E.L.S. Deformación

Frieze, Dan Fox and Jennifer Higgie define the dérive as a “fancy word for

taking a stroll and having a think” (Fox and Higgie, 2011: 158). However, the fact that the dérive deserves mention in a magazine on contemporary art and theory such as Frieze in a list of crucial terms in art theory (even if tongue-and-cheek) suggests that the dérive as a concept continues to inspire contemporary writers, thinkers and artists. This remains true even if taking into account that much of the political intent from the original ideas has been diluted and

appropriated, such as the case where détournement becomes a common fashionable practice within advertising (Bonnett, 1999) stripped of its

revolutionary credentials. What this chapter has sought to do is to reconsider the potential in the dérive and Lefebvre’s rhythmanalysis to challenge the inhibiting structures of everyday life and to take these ideas as inspiration for developing an understanding of power within a contemporary context which allows for and fosters the emergence of practices of resistance to surveillance and monitoring.

While much has been written on power as related to surveillance (as discussed in the above), there is a lack of development of theories of everyday resistance to everyday surveillance. As a consideration of how to cope with living in a

surveillance society has been overlooked, it seems an appropriate moment to re-engage with the ideas of the Situationists and Henri Lefebvre as the central core of their ideas was a passionate focus on revolutionising everyday life through challenging the forces which sought to exercise power through excessive monitoring and restrictions on the freedom of individual movement and expression. While the technological developments and cultural/technical

influences were different as they were writing in the mid-20th century, the core of their understanding of power, resistance and everyday life remains much the

same. While many contemporary authors have explored the changing nature of power in light of technological advances as discussed above, the struggle

between external forces and individuals in terms of who has the greater control over the rhythms of everyday life persist. This is despite the fact that these external forces have greater technological capabilities for predicting and

restricting everyday life along with the ever evolving spectacle aided by many of the same technologies to obfuscate the influence and the reality of the impact these forces have upon everyday life. The search for equilibrium between the various rhythms of everyday life remains much the same. For this reason, despite the inconsistencies, contradictions, vagueness and revolutionary posturing which comes across at times as rather quaint in retrospect, these ideas merit a new look. This thesis does not argue for them to be taken whole with quasi-religious fervour but merely to use them as inspiration, to unpick the present with these terms and to explore the development and execution of practices of resistance through a broad application of these terms.

The emphasis on exposing practices of control, exposing their limitation, suggesting possibilities for evasion, suggesting methods for subverting the intended uses of technology and, lastly, suggesting ways to re-invigorate

everyday life and the spaces in which everyday life occurs as suggested by Henri Lefebvre, Guy Debord and the other Situationists offers a starting point for thinking about resistance to surveillance. The linkages with the more

progressive and critically engaged literature on surveillance as discussed in this chapter are clear. Louise Amoore questions how “to open up these contingencies and ambiguities in order to politicize what would otherwise be a highly

technologized set of moves” (2009: 65). In a situation where the politicisation of

such practices is not always apparent to the broader public, the act of exposing practices of surveillance and dragging them into the light of public discourse functions as a powerful challenge. Alexander Galloway’s work emphasises the need to “exploit flaws in protocological and proprietary command and

control” (2004: 176) which highlights the need for practices of resistance which expose the limitations and flaws within surveillance systems. Galloway and Thacker explore the implication of practices of evasion and describe them as

“positive technologies” and while not an act of clear confrontation these

function as a form of “struggle in abandonment” (2007: 136). This echoes Scott Lashes summary of the dérive as a practice of resistance. He explains,

“To dérive is not exactly to resist. It is to evade … Dérive says I don’t like your logic: I won’t contest in a class-versus-class struggle or through rituals of resistance… In the hegemonic order, we challenge power

through contesting domination through discursive argument. Or through symbolic struggles. To dérive is to do none of the above. It is to slip out.

It is strategy through movement” (Lash, 2007: 67-68).

Practices of resistance focused on subverting the intended use of the technology as a form of détournement undermines the aspects of control embedded

through the use of the technology in the sense that the technologies are not destroyed but, rather, sculpted to “make it better suited to people’s real

desires” (Galloway, 2004: 176). Surveillance technologies, because the control aspect is not necessarily inherent in the design, offer many opportunities for such subversion as individuals can challenge their intended use by subverting it for their own needs.

Lastly, the overall emphasis to be taken from the work of Henri Lefebvre, Guy Debord and the other Situationists is a focus on regaining human agency which is ever more crucial now as individuals lives are increasingly sorted, directed, monitored, processed and controlled through computerised systems which seek to limit the extent to which individuals are in control of their lives. Shaleph O’Neil emphasises this point, “the aim of reclaiming everyday experience for ones own ends is, without doubt, a radical proposition ... It is not enough to watch or to reflect upon the nature of the Spectacle. What is important is to be able to take part" (2009: 164). “The algorithm is dehumanised,” states Jordan Crandall because is minimizes the need for human agency or dispenses with it altogether (2010: 83). This is the threat to individual agency and to the

transformation of everyday life and which demands challenging. Individuals must seek to find ways to subvert technologies of control or to challenge the ways in which these technologies are used to limit individual freedom. The thrust of the resistance is not to abandon new technologies but, rather, to reconfigure their use to suit the true needs of individuals and to seek to bring individuals together, to repair the separation which is deeply embedded. To conclude, this emphasis which is seen in the work of Henri Lefebvre, Guy Debord, Raoul Vaneigem and others is echoed by William Mitchell, “We are all tied together by our networks - both materially and morally - like climbers on a rope. If we are to reap the benefits of our electronically expanded social,

economic, and cultural circles without succumbing to their dangers, we must recognize that they actualize our common humanity" (2003: 208).

What now follows in this thesis is an exploration of three ‘sites’ of surveillance within which to unpick these ideas and consider the development of practices of

resistance. Broadly, the first, Chapter 4, will explore the context of the emergence of a particular surveillance system in order to investigate the difficulties in challenging surveillance systems which render traditional practices of resistance as less effective thus highlighting the need to develop a new theoretical framework for placing resistance more centrally within

surveillance studies. This case highlights the contested nature of urban environments and the need to develop a surveillance politics in order so that groups can assert their ‘right to the city’ (Lefebvre, 1996). The second case study reflects upon the changing nature of the spectacle and the seductive aspects of surveillance in order to understand why there is not only a lack of resistance to surveillance within the broader culture but, further, that surveillance is so widely embraced and consumed. The third and final case draws upon the theoretical framework developed in this chapter and Chapter 2 and

demonstrates how artists have developed creative practices which illustrate a practical engagement with the concepts in this framework.