Introduction
“The National Anthem” (01.01), the first episode of Charlie Brooker’s television anthology series, Black Mirror (2011–), deals with a number of contemporary issues, namely, public reactions to, and fear of, terrorism, and the democratising power of social media. Specifically, it explores how the potential for psychological manipulation of both individuals and the masses has increased with the development of digital technology . Indeed, while such technology has the capacity for enhancing communication between physically remote individuals, there is increasing recognition that it also provokes a number of side effects, including a propensity for loneliness, persecution and exploitation of vulnerability (see, for example, Brewer & Kerslake, 2015; O’Keefe, Pearson, & Council on Communications and Media, 2011). As Mark Andrejevic observes in relation to this shift in the perceived value of social media, “[t]here is a progression apparent here, from a celebratory sense of the potential of new media (as a means of expanding social networks and experimenting with personal identity) to a savvy wariness toward forms of deception they facilitate, and finally to a sense of personal risk” (2007, p. 37). Moreover, and linked to the aforementioned issues, especially the exploitation of vulnerability, Brigitte Nacos (2016) argues that there is a symbiotic relationship between the media and radicalisation/terrorism, with each depending on the other to reach its audiences.
While Pierlugi Musarò (2016) analyses the episode’s portrayal of communication and power in the network society by examining issues of privacy, spectacle and performance, to date, there has been limited consideration of the side effects of the digital era in respect of surveillance. This essay therefore makes an original intervention in analyses of the series by focusing on surveillance in relation to cultural humiliation and terrorism. Engaging theoretically with the work of Thomas Mathiesen (1997) on synoptic spectatorship as well as that of Nacos (2016) in relation to mass-mediated terrorism, it examines the tensions between these aspects via narrative themes, cinematography and aspects of the mise-en-scène to argue that there are several repercussions of internet and social media usage not yet explored in this episode. These include an apparent democratisation of power, via what is termed here as “synaptic surveillance”, that exists in tension with accepted models of surveillance described by Michel Foucault (1991) and Thomas Mathiesen (1997); an accelerated pace of events; the propagandist potential and capacity of digital media for “fake news”; and the ready malleability of public opinion and resultant collective agency via emotional response rather than rational process. Effectively, the episode, while fictionalised, illustrates the real-world complexity of multiplatform media, with one individual controlling the consciousness of the many and these, in forming synaptic connections with others, ultimately mandating the actions of another character.
Power, Society and Surveillance in “The National Anthem”
Originally airing on 4 December 2011 on Channel 4 in the UK, “The National Anthem” is a political drama that follows the course of events after a princess is kidnapped, and the unusual ransom demand that the Prime Minister has sex with a pig, an event that the ransom states must be viewed publicly. Despite feverish attempts to locate the kidnapper, the Prime Minister, Michael Callow (Rory Kinnear), is eventually coerced by public opinion into committing the act. The episode, aside from its taboo content, became notorious for its connections to later unfounded allegations made against former British Prime Minister, David Cameron, which came to light in 2015 in an unauthorised biography by Michael Ashcroft and similarly became highly mediated (see Khomami, 2015; Hooton, 2015). It therefore explores the influence of the public, the power of synoptic viewing and issues of cultural humiliation. The drama’s numerous references to terrorism also connect such degradation with the equally culturally humiliating experiences of detainees at Abu Ghraib and other detention camps set up following 9/11. While this parallel might not be explicit, it is hinted at by Brooker who, in interview, compares the “pig scene” to 9/11, stating “It’s a 9/11—you don’t want to watch it [but you do]” (Bathurst, 2012a). The allusions to Islamic culture, 9/11 as media event, the narrative’s political targets, Jihadism and terrorist execution point more distinctly towards post-9/11 allegory. Furthermore, “The National Anthem” aired just following the tenth anniversary of 9/11, and in the same year as Bin Laden’s execution, an event from which the episode appears to draw. Effectively, while Foucault is concerned with the exercise of power in panoptic surveillance, and Mathiesen describes synoptic viewing (whereby the few still exert power), the episode illustrates how the combined effects of traditional and new media nuance power and viewing relationships.
