Below, an article from this week's Mills Campanil:
Source: http://www.thecampanil.com/2009/11/19/college-offers-isolation-dorms-for-students-with-flu/
College offers isolation dorms for students with flu
By Alixandra Greenman
This year, due to the H1N1 flu pandemic facing the country, Mills College will be offering an optional quarantine area for residential students with flu symptoms.
The third floor of Warren Olney Hall, which traditionally houses first years, has been designated as an isolation zone for sick residential students.
“I think it is very important that we as a College have set aside an area for residential students who have been told by doctors to isolate themselves,” said Kim Baranek, director of wellness and community outreach services at Mills.
Any residential student who has been told by doctors to isolate themselves may move into one of the designated rooms until they are well.
“It is important that students rest. This area is a great way for students to get healthy,” said Shana Davis, residence director of Orchard Meadow and Warren Olney residence halls.
Neither Davis nor Baranek would say how many students have been put into isolation quarters so far.
Joi Lewis, the Dean of Student Life and Vice Provost, said the isolation zone is provided for two reasons. “We want students who are having health issues to have a safe place to go and we also want the Mills community to not have an increased risk of becoming infected.”
Prior to moving a student into the quarantine area, the student must contact a doctor for a medical consultation. If the student is diagnosed with H1N1, commonly referred to as the swine flu, the doctor may either recommend the student have no contact with others whatsoever or the doctor may advise staff members to have limited contact with the student. If limited contact is suggested, staff from the Division of Student Life who are designated to take care of sick students are advised to take proper precautions, such as wearing medical masks.
According to an e-mail Lewis sent out to students last week, students who choose to move into the quarantine rooms while sick will be provided with a room, transportation to that room, delivery of three meals per day, a care basket, and 24 hour support from the residence director on duty.
All rooms are stocked with bed linens, towels, and drinking water. Students living in quarantine don’t pay any additional fees for their care.
Ariana Cuellar, a first year student at Mills, was one of the first students to utilize the quarantine facilities. She had mixed feeling about the experience.
“It was kind of creepy because I was alone. They put me up there so I could sleep and drink. That is all I did,” said Cuellar.
Cuellar was a resident on the quarantine floor for four days in late October, about two weeks before Halloween. She said she knew that it was for her benefit.
“They took good care of me. When I got there, they gave me two huge boxes, one with a care basket and the other with water and Gatorade. The coloring book in the care basket was the most exciting part,” said Cuellar.
According to Michael Lopez, director of Public Safety, his office is responsible for transporting students from their normal residence to their isolation room.
Lewis recommends that any student with flu symptoms stay home and seek medical advice.
She said she urges all sick commuter students to remain home and not return to the Mills campus until they are free of fever for 24 hours.
Lewis recommends that sick residential students either stay with family and friends nearby or contact their residential adviser, the residential director, or a staff member in the Division of Student Life.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earlier this semester, we spent a class period laboring over the task of creating a plan for Mills College in the event of a flu epidemic. Around that time, I began hearing word around campus that there was a mysterious third floor dorm hall where sick students would be quarantined. It hadn't sounded so eerie, so "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" when we'd invented it in class. Something about the "third floor," and the "quarantine," the assisted transport...it felt shrouded in a kind of sterility and secrecy, an extension of the attitude towards the flu itself.
This feeling is not at all helped by Mills officials refusal or inability to provide a count of how many students have utilized the quarantine hall. Now, I recognize that this is a logical way to prevent a potentially dangerous flu epidemic, but beyond function, it has me thinking about the psychological experience of such venues of social control. The student interviewed described the experience as mostly ok, but still, "kind of creepy." What is it that's inherently creepy about health-conscious modes of social control? The student went on to recognize that it was for her benefit, but this did not seem to salve the creepy feeling. Perhaps its simply the old dorms that are creepy when you're the only one there, or the institution's limited capacity to make you feel at home--which they certainly seem to make an effort to do.
Perhaps there is something inherently "controlled" about these environments that triggers our creepy detectors. We become aware that although this may be in our best interest, at no point will we be consulted. How would a commune, or an anarchist community, address an epidemic? Although the mode employed by Mills may be medically approved, it also requires a hierarchical institution to be enacted. Just because something is creepy and institutional, and perhaps authoritarian, doesn't mean it shouldn't happen; but those qualities should not be taken as "givens," and the resolution of the same crisis within non-hierarchical communities should be explored. It may turn out that in crisis, they revert to hierarchy, but whatever the resolution, the process will surely inform the relationship between social control and hierarchy.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Social Norms, AC Transit Style
"They shouldn't even let those high school kids on these nice buses--they'd just mess them up!"
