This article compares experiences of surveillance technologies in low-income public housing and affluent gated communities in Phoenix, Arizona. Contrary to the popular discourse of surveillance as ensuring protection from external threats, in practice, both groups feel subjected to undesired individual scrutiny and policing of their behaviors. Nonetheless, key differences exist. First, residents in gated communities possess relative mobility and minimal personal risk compared to those in public housing. Second, in public housing, the underlying logics behind surveillance are toward the enforcement of state laws, whereas in gated communities, they are toward the enforcement of conformity in appearance and behavior. The article argues that the dissonance between popular discourse and discourse of practice about surveillance technologies is representative of deeper social instabilities engendered by neoliberal forms of governance.
Bauman, Zygmunt.1998. Globalization: The human consequences. New York: Columbia Univ Press..
2.
Bauman, Zygmunt.2001. Community: Seeking safety in an insecure world. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
3.
Blakely, Edward James, and Mary Gail Snyder.1997. Fortress America: Gated communities in the United States. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
4.
Blomley, Nicholas.2004. Un-real estate: Proprietary space and public gardening. Antipode36(4): 614-641.
5.
Bourdieu, Pierre.1998. The essence of neoliberalism. Le Monde Diplomatique December. Available from http://mondediplo.com/1998/12/08bourdieu.
6.
Caldeira, Teresa P. R.2000. City of walls: Crime, segregation, and citizenship in São Paulo. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
7.
Campbell, Nancy D.2005. Suspect technologies: Scrutinizing the intersection of science, technology, and policy. Science, Technology, & Human Values30(3): 374-402.
City of Phoenix.2005. Community trends and profile. Available from http://phoenix.gov/CITYGOV/stats.html.
10.
Coleman, Alice.1985. Utopia on trial: Vision and reality in planned housing. London: H. Shipman.
11.
Cozens, Paul, David Hillier, and Gwyn Prescott. 1999. The sustainable and the criminogenic: The case of new-build housing projects in Britain. Property Management17(3): 252-261.
12.
Curry, Michael, David J. Phillips, and Priscilla M. Regan. 2004. Emergency response systems and the creeping legibility of people and places. The Information Society20: 357-369.
13.
Davis, Mike.1990. City of quartz: Excavating the future in Los Angeles. New York: Vintage.
14.
Dear, Michael.2000. The postmodern urban condition. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
15.
Durfee, Alesha, and Karen Rosenberg.2004. Domestic violence in the United States: Current research, new directions. In Agenda for social justice, solutions 2004, edited by R. Perrucci, K. Ferraro, J. Miller, and P. C. R. Rust, 72-80. Knoxville, TN: Society for the Study of Social Problems.
16.
Engwicht, David.1993. Reclaiming our cities and towns: Better living with less traffic. Philadelphia: New Society.
17.
Eubanks, Virginia.2006. Technologies of citizenship: Surveillance and political learning in the welfare system. In Surveillance and security: Technological politics and power in everyday life, edited by T. Monahan, 89-107. New York: Routledge.
18.
Falzon, Mark-Anthony. 2004. Paragons of lifestyle: Gated communities and the politics of space in Bombay. City & SocietyXVI (2): 145-167.
19.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2005. Crime in the United States 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Available from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/documents/CIUS2004.pdf.
20.
Flusty, Steven.1994. Building paranoia: The proliferation of interdictory spaces and the erosion of spatial justice. West Hollywood, CA: Los Angeles Forum for Architecture and Urban Design.
21.
Foucault, Michel.1977. Discipline & punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage, Random House.
22.
Gandy, Oscar H.2003. Data mining and surveillance in the post-9/11 environment. In The intensification of surveillance: Crime, terrorism and warfare in the information age, edited by K. Ball and F. Webster, 26-41. Sterling, VA: Pluto.
23.
Gieryn, Thomas F.2006. City as truth-spot: Laboratories and field-sites in urban studies. Social Studies of Science36(1): 5-38.
24.
Gilliom, John.2001. Overseers of the poor: Surveillance, resistance, and the limits of privacy. Chicago: Univ of Chicago Press..
25.
Gober, Patricia.2006. Metropolitan Phoenix: Place making and community building in the desert. Philadelphia, PA: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.
26.
Gotham, Kevin Fox, and Krista Brumley.2002. Using space: Agency and identity in a public-housing development. City & Community1(3): 267-289.
27.
