Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.792685
Title: Liberal democratic surveillance : rules, legitimacy and the institutionalisation of domination
Author: Hall, Matthew
Awarding Body: Royal Holloway, University of London
Current Institution: Royal Holloway, University of London
Date of Award: 2017
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Access from Institution:
Abstract:
The proliferation of public debate around surveillance over the past couple of decades has been marked by defeat for those objecting to it. This thesis sets out to understand not, what harms surveillance brings to values held dear to liberal democracy - like privacy, liberty and political rights to protest - but instead, why it is that surveillance is so widespread in societies that value these things. Most public and liberal objections to surveillance commonly seek to use liberal values like privacy and liberty on the one hand, and democratic values such as equality on the other, to shield against the harms that surveillance can bring. Surveillance is seen broadly as an external harm to liberal and democratic values, and commonly the task of study is to identify instances where surveillance is perceived to be going wrong, being excessively harmful, being used disproportionately, or is mistaken. These kinds of common objections, confident in the role liberal values can play, implicitly hold that surveillance, when properly limited and justified, is nothing to be fearful of. I argue instead that liberal democratic values are implicated in surveillance, not independent protections against it. If rules govern how liberal democratic values are protected and/or violated then surveillance, as a 'technique for securing full compliance with a given set of institutional rules' (as I will define it), is inextricably part of the institutionalisation of liberal and democratic values. Drawing on 'realist' insights into institutional rule making, I seek to explain how value-laden rules, which guide surveillance into practice, are politically contested. If we want to understand the expansion of surveillance, and over whom it is most harmfully applied, we need to understand the politics behind the rules that surveillance enforces.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.792685  DOI: Not available
Keywords: Surveillance ; Legitimacy ; Domination ; Political Theory ; Liberalism ; Democracy ; Liberal Democracy ; Realism ; consent ; protest ; policing ; Privacy ; dissent ; Bernard Williams ; Weber ; Beetham ; Skinner ; republicanism ; Non-Domination
Share: