with obtaining compliance or containing threatening behavior (2001, 6). Lyon situates surveillance as a central feature of global information societies and considers it to be a "central means of social ordering or social orchestration" to classify, coordinate and control populations (10). In a similar vein, Norris and Armstrong argue that surveillance is the central mechanism through which the modern state accomplishes its administrative functions, such as providing welfare, health, education, and security. Along these lines, Oscar Gandy (1989) argues that surveillance serves the interests of decision makers within government and corporate bureaucracies. It works to standardize, create categories and classes, measure and calculate, predict and reduce the uncertainty of individual behavior, and induce a desirable and predictable behavior. It is a system that is based on rationalism.

<9> Aside from the literature on surveillance and social control, I also draw on the privacy literature. Gandy (1993), Regan (1995), Rule (1980), and Whitaker (1999) concentrate on technological issues, such as the role of new technologies, and information society in perceived and real threats to privacy. On the other hand, Cate (1997), Doyle (1992), Etzioni (1999) and Regan (1995) take up legal problems, such as the inadequacy of current privacy legislation, and make proposals for new legislation.

<10> Fortner (1986), on the other hand, criticizes these approaches to discussing the relationship between surveillance and privacy, and argues that the preoccupation with technology and law has prevented the investigation of the "non-measurable" or abstract aspects of privacy. Fortner notes that as result of the exclusive focus on technological and legal issues, the problem of privacy has been reduced to a "technicist" one, and "metaphysical" questions concerning autonomy and agency have eluded scholars.

<11> Other than the right to control one's personal information, privacy relates to individualism and liberty, individual control and human dignity, and development of intimate relations with others. Benn (1971) argues that the principle of privacy is grounded on respect for persons as active agents or choosers. When the individual finds herself the object of others' attention, she becomes an object of scrutiny, and starts to see herself through the eyes of others. Because what others know about her may affect her view of herself and her world, the individual is not an active agent or a chooser any longer (24).

<12> In a similar vein, Gross (1971) argues that the desire to protect privacy does not stem merely from self-regard or that we might have something to hide or be ashamed of. We want to protect our privacy because it is an indication of our agency. It is inherently related to a person's role as a responsible moral agent. Loss of privacy means that we are acted upon by others, and conclusions are drawn about us which we have no opportunity to counteract. We are no longer able to change what's believed about us. We are no longer active agents (173-174).

<13> The focus on metaphysical or philosophical dimensions of privacy as opposed to technological or legal issues is at the heart of this study. By allowing "the watched" discuss their conceptions of privacy, personal autonomy, and identity in their own voices, I unveil how workplace surveillance technologies (computer file monitoring, e-mail or voice mail monitoring, computer keystroke counting, video or CCTV monitoring, etc) shape employees sense of the workplace, and of their behaviors and social interactions in this space.

Methods of Inquiry & Analysis [1]

<14> In this case study, I examine constructions of workplace surveillance in one particular setting -- Jones and Smith Associates (a pseudonym), a corporate law firm in New York City. My findings come from two in-depth interviews with the same participant, Jenny Scaros (a pseudonym), who works at this law firm.

<15> In two semi-structured interviews that I conducted in November 2001, I asked Jenny what kind of experiences she had in her workplace and how she felt about surveillance. I also asked her if she was given any information about surveillance when she was hired, and if not how she came to learn about it.

<16> Through these interviews, I surfaced words and metaphors that Jenny used as she made sense of workplace surveillance. I also distinguished moments when Jenny was reporting conflicting experiences as she was making sense of the paradoxical nature of surveillance, that is it simultaneously ensures a safe workplace for her and restricts her behaviors.

<17> I selected Jenny as a participant in this study because of her knowledge of and involvement in events that led the management to openly notify the employees about workplace surveillance. Jenny has been working as a receptionist at Jones and Smith for the last three years. She spends most of her day at work, from 1 to 8 p.m. Despite the various responsibilities she has undertaken at Jones and Smith, she enjoys herself at work. She likes the fact that it's "chaotic and busy," otherwise she says her day is "just a drag." Jenny aspires to become a professional businesswoman just like the executives she encounters at Jones and Smith. She says she works really hard at Jones and Smith, and believes that it will pay off in the long run.

