Abstract
Surveillance is an increasingly prevalent feature of daily life and is carried out for a range of purposes across different settings. Although experiencing some form of surveillance is very common, it is necessary to examine differences in how surveillance is implemented, for what purposes, and how it is experienced, and to consider how those differences can reflect, and at times reinforce, power dynamics and imbalances within society. Even in situations where the primary purpose of surveillance is not the exercise of power, or when surveillance is applied broadly, irrespective of gender, surveillance practices can still further existing gendered power dynamics because of how they are implemented or experienced. This chapter examines social and psychological issues raised by the interaction between surveillance practices and gendered power imbalances in society, first reviewing theoretical perspectives from psychology and surveillance studies, then applying these perspectives to consider how surveillance practices interact with gender and power across different contexts, including prison, public benefits, pregnancy, and social media. We conclude by identifying theoretical considerations for scholarship that bridges feminist psychology and surveillance studies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Altman, I. (1976). Privacy: A conceptual analysis. Environment and Behavior, 8(1), 7–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391657600800102
Amnesty International. (2021). Xenophobic machines: Discrimination through unregulated use of algorithms in the Dutch childcare benefits scandal. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur35/4686/2021/en/
Andrejevic, M. (2004). The work of watching one another: Lateral surveillance, risk, and governance. Surveillance and Society, 2(4), 479–497. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v2i4.3359
Andrejevic, M. (2015). Forward. In R. E. Dubrofsky & S. A. Magnet (Eds.), Feminist surveillance studies (pp. ix–xviii). Duke University Press.
Bell, B. T., Cassarly, J. A., & Dunbar, L. (2018). Selfie-objectification: Self objectification and positive feedback (“likes”) are associated with frequency of posting sexually objectifying self-images on social media. Body Image, 26, 83–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.06.005
Billies, M. (2015). Surveillance threat as embodied psychological dilemma. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 21(2), 168–186. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000070
Braun, J., Aung, H., Mehrotra, D., Constantaras, E., Geiger, G., & Howden, D. (2023, April 10). The suspicion machines methodology. Pulitzer Center. https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/suspicion-machines-methodology
Brayne, S. (2017). Big data surveillance: The case of policing. American Sociological Review, 82(5), 977–1008. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122417725865
Breines, J. G., Crocker, J., & Garcia, J. A. (2008). Self-objectification and well-being in women’s daily lives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(5), 583–598. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207313727
Brewster, M. P. (2003). Power and control dynamics in prestalking and stalking situations. Journal of Family Violence, 18(4), 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024064214054
Bridges, K. M. (2011). Privacy rights and public families. Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, 34(1), 113–174. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1926757
Brockell, G. (2018, December 12). Dear tech companies, I don’t want to see pregnancy ads after my child was stillborn. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2018/12/12/dear-tech-companies-i-dont-want-see-pregnancy-ads-after-my-child-was-stillborn/?noredirect=on
Burke, S. C., Wallen, M., Vail-Smith, K., & Knox, D. (2011). Using technology to control intimate partners: An exploratory study of college undergraduates. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1162–1167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.12.010
Butkowski, C. P., Dixon, T. L., & Weeks, K. (2019). Body surveillance on Instagram: Examining the role of selfie feedback investment in young adult women’s body image concerns. Sex Roles, 81(5–6), 385–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0993-6
Byfield, N. P. (2019). Race science and surveillance: Police as the new race scientists. Social Identities, 25(1), 91–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504630.2017.1418599
Calogero, R. M., Tylka, T. L., Siegel, J. A., Pina, A., & Roberts, T.-A. (2021). Smile pretty and watch your back: Personal safety anxiety and vigilance in objectification theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(6), 1195–1222. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000344
Campbell, J. E., & Carlson, M. (2002). Panopticon.com: Online surveillance and the commodification of privacy. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 46(4), 586–606. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4604_6
Conrad, P. (1992). Medicalization and social control. Annual Review of Sociology, 18(1), 209–232. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.18.080192.001233
Conrad, K. (2009). Surveillance, gender, and the virtual body in the information age. Surveillance and Society, 6(4), 380–387. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v6i4.3269
Corley, C. (2021, May 7). How using video at Chauvin trial and others impacts criminal justice. National Public Radio. https://www.npr.org/2021/05/07/994507257/how-using-videos-at-chauvin-trial-and-others-impacts-criminal-justice
Cummins, M. W. (2014). Reproductive surveillance: The making of pregnant docile bodies. Kaleidoscope, 13(4), 33–51. http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/kaleidoscope/vol13/iss1/4
Currah, P., & Mulqueen, T. (2011). Securitizing gender: Identity, biometrics, and transgender bodies at the airport. Social Research: An International Quarterly, 78(2), 557–582. https://doi.org/10.1353/sor.2011.0030
de Vries, D. A., & Peter, J. (2013). Women on display: The effect of portraying the self online on women’s self-objectification. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1483–1489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.015
Dienlin, T., & Trepte, S. (2015). Is the privacy paradox a relic of the past? An in-depth analysis of privacy attitudes and privacy behaviors. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(3), 285–297. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2049
Dressel, J., & Farid, H. (2018). The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism. Scientific Advances, 4(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aao5580
Dubrofsky, R. E., & Magnet, S. A. (2015). Feminist surveillance studies: Critical interventions. In R. E. Dubrofsky & S. A. Magnet (Eds.), Feminist surveillance studies (pp. 1–17). Duke University Press.
