Gossip Girl and Surveillance: An Examination of Representations and Viewer Perceptions of

Surveillance Within the Television Series and Its Extensions

Arielle DarrSpring 2012

Independent Pattern of Study: Global Media and Cultural Studies Occidental College

Supervised by: Professor Daniel Chamberlain

Literature Review

Previous knowledge about surveillance is essential to understanding my

analysis of contemporary surveillance practices within Gossip Girl and its

extensions. Therefore my literature review provides a historical and theoretical

framework that lays down the groundwork for my specific study. The first section of

my literature review explicates the evolution of surveillance studies. I primarily

used sociologist David Lyon’s books Surveillance Studies: An Overview and The

Electronic Eye: The Rise of Surveillance Society because they provide comprehensive

looks at the major movements and theorists in surveillance studies. I then explored

the relationship between surveillance and popular culture more closely. The last

section of the literature review directly relates surveillance to Gossip Girl. This

previous research illustrates what has been written on surveillance and the

television series. Though the literature on this topic is limited, it begins to explore

concepts I look at more critically in my own research. The three sections of this

literature review ultimately helped me develop my overall thesis argument.

Surveillance: A General Overview

The word “surveillance” has many deep-rooted connotations ranging from

basic feelings of fear, suspicion and foreboding to notions of stealthy reconnaissance

and secretive monitoring. It is often associated with widely recognized concepts of

Big Brother and the Panopticon that were brought into the spotlight by George

Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four and Michael Foucault’s Discipline and Punish

2

respectively. Yet, a broad survey of surveillance cannot be solely defined by total

government control or structured discipline. To comprehend the contemporary

surveillance I analyze later in this paper, we must look at the ways monitoring has

evolved over time and transgressed traditionally defined boundaries of the observer

and the observed. Since surveillance cannot be neatly categorized by any single

suggested connotation or theory, I briefly examined surveillance from its early

origins to present day conceptions in order to contextualize my research.

Made up of theories from a variety of disciplines and social spheres, the

study of surveillance is extensive and complex. Beginning with the term’s origins,

surveillance is rooted in the French surveiller or to watch. Often informed by power

and privilege, surveillance can be defined as “the focused, systematic and routine

attention to personal details for purposes of influence, management, protection or

direction” (Lyon, Surveillance Studies 13). Surveillance does not necessarily

correspond with suspicious behavior, yet its elusive nature makes it both a

fascinating and frightening subject. While acts of surveillance have always been part

of human behavior, a recent phenomenon has emerged in which “everyday

surveillance is endemic to modern societies” (Lyon, Surveillance Studies 14).

Today’s emerging cultures are fundamentally based around surveillance. Although

primarily discussing crime management, David Garland notes the development of

such societies in his book The Culture of Control (Garland). Based on Garland’s

concept, Lyon observes how cultures of control have been expanding since the

1980s: “surveillance is not merely something exercised on us as workers, citizens or

travelers, it is a set of processes in which we are all involved, both as watched and as

3

watchers” (12, 13). This dynamic has altered the nature of society in such a way that

everyone has become entangled in surveillance practices from government agencies

to individual citizens. I look at this concept more closely later on when I analyze

Gossip Girl.

To understand how today’s “culture of control” came about, we must first

examine the areas from which surveillance first developed. These “sites of

surveillance” include “military discipline and intelligence,” “state administration and

the census,” “work monitoring and supervision,” “policing and crime control,” and

“consumption and making up consumers” (Lyon, Surveillance Studies 25-44). Each

site has contributed to the development of the systematic, disciplined, hierarchical,

and mechanized system of surveillance that exists today. This is because they are all

characterized by the following themes: rationalization, technology, sorting,

knowledgeability and urgency. Rationalization highlights the significance put on

standardization and reasoning within modern life while technology is the key

component needed for progress. Sorting refers to the categorization of people in

order “to facilitate management and control through differential treatment of those

groups” (Lyon, Surveillance Studies 26). Knowledgeability can be understood as the

consciousness of those under surveillance. Finally, urgency indicates the rapid

implementation of surveillance measures in order to ensure security and medicate

risk (Lyon, Surveillance Studies 27). These components have ultimately come to

constitute the broad spectrum of surveillance studies.

