Surveillance studies about“rear—window ethics”

Abstract： It can be said that people now live in a surveillance society. Some forms of surveillance have always existed as people watch over each other for mutual care， for moral caution and to discover information under the table. Alfred Hitchcocks Rear Window is a typical film for surveillance studies.What is happening on the screen is merely a projection of our own anxieties， our own existence， and our self-ambiguity as portrayed by the characters in this wonderful film.

Key words： Surveillance， watching， ethic

Alfred Hitchcocks Rear Window is a typical film for surveillance studies. Watching and being watched is a central theme to the story. “Surveillance-which at its social and etymological core is about watching-is easily accepted because all sorts of watching have become commonplace within a ‘viewer society， encouraged by the culture of TV and cinema.”（Coleman， 2004）

In Rear Window， there are different kinds of watching： Jeff watched his neighbors behaviors with telescope and a long-focus lens， while his neighbors can also watch him “like a bug under a glass.” Even， there are some other potential watching like the movie camera watches， the audience in turn watched the events happened on the screen. （ Albrechtslund， 2008 ）

This film concerned with the ethics of watching. After watching this film readers should think about： Is suspicion of a crime sufficient reason for carrying out potentially violating surveillance？ By studying this classic film about murder， Rear Window revealed some perspectives on ethics and power relations. However， rather than giving us answers， the protagonists revealed the persistent ethical dilemma of surveillance， and how the practice of surveillance can be justified and what kind of responsibility that follows it.（ Albrechtslund， 2008）

It can be said that people now live in a surveillance society. Some forms of surveillance have always existed as people watch over each other for mutual care， for moral caution and to discover information under the table. Sometimes people watch others behaviors from curiosity or boredom rather than work， （like Jeff in the film whose leg was broken and was trapped in the home）. Sometimes as for Hitchcock， the act of watching others for voyeuristic pleasure is simply a basic human trait. （Albrechtslund， 2008）

Everybody lives in public where people always watch each other consciously or unconsciously. People may once have some experience like this ： When you are on the MTR you used to gaze people sitting in the opposite seats， and when you are wondering in the square maybe some lovers make affectionate behaviors and those sleeping in the chair will attract you.

As for most people， watch other or being watched casually is not a disturbing thing. It is not so difficult to find some indecent behaviors in public， which are even disgusting or funny. But when the watcher shoot them with a camera or just a mobile phone， thing was changed. You will find yourself lived in a dilemma situation instantly.

A scholar had a experience like this： Once he was wondering in a park， he found a man sleeping in a chair with his mouse opened widely， and his arms and legs stretched almost in a quite comfortable posture. The scholar intend to shoot him for fun， but when he “commit” this behavior a dilemma arises. He make some ethical judgments in the inner side.

Interestingly， the ethical considerations in Rear Window mirror an understanding of surveillance as a power relation controlled by the person watching. Surveillance is called “spying” and it is done by “peeping Toms” while the objects of surveillance are looked on as “bugs under a glass.”（ Lyon， 2007 ） The scholar referred that While he was gazing and shooting that man， he was not ware what had happened to him. So this negative conception of surveillance stages the persons under surveillance as passive receivers of the controlling gaze.

However， sometimes the situation will change， for the film this is especially clear in the scene when Jeffries and Thorwalds eyes meet and the power relation changes in favor of Thorwald. As soon as the role of the watcher changes， Thorwald takes control of the situation， leaving Jeffries as a passive， immobilized receiver of the murderers actions. As for the scholar， he found it even more interesting， things happened like this： another man sit nearby was keeping gazing at him with a critical vision while he was shooting that sleeping person. So everybody could be “bugs under a glass” watched by others. Also， people used to watch others when they make some sexual behavior. And interestingly， sometimes the people being watched known there are some people gazing at them but they still dont hesitate to do so. Why？ People could easily find a picture in the public that a couple of young lovers make an affectionate behavior in front of a large number of passers-by. Some scholars claim that the fascination relating to the gaze is taken to another level with the concept scopophilia（the pleasure of looking）from psychology literature. Scopophilia can be divided into voyeurism （the desire to look at other people）and exhibitionism（the desire to expose oneself to others）， voyeurism and exhibitionism are most often directly associated with sexual pleasure， or even perversions. So maybe in this situation both the lovers and the people watched them will get a pleasure feeling. However， mostly the persons under surveillance are not in control. Their actions are unrelated to the surveillance. Also， the watchers lives wont become more meaningful sometimes they even become worth.（ Albrechtslund，2008）

Actually， its really difficult to make a full judgment about “Rear-window ethics”. In Rear Window， the story is so distinctively executed that it allows us to relate to our own curiosities， question our identities， and think about our closest relationships. （ Coleman， 2004） What is happening on the screen is merely a projection of our own anxieties， our own existence， and our self-ambiguity as portrayed by the characters in this wonderful film.

Reference

[1]Albrechtslund， A. （2008）. Surveillance and Ethics in Film： Rear Window and The Conversation. Denmark： Aalborg University.

[2]Coleman， R. （2004）. Reclaiming the Streets： Surveillance， Social Control and the City. Cullompton， UK： Willan.

[3]Kevin， D. Haggerty & Richard V. Ericson.（2006）.The new politics of Surveillance and Visibility. Toronto： Vof Toronto Press.

[4]Lyon， D.（2007）. Surveillance studies： The Watched World Today. Cambridge： polity

作者簡介

黃婷婷（1986-），女，漢族，輔導員，助教，研究生，碩士，研究方向：媒體文化。