<18> Other than the interview, I also draw on an extensive analysis of the employee handbook to compare and contrast Jenny's narrative with the employer discourse. Before the interview, Jenny had given me a copy of the Jones and Smith employee handbook. I used the handbook to provide background information into this corporate law firm and its surveillance practices [2].

<19> In the following section, I provide brief information on Jones and Smith Associates, and describe the events that initiated the management to openly notify employees about workplace surveillance (as a matter of fact, only online surveillance). Then through Jenny's narrative, I disclose the paradoxical nature of workplace surveillance and its implications on personal autonomy and privacy.

A Safe, Harmonious, Productive Workplace

<20> Jones and Smith Associates is one of the largest law firms in the United States. The firm's New York City office has approximately a hundred and fifty employees -- attorneys, paralegals, administrative staff, typists, secretaries and receptionists. Working at Jones and Smith Associates has certain benefits. As one of the largest law firms in the U.S., Jones and Smith not only confers status, but also provides numerous benefits to its employees, such as health insurance, educational assistance, short and long term disability payments, family and medical leaves, transportation checks, year end bonuses, retirement benefits, etc.

<21> However, to be eligible for these benefits, employees are required to observe certain rules of behavior, which together with firm benefits are documented in the 70-page employee handbook. The handbook contains information on rules of conduct, disciplinary or remedial procedures, dress code, lunch periods, overtime, performance appraisals, personal activities, personnel files policy, work time, benefits, health plans, leaves of absence, retirement benefits, smoking policy, time off, holidays, e-mail, voice mail and document security, online policy, unlawful harassment, confidentiality, etc. Once an employee receives the handbook, s/he is expected to "acknowledge" it, and sign and return an "acknowledgment of receipt."

"Snooping"

<22> To observe and document employees' behaviors, to ensure compliance with rules, and achieve "safety, productivity and harmony" in the workplace, the management at Jones and Smith monitors employees' behaviors.

<23> Workplace surveillance at Jones and Smith has been going on for a while. According to Jenny, surveillance has been in practice for at least the last three years she's been there. However, employees were informed about the depth and breadth of these practices only recently. What led the management to reveal their surveillance practices was a series of events that took place almost half a year ago [3].

<24> One employee in the marketing department, Laura (a pseudonym) was fired when the management found out that she was viewing, printing and perhaps editing confidential documents. It is believed that Laura secretly went into thousands of documents over a period of years. Jenny recounts,

She would come at 8 o'clock in the morning and go into documents when nobody was around. There was a lot of stuff that she did. She also printed stuff. She could have edited so many firm letters and put in her name. She had firm headings. She could have forged signatures.

<25> At Jones and Smith confidential documents are protected by document numbers. When an employee wants to access a privileged document s/he needs to enter the document number, and have an ID and password clearance. Laura did not have clearance to access privileged documents. She did not have the resources to find out document names and their matching numbers either. And probably she had no specific business purpose in accessing them other than -- what Jenny calls "curiosity that's like an addiction for some people." However, her friendship with another woman in the information systems department enabled her to circumvent the document protection system.

<26> How the management discovered Laura's misconduct is an interesting story in and of itself. Almost a year ago, Jenny had a personal conflict with Kim (a pseudonym), an information systems specialist. One day, Laura came to Jenny and said she typed in the wrong document number by accident and found a memo about Jenny.

She showed it to me. She said, "Jenny, I'm just letting you know, watch your back." It was a letter talking about me from Kim to the head of the entire firm, not even my boss, to get me fired. And she said please don't show this to anyone. She said this is really serious stuff. And I said, "Thanks for letting me know. That was really cool of you." I threw it away. I didn't even want the paper around me, cause if I have it, because it's not my memo, I could get into trouble because of it. I had that much common sense.

<27> Because of the possibility of getting into trouble for no good reason, Jenny did not do anything about the memo. For the same reason, she did not confront Kim either. However, a year later, when she got into another personal conflict with Kim -- "a matter of jealousy" -- Jenny's boss decided to gather round Jenny, Kim and Kim's boss in a conference room to sort things out. Jenny implicitly mentioned that she knew about the memo Kim wrote to the head of the firm to get Jenny fired.

