UNIT GUIDE 2016/17
POLI30018 Secrecy, the State, and Me
Teaching Block 2
Weeks 13-24
Unit Owner:
Dr. Elspeth Van Veeren
Level:
H/6
Phone:
(0117) 928 8238
Credit points:
20
Email:
[email protected]
Prerequisites:
None
Office:
2.01, 10 Priory Road
Curriculum area:
Comparative and National
Politics
Unit owner
Tuesdays, 12-2pm
office hours: (Please note, there are no regular office hours during Reading Week)
Timetabled classes:
Lecture and Seminar: Thursdays, 1-4pm in 10 Priory Road: LG3
(Due to site visits and visiting speakers there may, on the occasional week, be the need to arrive earlier
or later. Any schedule changes will be communicated in class and on BlackBoard.)
Weeks 18 and 24 are Reading Weeks; there is NO regular teaching in these weeks.
In addition to timetabled sessions there is a requirement for private study, reading, revision and
assessments. Reading the required readings in advance of each seminar is the minimum expectation.
The University Guidelines state that one credit point is broadly equivalent to 10 hours of total student
input.
Learning outcomes
On successful completion of the unit, students will be able to:
• Demonstrate a critical awareness of the changing and contested role that secrecy plays with relation
to the state and to the citizen;
• Understand the role technology plays in our changing relationship to secrecy;
• Evaluate different approaches to the analysis of secrecy.
Requirements for passing the unit:
• Satisfactory attendance at seminars
• Completion of all formative work to an acceptable standard
• Combined mark of all summative work must be a pass (40 or above)
Details of coursework and deadlines
Assessment:
Content:
Weighting:
Deadline:
Day:
Week:
Summative
1,500 words
25%
9.30am 30
Thursday
22
Assessment:
total
March 2017
Secret Object
Summative
3,000 words
75%
9.30am 24
Wednesday
Summer
Assessment:
May 2017
Exam
Essay
period
• Summative essay questions will be made available on the unit’s Blackboard site.
• Instructions for the submission of coursework can be found in Appendix A
• Assessment in the school is subject to strict penalties regarding late submission, plagiarism and
maximum word count. A summary of key regulations is in Appendix B.
• Marking criteria can be found in Appendix C.
1
Version 2016.1
POLI30018 Secrecy, the State, and Me
Overview
In the post-Wikileaks, post-Snowden era, secrecy has gained new currency as an area of political
significance and political investigation. At the same time, with the rise of social media and reality
television, some argue that we now live in a ‘confessional society’ where secrecy is a dirty word. This unit
therefore offers an exploration of the concept of secrecy and its practices. Drawing on studies of secrecy
– classic and cutting edge – from across politics, sociology, law, religious studies, anthropology, and
cultural studies, we’ll look at how secrets are made and why, how secrets are normative and powerful,
how economies and new technologies grow around secrets, how secrets can be both global and intimate,
and how secrets are contested and challenged. In other words, we’ll explore the secrets of secrecy!
Unit aims
This unit considers the inter-relationships between secrecy, concealment and revelation, public and
private, visibility and invisibility, security, surveillance, opacity and transparency, in connection with
political rights and freedoms. Looking across cultures and historical periods – but with a particular
emphasis on the US political and cultural context -- this unit will critically engage with the concept of
secrecy to explore its changing role in politics and society.
Core Reading
• Articles that are assigned as part of seminar reading will be made available electronically and as
part of a Course Pack.
Class Schedule
Week
13
14
15
16
17
18
Topic
What is a secret?
Making Secrets and What the Secret
Makes
Visits/Visitors/Assignments
Secret Object Implosion
Nick Boyce (Avon and Somerset Constabulary)
Jason Leopold (Vice News) (Skype)
Jack Serle (The Bureau of Investigative Journalism)
(tbc)
Harmit Kambo (Privacy International) OR
Revealing the Secret II: Against
Shahid Buttar (Electronic Freedom Federation)
Transparency
(Skype)
Ingrid Burrington (Artist) OR
Visualising and Representing the Secret
Edmund Clark (Artist)
READING WEEK
Revealing the Secret I: Transparency as
good
2
Version 2016.1
19
20
21
22
Surveillance and Control
Nuclear Secrets
Individual Secrets
Global Data-veillance: Networks of
Secrets
23
Resistance
24
Bristol City Council CCTV Control Room Visit (tbc)
Hinkley B Site Visit
University Precinct/Park Street/Clifton Tour
First Assignment Due – Secret Object Analysis
EASTER BREAK
Essay writing workshop
Draft introductions welcome this week
READING WEEK
Requirements for Credit Points
1. Formative: Attendance, preparation and participation in seminars and site visits
2. Summative (25%): Secret Object Analysis (1,500 words) due in Week 22
3. Summative (75%): Essay (3,000 words) due in the Summer Exam Period
Formative Assessment
1. Attendance, preparation and participation in seminars and site visits. You must come prepared to
seminars and site visits. This means, at the very minimum: having read all of the required
readings; having spent some time considering the readings and arriving prepared with questions
and comments on the readings (bring your readings to seminar) or for our guests or hosts; and
being ready to participate in an intelligent, informed, polite and good-natured discussion.
Attendance at all seminars is monitored, with absence only condoned in cases of illness or for
other exceptional reasons. Please inform your seminar tutor and email [email protected] if you are unable to attend.