Such was the vibe on the cushy, coach-style transbay NL bus, which runs during commuter hours on weekdays. Meant to entice commuters to San Franisco with comfy seats, smooth travel, privacy and wireless internet, the buses follow the regular NL route, and therefore benefits those of us traveling within the East Bay as well.
I take the NL frequently, and since our class is at 9:30 AM, when I take it to school, sometimes I score the Nice Bus. As any public transit user knows, buses are great for people watching, can provide wild and unexpected assaults on the senses, and are the locus of a distinct set of social norms. You can talk loud, but if you're talking TOO loud--on the phone, to yourself--the driver may interrupt you, for the sake of the bus. You can smell like weed, but you probably won't get away with smoking it for too long, before someone says something. You should get up for elders and people with strollers, and you should sit in an empty set of seats before you plop down next to a stranger. You can open the window above your seat, but it'd be odd to go around and open all of them. Small talk with fellow bus riders is acceptable, but full-on conversations are subject to scrutiny by your partner and onlookers--the chat should be consensual and appropriate.
Needless to say, these norms are tested on the bus every day. But when I ride the Nice Bus, it's a different world. People are quiet. The outside world dulls to a hum. The seats are paired on either side of the aisle, and when you're sitting down, you can't see the rest of the bus. Eye contact, for better or worse, is eliminated. Someone talking on a cell phone becomes a noticeable noise factor. And people take out their laptops! I can't imagine someone taking out their laptop on a regular bus--they would look foolish and naive, a high-maintenance commuter at the very least. But this is who these buses are created for, at least hypothetically.
This morning, as our Nice Bus pulled up alongside a regular bus, I looked down into its interior. People were standing over others, avoiding eye contact as bodies accidentally staggered around with the lurch of the bus' brakes. From our insulated ride, music from headphones or cell phones was inaudible, but clearly, folks were rocking out. A stroller lingered in the way of the aisle, and people chatted with friends and family.
Strollers and wheelchairs cannot easily fit on the Nice Buses, if they can at all--so there is a limiting, exclusivity that goes beyond the intended goal of the commuter bus. But other than that, anyone can get on--yet they behave completely differently once they're there! The cues seem to work--the quiet, the privacy, the air of privilege. The woman who I overheard saying the quote at the beginning of the entry was onto another realm of social control: everyone could ride the Nice Bus, but not everyone deserves to. Bits of graffiti sometimes appear on the backs of seats, and certainly private seats could encourage questionable behavior. Maybe it does. But operation: social control seems to be working for AC Transit so far.
Such was the vibe on the cushy, coach-style transbay NL bus, which runs during commuter hours on weekdays. Meant to entice commuters to San Franisco with comfy seats, smooth travel, privacy and wireless internet, the buses follow the regular NL route, and therefore benefits those of us traveling within the East Bay as well.
I take the NL frequently, and since our class is at 9:30 AM, when I take it to school, sometimes I score the Nice Bus. As any public transit user knows, buses are great for people watching, can provide wild and unexpected assaults on the senses, and are the locus of a distinct set of social norms. You can talk loud, but if you're talking TOO loud--on the phone, to yourself--the driver may interrupt you, for the sake of the bus. You can smell like weed, but you probably won't get away with smoking it for too long, before someone says something. You should get up for elders and people with strollers, and you should sit in an empty set of seats before you plop down next to a stranger. You can open the window above your seat, but it'd be odd to go around and open all of them. Small talk with fellow bus riders is acceptable, but full-on conversations are subject to scrutiny by your partner and onlookers--the chat should be consensual and appropriate.
Needless to say, these norms are tested on the bus every day. But when I ride the Nice Bus, it's a different world. People are quiet. The outside world dulls to a hum. The seats are paired on either side of the aisle, and when you're sitting down, you can't see the rest of the bus. Eye contact, for better or worse, is eliminated. Someone talking on a cell phone becomes a noticeable noise factor. And people take out their laptops! I can't imagine someone taking out their laptop on a regular bus--they would look foolish and naive, a high-maintenance commuter at the very least. But this is who these buses are created for, at least hypothetically.