In addition to specific sites, a variety of theoretical perspectives have shaped

the discourse around surveillance. Firstly, a distinction must be made between

4

modern and postmodern surveillance theory. Modern theory is equated with

“classical treatments that understand surveillance as an outgrowth of capitalist

enterprises, bureaucratic organization, the nation state, a machine-like techno-logic

and the development of new kinds of solidarity, involving less ‘trust’” (Lyon,

Surveillance Studies 51). In other words, modern theorists looked at traditional

kinds of surveillance in which officers disciplined their soldiers, factory owners

monitored their workers, governments organized their citizens and police officers

controlled crime. Well-known theorists Karl Marx, Max Weber and Michael Foucault

looked at these specific sites in their contributors to surveillance theory (Lyon,

Surveillance Studies 50).

Lyon writes, “In modern times, surveillance appeared as part of the political

economy of capitalism (Marx), as a product of bureaucratic organization (Weber)

and as a shift from punishment and spectacle to self-discipline (Foucault)”

(Surveillance Studies 4). Marx viewed surveillance as an integral part of the

capitalist economy. More precisely, he saw it as “an aspect of the struggle between

labour and capital” (Lyon, The Electronic Eye 7). Although under capitalism workers

were technically free to choose work as opposed to being coerced, they remained

under constant watch in the capitalist workplace. This was because “the capitalist

manager still had to maintain control of workers so that they would keep the

business competitive by producing as much as possible within a given time at the

lowest cost” (Lyon, The Electronic Eye 25). In fact, the term “management,” as we

know it today, developed out of the phenomenon of overseeing or managing the

workers. Lastly, Marx argues that the actual structure of the factory, a giant room

5

that housed all the workers, was not designed simply for technical efficiency, but

also to ensure “labour discipline through the oversight of workers’ activities” (Lyon,

The Electronic Eye 25).

While Weber recognized the role of surveillance within the capitalist

workplace, he took this a step further looking beyond class relations to

bureaucracies more generally. He observed how the rational nature of modern

organizations facilitates the development of filing systems that allow for the

effortless sorting and retrieval of data. Therefore within bureaucratic organizations,

documents must be approved by a hierarchy of workers, details must be

documented, rules must be followed and decisions must be calculated. Lyon

describes Weber’s main concern: “Efficiency is allegedly maximized through this

system, but so is social control” (The Electronic Eye 25). Weber argues that the way

bureaucratic organizations use surveillance to “keep tabs on populations,” is

harmful to “human freedom” especially because members of bureaucratic

organizations come to accept these terms as fair and reasonable (Lyon, Surveillance

Studies 19, 44).

Looking beyond bureaucratic organizations, Foucault examined surveillance

within the context of society as a whole. “For Foucault, modern society is itself a

‘disciplinary society’ in which techniques and strategies of power are always

present. Though these may originally develop within specific institutions...their

influence seeps into the very texture of social life” (Lyon, Surveillance Studies 26).

To Foucault, power is understood as strategic not possessive. In his book Discipline

and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Foucault emphasizes how institutional discipline

6

in the form of constant surveillance constructs “docile bodies” or people who

succumb to external control (138). To support this theory, Foucault resurrected

Jeremy Bentham’s architectural model of the Panopticon (195). The Panopticon was

a unique kind of institutional prison designed in the late 1700s. Its physical

structure was meant to enable constant visibility of inmates. This was possible

because the prison was designed with a watchtower in the middle of a circular

building. The tower would allow a prison guard to observe everything, while the

inmates would not be able to see if they were being watched. Because of the uneven

gaze, prisoners’ minds and bodies would be disciplined to behave as though

someone was watching them all the time (Foucault 200, 201). Among surveillance

scholars there is a great deal of debate over how much importance should be placed

on Foucault’s theory. Some argue that the Panopticon oversimplifies surveillance,

which is much more complicated then the few elite watching the many masses.