Summative Assessment
2. Secret Object Analysis 1,500 words (25%). Students are required to complete a critical analysis of
a historical event, practice, artefact, set of images or text of their choosing in order to explore an
aspect of secrecy and its role in politics and society.
3. Submit a 3,000-word essay (75%)
All work submitted late is subject to strict penalties (see School UG Handbook and Blackboard).
Visits and Visitors: Each week throughout the unit we will be joined by a different international or local
expert on a different aspect of secrecy. We also have three visits planned to different sites around Bristol.
Please pay close attention to any additional arrangements and timings associated with the visits and
visitors.
Laptop use: A warning on over-relying on laptops for learning. A growing body of research evidence
shows that note-taking on laptops, unless prescribed by a medical professional for a specific reason,
INHIBITS learning for the note-taker and for those around them (i.e. as well as being counter-productive it
is also anti-social!!). Please think twice before using your laptop to take notes in lectures and seminars
unless specifically invited to by your tutor and lecturer.
Development and Feedback: You will receive feedback on the formative assignments submitted and
formal written feedback on the submitted essay. You can also raise any other issues or problems in office
hours with your seminar tutor and the unit owner. You are very strongly encouraged to use office hours
to discuss your assignments and your tutor’s feedback as an integral part of the learning process.
Transferable Skills: The learning outcomes for this unit are focused on strengthening specific academic
and more generic ‘transferable’ skills. The skills developed on this course fall into the following broad
categories:
3
Version 2016.1
•
•
•
•
self-motivation: reading and research for seminars and essays;
communication (oral, written, visual): seminar discussion, summative assignments, essays;
use of ICT: web searches, Blackboard, drafting essays, using film editing software;
analytical & research: the course as a whole.
************************************************************************************
WEEK 1 (13): What is a Secret?
To start the unit we will begin with a closer examination of the concept of secrecy, unpacking or
‘imploding’ it in order to understand the multiple forms that secrecy takes, how it operates and becomes
a site of power.
Exercise: Using the Implosion
READ: Dumit, J. (2014) ‘Writing the Implosion’ and identify an object, text or practice. Using DUMIT for
inspiration ‘implode’ its secrecy dimensions. Be prepared to discuss your object, the exercise, and what
you found in class.
Required reading:
• Bok, Sisella (1984) ‘Approaches to Secrecy’, Secrets: On the Ethics of Concealment and Revelation,
Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp.3-14. (11)
• Grondin, David and Nisha Shah (2015) ‘Secrets’ in Mark Salter (ed.) Making Things International:
Catalysts and Reactions, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp.92-105. (14)
• Birchall, Clare (2014) ‘Aesthetics of the Secret’, New Formations, 83:3, pp.25-46. (21)
• Gibson, David R. (2014) ‘Enduring illusions: The social organisation of secrecy and deception’,
Sociological Theory, 32:4, pp.283–306. (23)
• Gibson, William (2016) ‘The Future of Privacy’, New York Times, 6 December. (3)
• FOR THE EXERCISE: Dumit, Joseph (2014) ‘Writing the Implosion: Teaching the World One Thing
at a Time,’ Cultural Anthropology, 29:2, pp.344–362. (18)
Further Reading:
• Birchall, Clare (2016) ‘Managing Secrecy’, International Journal of Communication, 10, pp.152163. (11)
• Fenster, Michael (2014) ‘The implausibility of secrecy’, Hastings Law Journal, 64, pp.309–363.
• Galison, Peter (2010) ‘Secrecy in three acts’, Social Research, 77:3, pp.941–974.
• Harrington, Brooke (ed.) Deception: From Ancient Empires to Internet Dating, Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
• Horn, Eva (2011) ‘Logics of political secrecy’, Theory, Culture & Society, 28:7–8, pp.103–122.
• Jütte, Daniel (2015) The Age of Secrecy: Jews, Christians, and the Economy of Secrets, 1400-1800,
Yale: Yale University Press.
• Simmel, Georg (1906) ‘The sociology of secrecy and of secret societies’, American Journal of
Sociology, 11:4, pp.441–498.
• Tefft, Stanton (ed) (1980) Secrecy: A Cross Cultural Perspective, New York: Human Sciences Press.
• Van Veeren, Elspeth (2017) ‘Invisibilities’, in Roland Bleiker (ed.) Visual Global Politics, London:
Routledge.
WEEK 2 (14): Making Secrets and What the Secret Makes
This week we continue our exploration of secrecy as concept by looking at how secrecy is made – this
week we will focus on how states make secrets, in later weeks we’ll look at secrets at other scales – but
also what secrecy makes (norms, identities/subjects, power…).