That night, to find out how the memo leaked out Kim went on to her computer. Because she was an information systems specialist, she knew how to track persons who viewed her documents or memos. She went in as Laura to see every document in the computer system that Laura has viewed. And she realized that Laura and this other woman were in cahoots.

<28> When Kim informed the management about Laura's misconduct, the management needed to see for itself whether or not Laura went into confidential documents. So with the help of the information systems department, the management set up "a bait," a so-called confidential document.

And Monday morning, 8 o'clock [Laura] came in. [The management] set up a document with a really fancy name like "Firing List for Month of..." whatever. And I don't know how they did it. But they set up an alarm on the document. As soon as [Laura] entered it, my boss's screen went blank. It said something like DH 2 entered document blah blah blah...The minute that happened he walked out and went into her office and said, "Can you come in?" And she was on the document. He made all the phone calls to [the firm's HQs] to say she took the bait. Then they said, if she took the bait then you fire her, she's gone.

<29> Laura was asked to leave immediately. With Laura's dismissal and the so-called resolution of the problem, the management now found itself faced with a more difficult task. It needed to explain to other employees what led to Laura's dismissal.

<30> The management caught Laura simply by utilizing its surveillance capability. At Jones and Smith, the management can monitor an employee's Internet, e-mail or computer use at any time, without notice.

<31> The first thing the management did was to craft the "snooping" policy, which emphasizes the fact that employees cannot view, edit or print privileged or confidential documents. Snooping policy also warns employees of possible consequences, that if they are found to have engaged in such "snooping," they will be "disciplined appropriately and may be terminated" (Handbook, 46).

<32> Perhaps more important and more difficult than devising the snooping policy, was the obligation to explain how and why Laura was fired. The fact that she was "caught in the act" made it inevitable for the management to inform all employees of Internet and computer file monitoring.

My boss actually went to everybody's stations. He came to me first and foremost, and let me know what was going on, so when people asked if...like the firm was on a firing rampage, I would explain. It was just reinforcing the fact that "Hey, we can actually do this, we have the right to do this. You're pretty much in and we are paying you."

<33> Eventually, the management prepared and distributed a detailed employee handbook. The handbook informed the employees of "snooping" and its consequences, and Internet and computer file monitoring. By means of the handbook, employees at Jones and Smith were notified for the first time -- and in writing -- that they needed to "be aware that you are working in an open environment" and that the firm's Information Systems department "routinely monitors all use of Firm networks and may monitor any network traffic you generate" (Handbook, 48-49).

"A Loss Feeling"

<34> The series of events beginning with the discovery of Laura's misconduct and her dismissal from the firm reveals the complicated nature of working at Jones and Smith. The benefits of working at a high-level law firm may be mitigated by strict rules of conduct and workplace surveillance that scrutinizes employees' every action.

<35> Michel Foucault, whose work is central to understanding surveillance and social control, asserts that surveillance systems reflect the nature of power in modern society. Foucault (1972) argues that through pervasive surveillance mechanisms, power "reaches into the very grain of individuals, touches their bodies and inserts itself into their actions and attitudes, their discourses, learning processes and everyday lives" (140-141).

<36> Foucault argues that modern social institutions do not simply rely on external constraints and controls. Rather, they employ disciplinary practices to ensure that life continues in a patterned and regularized way. One of these institutions is the business enterprise, which relies on supervision and disciplining of employees, and to this end makes use of surveillance to control employees' behaviors, generate favorable behaviors and minimize unfavorable ones.

<37> The institutionalization of rationality is the constitutive feature of institutions in the modern business enterprise (Dandeker 1990). Modern business enterprise relies on rationality to maximize its profits, maintain its books, and more importantly eliminate all subjective factors of human mood. Moreover, with knowledge of individuals and the mastery of this knowledge, the business enterprise guarantees rational administration. As Max Weber explains (1946), rational administration is a fusion of knowledge and disciplining of individuals. Therefore, the business enterprise is structure of domination and surveillance.

"I'm Selling a Commodity"

<38> Oscar Gandy (1983) asserts that surveillance systems work to the benefit of decision-makers within government and corporate bureaucracies. They help to standardize employees' behaviors so as to yield desired results, such as higher levels of productivity, output, profit margins, etc. Surveillance systems work to create and classify categories, measure and calculate behaviors, predict and reduce the uncertainty of human behavior, induce a desirable and predictable behavior, and bureaucratize (16-17).

