Landscape and conflict in the age of digital surveillance. Participatory Walking through the surveilled cities
AbstractThe securitarian paradigms, developed in recent decades, react to social problems by controlling and monitoring the population in order to accumulate personal data useful for analysing and promoting new needs. Surveillance capitalism finds the opportunity in cities to control and collect a gigantic amount of data from the unconscious or unaware surveilled, the citizens all. The city adapted to the rules of this contemporary form of capitalism has favoured the implementation of surveillance and control of urban space through – especially but not only – digital technologies. There is thus a new emphasis on the visual in the politics of the street and the utopian panoptic device theorised by Jeremy Bentham in the punitive city (Cohen, 1979). The strategy followed by states is to create a visually pleasing urban space in which invisible or inconspicuous surveillance devices contribute to the same process of space and landscape production. The aim of this article is to understand the motives and effects on the landscape of digital surveillance policies in the urban context with particular reference to three important themes: marginality, spectacle and surveillance. To conclude the theoretical reflections, a didactic experiment is proposed such as participatory walks useful to observe surveillance tools in the urban landscape and to reason, in cooperative learning, about their use and the impact they have on cities and people’s daily lives.
Albanese V., “Environmental crisis and Climate Change: Social Mobilisation and Digital Activism Arisen from Territorial Identities”, in Ilovan O.R. (Ed.), Territorial Identities in Action, Napoca, Presa Universitarã Clujeanã, 2021, pp. 123-147.
Allen J., “Ambient power: Berlin’s Potsdamer Platz and the seductive logic of public spaces”, Urban Studies, 43, 2, 2006, pp. 441-455.
Batty M., “Big data, smart cities and city planning”, 2013,
Belina B. and Helms G., “Zero Tolerance for the Industrial Past and Other Threats: Policing and Urban Entrepreneurialism in Britain and Germany”, Urban Studies, 40, 3, 2003, pp. 1845-1867.
Bentham J., Panopticon (Eds. Foucault M. and Perrot M.), Venice, Marsilio, 2001.
Cardullo P. and Kitchin R., “Smart urbanism and smart citizenship: the neoliberal logic of ‘citizen focused’ smart cities in Europe”, Environment and Planning C, 37, 5, 2019, pp. 813-830.
Cisani M., Castiglioni B. and Sgard A., “Landscape and education: Politics of/in practices”, Landscape Research, 47, 2, 2022, pp. 1-5.
Coaffee J. and Fussey P., “Resilient Planning for Sports Mega-Events: Deisgning and Managing Safe and Secure Urban Places for London 2012 and Beyond”, Urbe, 3, 2, 2011, pp. 165-177.
Cohen S., “ ‘The Punitive City’: Notes on the Dispersal of Social Control”, Contemporary Crisis, 3, 4, 1979, pp. 339-363.
Coleman R., “Surveillance in the city: Primary definition and urban spatial order. Crime”, Crime, Media, Culture, 1, 2, 2005.
Council of Europe, “European Landscape Convention”, ETS No. 176, 2000, https://rm.coe.int/1680080621
Davis M., City of Quartz: Excavating the future in Los Angeles, London, Verso, 1990.
De Certeau M., The Practice of Everyday Life, Berkeley, University of California Print, 1998.
Duarte F. and Firmino R.J., Unplugging the city, London, Routledge, 2018.
Featherstone M., Consumer Culture and Postmodernism, London, SAGE Publications, 1991.
Ferrell J., Tearing Down the Streets: Adventures in Urban Anarchy, New York, Palgrave, 2001.
Foucault M., Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Vintage Books, 1995.
Kitchin R., The data revolution: Big data, open data, data infrastructures and their consequences, London, Sage, 2014.
Kitchin R. and Dodge M., Code/Space, Boston, MIT Press, 2014.
Koskela H., “Video Surveillance, Gender and the Safety of Public Urban Space: ‘Peeping Tom’ Goes Hi-Tech?”, Urban Geography, 23, 3, 2004, pp. 257-278.
Lefebvre H., The Production of Space, London, Blackwell, 1991.
Lefebvre H., Writings on Cities, Cambridge, MA, Wiley-Blackwell, 1996.
McCahill M. and Finn R., “The social impact of surveillance in three UK schools: ‘Angels’, ‘Devils’ and ‘Teen Mums’”, Surveillance and Society, 7, 3/4, 2010, pp. 273-289.
McCahill M. and Norris C., “CCTV in Britain Urbaneye”, Working Paper No. 3., Centre for technology and Society, Technical University of Berlin, 2002.
Murakami-Wood D., “Situating surveillance studies”, Surveillance and Society, 19, 2009, pp. 52-61
Németh J. and Schmidt S., “The privatization of public space: modeling and measuring publicness”, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 38, 2011, pp. 5-23.
Parenti C., Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis, London, Verso, 1999.
Parks L., “Points of departure: the culture of US airport screening”, Journal of Visual Culture, 6, 2, 2007, pp. 183-200.
Rancière J., The Politics of Aesthetics: The Distribution of the Sensible, London, Continuum, 2006.
Sgard A., “Landscape controversy: a tool and educational device”, Landscape Research, 47, 2, 2022, pp. 155-166.
Tatcher J., O’Sullivan D. and Mahmoudi D., “Data colonialism through accumulation by dispossession: new metaphors for daily data”, Environment and Planning D, 34, 6, 2016, pp. 990-1006.
Zuboff S., The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, Profile Books, 2019.
The Author assigns to the Nuova Cultura and to Italian Association of Geography Teachers all rights under copyright that can exist in and to the submitted paper. The Author warrants that the paper and images (photos, maps, graphs etc.) are original and that he/she is the Author of the submitted contribution and its parts; in the case of images taken by other publications, the Author must provide a specific authorization and must pay in advance any copyright.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.