4
Version 2016.1
Visitor: Nick Boyce, Avon and Somerset Constabulary
Required reading/listening:
• Luhrmann, Tanya M. (1989) ‘The Magic of Secrecy’, Ethos, 17:2, pp.131-165. (34)
• Gable, Eric (1997) ‘A Secret Shared: Fieldwork and the Sinister in a West African Village’, Cultural
Anthropology, 12:2, pp.213-233. (20)
• Galison, Peter (2004) ‘Removing knowledge’, Critical Inquiry, 31:1, pp.229–243. (14)
• LISTEN: Bissell, Kate (2016) ‘State Secrets’, The History of Secrecy, BBC Radio. (15 minutes)
• Van Veeren, Elspeth (2013) ‘Clean War, Invisible War, Liberal War: The Clean and Dirty Politics of
Guantánamo’, in Andrew Knapp and Hillary Footitt Liberal Democracies at War: Conflict and
Representation, London: Bloomsbury, pp.89-112. (23)
• Bail, Christopher A. (2015) ‘The public life of secrets: Deception, disclosure, and discursive
framing in the policy process’, Sociological Theory, 33:2, pp.97-124. (27)
Further reading:
• Bakir, Vian (2010) Sousveillance, media and strategic political communication: Iraq, USA, UK. New
York: Continuum.
• Baumann, Zygmunt (2011) ‘Privacy, Secrecy, Intimacy, Human Bonds – and Other Collateral
Casualties of the Liquid Modernity’, The Hedgehog Review, Spring, pp.20-29.
• Kasimis, Demetra (2016) ‘Plato’s Open Secret’, Contemporary Political Theory, 15, pp.339-357.
• Gup, Ted (2007) Nation of Secrets, New York: Doubleday.
• Luscombe, Alex (2016) ‘Deception Declassified: The Social Organisation of Cover Storying in a
Secret Intelligence Operation’, Sociology, OnlineFirst.
• Mearsheimer, John J. (2011) Why Leaders Lie: The Truth about Lying in International Politics, New
York: Oxford University Press.
• Nagel, Thomas (1998) ‘Concealment and Exposure’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 27:1, pp.3-30.
• Pozen, David E. (2010) ‘Deep Secrecy’, Stanford Law Review, 62, pp.257-339.
• Roberts, Alasdair (2006) ‘Regime Change’, Blacked Out: Government Secrecy in the Information
Age, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.51-81.
• Taussig, Michael (1999) Defacement: Public Secrecy and the Labor of the Negative, Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
• Verdery, Katharine (2014) ‘The Secrets of the Secret Police’, Secrets and Truths: Ethnography in
the Archive of Romania's Secret Police, Budapest: Central European University Press, pp.77-154.
• Vermeir, Koen and Dániel Margócsy (2012) ‘States of secrecy: an introduction’, The British Journal
for the History of Science, 45:2, pp.153–164
• Von Stuckrad, Kocku (2010) ‘Secrecy as Social Capital’, in Andreas Kilcher (ed) Constructing
Traditions: Means and Myths of Transmission in Western Esotericism, Leiden: Brill, pp.239-252.
WEEK 3 (15): Revealing the Secret I: Transparency as public good
This week we look at the politics of revealing secrets, beginning with the liberal understanding of
transparency as a universal public good. We move from the state to other areas of life as well as some of
the practices used for revealing the ‘illiberal’ secret.
This week is also the deadline for submitting security clearance information for the visit to Hinkley Point.
Visitor: Jason Leopold, investigative journalist, VICE News (via Skype)
Required reading/listening:
• Foucault, Michel (1975) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, New York: Vintage,
pp.195­228. (33)
• Birkinshaw, Patrick (2006) ‘Transparency as a Human Right’ in Christopher Hood and David Heald
5
Version 2016.1
•
•
•
(eds.) Transparency: The Key to Better Governance? Oxford: OUP, pp.47-56. (10)
LISTEN: Bissell, Kate (2016) ‘A Time of No Secrets Secrets’, The History of Secrecy, BBC Radio. (15
minutes)
Nath, Anjali (2014) ‘Beyond the Public Eye: On FOIA Documents and the Visual Politics of
Redaction’, Cultural Studies <=> Critical Methodologies, 14, pp.21-28. (8)
Pachirat, Timothy (2011) ‘A Politics of Sight’, Every Twelve Seconds: Industrialized Slaughter and
the Politics of Sight, New Haven: Yale University Press, pp.233-256. (23)
Further reading:
• Costas, Jana and Christopher Grey (2014) ‘Bringing secrecy into the open: Towards a theorization
of the social processes of organisational secrecy’, Organisation Studies, 35:10, pp.1423–1447.
• Ellsberg, Daniel (2010) ‘Secrecy and national security whistleblowing’, Social Research, 77:3,
pp.773–804.
• Ku, Agnes (1998) ‘Boundary politics in the public sphere: Openness, secrecy, and leak’,
Sociological Theory, 16:2, pp.172-192.
• Robertson, K.G. (1982) ‘Democracy and Secrecy’, Public Secrets: a Study in the Development of
Government Secrecy. London: St. Martin's Press, pp.11-21. (10)
• Theoharis, Athan G. (ed) (1998) ‘Introduction,’ A Culture of Secrecy: The Government versus the
People’s Right to Know, Kansas: Kansas University Press, pp.1-15.
WEEK 4 (16): Revealing the Secret II: Against Transparency
Following on from last week, we look at arguments against liberal conceptions of transparency and
revelation.
Visitor: Harmit Kambo, Privacy International OR or Shahid Buttar, Electronic Freedom Federation (tbc)
Required reading:
• Fenster, Mark (2010) ‘Seeing the State: Transparency as Metaphor’, Administrative Law Review,
62:3, pp.617-672. (55)
• Dean, Jodi (2002) ‘Publicity’s Secret’, Publicity’s Secret, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. 15-46.