<39> Surveillance in the Jones and Smith office serves the interests of actors in power positions, who use these systems to predict and control behaviors of their subordinates. Jones and Smith management justifies the rules of conduct that discipline employees, and the surveillance activities that track their behaviors, based on the rationale of productivity and safety.

<40> By justifying the management discourse on productivity, employees keep in place the surveillance system that actually works to their disadvantage. For example, as she makes sense of surveillance and the rules of conduct that build a rigid environment at Jones and Smith, Jenny gives precedence to the interests of the firm clearly over human values.

I think [surveillance] is fair game. I think people are paying you so you come and do your job. If you don't do your job you serve no purpose...I am working there; they are paying me for my time. It's not my time essentially. They are buying my time. I am theirs for this time. I follow the rules. I just believe that I am working for them. This is what they are paying me to do for them.

<41> Gandy (1983) asserts that surveillance is a system based on rationalism, which is illustrated in various practices at Jones and Smith. For example, time records and sign in/sign out sheets calculate the amount of time employees work, and minimize tardiness or laziness. Computer file and Internet monitoring limit personal activities and reduce idleness.

<42> Deeply embedded in the nooks and crannies of the workplace environment, rationalism is also manifest in Jenny's narrative. Through reason and internalization of rules, Jenny makes sense of surveillance from the management's perspective. She understands the loss of her self-control in terms of ownership, and sees herself as "a commodity" at the service of the firm.

They are paying my bills. I need this job. I think I am selling something and they are buying it. And if I want to keep them buying from me I have to give them nothing but good. When one day maybe I decide "Hey I have enough" and I don't need to sell any more… that's how I look at it. I am selling a commodity. That's what is for them. And there are 20 million other people that can do what I do. So if I want to hold on to this, I have to.

<43> Jenny's account epitomizes how actors in power positions who put surveillance systems in place also impose a certain way of thinking about surveillance. At Jones and Smith, the management says what surveillance is good for, but does not say who it is good for. By imposing its preferred system of thought on employees, the management continues to reproduce the workplace environment that works to its own benefit.

Workplace Surveillance: "A Good Thing" or "A Little Cage"?

<44> David Lyon (1994) asserts that the nature of surveillance is nothing but paradoxical. Lyon argues that surveillance is not only about control or repression but also about participating in the social and economic life. For example, we appreciate the convenience of using a credit card but become upset when we are denied a loan based on records of late payments or outstanding balances. EZ Pass enables us to go through highway tolls much faster, but we don't welcome the fact that it records the speed, time, and date of each passing. Lyon asserts that because surveillance seems to enable as well as constrain, it is experienced with ambivalence (38).

<45> Jenny's sense-making process is abound with ambivalence toward surveillance. In regard to surveillance cameras, for example, Jenny first says that they are installed for security purposes and therefore justifies them.

There are cameras where I sit...There is a camera that looks directly at me. That looks at reception… and who comes in, to see the back of the person coming out of the elevator...We also have one at the freight elevator to see who's coming in. You have one at the fire exit...People can actually get locked out. Then they also put some actually in the office...I actually think it's for stealing. There's a lot of stealing going on.

<46> She initially notes that there is nothing to worry about surveillance "as long as you are honest," and "[as long as] you're doing what they pay you to do and you're not snooping and you're not stealing at work." At first, Jenny does not seem to have any problems with surveillance in relation to privacy; because she doesn't have anything to hide and she is in a public space, she thinks that there is no need to worry about privacy.

<47> The conceptual public/private dichotomy holds that the term "private" generally refers to the realm of familial and other personal or intimate relations, whereas "public" indicates the civic realm outside the personal one or government institutions as opposed to private citizens or private institutions. Helen Nissenbaum (1998) acknowledges that there's a considerable body of work that argues for the protection of privacy of intimate or personal realms against intrusion by government or others.

<48> However, Nissenbaum asserts that this approach assumes an opposition between the private and the public and thus overlooks the problem of "privacy in public" (567-70). This is what Jenny experiences at Jones and Smith. She believes that she does not have any right to privacy because she is in a public space.

