Speculations have revolved around the concept of globalisation as to whether it’s a phenomenon or an event in the world history. Instead, it’s a spatial phenomenon which is progressively expanding and engulfing almost all the corners of the world. There is hardly any country which is bereft of any implications of globalisation. Globalisation includes constant interactions between nation-states like forms of organisation and cooperation which lies outside the traditional sphere of modernity. In other words, resolutions adopted by selective nations will create an impression on other countries as well. For instance, most business houses are located in the western part of the world while their back-end offices are established in third world nations per se.
Many scholars around the world have argued continuously that globalisation has benefited the developed countries more than the developing countries. Hence, widening the gap between rich and poor nations and subsequently creating substantial differences between North and South. Over the period of time implications of globalisation have been carefully explored. Interestingly, there are four significant outcomes – Political, Economic, Cultural and Technological.
The Political Globalisation reflects on the paradox of sovereignty and globalisation. It invigorates the clear-cut division of the world in terms of religion – Christianity, and Islam which is far more lethal than the clash of erstwhile ideologies- Socialism and Communism. Economic globalisation pertains to rapid establishments of Trans National Corporations or Multi-National corporations around the world. They advocate the doctrine of ‘division of labour’ as a passport for employment or economic opportunities for all, especially for the less developed countries. It becomes obvious that whenever the economy suffers from recession cuts backs in jobs and salaries begin from the third world itself.
. There is a pattern of absurdity in the whole idea of division of labour being a farce as skilled labour is available at cheap rates and coerced employment in appalling conditions. Thus, igniting anew debates on labour laws and remuneration conditions. Economic globalisation has also developed strong bonds of association with Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) brainchild of WB in the name of developing the economies of the nation. The litmus test began in African countries and theatre later transferred to South Asian domains.
. The two Global monsters mostly sponsor African economies – World Bank (WB) and International Monetary Fund (IMF) and even the interim government reflects its allegiance to the neo-liberal approach. Thus questions pertaining to the sovereignty of government are perpetually under critical attack. SAPs have assaulted nations vigorously through programmes and policies dedicating not to developmental process rather have pushed them into doldrums – inflation and huge circle of poverty, hunger and human rights violations. Thirdly, Cultural globalisation is ‘McDonaldisation’ where populist symbols of American culture are predominant amongst the masses. Individuals inhabiting in the most remote parts of the world will be cognizant of the constant developments in American culture and politics through social media and other avenues. In Technological Globalisation newly emerging countries are at the mercy of advanced nations belonging to the first world. An incessant number of treaties and agreements are signed between North and South in exchange for cutting-edge technologies and other innovative ideas to improve the design and quality of products. Another subset of technological globalisation is surveillance wherein selective counties endlessly prey on other nations on the context of political, economic and technological calculations. Gradually security implications of globalisation start interfering in the private lives of the people as well. Thus, interrogations concerning the privacy of an ordinary man on the street and independence of nation are under scanner, neglected for deliberation in global forums.
Globalisation and its security implications- surveillance should be carefully analysed. Rampant developments in technological dimensions have forced modern day societies into being “surveillance societies.” The moment a man walks out of his house there are CCTV cameras monitoring his movements or if he buys anything from a local grocery store plastic card often provides a full detailed account regarding monetary balances The more people consume, the more is known about their consumption, it’s a guide both to what they will likely consume and to where incentives can be introduced to encourage that consumption further.
. There is a persistent restriction in the liberty of an individual; he or she remains isolated from the sphere of freedom. On a prima facie there is an intimate nexus between a state guaranteeing three ideals of French revolutions- liberty, equality, and fraternity but at the same time on orders of Big Brother scores of CCTV cameras and other advanced surveillance techniques are established for maintaining order in the society.
State promises its citizens to protect from external and internal intimidations through the medium of the social contract as proclaimed by Thomas Hobbes in lieu of surrendering rights. Surveillance reaches to sophisticated levels when Foucault apprehends Panopticon as an ideal architectural figure of modern disciplinary power. It exists of an annular building divided into different cells and a massive tower with windows in the middle. Prisoners, workers, pupils, as well as patients, stay in the cells, and a supervisor occupies the middle tower. The architecture allows the supervisor to observe all individuals in the cells without being seen (Allmer, Critical Surveillance Studies In Information Society 2011)
.This idea became a reference point for others countries to pry on their citizens and keep an updated assessment on the political or evil objectives of neighbouring or hostile states.
