The Tilburgian neighborhood Korvel is a place like many others in the Netherlands. Since Tilburg is a city with a strong industrial past and various large migrant groups, this part of the town is home to people from various backgrounds: German students, polish labor migrants, people from the Middle East, Surinamese migrants, and both working and middle-class Dutch people all inhabit this space. A the same time, Korvel is also known for having a rough edge: the less wealthy side of this part of town can sometimes be visible through beggars and public drug usage. It is then not surprising that many of the neighborhood's inhabitants feel it necessary to employ surveillant measures such as cameras.

Surveillance, or surveillant measures, are concepts defined in this paper as acts that intend to influence others' behavior. A surveillant landscape by extension is the holistic totality of artefacts that indexes such action in a particular place and time. By focussing on surveillance in this manner I uncover who tries and succeeds at enacting power over others in the neighborhood. In this complex social space, we must question who surveils and who is surveilled. Understanding these dynamics helps us identify inequalities and abuses of power, paving the way for the creation of more democratic neighborhoods in similar places.

To investigate this, a surveillant landscaping study was performed. Here an attempt was made to answer three questions: "What surveillant actions are visible in Korvel?", "What are relevant groups or actors in Korvel's surveillant landscape", and "What power relations exist between these actors?". By investigating these three questions I hope to find an answer o the following: in Korvel's surveillant landscape who has what power, how do they use it, and who feels the consequences of this. In simpler words I wish to create an understanding of the surveillant landscape of Korvel. 

Method

To collect data for this study the method of surveillant landscaping was used (Jones, 2017). This means I went out into the neighborhood and took pictures of any object that one could link to surveillance including but not limited to cameras, security systems, lock boxes, obstructions, signs, and the like. I then analyzed what these physical objects indexed (Diggit Wiki, 2023) about the places they were in. Where specifically were these things placed, by whom, and for what purpose, will be the questions I focus on. This highlights who can commit surveillant acts as well as why they would do so.

Identity-related aspects of surveillance will be placed centrally. What identities are indexed by surveillant objects and behaviors will be central to our understanding thereof. Are certain groups as a whole labeled as a threat through surveillant practices and do other groups band together to protect themselves from others?  Focussing on who surveils whom, how, and why allows us to focus on this social dynamic of surveillance (Jenkins, 2012; Blommaert & Varis, 2013).

In short, this study will utilize data obtained from real-world sources and analyze its identity and technology indexicals related to power.

Another aspect of surveillance I will focus on is the digital infrastructure required to properly function in a digital surveillant landscape. Who can and cannot access such technology and the inequalities and power relations that this highlights will be put into focus (Andrejvic, 2019: Eposti, 2014). By doing this we can identify who has surveillant power in the neighborhood. 

In short, this study will utilize data from real-world sources and analyze its identity and technology indexicals related to power. In doing so I will answer the questions: What surveillant actions are visible in Korvel? What are relevant actors in Korvel's surveillant landscape and what power relations exist in said landscape? Each of these questions will be answered from a socio-technological point of view. This means that the interplay between human social systems and technological means will be the focus of this study. 

What surveillant actions are visible in Korvel?

I will first focus on what types of technology were found during data collection. This means the act of surveilling is not yet made most salient here. I will focus on that in the second part of the answer to this question. However, I first wish to look at what types of technology are employed to perform surveillant acts.

Certain forms of surveillance technology were quite straightforward. Consider elements like blinds, spiked gates, hedges, or fences. The meaning of these surveillant signs is rather straightforward, as they demand minimal interpretation, comprehension, or technical knowledge. For instance, encountering a gate adorned with spikes would promptly signal to most individuals that the area is private property, restricting access.

This stands in contrast to the second category of surveillant technology that is visible in Korvel. An abundance of what I have dubbed complex surveillant technology is found in our study. This includes camera(s) (interfaces) and security systems. These systems all require connections to outside networks and significant technological knowledge to interpret. Those subjected to surveillance through such methods may lack precise awareness of the surveillance techniques employed. Such distinction is notable compared to our initial category of surveillance technologies, wherein how one's behavior was influenced was more evident to a non-specialist observer.   