Elias, A. S., & Gill, R. (2018). Beauty surveillance: The digital self-monitoring cultures of neoliberalism. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 21(1), 59–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549417705604
Elsas, L. J., Ljungqvist, A., Ferguson-Smith, M. A., Simpson, J., Genel, M., Carlson, A. S., Ferris, E., de la Chappelle, A., & Ehrhardt, A. A. (2000). Gender verification of female athletes. Genetics in Medicine, 2(4), 249–254. https://doi.org/10.1097/00125817-200007000-00008
Flavin, J., & Paltrow, L. M. (2010). Punishing pregnant drug-using women: Defying law, medicine, and common sense. Journal of Addictive Diseases, 29(2), 231–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/10550881003684830
Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans., 2nd ed.). Vintage Books. (Original work published 1975)
Fowler, G. A., & Hunter, T. (2022, June 24). For people seeking abortions, digital privacy is suddenly critical. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/05/04/abortion-digital-privacy/
Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T.-A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(2), 173–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x
Gallagher, R. (2011). Constitutional law cross-gender pat searches: The battle between inmates and corrections officers enters the courtroom. Western New England Law Review, 33(2), 567–622. https://digitalcommons.law.wne.edu/lawreview/vol33/iss2/12
Geiger, G. (2023, March 7). How Denmark’s welfare state became a surveillance nightmare. Wired. https://www.wired.com/story/algorithms-welfare-state-politics/
Geller, A., Fagan, J., Tyler, T., & Link, B. G. (2014). Aggressive policing and the mental health of young urban men. American Journal of Public Health, 104(12), 2321–2327. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302046
Gilman, M. E. (2008). Welfare, privacy, and feminism. University of Baltimore Law Forum, 39(1), 1–25. https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf/vol39/iss1/4
Gilman, M. E. (2012). The class differential in privacy law. Brooklyn Law Review, 77(4), 1389–1445. https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol77/iss4/2
Goodwin, M. (2017). How the criminalization of pregnancy robs women of reproductive autonomy. Just Reproduction: Reimagining Autonomy in Reproductive Medicine, special report, Hastings Center Report, 47(6). https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.791
Haggerty, K. D. (2012). Surveillance, crime, and the police. In K. Ball, K. D. Haggerty, & D. Lyon (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of surveillance studies (pp. 235–243). Routledge.
Haggerty, K. D. (2006). Tear down the walls: On demolishing the panopticon. In D. Lyon. (Ed.), Theorizing surveillance: The panopticon and beyond (pp. 23–45). Routledge.