Surveillance should be understood through four entry points. The attention is first purposeful; the watching has a point that can be proved- in terms of control, entitlement, or some other publicly agreed goal. Then it is a routine process; it happens wherever we go about our daily business, it slowly weaves into the social fabric of life. But surveillance is also systematic; it is well planned and carried out according to a schedule that is rational and appropriate. Lastly, it is focused surveillance gets down to minuscule details of a person/ event.
George Orwell in Nineteen Eighty-Four wrote extensively on how a Party spies in the private lives of common man. Orwell describes a ruling system called Oceania, which consists of Big Brother, the party and the proles and stands for pervasive government surveillance, totalitarian regime and public mind control (Allmer, Critical Surveillance Studies In Information Society 2011)
.
“Every citizen, or at least every citizen important enough to be worth watching, could be kept for twenty-four hours a day under the eyes of the police and in the sound of official propaganda, with all other channels of communication closed. The possibility of enforcing not only complete obedience to the will of the State but complete uniformity of opinion on all subjects, now existed for the first time”. (Orwell 2013)
A totalitarian setting where the Party controls everything of a human being from emotions to thought process. The storyline of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four was written in a lucid manner: a rebel, a love affair with the likeminded, capture, torture and finally capitulation. This novel gave an opportunity to protagonist Winston to revolt against the strategies of a totalitarian regime- love and cruelty.
In the contemporary context, the State continues to eavesdrop on people for political purposes and often surprises masses through phone tapping’s and raids. These are few ways to maintain harmony in the society and keep the political unrest under check. State through techniques like Aadhar cards/ UID cards or passports keeps a vigilant eye on the masses and permanent or potential alterations in behaviour with respect to diplomatic environments of national and regional politics. Surveillance takes note of cross-border migration of people. State through formal and informal practices of border control regulates the mobility of citizens and non-citizens in various ways for an example bringing into consideration of different categorizations of people (B 2009).
The state understands surveillance neutrally because it is gathering information, collects them and finally processes for administrative and bureaucratic purposes of national and international organisations.
David Lyon reflects their allegiance to the belief that surveillance is a neutral concept with two dimensions of the positive and negative effects of constraining and enabling. Surveillance is undemocratic, coercive, impersonal or even inhuman on the one hand, but it is as well innocuous or a channel of positive blessing (Lyon 2008)
.
For Lyon, a surveillance society is a product of modernity that avoids two key traps: thinking of surveillance as a malign plot hatched by evil powers and thinking that surveillance as solely the product of new technologies. Utilising surveillance into proper perspective as the outcome of bureaucratic organizational practices and the desire for efficiency, speed, control, and coordination doesn’t always necessarily mean that all is well. All it means is that societies have to be careful in identifying the critical issues and be vigilant about them. Once these issues are tackled, the State can circumvent its repercussions in the near future. The systematic surveillance of population groups and individuals is a pivotal element in the groundwork of modern nation-states.
Therefore, Surveillance is two-sided: the benefits of correct identification, screening, checking, appropriate classification and other tasks associated with it must always be acknowledged. At the same time risks and dangers are always present in large-scale systems and power does corrupt or at least skews the vision of those who wield it. Surveillance is no longer remains a matter of deliberation of individual scrutiny and consequent fears for personal privacy (Lyon, Everyday Surveillance Personal data and social classifications 2002).
It is an everyday experience run through multiple agencies for multiple purposes and needs. Wholesome data is collected and gathered through biometric, genetic and video data of individuals and institutions which pose a significant risk to social order.
Scrutiny should not be recognised with State being always vigilant about cross-border migration and hostility of surrounding states. There can be a trickle-down effect for good governance as well. The kinds of governance emerging today rely on an amalgamation of technical and social fixes and such methods come with a particular set of limitations. Some of the innovative surveillance techniques are preferably established to deal with “security threats” at times doesn’t work effectively as they are defective. The composition of global politics thanks to the coordination of distinct surveillance nodes among different national territories which provides intelligence and more centralized observation of the movement of people considers this as the best answer against the impact that the free flow of people now causes.