(30)
• Birchall, Clare (2011) ‘The Politics of Opacity and Openness’, Theory, Culture & Society, 28:7-8,
pp.1-19. (19)
• Lessig, Lawrence (2009) ‘Against Transparency’, The New Republic, October 9.
Further reading:
• Chambers, Simone (2004) ‘Behind closed doors: Publicity, secrecy, and the quality of
deliberation’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 12:4, pp.389-410.
• Fenster, Mark (2012) ‘Disclosure’s Effects: Wikileaks and Transparency’, Iowa Law Review, 97,
• Fenster, Mark (2008) Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture, Revised and
Updated edition, Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.
• Fox, Jonathan (2007) ‘The uncertain relationship between transparency and accountability’,
Development in Practice, 17:4-5, pp.663-671.
• Birchall, Clare (2011) ‘“There’s been too much secrecy in this city”: The false choice between
secrecy and transparency in US politics’, Cultural Politics, 7:1, pp.133-56.
• Vermeir, Koen (2012) ‘Openness versus secrecy? Historical and historiographical remarks’, British
Journal for the History of Science, 45:2, pp.165-188.
6
Version 2016.1
WEEK 5 (17): Imagining the Secret
Beyond transparency and performance, secrecy can also be understood as produced and in some cases
revealed through representation (imaginaries of the secret). We’ll explore different forms of cultural
representation, including through novels, photography, and their implications for our understanding of
secrecy.
Visitor: Edmund Clark or Ingrid Burrington, Artists
Exercise: Cultures of Secrecy
Casting your eye over your DVD (or digital file) collection, your novels, graphic novels or other cultural
texts, think through how secrecy is represented and contested in the material. What form does secrecy
take? How is it connected to ideas around violence, security, identity, norms and values?
Required reading/watching:
• Melley, Timothy (2006) ‘Spectacles of Secrecy’, The Covert Sphere: Secrecy, Fiction, and the
National Security State, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp.76-109. (33)
• Kearns, Oliver (2016) ‘State secrecy, public assent, and representational practices of US covert
action’, Critical Studies on Security, Online, pp.1-15. (15)
• Kearns, Oliver (2017) ‘Secrecy and absence in the residue of covert drone strikes’, Political
Geography, 57, pp.13-23. (10)
• Weiner, Jonah (2012) ‘Prying Eyes: Trevor Paglen makes art out of government secrets,’ The New
Yorker, October 22, pp.54-61.
(7)
• Currier, Cora (2016) ‘Redaction Art: How Secrets are Made Visible’, The Intercept, 5 March.
• WATCH: Simon, Taryn (2009) ‘Photographs of Secret sites’, TED Talks, July.
Further reading:
• Gustafsson, Hugh (2013) ‘Foresight, Hindsight and State Secrecy in the American West: The
Geopolitical Aesthetics of Trevor Paglen’, Journal of Visual Culture 12(1): 148-164.
(16)
• Simon, Taryn (2016) ‘Where the Secret Goes’, Interviewed by Marc-Christoph Wagner.
• Van Veeren, Elspeth (2011) ‘Captured by the camera's eye: Guantanamo and the shifting frame of
the Global War on Terror’, Review of International Studies, 37:04, pp.1721-1749.
WEEK 6 (18): Reading Week
WEEK 7 (19): Surveillance and Control
This week we take part in the first of our three site visits in order to begin to apply the concepts discussed
earlier in the unit, to observe how secrecy is made or challenged in spaces around us, and to understand
how practices of global and international secrecy connect with the everyday, personal and intimate. In
other words we will be doing mini-ethnographic field visits as a way to understand secrecy, thinking
through the readings as we visit and in preparation for the group discussions that will follow. The first
visit is to Bristol City Council’s CCTV Control Room.
Visit: Bristol City Council CCTV Control Room
Required reading:
• Haggerty, Kevin D. and Richard V. Ericson (2000) ‘The Surveillant Assemblage’, British Journal of
Sociology, 51:4, pp.605­622. (17)
• Parenti, Christian (2003) ‘Antebellum ID: Genealogies of Identification and Registration’, The Soft
Cage: Surveillance in America: From Slave Passes to the War on Terror, New York: Basic Books,
pp.13-32. (20)
7
Version 2016.1
•
•
•
Perry, Imani (2011) ‘”I Always Feel Like Somebody’s Watchin’ Me”: The Racing of Privacy,
Voyeurism, and Surveillance’, More Beautiful and More Terrible: The Embrace and Transcendence
of Racial Inequality in the United States, New York: New York University Press, pp.85-105. (20)
Bedoya, Alvaro (2016) ‘The Color of Surveillance.’ Slate, January 18. Waddell, Kaveh (2016) ‘Encryption is a Luxury’, The Atlantic, March 28.
Further reading:
• Cole, Mark (2002) ‘Signage and Surveillance: Interrogating the Textual Context of CCTV in the
UK’, Surveillance & Society, 2.2:3, pp.431-445. (15)
• Goold, Benjamin (2002) ‘Privacy Rights and Public Spaces: CCTV and the Problem of the
“Unobservable Observer,’ Criminal Justice Ethics, 21, pp.21-27. (7)
• Hier, Sean P. (2002) ‘Probing the Surveillant Assemblage: on the dialectics of surveillance
practices as processes of social control,’ Surveillance & Society, 1.3, pp.399-411. (12)
• Klauser, Francisco R. (2013) ‘Political geographies of surveillance’, Geoforum, 49, pp.275-278. (4)
• Mirzoeff, Nicholas (2011) The Right to Look: A Counterhistory of Visuality, Durham: Duke
University Press, pp.277-309.
