In the realm of Indian education, the principles of Parampara, Pratishtha, Anushasan (tradition, prestige, and discipline) reign supreme (Chopra, 00:06:16 - 00:06:23). However, when these principles serve as the basis for implementing surveillance systems within educational institutions, particularly residential colleges, a complex dynamic emerges. This blog delves into the intrusive surveillance mechanisms employed by such colleges to regulate student behavior. Residential colleges, where students spend a significant portion of their time and are predominantly legal adults, become representations of strict monitoring. Despite their adult status, students find themselves subject to pervasive surveillance, raising questions about autonomy and privacy within educational spaces. By exploring how modern surveillance techniques intersect with long-standing rules and regulations, this discussion reveals the complex challenges faced by both students and administrators in maintaining order while also protecting individual freedoms within educational settings.
Securitization theory scrutinizes the surveillance of students through the lens of security measures implemented by educational institutions. It explores how these measures frame student behavior as potential threats, leading to the securitization of everyday activities. By labeling certain behaviors as risks, institutions justify intrusive surveillance, perpetuating a culture of fear and control among students (Waever 2, 1995).
Michel Foucault was a French philosopher who dealt with the study of power – how power can be productive and offensive simultaneously. Though Foucault’s writings might be difficult to grasp, his concepts are very practical and can be proven through various daily instances. Similarly, the surveillance of college students by college authorities can also be understood through the lens of Michel Foucault’s concept of biopower.
Biopower refers to mechanisms of power that regulate and control populations at the level of their biological existence. In the context of university surveillance, authorities exert power over students not only to maintain discipline but also to shape their behavior and identities in line with institutional norms. Foucault argues that biopower operates through various disciplinary techniques, such as surveillance, normalization, and regulation, to govern populations. In universities, surveillance practices, such as CCTV cameras, attendance tracking systems, turnstiles, and monitoring of activities, serve to regulate student behavior and enforce compliance with institutional rules. This surveillance not only ensures order but also molds students into obedient subjects who internalize the values and norms of the institution (Foucault 144, 1978).
Through pervasive surveillance in educational institutions, students are quantified and stripped of their individual identities. University authorities collect data through surveillance mechanisms to categorize and assess students based on their behavior, academic performance, and social interactions, erasing their uniqueness. This knowledge enables institutions to exercise control and intervention in students' lives, shaping their development and future trajectories. They become mere subjects of scrutiny, subjected to a system that homogenizes their identities and behaviors.
Delving a little bit into the theoretical part, Foucault identifies two kinds of power in governance: ‘Power over Death’ and ‘Power over Life’. We will be focusing on the concept of ‘Power over Life’ which comprises two parts. Firstly, disciplinary power is responsible for regulating behavior within institutions and operates through surveillance and normalization. Secondly, governmentality is governing populations beyond institutional confines and extending control to shape conduct and conditions, emphasizing the optimization of life and productivity in modern societies. Through the implementation of this strand of biopower, the subjects are met with a sense of everlasting and undeviating visibility, which leads to self-discipline. The mode of surveillance, as illustrated by Jeremy Bentham’s architectural design of power as a ‘Panopticon’, means that very few people can control and monitor large populations (Foucault, 1978) (Foucault, 2019) (Bentham, 1995).
From the PARIS (Political Anthropological Research for International Sociology) School's perspective, everyday practices of security extend beyond conventional notions of protection against external threats. They encompass a range of socio-cultural rituals, institutional norms, and individual behaviors that contribute to maintaining order and stability within communities. These practices may include informal surveillance, community policing, trust-building initiatives, and the cultivation of social cohesion.
If anyone got restless because of the theory part, sorry not sorry. That’s my favorite part. But, if you’ve held onto your initial interest and read till here, let me dive right into my case study and illustrate how these concepts pan out in our everyday experiences in university life.
One of the most visible forms of surveillance is the presence of security guards. This includes acts of frisking, breath-analyzing, reprimanding, patrolling with sticks in their hands, checking IDs, flashing torchlights at students at night, raiding, and much more. This links with the concept of biopower because students instill a fear of security guards in their minds, which not only includes the physical presence of security guards but also the mere probability that security guards might come to a particular space to check. Moreover, these ‘spaces’ of inspection are not just public spaces, but also extend to private spaces, like hostel rooms, booked classrooms, student lounges, and activity rooms. This shapes students’ behavior and forces them to act in a certain way. Failure to do so would lead to some kind of punishment, either directly by the security guards themselves (seizure of objects, obstruction to movement) or indirectly through the college authorities.