Haggerty, K. D., & Ericson, R. V. (2000). The surveillant assemblage. British Journal of Sociology, 51(4), 605–622. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071310020015280
Hanna, J. (2023, April 5). Kansas bans transgender athletes from women’s, girls’ school sports. Associated Press. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/kansas-bans-transgender-athletes-from-womens-girls-school-sports
Human Rights Watch. (2020). “They’re chasing us away from sport”: Human rights violations in sex testing of elite women athletes. https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/media_2020/12/lgbt_athletes1120_web.pdf
Jacob, M., & Tyrell, M. (2010). The legacy of surveillance: An explanation for social capital erosion and the persistent economic disparity between East and West Germany. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1554604
Jang, C. J., & Lee, H. C. (2022). A review of racial disparities in infant mortality in the US. Children, 9(257). https://doi.org/10.3390/children9020257
Jones, B. A., & Griffiths, K. M. (2015). Self-objectification and depression: An integrative systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders, 171(2), 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2014.09.011
Kahalon, R., Shnabel, N., & Becker, J. C. (2018). Experimental studies on state self- objectification: A review and an integrative process model. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(1268). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01268
Karsay, K., Knoll, J., & Matthes, J. (2018). Sexualizing media use and self-objectification: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 42(1), 9–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684317743019
Kleinman, Z. (2022, June 28). The abortion privacy dangers in period trackers and apps. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-61952794
Kohler-Hausmann, J. (2007). “The crime of survival”: Fraud prosecutions, community surveillance, and the original “welfare queen. Journal of Social History, 41(2), 329–354. https://doi.org/10.1353/jsh.2008.0002
Kohler-Hausmann, J. (2015). Welfare crises, penal solutions, and the origins of the “welfare queen.” Journal of Urban History, 41(5), 756–771. https://doi.org/10.1177/0096144215589942
Koskela, H. (2002). Video surveillance, gender, and the safety of public urban space: “Peeping Tom” goes high tech? Urban Geography, 23(3), 257–278. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.23.3.257
Koskela, H. (2012). “You shouldn’t wear that body”: The problematic of surveillance and gender. In K. Ball, K. Haggerty, & D. Lyon (Eds.), Routledge handbook of surveillance studies (pp. 49–56). Routledge.
Levy, K. E. C. (2015). Intimate surveillance. Idaho Law Review, 51(3), 679–693. https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/idaho-law-review/vol51/iss3/5
Lupton, D. (2012). “Precious cargo”: Fetal subjects, risk, and reproductive citizenship. Critical Public Health, 22(3), 329–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2012.657612
Lyon, D. (2003). Surveillance as social sorting: Computer codes and mobile bodies. In D. Lyon (Ed.), Surveillance as social sorting (pp. 13–30). Routledge.
Magnet, S., & Rodgers, T. (2012). Stripping for the state: Whole body imaging techniques and the surveillance of othered bodies. Feminist Media Studies, 12(1), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2011.558352
Mann, S., Nolan, J., & Wellman, B. (2003). Sousveillance: Inventing and using wearable computing devices for data collection in surveillance environments. Surveillance and Society, 1(3), 331–55. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v1i3.3344
Marwick, A. E. (2012). The public domain: social surveillance in everyday life. Surveillance and Society, 9(4), 378–393. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v9i4.4342
Mason, C. L., & Magnet, S. (2012). Surveillance studies and violence against women. Surveillance and Society, 10(2), 105–118. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v10i2.4094
McCarty, M., Falk, G., Aussenberg, R. A., & Carpenter, D. H. (2016, November 28). Drug testing and crime-related restrictions in TANF, SNAP, and Housing Assistance. Congressional Research Service. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42394.pdf
Mercurio, A. E., & Landry, L. J. (2008). Self-objectification and well-being: The impact of self- objectification on women’s overall sense of self-worth and life satisfaction. Sex Roles, 58(7–8), 458–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9357-3
Miller, T. A. (2000). Sex and surveillance: Gender, privacy, and the sexualization of power in prison. George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal, 10(2), 291–356. https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles/411
Monahan, T. (2009). Dreams of control at a distance: Gender, surveillance, and social control. Cultural Studies, Critical Methodologies, 9(2), 286–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708608321481
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. (n.d.). National statistics domestic violence fact sheet. https://www.speakcdn.com/assets/2497/domestic_violence2.pdf
Newell, P. B. (1994). A systems model of privacy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14(1), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80199-9
Norris, C., & Armstrong, G. (1999). CCTV and the social structuring of surveillance. Crime Prevention Studies, 10, 157–178. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315242002-6
Ortutay, B. (2022, June 28). Why some fear that big tech data could become a tool for abortion surveillance. PBS News Hour. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/why-some-fear-that-big-tech-data-could-become-a-tool-for-abortion-surveillance