<49> Noting that the problem of privacy in public has been neglected by many philosophical and legal works, Nissenbaum asserts that privacy in public is a genuine privacy interest because "privacy...enhances peoples' capacity to function as autonomous, creative, free agents" (592).

<50> Assuming that she has no privacy expectation in the workplace, Jenny mentions she is in favor of surveillance because it gives her a sense of protection.

In a sense I feel like [surveillance] is protective. Because to me it's a workplace. You come in, you do your work. You don't mess around and it's fine; they're doing it with me and with other people. It brings a sense of equality...You never know who you're working with. Maybe this guy is into child pornography. Maybe in a sense it is keeping those people or that habit away from me. I think it's pretty cool. I am one of those people that don't mind giving up some of freedoms as part of my protection.

<51> However, when she starts to make sense of her personal autonomy and sense of active agency in the workplace, her narrative reflects the complicated issues surrounding surveillance. She is aware of the constraints that surveillance imposes, and she describes the implications of the inherent control mechanism.

It's a little intimidating and it feels very touchy at times, cause it's a sense of unknowing. You don't really know. Like your boss can smile at your face but totally turn against you behind your back. You don't know who to trust. It's a loss feeling. It's actually quite like a loss feeling cause you don't know what position you might be in from the perspective of so and so. It's like touch and go kind of scenario. And you have to go by what you feel. You don't go by "what if." You go by what you perceive of it. So in a sense you feel kind of caged.

<52> The finding that Jenny experiences surveillance and privacy in a paradoxical fashion lends support to the notion that surveillance has both intended and unintended consequences. Subject to constant surveillance, Jenny has an increased hesitancy and fear about her daily activities. The following sections examine these implications more closely.

Implications on Personal Autonomy and Agency

<53> In tracing historically the issues of discipline and social control, and their interaction with identity, Foucault asserts that as methods of science expanded, and Enlightenment reasoning took its stronghold, the individual became an object of knowledge, not only to others but to himself. Foucault argues that the modern individual becomes an object who does tell the truth about her/himself in order to know her/himself and to be known. S/he learns how to effect changes on her/himself, and her/his behaviors. S/he becomes the object of her/his own self-attention. Jenny's narrative reflects Foucault's remarks.

I have a sense of alertness, "OK, I have to be alert who's coming in, who's going out." Kind of like a record keeper. Also of myself. Because I'm the first person everyone sees when they come in and the last person [when they leave]...I'm working with 50 different attorneys. And each of them has a different personality. I have to know how to deal with each one of them...So it's the little things, even communicating, speaking on the phone to someone...It's a sense of trying to be something that I am really not. And when you're doing it you still don't know if you're doing it right.

<54> Surveillance systems are inherently social control mechanisms. Their purpose is the supervision, monitoring or control of persons or places. They are implemented to control individuals' behaviors and their relations with others, and attempt to alter their behaviors. They challenge human identity, personal autonomy, and agency in different ways. Therefore the questions that arise from the interaction between surveillance systems and individuals' sense of autonomy and agency need to be addressed. In this sense, philosophical dimensions of privacy constitute an important conceptual framework within which one can better understand how surveillance technologies influence the way individuals make sense of their behaviors, agency, personal growth, dignity and autonomy, and creation, maintenance and alteration of identity.

<55> Stanley I. Benn (1971) grounds the principle of privacy on respect for persons as active agents or choosers. An individual's actions are guided by her own principles; she exercises personal autonomy. However, when the individual finds her/himself the object of others' attention, s/he starts to see her/himself through the eyes of others. Benn explains that when the individual is under others' gaze, s/he is not an active agent any longer, because what others know about her/him may affect her/his view of her/himself and her/his world (Benn 1984, 234-243).

<56> In this sense, Jenny's narrative invokes the implications of surveillance on agency. Jenny is known to others through surveillance, and she feels this diminishes her sense of agency.

When I browse the Internet, I make sure that I don't accidentally click on something which might contain inappropriate material. It makes me more strict in what I do. I don't feel like I am going to get fired if I do that...But it's more like a fear that if I open an image and if somebody's walking behind me and sees this [inappropriate] image popping up...I don't open emails unless I am alone in that area -- just in case. They can go back to my boss and say "Hey, I saw that" and that can go into my file. Maybe or maybe not...You don't feel threatened but it's just not knowing. That feeling of not knowing. Just like "Hey, this too involves me. Why don't I know?"