• For more on ethnography as method, please see the SPAIS Unit Guides for SOCI20070 Sociologies
of Everyday Life and SOCI3099 Ethnography.
WEEK 8 (20): Nuclear Secrets: Performing the Secret
Our second visit is to the Nuclear Power Station at Hinkley Point B to explore how nuclear secrets
(amongst the most highly controlled and performed secrets) are made.
Visit: Hinkley Power Station B, Somerset
Required reading:
• Masco, Joseph (2006) ‘Lie Detectors: On Secrets and Hypersecurity in Los Alamos’, The Nuclear
Borderlands: The Manhattan Project in Post-Cold War New Mexico, Princeton: Princeton
University Press, pp.263-288. (25)
• Ellington, Thomas C. (2011) ‘Secrecy and Disclosure: Policies and Consequences in the American
Experience’, in Susan Maret (ed) Government Secrecy, Bingley: Emerald House, pp.67-90. (23)
• Turchetti, Simone (2003) ‘Atomic secrets and governmental lies: nuclear science, politics and
security in the Pontecorvo case’, The British Journal for the History of Science, 36:4, pp.389-415.
(26)
Further reading:
• Anaïs, Seantel and Kevin Walby (2016) ‘Secrecy, publicity, and the bomb: Nuclear publics and
objects of the Nevada Test Site, 1951–1992’, Cultural Studies, 30:6, pp.949-968.
• Bourne, Mike (2016) ‘Invention and uninvention in nuclear weapons politics’, Critical Studies on
Security, 4:1, pp.6-23.
• Van Veeren (2014) ‘Materialising US Security: Guatanamo’s Object Lessons and Concrete
Messages’, 8:1, pp.20-42.
WEEK 9 (21): Individual Secrets: Intimacy and Privacy
From the transnational world of nuclear secrets to the personal and local nature of intimate secrets, this
week we divide our time between a discussion of intimacy and secrets and an exploration, in groups, of
the local area through the lens of secrecy looking for continuities and breaks with the way that secrecy is
made and contested in local and everyday contexts and in transnational and global ones. One of the key
questions we look to explore is when does the private or secret body become public and open?
8
Version 2016.1
Visit: The University Precinct, Park Street, Clifton Village and the surrounding areas
Required reading:
• Smart, Carol (2011) ‘Families, secrets and memories’, Sociology, 45:4, pp.539-553. (14)
• Azoulay, Ariella (2008) ‘Has Anyone Ever Seen a Photograph of a Rape’, The Civil Contract of
Photography’, New York: Zone Books, pp.217-270. (63)
• Medina, Jameelah X. (2010) ‘Body politicking and the phenomenon of “passing”’, Feminism &
Psychology, 21:1, pp.138-143. (5)
• Delaney, Tim (2012) ‘Georg Simmel’s Flirting and Secrecy and Its Application to the Facebook
Relationship Status—“It’s Complicated”’, Journalism and Mass Communication, 2:5, pp.637-647.
(10)
• Shahani, Aarti (2014) ‘Smartphones Are Used to Stalk, Control Domestic Abuse Victims’, All Tech
Considered, NPR.com, 15 September.
• LISTEN: Bissell, Kate (2016) ‘Family Secrets’, The History of Secrecy, BBC Radio. (15 minutes)
Further reading:
• Ball, Kirstie (2009) ‘EXPOSURE: Exploring the subject of surveillance’, Information, Communication
& Society, 12:5, pp.639-657.
• Davis, Natalie Zemon (1997) ‘Remaking Imposters: From Martin Guerre to Sommersby’, Hayes
Robinson Lecture Series, Egham: Royal Holloway, University of London.
• Lee, Stephanie M. (2016) ‘People are Going to Prison Thanks to DNA Software – But how it works
is kept secret’, BuzzFeedNews, March 12.
• Rooney, Ellen (2004) ‘A Semiprivate Room’ in Joan W. Scott and Debra Keates (eds) Going Public:
Feminism and the Shifting Boundaries of the Private Sphere, Urbana: University of Illinois Press,
pp.333-358.
• Rothstein, Mark A. (2006) ‘The Expanding Use of DNA in Law Enforcement: What Role for
Privacy’, The Journal of Law and Medicine, 34:2, pp.153-164.
• Ruby, Sarah M. (2010) ‘Checking the Math: Government Secrecy and DNA Databases‘, I/S: A
Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 6:2, pp.257-316.
• Williams, Rachel (2015) ‘Spyware and smartphones: how abusive men track their partners’, The
Guardian, 25 January.
WEEK 10 (22): Global Data-veillance: Networks of Secrets
This week we return to the seminar room to bring together the three site visits to think through
surveillance and in the interconnection between all our scales of secrecy.
Your first assignment, Secret Object Analysis (1,500 words, 25%), is also due this week.