Surveillance today has become a commodity which provides protection and security. It is something every county/individual is buying in modern times. It is also consumed by both state and individual and the desire for more and more not because it works but because it fits the current bill of reigning ideology (Lyon, Fear, Surveillance and Consumption 2003)
.
It should be noted that not always State is vigilant about the subtle behaviour movements of the people. With the changing times, even an acquaintance can reconnoiter on the movements of his alliance or friends. So, there is a massive shift from state spying on people to man to man marking. It’s omnipresent. It begins from the socialising circle and gradually shits its domain on the World Wide Web. Moreover, negotiations are reached between the state and people regarding which particular sections of the society are probably for creating disharmony in the society. It’s also illogical enough to understand that there is already a State or Big Brother to spy on individuals on a routine basis, but then there are people as well who are equally observant about the others living in the same society.
It also appears that the State has failed to protect the individual not just from external threats but also from domestic fears as well External threats- random terrorist strikes and internal threats well-planned riots in selective places.
. The social contract’s first condition itself becomes redundant when the state fails to protect its people from random outbreaks to social order. Therefore, the individual is not free in any domain as such be it on the societal grounds or social media forums. There is this big brother who is continually watching everybody’s movements and putting the independency element at risk. And those individuals who question these political motives of states are put into dark holes and tortured for eternity. This was likely the case with the religious fundamentalist and terrorists and most importantly the whistle-blowers.
The technological implication of globalisation has benefitted many countries, and when treaties are penned down between the first world and third world countries, often the surveillance factor plays a catalyst role. Taking the example of Indo- US Nuclear Deal which raise quite a few eyebrows in political circles , it made sure that some of the nuclear reactors should be opened up for constant vigilance for IAEA Internal Atomic Energy Agency: an international organisation that seeks to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and to inhibit its use for any military purpose, including nuclear weapons.
The idea of vigilance through satellites and cameras have picked up momentum when many countries are possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction that dangerous to world peace and harmony. One of the major falls out of the entire process of globalisation has been the relentless rise of nuclear terrorism
in South Asia and other parts of the world.
The more the globalisation more appears to be the more is the surveillance. If the government has come into power through the trust and faith of its citizens, there is just no point in monitoring at least the personal lives of people. Individuals are born free but are chained thanks to the State. Instead, the state should recognise the free movements of people rather than keeping them under intense observation. Utilising human bodies as surveillance mechanisms reflects that modern nation-states suffer from deep levels of insecurity. As long as public life is monitored, it’s acceptable but the moment state steps into private lives of people- it’s purely unacceptable. If Surveillance is a neutral concept, then State or individuals should not infringe on the privacy of others at any cost. It can become a Big Brother in public diaspora and promises that private lives are no longer under the watchful eye of the former.
Bibliography
Allmer, Thomas. “Critical Surveillance Studies in Information Society.” Creative Common License, 2011: 568.
Allmer, Thomas. “Critical Surveillance Studies In Information Society.” Creative Common License, 2011: 574.
B, Nelson Arteaga. “The Merida Initiative: Security-Surveillance Harmonization in Latin America.” European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies, 2009: 103-110.
Cable, Vincent. “Globalisation: Can the State Strike Back? .” Chatham House, 1996: 133-137.
Ceyhan, Ayse. “Technologization of Security: Management of Uncertainty and Risk in the Age of Biometrics.” Surveillance Studies Network, 2008: 102-123.
David Murakami Wood, C. William R. Webster. “Living in Surveillance Societies: The Normalisation of Surveillance in Europe and the Threat of Britain’s Bad Example .” Journal of Contemporary European Research, 2009: 259-273.
Luckham, Robin. “The Discordant Voices of ‘Security’ .” Taylor & Francis, 2007: 682-690.
Lyon, David. “Everyday Surveillance Personal data and social classifications.” Taylor & Francis Ltd, 2002: 242-257.
Lyon, David. “Fear, Surveillance and Consumption.” The Hedgehog Review, 2003: 81-95.
Lyon, David. “Surveillance Society.” Queen’s University Press, 2008: 1.
Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. MonkeyBone Publications, 2013.
Sengupta, Chandan. “Conceptualising Globalisation: Issues and Implications.” Economic & Political Weekly, 2001: 3137-3143 .