Others highlight the fact that there are many “systems Foucault never considered,

namely information technology-based organizations and networks” (Lyon,

Surveillance Studies 23). This is significant because it disregards the most recent

forms surveillance has taken, which I am especially interested in for my study.

In addition to the theorists previously mentioned, author and social critic

George Orwell contributed to surveillance studies through his dystopic novel

Nineteen Eighty-Four. Orwell managed to critique a fictional but sinister total-

surveillance society while captivating the attention of a mass audience. According to

Lyon, “Orwell’s work...has provided some of the most enduring, best known and

publically accessible concepts in surveillance studies, above all the figure of Big

7

Brother” (Surveillance Studies 51). Orwell was influenced by previous theories

about the development of nation-sate surveillance in response to political struggles.

The rise of such surveillance was theorized to lead to negative and repressive

consequences for society (Lyon, Surveillance Studies 52). Orwell highlights this

phenomenon through his depiction of the centralization of government power in the

figure of Big Brother and the use of technology such as the telescreen. Engaging the

Panopticon theory, Orwell writes: “The telescreen received and transmitted

simultaneously...he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of

knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment” (3). This quotation

stresses the loss of privacy that occurs within an overly transparent society and the

capacity for modern technologies to be used for social control. At one point in the

book, Orwell makes a direct reference to surveillance and technological progression:

In the past no government had the power to keep their citizens under

constant surveillance. The invention of print, however, made it easier to

manipulate public opinion, and the film and the radio carried the process

further. With the development of television, and the technical advance which

made it possible to receive and transmit simultaneously on the same

instrument, private life came to an end. (205)

Although Orwell was writing decades ago, his cautions about surveillance and

technology resonate with the information technology society that exists today.

As society moved toward consumer capitalism and the adoption of digital

technologies, a new strand of surveillance theory developed. Based on William

Staple’s understanding in his book Everyday Surveillance: Vigilance and Visibility in

8

Postmodern Life, Lyon summarizes how postmodern surveillance theory involves

“technology-based, body objectifying, everyday, universal kinds of surveillance”

(Surveillance Studies 51). Ranging from more intrusive airport security to

smartphone apps that allow users to track their contacts’ whereabouts, surveillance

has become universally integrated into every aspect of the modern world around us.

This is particularly clear when looking at the Internet. “With the advent of

computer-based surveillance in the later twentieth century, fresh forms of

mediation emerged, in which personal data...[is] central. Surveillance today is found

in the flows of data within networked databases, but these still relate to

organizational practices, power and, of course, the persons to whom those data

refer” (Lyon, Surveillance Studies 4). While power dynamics are still involved,

surveillance is no longer reserved for the few to watch the many or limited to those

deemed “threatening.” Anyone with access to contemporary technologies is under

watch and engaged in watching whether they want to be or not.

The arrival of the Internet and subsequent popularity of interactive

technologies have created new possibilities within the realm of surveillance. A

concept known as lateral surveillance has developed. According to media scholar

Mark Andrejevic, “Lateral surveillance, or peer–to–peer monitoring, is understood

as the use of surveillance tools by individuals, rather than by agents of institutions

public or private, to keep track of one another” (7). This reflects a surveillance

structure where the few are watching the many and the many have the capability to

watch one another. Recent literature reflects a polarized view on this phenomenon.

Media professor Anders Albrechtslund argues that online activity, particularly social

9

networking, is centered on surveillance practices. He juxtaposes traditional views of

surveillance with newer conceptions. Instead of “the hierarchical, vertical concept,”

Albrechtslund sees “surveillance as a mutual, horizontal practice” (Albrechtslund).