<57> Jenny believes that since the workplace is a public place, employees should not expect any privacy. She argues that "if you need privacy you can go to the ladies room...go to the cafeteria...go to your private spaces in your lunchtime, your break time...go downstairs, take a walk." However, the privacy problem that workplace surveillance creates is not a simple either/or situation. As Hyman Gross (1971) notes, loss of privacy means that the limits one sets on her/his personal affairs are not respected by others (169-72).

<58> Gross explains that in those situations we don't have any control to "determine how [one] shall appear, to whom, and on what occasion" (173). Loss of privacy means that we cannot exercise control over obtaining, accumulating, transmitting of our very own personal information. What does this mean in the workplace? What kind of personal info? It means that we are acted upon by others, and conclusions are drawn about us which we have no opportunity to counteract. We are no longer able to change what's believed about us. We are no longer active agents.

The fact that you don't know who's watching if they are watching you don't know when they are watching. And that role of not knowing...And that's like the Panopticon. It's like that thing, like you're out there and one person can be watching and you don't know at any time. So you're on your best behavior throughout that time.

<59> Gross notes that the desire to protect privacy does not stem merely from self-regard or that we might have something to hide or be ashamed of. We want to protect our privacy because it is an indication of our agency. It is related to our roles as responsible moral agents (173-174).

I'm within a glass case, you can say. Limited. From when I begin till when I end anybody can ask me anything, I'm here to serve them. I am limited in what I can do and what I can say. When I'm off the clock outside the office with the same people it's totally different. Even with attorneys and even with my boss. That's -- I guess -- a different personality that kicks in. It's not me. It's not how I am.

Concluding Remarks

<60> In his investigations of the prison, school, hospital, factory, family, and other organized forms of social life, which have had profound implications for understanding the social control of bodies and minds, Foucault argues that Western societies are subject societies where an all-pervading network of power structures determine human behavior and thought. According to Foucault, power is typically present throughout the institutions of modernity, in all kinds of administrative contexts (1979, 227-228). Since power is not owned by the state, nor is it specific to any particular organization, its analysis should focus on its diverse applications, operations, techniques or tools rather than on what it is.

<61> By examining surveillance and its implications in an administrative context, I have analyzed power as it is experienced in an employee's everyday life. As Reg Whitaker (1999) argues, power in the workplace rests not only on the ownership of capital and the appropriation of the workers' labor power but in "everyday operational terms on management's superior surveillance capacity and the concentration of useful knowledge that capacity yields" (40). I have found that Jenny as an employee who is subject to surveillance in the workplace, experiences the implications of surveillance systems in a paradoxical fashion. She tends to adopt the management perspective, and justify workplace surveillance in terms of safety and productivity. By internalizing the rules, she thinks that it is not only the management but also the employees who benefit from the surveillance systems. This was evident when Jenny said she appreciated surveillance because it protects her from potential dangers. By prioritizing firm benefits over her own rights and freedoms, Jenny also remarked that the management has the right to monitor employees because it pays them to serve the firm.

<62> However, in addition to its intended consequences, such as making the employees show up on time, limit personal activities, and work efficiently without taking too many breaks, surveillance does have its unintended consequences. It negatively affects the individual's sense of agency and autonomy, and leads her/him to the belief that s/he has no rights or freedoms in the workplace because s/he is a commodity owned by the firm.

<63> In contemporary society, surveillance technologies have been accepted in the name of security and productivity. Depending on our positions of power, we may appreciate the benefits surveillance technologies afford. However it is imperative that we also understand the unintended consequences of these technologies in the life of the individual.

Notes

[1] My approach to human inquiry in general, and researching the experiences of the watched in particular, is influenced by the tradition of social constructivism. Among qualitative approaches to human inquiry, constructivism aims to understand the "complex world of lived experience from the point of view of those who live it" (Schwandt 1998, 221). Through the lens of a variety of empirical methods, constructivism enables the researcher to observe routine yet problematic moments in individuals' lives within the larger context of the social world (Denzin and Lincoln 1998). Therefore, constructivism is a well-suited methodology to investigate and capture the experiences of the watched, and the meanings they attach to surveillance technologies and systems.