This morning, as our Nice Bus pulled up alongside a regular bus, I looked down into its interior. People were standing over others, avoiding eye contact as bodies accidentally staggered around with the lurch of the bus' brakes. From our insulated ride, music from headphones or cell phones was inaudible, but clearly, folks were rocking out. A stroller lingered in the way of the aisle, and people chatted with friends and family.
Strollers and wheelchairs cannot easily fit on the Nice Buses, if they can at all--so there is a limiting, exclusivity that goes beyond the intended goal of the commuter bus. But other than that, anyone can get on--yet they behave completely differently once they're there! The cues seem to work--the quiet, the privacy, the air of privilege. The woman who I overheard saying the quote at the beginning of the entry was onto another realm of social control: everyone could ride the Nice Bus, but not everyone deserves to. Bits of graffiti sometimes appear on the backs of seats, and certainly private seats could encourage questionable behavior. Maybe it does. But operation: social control seems to be working for AC Transit so far.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Listserv Drama in Action Part II
I had a real-life experience with parking drama, and the social deviance that good people will resort to!
I was driving home from a concert with my girlfriend and her two housemates. Their neighborhood is difficult to park in, and when we began our first circle around the block, he pointed to a white car near their house, and told a story about the car's owner. Supposedly, he informed our driver that he couldn't park there because it was technically his driveway, even though his car was often parked there, and there was no usable garage. He was "moving things," and told our driver to park somewhere else. When we finally found a spot, we were sort of in the red of a fire hydrant, and so our driver unloaded us passengers and headed off for another go-round. As he drove off, his partner began daydreaming about their own non-driveway, which has a curb cut to the street, but ends in a garage converted into a first-floor apartment. "We should make that OUR parking spot!" she grunted. "We'll nail up a little "No Parking" sign, and the city will take care of the rest, because they'll be parked in a driveway!." Someone else chimed in, "but then they'll ticket us too...." She had an even better idea: "We'll carry around the little placards in our CARS, we'll each have one, and hang it up every time on a nail we'll put there!" As we trudged the extra blocks to the house, the evil plot was unfolded with a fervor familiar to any listserv reader. But it quickly went the way of other listserv nastiness--into a puddle of potential compromise, and ambiguity: Digesting that last point, my rational minded girlfriend chimed in, "but eventually one of us will forget, and then WE'LL get a ticket." Oops.
"I guess so.
It was a good idea.
...Maybe still."
Parking brings out the worst in people: confirmed.
I was driving home from a concert with my girlfriend and her two housemates. Their neighborhood is difficult to park in, and when we began our first circle around the block, he pointed to a white car near their house, and told a story about the car's owner. Supposedly, he informed our driver that he couldn't park there because it was technically his driveway, even though his car was often parked there, and there was no usable garage. He was "moving things," and told our driver to park somewhere else. When we finally found a spot, we were sort of in the red of a fire hydrant, and so our driver unloaded us passengers and headed off for another go-round. As he drove off, his partner began daydreaming about their own non-driveway, which has a curb cut to the street, but ends in a garage converted into a first-floor apartment. "We should make that OUR parking spot!" she grunted. "We'll nail up a little "No Parking" sign, and the city will take care of the rest, because they'll be parked in a driveway!." Someone else chimed in, "but then they'll ticket us too...." She had an even better idea: "We'll carry around the little placards in our CARS, we'll each have one, and hang it up every time on a nail we'll put there!" As we trudged the extra blocks to the house, the evil plot was unfolded with a fervor familiar to any listserv reader. But it quickly went the way of other listserv nastiness--into a puddle of potential compromise, and ambiguity: Digesting that last point, my rational minded girlfriend chimed in, "but eventually one of us will forget, and then WE'LL get a ticket." Oops.
"I guess so.
It was a good idea.
...Maybe still."
Parking brings out the worst in people: confirmed.
Game Theory Annotations and Thoughts
YouTube Game Theory Videos
Ellickson, Robert. Order Without Law. Chapter 9.
Intro to Game Theory 2009 (Econ 223 Lecture 1). John Fountain, University of Canterbury.
Game theory was developed to mathematically analyze the potential moves of poker players, based upon their beliefs about what OTHER players will do. The theory is aimed at the Nash Equilibrium, in which a compromise is reached that pleases all parties. The thinking and choice-making that occurs in the process of games is informative beyond that simple goal. Game Theory describes the behavior required for equilibrium to occur, and the choices that may result in payoffs other than that which is welfare-maximizing.