Required reading:
• Boyne, Roy (2000) ‘Post-panoticism’, Economy and Society, 29:2, pp.285-307. (23)
• Wood, David Murakami (2014) ‘Vanishing Surveillance: Ghost-Hunting in the Ubiquitous
Surveillance Society’, in Kristin Veel and Henriette Steiner (eds.) Negotiating (In)visibilities, New
York: Peter Lang, pp.281-300. (19)
• Lyon, David (2008) ‘Biometrics, Identification and Surveillance’, Bioethics, 22:9, pp.499-508. (10)
• Duhigg, Charles (2012) ‘How Companies Learn Your Secrets’, New York Times Magazine, 16 Feb.
• Anthes, Gary (2015) ‘Data Brokers are Watching You’, Communications of the ACM, 58:1,
pp.28­30. (3)
• Jones, Meg Leta (2016) Ctrl+Z: The Right to be Forgotten, New York: New York University Press,
pp.1-25. (25)
• Avirem, Alon (2016) ‘Revealed: Bristol’s police and mass mobile phone surveillance’, The Bristol
9
Version 2016.1
•
Cable, 10 October.
WATCH: Brett, Gaylor (2015) Do Not Track, donottrack-doc
Further reading:
• Lyon, David (2014) ‘Surveillance, Snowden and Big Data: capacities, consequences, critique’, Big
Data and Society, December, pp.1-13. (13)
• Privacy International (2016) The Global Surveillance Industry.
• Travis, Alan (2016) ‘Snooper's charter' bill becomes law, extending UK state surveillance’, The
Guardian, 29 November.
• Wicker, Stephen B. (2013) ‘Privacy and the Impact of Surveillance’, Cellular Convergence and the
Death of Privacy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.56-76
• Wood, David Murakami (2013) ‘What is global surveillance? Towards a relational political
economy of the global surveillant assemblage’, Geoforum, 49, pp.317-326. (10)
WEEK 11 (23): Resistance
We conclude the unit by discussing the calls to reinstitute secrecy through the lens of opacity. We also
use this final week to workshop our papers and return to core ideas of the unit as a whole.
Exercise: Essay Workshop
Come prepared with an essay idea, outline or even an introduction and we will will workshop our papers
before we conclude.
Required reading:
• Bratich, Jack (2006) ‘Public Secrecy and Immanent Security’, Cultural Studies, 20-4-5, pp.493-511.
(18)
• Marx, Gary T. (2003) ‘A Tack in the Shoe: Neutralizing and Resisting the New Surveillance’, Journal
of Social Issues, 59:2, pp.369­390. (21)
• Loock, Ulrich (2013) ‘Opacity,’ Frieze, 7 November.
• Blas, Zach (2014) ‘Informatic Opacity’, The Journal of Aesthetics and Politics, 9.
• Brunton, Finn and Helen Nissenbaum (2011) ‘Vernacular Resistance to Data Collection and
Analysis: A Political Theory of Obfuscation’, First Monday, 16:5.
• Hearn, Alex (2017) ‘Anti-surveillance clothing aims to hide wearers from facial recognition’, The
Guardian, 4 January.
Further reading:
• Bakir, Vian (2015) ‘“Veillant Panoptic Assemblage”: Mutual Watching and Resistance to Mass
Surveillance after Snowden’, Media and Communication, 3:3, pp.12-25.
• Hearn, Alex (2016) ‘Eight things you need to do right now to protect yourself online’, The
Guardian, 15 December.
• Hetherington, Kevin and Nick Lee (2000) ‘Social order and the blank figure’, Environment and
Planning D: Society and Space, 18:2, pp.169-184.
• Joh, Elizabeth (2013) ‘Privacy Protests: Surveillance Evasion and Fourth Amendment Suspicion,’
Arizona Law Review, 55:4, pp.997­1029. (32)
• Ruiz, Pollyanna (2013) ‘Revealing Power: Masked Protest and the Blank Figure’, Cultural Politics,
9:3, pp.263-279.
• United States Central Intelligence Agency (1944) Simple Sabotage Field Manual. [Skim read only]
WEEK 12 (24): Reading Week
10
Version 2016.1
Appendix A
Instructions on how to submit essays electronically
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Log in to Blackboard and select the Blackboard course for the unit you are submitting work
for. If you cannot see it, please e-mail [email protected] with your username and ask to
be added.
Click on the "Submit Work Here" option at the top on the left hand menu and then find the
correct assessment from the list.
Select ‘view/complete’ for the appropriate piece of work. It is your responsibility to ensure
that you have selected both the correct unit and the correct piece of work.
The screen will display ‘single file upload’ and your name. Enter your name (for
FORMATIVE ASSESSMENTS ONLY) or candidate number (for SUMMATIVE
ASSESSMENTS ONLY) as a submission title, and then select the file that you wish to
upload by clicking the ‘browse’ button. Click on the ‘upload’ button at the bottom.
You will then be shown the essay to be submitted. Check that you have selected the correct
essay and click the ‘Submit’ button. This step must be completed or the submission is not
complete.
You will be informed of a successful submission. A digital receipt is displayed on screen and
a copy sent to your email address for your records.
Important notes
• You are only allowed to submit one file to Blackboard (single file upload), so ensure that
all parts of your work – references, bibliography etc. – are included in one single
document and that you upload the correct version. You will not be able to change the file
once you have uploaded.