These claims are based on the participatory nature of these tools that are capable of

empowering users instead of violating them. This kind of surveillance, subverts

traditional notions of who is in control and how power is distributed

(Albrechtslund).  Other scholars argue that this shift in power is deceiving.

Approaching the topic from a cultural studies perspective, Mark Andrejevic

provides a useful case study that contrasts Albrechtslund’s viewpoint. When TiVo

was first introduced, many people saw it as the dawn of an age when television

executives and advertising companies lost control of when people watched

television and what commercials they saw. The notion that individuals who could

afford this technology, were able to personalize their TV watching experiences

based on their preferences and schedules was praised by many as an act of revolt

against corporate elite who had up to this point exercised total control over the

medium (Andrejevic 10-11). Under the guise of customization and personalization

this interactive technology appeared to give users power in a way that subverted

the traditional role of the television industry. In reality however, the industry

adapted to TiVo (and were in fact funding the company from the start). In response

to people’s new ability to fast forward through commercials, product placement and

sponsorships were increased within actual programs. In addition, an intricate data-

gathering industry developed in which TiVo was used to more accurately monitor

10

and collect information about viewers’ watching behaviors in order to better market

shows and products on an individualized level (Andrejevic 11-12).

The moral of this anecdote is that an inevitable loss of privacy occurs through

the use of contemporary interactive technologies. Andrejevic emphasizes the rise of

an asymmetrical power relationship where government and corporate agencies

either openly or secretly monitor citizen behavior without sharing this gathered

information (7-8). In addition to submitting to the relentless, automated collection

of data, individuals are being conditioned to give up their privacy and submit to

surveillance. This is being done by normalizing and encouraging surveillance

practices through interactions with devices and cultural exchanges. In many cases,

individuals are unknowingly participating in their own surveillance. Andrejevic’s

ultimate concern is that the more familiar and engaged people become with

surveillance practices, the less alarmed they are by increasingly intrusive

surveillance measures (Andrejevic).

After considering the role technology plays in our current surveillance

society, it is important to look at the way specific populations are affected. Young

people are particularly impacted by new surveillance because many are growing up

in a world where constant interactivity is commonplace. This concept is clearly

reflected in way the characters relate to technology on Gossip Girl. As social

networking sites encourage people to share more online, a “privacy paradox” arises.

Susan Barnes argues “Adults are concerned about invasion of privacy, while teens

freely give up personal information.” She suggests this is because teens often have

no conception of how accessible the information they put on the Internet is to

11

anyone. Barnes notes a study that was conducted to gauge “student attitudes toward

social networking sites and privacy” (Barnes). Its findings we’re relatively neutral

except on one question about whether people should be able to know everything

about everyone. Students disagreed with this statement, yet continued to maintain

that it was acceptable to openly share information about themselves on very public

networks like Facebook. This revealed a disconnect in young people’s notions of

privacy (Barnes).

dana boyd and Nicole Ellison elaborate on this with their conception of the

“hyper public” (22). They note how teens have become accustomed to presenting

themselves to the public, are vastly different than their parents. They argue:

The fundamental properties of networked publics – persistence,

searchability, replicability, and invisible audiences – are unfamiliar to the

adults that are guiding them through social life. It is not accidental that teens

live in a culture infatuated with celebrity - the “reality” presented by reality

TV and the highly publicized dramas (such as that between socialites Paris

Hilton and Nicole Richie) portray a magnified (and idealized) version of the

networked publics that teens are experiencing, complete with surveillance

and misinterpretation. (22)

This reasoning reflects the normalization of surveillance practices among youth

through sensationalized representations within popular culture. After briefly

surveying surveillance from its early origins to present day conceptions, I wanted to

look more specifically at the relationship between surveillance and popular culture.