Graham, Stephen, and Simon Marvin.2001. Splintering urbanism: Networked infrastructures, technological mobilities and the urban condition. New York: Routledge.
28.
Graham, Stephen, and David Wood.2003. Digitizing surveillance: Categorization, space, inequality. Critical Social Policy23(2): 227-248.
29.
Hillier, B.1986. City of Alice’s dreams. Architects Journal184(28): 39-41.
30.
Hillier, B.2004. Can streets be made safe? Urban Design International9(1): 31-45.
31.
Hommels, Anique.2005. Studying obduracy in the city: Toward a productive fusion between technology studies and urban studies. Science, Technology, & Human Values30(3): 323-351.
32.
Jacobs, Jane.1961. The death and life of great American cities. 2002 ed. New York: Random House.
33.
Joerges, Bernward.1999. Do politics have artefacts? Social Studies of Science29(3): 411-431.
34.
Katz, Cindi.2006. The state goes home: Local hypervigilance of children and the global retreat from social reproduction. In Surveillance and security: Technological politics and power in everyday life, edited by T. Monahan, 27-36. New York: Routledge.
35.
Kupchik, Aaron, and Torin Monahan. Forthcoming. The new American school: Preparation for post-industrial discipline. British Journal of Sociology of Education.
36.
Kuppinger, Petra.2004. Exclusive greenery: New gated communities in Cairo. City & SocietyXVI (2): 35-61.
37.
Landman, Karina. 2002. Gated communities in South Africa: Building bridges or barriers. Paper read at International Conference on the Privatisation of Urban Governance, June 6-9, Mainz, Germany.
38.
Lefebvre, Henri.1991. The production of space. Translated by D. Nicholson-Smith. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
39.
Low, Setha M.2003. Behind the gates: Life, security and the pursuit of happiness in fortress America. New York: Routledge.
40.
Lynch, Kevin.1984. Good city form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41.
Lyon, David.2001. Surveillance society: Monitoring everyday life. Buckingham, UK: Open University.
42.
Maher, Kristen Hill.2003. Workers and strangers: The household service economy and the landscape of suburban fear. Urban Affairs Review38(6): 751-786.
43.
Mawby, R. I.1977. Defensible space: A theoretical and empirical appraisal. Urban Studies14: 169-179.
44.
McCabe, Barbara Coyle.2005. The rules are different here: An institutional comparison of cities and homeowners associations. Administration & Society37(4): 404-425.
45.
Monahan, Torin.2002. Los Angeles studies: The emergence of a specialty field. City & SocietyXIV (2): 155-184.
46.
Monahan, Torin.2005. Globalization, technological change, and public education. New York: Routledge.
47.
Monahan, Torin.2006. Preface. In Surveillance and security: Technological politics and power in everyday life, edited by T. Monahan, ix-xi. New York: Routledge.
48.
Musheno, Michael C., James P. Levine, and Denis J. Palumbo. 1978. Television surveillance and crime prevention: Evaluating an attempt to create defensible space in public housing. Social Science Quarterly58(4): 647-656.
49.
Mycoo, Michelle. 2006. The retreat of the upper and middle classes to gated communities in the poststructural adjustment era: The case of Trinidad. Environment and Planning A38(1): 131-148.
50.
Newman, Oscar.1972. Defensible space. New York: Macmillan.
51.
O’Harrow, Robert. 2005. No place to hide. New York: Free Press.
52.
Pinch, Trevor.1996. The social construction of technology: A review. In Technological change: Methods and themes in the history of technology, edited by R. Fox, 17-35. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.
53.
Romig, Kevin.2004. The new urban “anthem”: Neoliberal design and political fragmentation. Critical Planning11: 3-16.
54.
Romig, Kevin.2005. The upper Sonoran lifestyle: Gated communities in Scottsdale, Arizona. City & Community4(1): 67-86.
55.
Steventon, Graham.1996. Defensible space: A critical review of the theory and practice of a crime prevention strategy. Urban Design International1(3): 235-245.
56.
Waldrop, Anne.2004. Gating and class relations: The case of a New Delhi “colony.”City & SocietyXVI (2): 93-116.
57.
Winner, Langdon.1977. Autonomous technology: Technics-out-of-control as a theme in political thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
58.
Winner, Langdon.1986. The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in an age of high technology. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
59.
Woolgar, Steve.1991. The turn to technology in social studies of science. Science, Technology, & Human Values16(1): 20-50.