The main purpose of constructivist inquiry is to understand meanings and definitions attached to social situations by human actors (Schwandt 1998, 221). Constructivists hold that meanings and experiences are never independent from human actors or stripped from moments in history. They are historical and contextual. As Guba and Lincoln put it, "constructions do not exist outside of the persons who create and hold them; they are not part of some 'objective' world that exists apart from their constructors" (qt. in Schwandt 1998, 243).

To provide accounts for contextual cases rather than arriving at universal claims, constructivists insist on avoiding the adoption of a definitive viewpoint. They do not believe in a better or a more defensible or for that matter a worse interpretation of the world. Instead, they call for acknowledging the ambiguities, differences, and divergences of things (Alvesson and Skoldberg 2000, 185). This is what underlies constructivists' efforts to secure rich descriptions of the social world and to let the social actors do the speaking for themselves. [^]

[2] Due to the sensitive nature of the information Jenny provided me, and not to jeopardize her position at this firm, I chose not to approach the management for an interview. [^]

[3] Prior to acknowledging these practices in the handbook, what the management did was to simply "give [employees] a manual full of [information on] medical benefits, days off, and personal stuff." In Jenny's account, there wasn't any information on surveillance in that manual. The management just "breezed over [the online] policy but, there wasn't anything that was written down as to what's to be expected or what was actually being done." [^]

References

Alvesson, M. & K. Skoldberg. Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research. London: Sage, 2000.

American Management Association. "More Companies Watching Employees, American Management Association Annual Survey Reports." 2001. <http://www.amanet.org/press/amanews/ems2001.htm> [accessed July 10, 2001]

Benn, S. "Privacy, Freedom, and Respect for Persons." Privacy. Pennock, R.J.& J.W. Chapman, eds. New York: Atherton, 1971. 1-26.

Cate, F. H. Privacy in the Information Age. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1997.

Dandeker, C. Surveillance, Power and Modernity: Bureaucracy and Discipline from 1700 to the Present Day. New York: St. Martin', 1990.

Doyle, C. Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance: The Electronic Communications Privacy Act and Related Matters. Washington D.C.: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, 1992.

Fortner, R. S. "Physics and Metaphysics in an Information Age." Communication 9, (1986): 151-172.

Foucault, M. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977. New York: Pantheon, 1972.

Foucault, M. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Pantheon, 1977.

Gandy, O. H. The Panoptic Sort: A Political Economy of Personal Information. Boulder: Westview, 1993.

Giddens, A. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, 1991.

Gross, H. "Privacy and Autonomy." Privacy. Pennock, R.J.& J.W. Chapman, eds. New York: Atherton, 1971. 169-181.

Guba, E.G & Lincoln Y.S. "Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research." The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues. N. K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln, eds. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1998. 195-220.

Lyon, D. The Information Society: Issues and Illusions. Cambridge: Polity, 1988.

Lyon, D. The Electronic Eye: The Rise of Surveillance Society. Cambridge: Polity, 1994.

Lyon, D. Surveillance Society: Monitoring Everyday Life. Buckhingham: Open University, 2001.

Nissenbaum, H. "Protecting Privacy in an Information Age: The Problem of Privacy in Public." Law and Philosophy 17, (1998): 559-596.

Regan, P. M. Legislating Privacy: Technology, Social Values, and Public Policy. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1995.

Rule, J. B., et al. The Politics of Privacy: Planning for Personal Data Systems as Powerful Technologies. New York: Elsevier, 1980.

Schwandt, T.A. "Constructivist, Interpretivist Approaches to Human Inquiry." The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues. N. K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln, eds. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1998. 221-259.

Simson, G. Database Nation: The Death of Privacy in the 21st Century. Cambridge: O'Reilly, 2000.

Smith, J. H. Managing Privacy: Information Technology and Corporate America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1994.

Weber, M. Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. H. H. Gerth and C. W. Mills, eds. New York: Oxford University, 1946.

Whitaker, R. The End of Privacy. New York: The New Press, 1999.