12

Surveillance and Popular Culture

The intersection of surveillance and popular culture represents the way mass

society comprehends surveillance. Through his essay “Electric Eye in the Sky: Some

Reflections on the New Surveillance and Popular Culture,” sociologist Gary Marx

asserts that while other kinds of analysis are important, cultural analysis is

necessary to fully grasp surveillance. He claims that “Attention to visual images and

music can tell us about cultural themes and values” (Marx). Therefore, public

perceptions of surveillance are largely shaped through depictions in popular

literature, film and television. Referencing new modes of surveillance, Marx notes

that “Surveillance technology is not simply applied, it is also experienced by users,

subjects, and audiences. Cultural analysis can tell us something about the experience

of being watched, or of being a watcher” (Marx).

Lyon adds to Marx’s argument supporting the examination of surveillance

through the lens of popular culture. He contends: “through imaginative depictions

we may understand surveillance experiences and processes better, and...some such

media are themselves becoming a means of surveillance” (Surveillance Studies 137).

Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four is a prime example of a mass-read surveillance-based

text that popularized the concept of Big Brother. Another prominent instance of

surveillance and popular culture, which acts as a means of surveillance itself, is

reality television. The rise of reality shows like Big Brother mark an era in which

surveillance has become a form of entertainment in which participants agree to be

under constant observation and viewers enjoy watching them.

13

Postmodern theorist Thomas Mathiesen highlights the importance of

surveillance within popular culture by offering a system of control that reciprocates

the Panopticon. The “synoptic” model that Mathiesen describes in his article “The

Viewer Society: Michel Foucault's `Panopticon' Revisited,” refers to the many

watching the few, most poignantly seen through individuals’ interactions with the

mass media. The synopticon should be considered in relation to the Panopticon

because they shape one another and work together (Mathiesen 215-234). Of

Mathiesen’s argument Lyon summarizes, “the ‘viewer society’ in which we live is not

merely a surveillance society, where the few watch the many, it is also a mass media

society, where the many watch the few” (Surveillance Studies 140). This assertion is

significant to my argument about a mass audience watching Gossip Girl.

Because more people learn about surveillance through popular culture than

through academia, “knowing how surveillance is framed in popular cultural forms

such as film should at least be a rough guide to public perceptions” (Lyon,

Surveillance Studies 140). Lyon describes the way Mathiesen sees how “the

overlapping and cross-cutting cultures of surveillance may be reinforced and

normalized by [individuals’] interactions with entertainment media; think, for

example, of the domestication of the dreaded Big Brother in ‘reality TV’”

(Surveillance Studies 6). Andrejevic further explores how the masses are not only

being exposed to surveillance in popular culture, but they are also being encouraged

to engage with surveillance through interactive devices. Lyon reviews Andrejevic’s

claims: “As Mark Andrejevic shows, not only do many ‘expressive” TV shows

encourage display and visibility, but also all kinds of ‘interactivity’ (such as voting

14

on reality TV) help to expand the consumption of goods and services as well as of TV

itself” (Surveillance Studies 6). These mediated interactive experiences associated

with mass culture are giving corporations new ways to monitor and profit off of

audiences. With a basic understanding of surveillance and popular culture, it is time

to focus on texts that explicitly address surveillance and Gossip Girl.

Gossip Girl and Surveillance: The Show and Its Off-screen Extensions

Before my study there was not extensive research on the Gossip Girl

television series, especially in regards to surveillance. However, I discovered some

previous analyses that enlightened my argument. Josh Schwartz, Gossip Girl’s

creator and Executive Producer, “likens the Gossip Girl character to the Orwellian

Big Brother of the Upper East Side” in an interview about the show prior to its

release (Wayne). He argues that like Big Brother, Gossip Girl serves as an

overarching power structure that “watches over all” (Schwartz). Schwartz claims

that everyone submits to her control by constantly sending her information. Gossip

Girl’s dominance is further reflected in the way she “tells us at the beginning of each

episode, in a singsong, actressy tone, that she is our ‘one and only source into the

scandalous lives of Manhattan’s elite’” (Franklin 3). Viewers are being reminded that

Gossip Girl is controlling the lives of those she reports on. Like Orwell’s Big Brother,

Schwartz views Gossip Girl as a sinister, threatening presence when he declares

“lives will be destroyed, secrets will be revealed [and] bad stuff could happen on

Gossip Girl” (Schwartz).