It is assumed that human players act selfishly and rationally, leading to an order based on "unleashed" self-interest. During the Cold War, this assumed rationality was a way to approach the U.S.’ moves, which involved "incorporating [the] enemy into your own thinking." In Prof. Fountain’s lecture, he uses game theory to describe the “game” played between professors teaching a class and students attempting to pass.
*Does this leads to the assumption that if everyone is thinking rationally, they will all be playing the same "game," and considering the same "moves?" If so, then that adds another layer of rationalizing, in which you must consider the factor of likelihood that others will make a choice based on the moves and consequences, and your own potential moves. Oy!
In the cold war example, the U.S. military used game theory to convince the Russians that if they were to attack, the U.S. was capable of great destruction in return. This resulted in what the video calls a "delicate balance" called the "equilibrium of terror." It is interesting to think about this equilibrium in the context of the Nash Equilibrium, the simplified version of which results in each party getting what it desires. What was the desired "move" in the Cold War, on the part of either side? Neither wanted the world blown to oblivion, but to make matters more complex, neither wanted to be the first NOR the second to act! Game theory dilemma!
John Nash: "Stability through suspicion and self-interest"
-tried to apply game theory to all human interaction and behavior
-showed that this kind of system did not have to result in chaos, if the equilibrium could be reached
-"separate optimization"
-idea that each player is separate and alone
-but all of the actions work together in a common--not cooperative space--to create equilibrium
-prisoner's dilemma to show how selfishness would always lead to the best outcome
--rational choice always to betray--at worst, got diamond, at best got diamond AND money. if you trusted, you could lose everything. the "sucker payoff"
-but what if both parties do this?
Political implications of game theory: a society based upon self-interest that would not result in chaos may instead lead to suspicion and distrust. This is a manner of social order—perhaps in this case, the social ideology of game theory is a form of social control. Even when Nash was institutionalized for paranoid schizophrenia, his model of choice-making continued to be influential on cold-war era social control and methods of order.
For example, game theory was applied by R.D. Laing to family dynamics, aiming at the underlying suspicious between family members. British and American economists also used Game Theory to generate a “fundamental truth” about human behavior and intentions as strategic and self-interested. This had a detrimental effect public faith in the benevolence of government acting in a public interest. Game Theory has been further extended to encourage a kind of empiricism that greatly essentializes the rationality of humans.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Listserv drama in action
Before I go on, anyone reading this who is not Dan or I must go RIGHT NOW to the Donald Black link on the syllabus and observe how excellently that man is dressed. And coiffed.
Ok, now we can begin.
I was reading the local newspaper today, having my taco in the local taqueria, in between thesis projects, when I noticed a column that was PHENOMENALLY apt for this semester's final project. This mini-article follows another about a recent shooting in front of Laurel Lounge, on MacArthur Blvd, in the middle of the Laurel. Here it is:
Keywords I picked out:
-immediate and heated exchange
-residents living within blocks of the bar
-ongoing "atmosphere of crime"
-questioned level of security by owner
--> others defended owner
-demands to stop name-calling
-->deleting subscribers for violating listserv guidelines
-arising from this--"calls to come together and create a better neighborhood for all"
-called for participation in the resident walking patrol
In three short paragraphs, the Metro paints a vivid picture of the arc of this listserv dialogue. Although simplistic and not aimed at theorizing anything, I recognize a similarity between the arc of tension and resolve here, and in our data. At first, there is a general flurry of comments, a generalization of the problem to other issues in the neighborhood, and then people begin to fall into camps. In this case, it was those who criticized the owners, and those who were sympathetic. The "elevation" that is described is a particularly interesting moment; I saw this in our listserv data as well, and it seemed to involve a frenzy of people referring more to other posts than offer new information. As this article describes, eventually some people called for calm and community, and the positivity began emerging. The neighborhood boosting was followed by a concrete suggestion, that people participate in the resident walking patrol.
I'm going to keep this "arc" idea in mind as I continue to work with the data. I'm becoming more and more interested in the "shape" of these conversations.
To come!
Ok, now we can begin.