• Blackboard will accept a variety of file formats, but the School can only accept work
submitted in .rtf (Rich Text Format) or .doc/.docx (Word Document) format. If you use
another word processing package, please ensure you save in a compatible format.
• By submitting your essay, you are confirming that you have read the regulations on
plagiarism and confirm that the submission is not plagiarised. You also confirm that the
word count stated on the essay is an accurate statement of essay length.
• If Blackboard is not working email your assessment to [email protected] with the
unit code and title in the subject line.
How to confirm that your essay has been submitted
• You will have received a digital receipt by email and If you click on the assessment again
(steps 1-4), you will see the title and submission date of the essay you have submitted. If
you click on submit, you will not be able to submit again. This table also displays the date
of submission. If you click on the title of the essay, it will open in a new window and you
can also see what time the essay was submitted.
11
Version 2016.1
Appendix B
Summary of Relevant School Regulations
(Further information is in the year handbook)
Attendance at classes
SPAIS takes attendance and participation in classes very seriously. Seminars form an essential part
of your learning and you need to make sure you arrive on time, have done the required reading and
participate fully. Attendance at all seminars is monitored, with absence only condoned in cases of
illness or for other exceptional reasons.
If you are unable to attend a seminar you must inform your seminar tutor, as well as email [email protected]. You should also provide evidence to explain your absence, such as a selfcertification and/or medical note, counselling letter or other official document. If you are unable to
provide evidence then please still email [email protected] to explain why you are unable
to attend. If you are ill or are experiencing some other kind of difficulty which is preventing you from
attending seminars for a prolonged period, please inform your personal tutor, the Undergraduate
Office or the Student Administration Manager.
Requirements for credit points
In order to be awarded credit points for the unit, you must achieve:
• Satisfactory attendance in classes, or satisfactory completion of catch up work in lieu of poor
attendance
• Satisfactory formative assessment
• An overall mark of 40 or above in the summative assessment/s. In some circumstances, a
mark of 35 or above can be awarded credit points.
Presentation of written work
Coursework must be word-processed. As a guide, use a clear, easy-to-read font such as Arial or
Times New Roman, in at least 11pt. You may double–space or single–space your essays as you
prefer. Your tutor will let you know if they have a preference.
All pages should be numbered.
Ensure that the essay title appears on the first page.
All pages should include headers containing the following information:
Formative work
Name: e.g. Joe Bloggs
Unit e.g. SOCI10004
Seminar Tutor e.g. Dr J. Haynes
Word Count .e.g. 1500 words
Summative work
**Candidate Number**: e.g. 12345
Unit: e.g. SOCI10004
Seminar Tutor: e.g. Dr J. Haynes
Word Count: e.g. 3000 words
Candidate numbers are required on summative work in order to ensure that marking is anonymous.
Note that your candidate number is not the same as your student number.
Assessment Length
Each piece of coursework must not exceed the stipulated maximum length for the assignment (the
‘word count’) listed in the unit guide. Summative work that exceeds the maximum length will be
subject to penalties. The word count is absolute (there is no 10% leeway, as commonly rumoured).
Five marks will be deducted for every 100 words or part thereof over the word limit. Thus, an essay
that is 1 word over the word limit will be penalised 5 marks; an essay that is 101 words over the word
limit will be penalised 10 marks, and so on.
12
Version 2016.1
The word count includes all text, numbers, footnotes/endnotes, Harvard referencing in the body of the
text and direct quotes. It excludes, the title, candidate number, bibliography, and appendices.
However, appendices should only be used for reproducing documents, not additional text written by
you.
Referencing and Plagiarism
Where sources are used they must be cited using the Harvard referencing system. Inadequate
referencing is likely to result in penalties being imposed. See the Study Skills Guide for advice on
referencing and how poor referencing/plagiarism are processed. Unless otherwise stated, essays
must contain a bibliography.
Extensions
Extensions to coursework deadlines will only be granted in exceptional circumstances. If you want to
request an extension, complete an extension request form (available at Blackboard/SPAIS_UG
Administration/forms to download and School policies) and submit the form with your evidence (e.g.
self-certification, medical certificate, death certificate, or hospital letter) to Catherine Foster in the
Undergraduate Office.
Extension requests cannot be submitted by email, and will not be considered if there is no supporting
evidence. If you are waiting for evidence then you can submit the form and state that it has been
requested.
All extension requests should be submitted at least 72 hours prior to the assessment deadline. If the
circumstance occurs after this point, then please either telephone or see the Student Administration
Manager in person. In their absence you can contact Catherine Foster in the UG Office, again in
person or by telephone.
Extensions can only be granted by the Student Administration Manager. They cannot be granted by
unit convenors or seminar tutors.
You will receive an email to confirm whether your extension request has been granted.
Submitting Essays
Formative essays
Summative essays
Unless otherwise stated, all formative essay
submissions must be submitted electronically
via Blackboard
All summative essay submissions must be
submitted electronically via Blackboard.
Electronic copies enable an efficient system of receipting, providing the student and the School with a
record of exactly when an essay was submitted. It also enables the School to systematically check
the length of submitted essays and to safeguard against plagiarism.
Late Submissions
Penalties are imposed for work submitted late without an approved extension. Any kind of
computer/electronic failure is not accepted as a valid reason for an extension, so make sure you back
up your work on another computer, memory stick or in the cloud (e.g. Google Drive or Dropbox). Also
ensure that the clock on your computer is correct.