15

While Gossip Girl appears to be the dominant surveillance figure, some

scholars do not agree with Schwartz simplistic Orwellian determinism. In fact they

explain the phenomena on Gossip Girl as less centralized and more multifaceted.

Although Gossip Girl is the power center, her entire blog is based on user

participation. One scholar observed that the show’s characters openly accept and

embrace surveillance. Instead of feeling “frightened” by Gossip Girl, the characters

are “surprisingly tolerant” and participatory (Moon 141, 143). “In this world

everyone’s eyes have become a kind of surveillance camera. These eyes are ready to

watch and record anything and everything” (Moon 142). This is partly due to the

anonymous nature of Gossip Girl and the mass participation in sending her tips,

which creates this anyone-can-be Gossip Girl dynamic (Moon; Wayne). “The Gossip

Girl plays with the theme of the interchangeable role of the observer and the

observed…the distinction has disappeared: everyone watches and everyone may be

being watched at the same time” (Moon 144). In the same vein, surveillance on the

show is glamorized making it cool to surveil and reveal one another’s secrets. The

show equates individual status with being gossiped about. This promotes the notion

of constant observation and the loss of one’s privacy. In fact, “You’re nobody until

you’re talked about” served as the tag line for a Gossip Girl advertisement campaign

(Wayne). This is reminiscent of the way celebrities are viewed within society, except

now anyone can be “talked about” with greater accessibility to communication

technologies that allow for the rapid spread of information (Wayne).

Although some of the research I came across focused on the Gossip Girl book

series specifically, I found that many of the arguments translated to my research. A

16

few academics explored the prevalence of consumerism within the series. Kim

Toffoletti notes that the books perpetuate the “agendas of mainstream consumer

culture” (Toffoletti 71). She argues that the series focuses on digital technologies to

capitalize on their trendiness and to strengthen readers’ interest in other Gossip Girl

products. Beyond the glorification of consumption within both the books, the series

has also itself become a commodity (Pattee). Alloy Entertainment has developed a

transmedia experience that, in addition to the books, includes a television series,

website, blog and games (Toffoletti 73).

A vibrant virtual and social world now exists for fans to further engage with

and consume “beyond the tube” (Wayne). Despite receiving low ratings on

television, the shows popularity flourished on among younger audiences in other

ways. “The generation watching Gossip Girl doesn’t do appointment television. They

are masters at using the latest technology to watch TV when and how they want. So

it’s significant that Gossip Girl is consistently the most downloaded show on

iTunes...It’s also the most-watched new show by teens” (Reagan). In addition to

watching episodes online or on iTunes, fans can continue to interact with the show

through a number of extensions maintained by the CW network and other media

sites. One such online extension is a CW-maintained blog that imitates the style of

Gossip Girl. The blog has “gained a following since the show’s premier, generating

much discussion among blog readers” (Burns). Additionally, “An urban travel blog

even plots the show’s filming locations on a map of Manhattan” (Wayne). Now fans

can not only watch their favorite characters but they can read about them between

episodes, buy their clothes, go to the trendy locations they visit and imitate their

17

behavior. Toffoletti writes, “even though young readers might not identify with the

wealthy and privileged characters…regular girls can emulate the characters in

Gossip Girl through their own encounters with technology” (Toffoletti 73). Also of

significance is that “Just as teenage consumers survey the Gossip Girl world in books,

on television and online, so too are they potentially being watched [and] monitored”

(Toffoletti 74). These last two points are invaluable to my argument. After laying out

the information needed to historicize and contextualize the nature of the

surveillance I examine in the Gossip Girl franchise, I will now illustrate how

surveillance is manifested through the content of the television series.

18