The notion of one/few watching and controlling the consciousness of the many is explored by Foucault in Discipline and Punish (1991) in which he proposes that institutions such as the prison, school and hospital are typically organised according to a panoptic model. Such an arrangement pivots around a central tower which facilitates specific modes of surveillance. Drawing on the work of Jeremy Bentham, who originally put forward the design, Foucault explains that the way in which the institution regulates bodies through its physical architecture establishes an inherent relationship between space, surveillance and control. While institutions are sites implicitly concerned with the enforced discipline of the body, Foucault suggests that the typical panoptic structure of the institution also controls consciousness (1991, p. 201). This is because inmates do not know exactly when they are being observed and therefore adjust their actions regardless. Even though Foucault’s concept is based on physical space rather than cyberspace, and scholars such as David Lyon and Zygmunt Bauman now refer to the “post-panoptical powers of liquid modernity” (2013, p. 13), panopticism nonetheless retains contemporary currency in the widespread use of CCTV. As will be argued, it also remains potentially relevant to digital media, illustrated by the way that the masses are manipulated in “The National Anthem”.
In contrast to the work of Foucault, Thomas Mathiesen (1997) describes a synoptic model which he suggests has developed alongside panopticonism, stating that “as a striking parallel to the panoptical process, and concurring in detail with its historical development, we have seen the development of a unique and extensive system enabling the many to see and contemplate the few, so that the tendency for the few to see and supervise the many is contextualized by a highly significant counterpart [original emphasis]” (1997, p. 219). He contends that such mass viewing typically occurs in relation to television and terms the outcome of this concurrent two-way panoptic/synoptic system of observation as a “viewer society” (1997, p. 219). Less obviously than in panopticonism, power and control are also features of synoptic viewing such that “in synoptic space, particular news reporters, more or less brilliant media personalities and commentators who are continuously visible and seen are of particular importance … They actively filter and shape information … they produce news … they place topics on the agenda and avoid placing topics on the agenda” (Mathiesen, 1997, p. 226). As well as personalities exerting specific power over viewers, the media in general also effect control and Mathiesen states that “synopticism, through the modern mass media in general and television in particular, first of all directs and controls or disciplines our consciousness [original emphasis]” (1997, p. 230).
However, at the time he published this article, the Internet was in its infancy and social media relatively undeveloped. Therefore, alongside the panoptic process described by Foucault and the synoptic model outlined by Mathiesen, a third variation has emerged, involving multiple interactions between many individuals/groups in what might be described as “synaptic surveillance” and that is consistent with the development of the Internet and social media. Lyon (2011, p. 13) refers to this phenomenon as rhizomatic surveillance and notes that “[p]ost-panoptic surveillance is deterritorialized as well as rhizomatic and as such resists exclusionary control strategies” (2011, p. 13). In a related way, Mark Andrejevic describes it as a lateral watching, and suggests that it involves “a displacement of the figure of ‘Big Brother’ by proliferating ‘little brothers’ who engage in distributed, decentralised forms of monitoring and information gathering” (2007, p. 239). Andrejevic draws further comparisons with Foucauldian surveillance, noting that
This point is amplified by Ivan Manokha, who describes a comparable “chilling effect” following the Edward Snowden revelations whereby one’s free speech is curtailed in a raised awareness of possibly being watched (2018, p. 228). In a similar vein, and highlighting issues with Mathiesen’s pre-Internet viewpoint, Aaron Doyle states that “[m]odern, disciplinary surveillance is being overlaid. Likewise, with the evolution of the Internet and its intertwining with other mass media, the notion that ‘the many’ watch ‘the few’ through the mass media has become increasingly problematized” (2011, p. 293).[i]n an era of distributed surveillance, the amplification of panoptic monitoring relies on the internalised discipline not just of the watched, but also of the watchers … At the same time, we are becoming habituated to a culture in which we are all expected to monitor one another—to deploy surveillance tactics facilitated at least in part by interactive media technologies —in order to protect ourselves and our loved ones and maximize our chances for social and economic success. (2007, p. 239)
It is with these three options that “The National Anthem” is concerned: first, in relation to the Foucauldian control exercised by a single individual, an artist, who engineers the bizarre ransom demand and effectively manipulates the consciousness of 1.3 billion viewers; second, regarding the synoptic viewing by these viewers (who are influenced via a combination of the Internet and television news coverage) of the protagonist engaging in a culturally humiliating act; and third, what is here termed “synaptic surveillance” with respect to the collective agency/intelligence of those engaged with the I...