Lastly, there is a further category in between these two. This is what I have dubbed semi-complex surveillance technology. This category includes (standardized) signs, (triggering) lights, lockboxes or street infrastructure such as benches or bike stands made to disincentivize loitering or stealing. An example of the latter can be found below. Tools like this require either some technological understanding or some specific knowledge to be used efficiently. For instance, the bike rack below requires you to know how to use its unique design. Likewise, the sign situated beneath the aforementioned image necessitates proficiency in the Dutch language or knowledge of specific symbols. These semi-complex surveillance technologies need more decoding than those in category one but less decoding than those in category two.

Having established what means are used for surveillance in Korvel, I will now focus on what actions are performed using them. First of all, it seems logical that a function of surveillant actions is creating security. This can easily be seen in cases such as the spiked fences that we started this chapter with (Fig. 1). Avoiding discomfort can also be seen as a similar function of surveillance. This is more salient in cases such as the sign that we used as our last example in the previous paragraph. Surveillance technology can mark your space, allowing those you approve to enter while keeping others out. The lock box and home camera equipment/intercom that can be seen below (Fig. 4) are clear examples of this. However, all these functions of surveillant technology can be seen as part of a larger category of functions. Namely, they are all about influencing outsider behavior. Surveillant technology in Korvel is used to do this by making you know you are being watched (monitors and signs announcing surveillance), limiting options for action (fences and spikes) or implying a social pressure (signs) among many other manners. All these actions seek some control over people who for some reason need to be controlled (Ceyhan, 2012).

This brings us back to the second kind of surveillant act in Korvel. As we found in the last paragraphs by surveilling people one denotes that their actions should be influenced. In doing so surveillance labels certain people as risks (Ceyhan, 2012; Jenkins, 2012). This is again made very clear in the case of the sign in Fig. 5: those using drugs or drinking in the park are noted as deviant or at least breaking the rules. This means a label is attached to people engaging in such actions by those who take the sign at face value. People engaging in those behaviors are labeled as deviant by the discourse this sign conveys (Becker, 1963; Blommaert, 2005; Foucault, 2003). In the following paragraphs, we will further discuss the implications of this idea.

Who are the relevant actors in Korvel's surveillant landscape?

However, before we can say anything about labeling in the next chapter we will first need to discuss the agents in this particular surveillant landscape. By understanding which actions are committed by whom we can see how these actions help create specific identities and power relations in the last section of this analysis.

First of all, a notable actor in Korvel's surveillant landscape is Tilburg's municipal government. They use signs such as the one below (Fig. 6) to influence behavior in the public space. Moreover, they also use architecture to do the same thing. Uncomfortable benches and bright lights all seem to be manifestations of an attempt at minimizing petty criminality and loitering.

The municipal government also performs video surveillance. The three places in which this takes place are marked on the map above (Fig. 6). The city government has said the point of these cameras was to be able to better organize traffic. The footage captured by these cameras is not stored. It is solely utilized for the analysis of traffic situations.

It is then notable that an article by AD reports that these very same cameras were placed to reduce public drinking and soft drug usage as this was causing a nuisance (Erik van Hest, 2021). Either way, these examples show that the government heavily tries to shape Korvel's residents' behavior through technologically simple (hedges),  complex (camera technology) and semi-complex (signs) means.

Another notable group of actors in Korvel is companies. There are quite a lot of shops and companies in Korvel that use surveillant technology to influence behavior. For instance, large chain companies frequently featured a monitor and camera in which you could see yourself as can be seen below. This conveys the meaning that the optional action of stealing will not be tolerated in this environment. In this manner behavior is regulated. The same can be said for the easily visible large security system in the final picture in Fig. 9 below.    

Additionally, similar establishments often claim parking spaces for customers and employees through signage. They also employ gates and spikes to restrict public access to their private areas, reflecting a layered surveillance approach. These organizations claim their space and consistently monitor said territory (Fig. 10).