I was reading the local newspaper today, having my taco in the local taqueria, in between thesis projects, when I noticed a column that was PHENOMENALLY apt for this semester's final project. This mini-article follows another about a recent shooting in front of Laurel Lounge, on MacArthur Blvd, in the middle of the Laurel. Here it is:
Neighborhood Reacts
News of the shooting created an immediate and heated exchange on the Laurel Village listserv. Residents living within blocks of the bar pointed out an ongoing "atmosphere of crime" at the MacArthur Blvd. intersection near the bar and angrily questioned the level of security provided by the owner. Others defended the owner by pointing out that the business participated in no apparent illegal activity and was not responsible for criminal or nuisance activities near the bar that predated his ownership. The charged listserv discussion elevated into demands to stop name-calling and for deleting subscribers for violating listserv guidelines prohibiting abusive language.'
Arising from this were calls to come together as a community and to create a better neighborhood for all. Another subscriber highlighted what was good in the neighborhood— the Saturday farmers market, the "Space" at Laurel Jujitsu, and a range of good and diverse small businesses, retail stores, and eateries.
Some called for participation in the resident walking patrol, Feet on the Street. Neighbors meet Thursdays at 7 p.m., except the second Thursdays of the month, at the Laurel Hardware parking lot (4024 MacArthur) to walk the boulevard, strengthen community ties, and show support for the businesses. Police officers often join the group.
(Source: http://macarthurmetro.org/200911/lma/3768)
Keywords I picked out:
-immediate and heated exchange
-residents living within blocks of the bar
-ongoing "atmosphere of crime"
-questioned level of security by owner
--> others defended owner
-demands to stop name-calling
-->deleting subscribers for violating listserv guidelines
-arising from this--"calls to come together and create a better neighborhood for all"
-called for participation in the resident walking patrol
In three short paragraphs, the Metro paints a vivid picture of the arc of this listserv dialogue. Although simplistic and not aimed at theorizing anything, I recognize a similarity between the arc of tension and resolve here, and in our data. At first, there is a general flurry of comments, a generalization of the problem to other issues in the neighborhood, and then people begin to fall into camps. In this case, it was those who criticized the owners, and those who were sympathetic. The "elevation" that is described is a particularly interesting moment; I saw this in our listserv data as well, and it seemed to involve a frenzy of people referring more to other posts than offer new information. As this article describes, eventually some people called for calm and community, and the positivity began emerging. The neighborhood boosting was followed by a concrete suggestion, that people participate in the resident walking patrol.
I'm going to keep this "arc" idea in mind as I continue to work with the data. I'm becoming more and more interested in the "shape" of these conversations.
To come!
Monday, October 19, 2009
Communes, Communes, Communes
Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. "Commitment and Community: Communes and Utopias in Sociological Perspective." Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972.
It' s interesting to read this article at this point in history. When Kanter wrote it, in the 1970s, an upswelling of communal living was underway, and I can't know for sure how this influenced her writing, but she does reference some "contemporary" communes. I'm interested in analyzing Kanter's piece in light of the "waves" of communal living in the 19th century communes, the 1970s communes, the communal living that exists today, and all the others in between that I may not know about.
What strikes me about Kanter's observations of communes are the presence of a strong central leader, the relationship to Christian values, and the emphasis on completeness and physical size. The theoretical explanations for these things make good sense--especially when it comes to the basics of how people organize themselves, and act out in different power structure. It doesn't reference particular thinkers on the matter, but Locke and Hobbes are looming. This is one aspect of the article that leaves me wanting more; the very idea that "renunciation," "mortification" and "transcendence" are important to community bonds is predicated on some overarching assumptions about the human condition.
I had a question about the idea of centralization as a major tenet of communal life. Can that center be ideological? Or is she arguing forthe Freudian model, where the center is a leader, and the harmony of the commune relies on an egalitarian relationship to that leader? My instinct is that such centralized leadership, even if it is just in the form of a "charismatic leader," is contrary to the communist ideals emphasized elsewhere in the commune. Then again, this brings me to my other thoughts, which revolve around contemporary communes and the principles (or anti-principles) of anarchy.
It struck me that co-housing was identified as a form of commitment among unsuccessful communes, since that is the type of communal living that seems to have endured. I don't have a strong basis for this statement, other than knowledge of communal housing among young people in the U.S., both within university institutions and without, and the existence of such housing in the 1970s, especially inthe lesbian separatist movement (who also created communes in the 19th century tradition). Kanter does make the useful point that 19th century communes attempted to create community gradually, which is not the case in most co-housing communes.