Another mechanism can be CCTVs. These CCTVs monitor students while they are studying, eating, playing, sitting, walking, hanging out with friends, at the entrances of washrooms, everywhere except personal rooms and washrooms. CCTVs adhere to the concept of Panopticonism. In both cases, the architecture and technology of monitoring exert a form of power that operates through visibility and control. For example, the panopticon’s central tower enables constant surveillance of inmates without their knowledge, which induces self-discipline and regulation. Similarly, instead of relying on overt forms of punishment, the usage of CCTVs, thermal cameras, CCTVs with motion detectors and flashes, etc., creates a sense of omnipresence, leading students to behave as per the norms and align themselves with institutional expectations.
Biometric machines are an additional mechanism of surveillance. This mechanism is not just used for attendance marking but also for permitting the movement of students outside and across campus. Biometric machines exert control over students by regulating their presence and punctuality. This surveillance mechanism embodies Foucault's concept of disciplinary power, where institutions monitor and discipline individuals' conduct to maintain order and efficiency, illustrating the power dynamics inherent in modern surveillance technologies.
Lastly, turnstiles. We have seen them in places that might need extreme security, like banks, jails, institutions that deal with national security, airports, metro stations, etc. But it is seldom that we find it in other places. In an interesting trend of events, we have lately seen a rise of turnstile mechanisms being implemented in educational institutions. These turnstiles epitomize Foucault’s notion of biopower, operating as physical manifestations of institutional control. By monitoring and restricting access, universities assert authority over individuals, molding their behavior within the campus environment. The presence of turnstiles reflects a broader system of surveillance, where everyday practices of security intersect with mechanisms of power. In this context, students navigate a landscape where their movements are scrutinized.
At the heart of the matter lies a fundamental question: why subject students to such invasive surveillance in educational institutions? According to the majority of college authorities, the students are “too young” to be given full independence. But, if that is the case, what is the need to subject these “young” students to intense scrutiny? What activities do these “young” students take part in to be subjected to body-frisking, getting flashed by lights at night, being threatened by suspension or rustication, constant surveillance, raiding, and so much more? Again, these mechanisms are productive, no doubt. They do help in restricting students from self-harming activities and maintaining a ‘peaceful’ environment on campus. However, we, as thinking individuals, need to keep questioning. Whose peace is being prioritized? Whose norms dictate these measures? Whose benefit do they serve? And ultimately, why is such security needed? Why? Why? And some more whys?
Bibliography
Bentham, Jeremy. “Plan for a Penitentiary Inspection House.” In Panopticon, New York: Verso, 1995.
Bentham, Jeremy. “Schools.” In Panopticon, New York: Verso, 1995.
Foucault, Michel. “Governmentality.” In Power: the essential works of Michel Foucault 1954-1984, edited by James D. Faubion, 201-222. London, UK: Penguin Books, 2019.
Foucault, Michel. “Right of Death and Power over Life.” In The history of sexuality: An introduction, translated by Robert Hurley, 135-159. New York: Pantheon Books, 1978.
Chopra, Aditya, director. Mohabbatein. Yash Raj Films, 2000. 3hrs, 35 mins. https://www.primevideo.com/dp/amzn1.dv.gti.0eabf1f7-6d1f-328e-a3aa-d5e61c3be3c8?autoplay=0&ref_=atv_cf_strg_wb
Waever, Ole. “Securitization and Desecuritization.” In On Security, edited by Ronnie Lipschutz, 1-31. New York: Columbia University Press, 1995.
Loved reading this piece Ananya! You've expressed and situated student's experiences accurately under the larger Security studies and Biopower frameworks. The authorities control over students bodies and minds are indeed invasive in nature. Besides securitizing practices creating a sense of insecurity amongst the students, it also pushes for the middle actors, that is the student council, to voice the students opinions and concerns to the administrative authorities. I think we can also consider the judgement that students face from the authorities, societies and their own families, that motivate administrations to enforce systems that prevent students from deviating from the accepted 'societal norm' (The societal norm are often institutionalized) Furthermore, you point out that students aren't considered mature or responsible enough…