This is something that smaller local companies seemingly don't do as much. We do see such organizations where one or two cameras may be present. Additionally, many of them have blinds in front of their windows. You can see both of these in the pictures below (Fig. 11).

Even so many of these systems are very basic. Some smaller stores or restaurants even do not appear to have any protective measures such as cameras or blinds at all as can be seen in the images below (Fig. 12). We can thus say that while there may not be a dividing line in absolute terms bigger companies seem to perform more surveillant actions and use more (complex) surveillance technologies.

Lastly, there are also individuals in Korvel who participate in its surveillant landscape. People use (spiked) fences, gates, blinds, intercoms, and doorbells as we have seen earlier. Cameras, while less common than for companies, seem to be rather prevalent. Even so, these are mostly doorbell-type devices nowhere near as complex as a full surveillance system. Individuals also use signs to influence each other's behavior. In the photo below (Fig. 13), you can see how an individual has taken it upon themselves to make the streets around a school in the district safer by making drivers aware of possible danger.

To conclude, we must say that companies, Tilburg's municipal government, and individuals all perform surveillance here. The municipalitydoes so with a seemingly soft hand. Design and signage seem to be the main ways in which they surveil. However, they do place cameras where they think it necessary to use such measures. Meanwhile, larger chain companies seem to create a surveillance system around their establishments. Smaller companies do not do this as much. Individuals seemingly also organize around their homes, but their surveillant acts and uses of surveilling technology are by far the least complex of all participants in Korvel's surveillant landscape.

Power relations in Korvel's surveillant landscape

For the final part of this paper, I will now analyze the power relations that the surveillant landscape of Korvel indexes. This means we will be focussing on two questions: Who surveils others and who is surveilled? The technological means to surveil are not divided equally in Korvel. Large companies seem to have the upper hand here when it comes to surveilling a small part of the neighborhood that they can call their own. Chain stores like Action, Kruidvat, Jumbo, or Nettorama can be seen as surveilled fortresses. Meanwhile, Tilburg's municipal government seems to have the most power to surveil and influence behavior across the district. They have designed specific landscapes across the neighborhood and placed signs and cameras to shape Korvel in a more general sense.

Individuals and smaller companies seem to lack such power over their terrain as well as the neighborhood at large. Certainly attempts like the self-hung sign (Fig. 13) show that individuals try to influence behavior in the neighborhood, but they cannot design the entire district like the city government can. Meanwhile, neither individuals or small companies likely have the money larger organizations have to invest in expensive security systems. Large organizations and TIlburg's municipal government have the most power to surveil Korvel because they have more means to create complex datafied surveillance systems compared to smaller organizations and individuals. The question then remains who do they surveill?

Large organizations and government have the most power to surveil Korvel because they have more means to create complex datafied surveillance systems compared to smaller organizations and individuals. 

As we saw previously, loitering and petty criminality are given particular attention by both government and larger companies in their surveillance infrastructure. The monitoring cameras, surveillance systems, signs, bright lights, uncomfortable benches, and closing hours for certain sections of public space all seem oriented toward preventing such behavior. Then those more likely to engage in such behaviors are labelled as the deviants in need of surveillance. 

Neither ompanies or governments are actors who would logically engage in such behaviors. Moreover, they are the ones surveilling loitering and petty criminality which would be noteworthy, to say the least, if it were targeted at themselves. The surveillance that we see performed here seems mostly targeted at individuals. The people who engage in the behaviors that are seemingly given the most importance, such as public drug usage or loitering, are more likely to be done by single or small-group actors. Additionally, these are behaviors that are generally seen as scary or deviant in Western society (Becker, 1963: Van Melik, 2012). Hence, the people that this type of surveillance labels as deviant are likely those already disenfranchised by society (Van Voorst, 2010). Relatively powerless individuals who would already be labeled as deviant by most in society seem to fit this bill. To get a clearer idea of whether this aligns with class and ethnic stereotyping further research is highly recommended. After all, it seems very likely that those who are in an already marginalized group might more easily fall into this group. Therefore, these surveillant activities could grow the divide between people who feel they benefit from surveillance and those who feel that they are discriminated through it. Being labeled as deviant through surveillance could reinforce a disconnect between mainstream Dutch society and individuals experiencing such labeling. 