Another thought: (133) "Some commitment mechanisms arose from necessity rather than ideology." When does a communal group decide when to stop "mechanizing"?? Is there a possibility that the community will unravel in a communal tyranny? Is that part of the function of a centralized leader, to provide direction and priorities for the group, so that all concerns do not result in a new "commitment mechanism," which could lead to an unreasonable or unbearable lifestyle? Kanter discusses religious communities whose commitment mechanisms are guided by shared beliefs, and writes that communities bound by political beliefs may also find ties in a similar framework. I wonder, though, about the distinctions in the "nature" of those two belief systems. Some political belief systems involve questioning, dissecting, analyzing and confronting ideas, and although there may be doctrine involved in the social order of the community, the potential for bumps in the road to communal life may be heightened compared to religious communities.
It' s interesting to read this article at this point in history. When Kanter wrote it, in the 1970s, an upswelling of communal living was underway, and I can't know for sure how this influenced her writing, but she does reference some "contemporary" communes. I'm interested in analyzing Kanter's piece in light of the "waves" of communal living in the 19th century communes, the 1970s communes, the communal living that exists today, and all the others in between that I may not know about.
What strikes me about Kanter's observations of communes are the presence of a strong central leader, the relationship to Christian values, and the emphasis on completeness and physical size. The theoretical explanations for these things make good sense--especially when it comes to the basics of how people organize themselves, and act out in different power structure. It doesn't reference particular thinkers on the matter, but Locke and Hobbes are looming. This is one aspect of the article that leaves me wanting more; the very idea that "renunciation," "mortification" and "transcendence" are important to community bonds is predicated on some overarching assumptions about the human condition.
I had a question about the idea of centralization as a major tenet of communal life. Can that center be ideological? Or is she arguing forthe Freudian model, where the center is a leader, and the harmony of the commune relies on an egalitarian relationship to that leader? My instinct is that such centralized leadership, even if it is just in the form of a "charismatic leader," is contrary to the communist ideals emphasized elsewhere in the commune. Then again, this brings me to my other thoughts, which revolve around contemporary communes and the principles (or anti-principles) of anarchy.
It struck me that co-housing was identified as a form of commitment among unsuccessful communes, since that is the type of communal living that seems to have endured. I don't have a strong basis for this statement, other than knowledge of communal housing among young people in the U.S., both within university institutions and without, and the existence of such housing in the 1970s, especially inthe lesbian separatist movement (who also created communes in the 19th century tradition). Kanter does make the useful point that 19th century communes attempted to create community gradually, which is not the case in most co-housing communes.
Another thought: (133) "Some commitment mechanisms arose from necessity rather than ideology." When does a communal group decide when to stop "mechanizing"?? Is there a possibility that the community will unravel in a communal tyranny? Is that part of the function of a centralized leader, to provide direction and priorities for the group, so that all concerns do not result in a new "commitment mechanism," which could lead to an unreasonable or unbearable lifestyle? Kanter discusses religious communities whose commitment mechanisms are guided by shared beliefs, and writes that communities bound by political beliefs may also find ties in a similar framework. I wonder, though, about the distinctions in the "nature" of those two belief systems. Some political belief systems involve questioning, dissecting, analyzing and confronting ideas, and although there may be doctrine involved in the social order of the community, the potential for bumps in the road to communal life may be heightened compared to religious communities.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Surveillaaaance
The Week published this snippet of news in its "The world at a glance section...":
http://www.theweek.com/article/index/101405/The_world_at_a_glance____United_States
"New York City
Security blanket: A high-tech surveillance network, already in place in lower Manhattan, will blanket midtown Manhattan by 2011, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced this week. The network, extending from 30th Street to 60th Street and encompassing Times Square, will feed data from high-resolution cameras, license-plate readers, and weapons sensors to a central command center. Funded by a $24 million federal grant, the security system will cover Grand Central Station, Penn Station, the United Nations, and other landmarks. The announcement follows the unraveling of an alleged terrorist plot to explode homemade bombs in New York City. “We cannot afford to be complacent,” Bloomberg said. But civil-liberties activists raised alarms. “The fear is that the NYPD, without any oversight or public scrutiny, is creating a massive surveillance system,” said Donna Lieberman of the New York Civil Liberties Union.""