The following schema of marks deduction for late/non-submission is applied to both formative work
and summative work:
Up to 24 hours late, or part thereof
For each additional 24 hours late, or
Penalty of 10 marks
A further 5 marks deduction for each 24 hours,
13
Version 2016.1
part thereof
Assessment submitted over one week
late
•
•
•
or part thereof
Treated as a non-submission: fail and mark of
zero recorded. This will be noted on your
transcript.
The 24 hour period runs from the deadline for submission, and includes Saturdays, Sundays,
bank holidays and university closure days.
If an essay submitted less than one week late fails solely due to the imposition of a late
penalty, then the mark will be capped at 40.
If a fail due to non-submission is recorded, you will have the opportunity to submit the essay
as a second attempt for a capped mark of 40 in order to receive credit points for the unit.
Marks and Feedback
In addition to an overall mark, students will receive written feedback on their assessed work.
The process of marking and providing detailed feedback is a labour-intensive one, with most 2-3000
word essays taking at least half an hour to assess and comment upon. Summative work also needs
to be checked for plagiarism and length and moderated by a second member of staff to ensure
marking is fair and consistent. For these reasons, the University regulations are that feedback will be
returned to students within three weeks of the submission deadline.
If work is submitted late, then it may not be possible to return feedback within the three week period.
Fails and Resits
If you fail the unit overall, you will normally be required to resubmit or resit. In units where there are
two pieces of summative assessment, you will normally only have to re-sit/resubmit the highestweighted piece of assessment.
Exam resits only take place once a year, in late August/early September. If you have to re-sit an
exam then you will need to be available during this period. If you are not available to take a resit
examination, then you will be required to take a supplementary year in order to retake the unit.
14
Version 2016.1
Appendix C
Level 6 Marking and Assessment Criteria (Third / Final Year)
1st (70+)
o
o
o
o
o
2:1 (60–69)
o
o
o
o
o
2:2 (50–59)
o
o
o
o
o
3rd (40–49)
o
o
o
o
o
Excellent comprehension of the implications of the question and
critical understanding of the theoretical & methodological issues
A critical, analytical and sophisticated argument that is logically
structured and well-supported
Evidence of independent thought and ability to ‘see beyond the
question’
Evidence of reading widely beyond the prescribed reading list and
creative use of evidence to enhance the overall argument
Extremely well presented: minimal grammatical or spelling errors;
written in a fluent and engaging style; exemplary referencing and
bibliographic formatting
Very good comprehension of the implications of the question and
fairly extensive and accurate knowledge and understanding
Very good awareness of underlying theoretical and methodological
issues, though not always displaying an understanding of how they
link to the question
A generally critical, analytical argument, which shows attempts at
independent thinking and is sensibly structured and generally wellsupported
Clear and generally critical knowledge of relevant literature; use of
works beyond the prescribed reading list; demonstrating the ability to
be selective in the range of material used, and the capacity to
synthesise rather than describe
Very well presented: no significant grammatical or spelling errors;
written clearly and concisely; fairly consistent referencing and
bibliographic formatting
Generally clear and accurate knowledge, though there may be some
errors and/or gaps and some awareness of underlying
theoretical/methodological issues with little understanding of how
they relate to the question
Some attempt at analysis but a tendency to be descriptive rather
than critical;
Tendency to assert/state opinion rather than argue on the basis of
reason and evidence; structure may not be entirely clear or logical
Good attempt to go beyond or criticise the ‘essential reading’ for the
unit; but displaying limited capacity to discern between relevant and
non-relevant material
Adequately presented: writing style conveys meaning but is
sometimes awkward; some significant grammatical and spelling
errors; inconsistent referencing but generally accurate bibliography.
Limited knowledge and understanding with significant errors and
omissions and generally ignorant or confused awareness of key
theoretical/ methodological issues
Largely misses the point of the question, asserts rather than argues a
case; underdeveloped or chaotic structure; evidence mentioned but
used inappropriately or incorrectly
Very little attempt at analysis or synthesis, tending towards excessive
description
Limited, uncritical and generally confused account of a narrow range
of sources
Poorly presented: not always easy to follow; frequent grammatical
and spelling errors; limited attempt at providing references (e.g. only
referencing direct quotations) and containing bibliographic omissions.
15
Version 2016.1
Marginal
Fail
o
o
(35–39)
o
o
o
Outright
Fail
(0–34)
o
o
o
o
o
Unsatisfactory level of knowledge and understanding of subject;
limited or no understanding of theoretical/methodological issues
Very little comprehension of the implications of the question and
lacking a coherent structure
Lacking any attempt at analysis and critical engagement with issues,
based on description or opinion
Little use of sources and what is used reflects a very narrow range or
are irrelevant and/or misunderstood
Unsatisfactory presentation: difficult to follow; very limited attempt at
providing references (e.g. only referencing direct quotations) and
containing bibliographic omissions
Very limited, and seriously flawed, knowledge and understanding
No comprehension of the implications of the question and no attempt
to provide a structure
No attempt at analysis
Limited, uncritical and generally confused account of a very narrow
range of sources
Very poorly presented: lacking any coherence, significant problems
with spelling and grammar, missing or no references and containing
bibliographic omissions
16
Version 2016.1