Summary and relevance

Korvel just like any other neighborhood has a complex web of power relations indexed through its surveillant landscape. It has business, governmental, and individual actors of various power levels that use technology of different sophistication to influence each other's behavior. In this, we see that, somewhat predictably, large organizations with a lot of capital to invest in a surveillant system retain the most power. Tilburg's municipal government seems to control most of the district with a soft touch. Most of the actual filling in of how the neighborhood operates is left to the businesses and people residing there. In this, those who have the capital to integrate themselves into a surveillance system using data and strategy seem to have the most power. Meanwhile, individuals and smaller organizations seem to lack such power. This whole system seems to largely focus on stopping petty criminality and loitering. These behaviors are labeled as deviant through overt measures such as signs, but also cameras and designs specifically aimed at impeding such actions. This all seems to be in the name of preventing nuisance or danger. However by labeling those engaged in behaviors that many would consider deviant as abnormal again in this surveillant system, one might alienate surveillance subjects to a higher degree. This is especially concerning as those with the power to commit surveillance seem to mainly surveil those less powerful than them (Jenkins, 2012). 

This all shows that even a surveillance system aimed at improving the well-being and safety of neighborhoods runs the risk of marginalizing specific groups. Especially when surveillance is aimed at those least powerful in society, which seems to be the case here, alienation from mainstream society might result. This is more salient given the complex computerized surveillant systems that governments and large companies can now use. Individuals, especially those lacking large amounts of capital, lack the surveillant power boost that such technology affords. 

It is important to consider the shifting power balances that the advent of new technology such as facial recognition cameras and detection algorithms create.

Hence it is important to consider the shifting power balances that the advent of new technology such as facial recognition cameras and detection algorithms create. In cases where capital is the main deciding factor for access - as it seems to be in Korvel - issues like heightened inequality and alienation from mainstream society by those targeted by surveillance may grow in the future. Hence more study into the cultural power dynamics of surveillance technology and ways to democratically allot surveillant technology seems of vital importance. 

References:

Andrejevic, M. (2019). Automating surveillance. Surveillance & Society, 17(1/2), 7-13.

Becker, H. S. (1963/1973). Outsiders ). New York: Free Press.

Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Blommaert, J., & Varis, P. (2011). Enough is enough: The heuristics of authenticity in superdiversity. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, 2, 1-13.

Ceyhan, A. (2012). Surveillance as biopower. In Ball, K., Haggerty, K., & Lyon, D. (Eds.). (2012). Routledge Handbook of Surveillance Studies (1st ed.). pp. 38-45. Milton Park: Routledge.

Diggit Wiki,. (2023). Indexicality.

Esposti, S. (2014). When big data meets dataveillance: The hidden side of analytics. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 209-225.

Foucault, M. (2003). Abnormal: lectures at the Collège de France, 1974-1975 (Vol. 2). London: Macmillan.

Jenkins, R. (2012). Identity, surveillance, and modernity: Sorting out who's who. In Ball, K., Haggerty, K., & Lyon, D. (Eds.). (2012). Routledge Handbook of Surveillance Studies (1st ed.). (pp. 159-166). Milton Park: Routledge.

Jones, R. H. (2017). Surveillant landscapes. Linguistic Landscape, 3(2), 149-186.

Van Hest, E. (2021). Extra cameratoezicht tegen overlast op Korvelplein, "Posities signaal naar bewoners", Algemeen Dagblad.

Van Melik, R. G. (2010). Veiligheid op Nederlandse stadspleinen. Rooilijn: Tijdschrift voor Wetenschap en Beleid in Ruimtelijke Ordening, 43, 2, pp. 92-97

van Voorst, R. (2010). Jullie zijn anders als ons: jong en allochtoon in Nederland, Amsterdam: Uitgeverij De bezige bij