Crime and response measures have always functioned in some kind of pendulum swing--but since 9/11, the tolerance for the speed and sensitivity of the downswing has shrunk enormously. By all measures that I can tell, as a former New Yorker and general news-following person, New York has gotten safer and safer over the past twenty years. This is due to a number of things, and a certain measure of safety. Mayor Giuliani swept the city clean of drug addicts and homeless people, contributing to a sense of safety for everybody else, but creating another kind of crime against a population in great need of the city's help. Bloomberg has been accused of treading further down the path of Disneyfication, and from my own observations, Manhattan is wealthier and is home to more seemingy-transplanted, un-wacky people every time I visit, and the borders of the working class neighborhoods of Upper Manhattan just keep shifting up. What once began at 96th street now reaches 145th, etc.
So a rational fear of crime--the kind likely to be caught on surveillance cameras--is really not as big an issue in midtown as it once was, yet now this new system is being installed. The praise that politicians welcomed following 9/11 helped to cement a narrative about quick and unwavering action in the face of "terrorism," over which, it would seem to follow, we have limited intelligence control. I'm really interested in the timing of this response cycle, as it is playing out, in this case, in Manhattan.
First of all, it doesn't seem that people really push for empirical evidence that this kind of surveillance works. That would mean questioning the NYPD, and after 9/11, it's quite unpopular to do so when the threat involves "terrorism." Of course, there are instances of success, namely the intelligence operations that resulted in the capture of this latest homemade bomber. Why isn't that intelligence sufficient? This could be settled by a plea for vigilance and the very incidence of such thwarted threats, but Bloomberg's quote really hints at a different, additional can of worms: "We cannot afford to be complacent." The "We" has this massive silencing power, the direct definition of any other action as complacency. There's no way to question it without directly coming up against the issue of the collective good, a historical fear, a weird reverential relationship with authority, and the uncertainty and poor understanding of "terrorism."
For more on the NYCLU and their case, see http://www.nyclu.org/node/2624
http://www.theweek.com/article/index/101405/The_world_at_a_glance____United_States
"New York City
Security blanket: A high-tech surveillance network, already in place in lower Manhattan, will blanket midtown Manhattan by 2011, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced this week. The network, extending from 30th Street to 60th Street and encompassing Times Square, will feed data from high-resolution cameras, license-plate readers, and weapons sensors to a central command center. Funded by a $24 million federal grant, the security system will cover Grand Central Station, Penn Station, the United Nations, and other landmarks. The announcement follows the unraveling of an alleged terrorist plot to explode homemade bombs in New York City. “We cannot afford to be complacent,” Bloomberg said. But civil-liberties activists raised alarms. “The fear is that the NYPD, without any oversight or public scrutiny, is creating a massive surveillance system,” said Donna Lieberman of the New York Civil Liberties Union.""
Crime and response measures have always functioned in some kind of pendulum swing--but since 9/11, the tolerance for the speed and sensitivity of the downswing has shrunk enormously. By all measures that I can tell, as a former New Yorker and general news-following person, New York has gotten safer and safer over the past twenty years. This is due to a number of things, and a certain measure of safety. Mayor Giuliani swept the city clean of drug addicts and homeless people, contributing to a sense of safety for everybody else, but creating another kind of crime against a population in great need of the city's help. Bloomberg has been accused of treading further down the path of Disneyfication, and from my own observations, Manhattan is wealthier and is home to more seemingy-transplanted, un-wacky people every time I visit, and the borders of the working class neighborhoods of Upper Manhattan just keep shifting up. What once began at 96th street now reaches 145th, etc.
So a rational fear of crime--the kind likely to be caught on surveillance cameras--is really not as big an issue in midtown as it once was, yet now this new system is being installed. The praise that politicians welcomed following 9/11 helped to cement a narrative about quick and unwavering action in the face of "terrorism," over which, it would seem to follow, we have limited intelligence control. I'm really interested in the timing of this response cycle, as it is playing out, in this case, in Manhattan.
First of all, it doesn't seem that people really push for empirical evidence that this kind of surveillance works. That would mean questioning the NYPD, and after 9/11, it's quite unpopular to do so when the threat involves "terrorism." Of course, there are instances of success, namely the intelligence operations that resulted in the capture of this latest homemade bomber. Why isn't that intelligence sufficient? This could be settled by a plea for vigilance and the very incidence of such thwarted threats, but Bloomberg's quote really hints at a different, additional can of worms: "We cannot afford to be complacent." The "We" has this massive silencing power, the direct definition of any other action as complacency. There's no way to question it without directly coming up against the issue of the collective good, a historical fear, a weird reverential relationship with authority, and the uncertainty and poor understanding of "terrorism."
For more on the NYCLU and their case, see http://www.nyclu.org/node/2624
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)