Paltrow, L. M., & Flavin, J. (2013). Arrests of force and forced interventions on pregnant women in the United States, 1973–2005: Implications for women’s legal status and public health. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 38(2), 299–343. https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-1966324
Pedersen, D. M. (1997). Psychological functions of privacy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17(2), 147–156. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1997.0049
Petersen, E. E., Davis, N. L., Goodman, D., Cox, S., Syverson, C., Seed, K., Shapiro-Mendoza, C., Callaghan, W. M., & Barfield, W. (2019). Racial/ethnic disparities in pregnancy-related deaths: United States, 2007–2016. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services/Center for Disease Control. Mobility and Mortality Weekly Report, 68(35), 762–765. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6835a3
Rousseau, A., Eggermont, S., & Frison, E. (2017). The reciprocal and indirect relationships between passive Facebook use, comparison on Facebook, and adolescents’ body dissatisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 336–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.056
Routh, D., Abess, G., Makin, D., Stohr, M. K., Hemmens, C., & Yoo, J. (2017). Transgender inmates in prisons: A review of applicable statutes and policies. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 61(6), 645–666. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X15603745
Salomon, I., & Brown, C. S. (2021). That selfie becomes you: Examining taking and posting selfies as forms of self-objectification. Media Psychology, 24(6), 847–865. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2020.1817091
Sewell, A. A., Jefferson, K. A., & Lee, H. (2016). Living under surveillance: Gender, psychological distress, and stop-and-frisk policing in New York City. Social Science & Medicine, 159, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.04.024
Simon, R., Giroux, J., & Chor, J. (2020). Effects of substance use disorder criminalization on American Indian pregnant individuals. American Medical Association Journal of Ethics, 22(10), 862–867. https://doi.org/10.1001/amajethics.2020.862
Southworth, C., & Tucker, S. (2007). Technology, stalking, and domestic violence victims. Mississippi Law Journal, 76(3), 667–676. https://olemiss.edu/depts/ncjrl/pdf/Southworth-Tucker76.3.pdf
Stohr, M. K. (2015). The hundred years’ war: The etiology and status of assaults on transgender women in men’s prisons. Women and Criminal Justice, 25(1–2), 120–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2015.1026154
Stone, R. (2015). Pregnant women and substance use: Fear, stigma, and barriers to care. Health and Justice, 3(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-015-0015-5
Swavola, E., Riley, K., & Subramanian, R. (2016). Overlooked: Women and jail in an era of reform. Vera Institute of Justice. https://www.vera.org/publications/overlooked-women-and-jails-report
Teng, F., Gao, W., Huang, X., & Poon, K.-T. (2019). Body surveillance predicts men’s and women’s perceived loneliness: A serial mediation model. Sex Roles, 81(1–2), 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0977-6
Thomas, G. M., & Lupton, D. (2016). Threats and thrills: Pregnancy apps, risk and consumption. Health, Risk, and Society, 17(7–8), 495–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698575.2015.1127333
Tolentino, J. (2022, June 24). We’re not going back to the time before Roe. We’re going somewhere worse. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/07/04/we-are-not-going-back-to-the-time-before-roe-we-are-going-somewhere-worse
United States Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Family Assistance. (2020). Characteristics and financial circumstances of TANF recipients fiscal year 2020. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ofa/fy2020_characteristics_data_final.pdf
VAWnet. (n.d.). Applying an intersectional lens. https://vawnet.org/sc/how-faithreligion-can-best-meet-needs-abuse-survivors-those-who-cause-harm/applying
Vendemia, M. A., & DeAndrea, D. C. (2021). The effects of engaging in digital photo modifications and receiving favorable comments on women’s selfies shared on social media. Body Image, 37, 74–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2021.01.011
Vertesi, J. (2014, May 1). My experiment opting out of big data made me look like a criminal. Time. https://time.com/83200/privacy-internet-big-data-opt-out/
Ward, L. M., Daniels, E. A., Zurbriggen, E. L., & Rosenscruggs, D. (2023). The sources and consequences of sexual objectification. Nature Reviews Psychology, 2, 496–513. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-023-00192-x
Westin, A. (1967). Privacy and freedom. Athenum.
Winn, L., & Cornelius, R. (2020). Self-objectification and cognitive performance: A systematic review of the literature. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(20). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00020
Woodlock, D. (2017). The abuse of technology in domestic violence and stalking. Violence against Women, 23(5), 584–602. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216646277
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Conrey, S.C., Zurbriggen, E.L. (2023). Surveillance and Gender-Based Power Dynamics: Psychological Considerations. In: Zurbriggen, E.L., Capdevila, R. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Power, Gender, and Psychology . Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41531-9_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41531-9_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-41530-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-41531-9
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)