SURVEILLANCE

Are Dystopian Novels a Cautionary Warning?

During the Covid-19 pandemic, we have witnessed how our life passed under the watchful eye of the state and how easily our rights could disappear in a crisis. In this respect, dystopian novels constantly remind us of the impermanence of reality where nothing is as secure as we think.

By Nathalie Alquati Bonisoli

August 9, 2021

In dystopian novels, authors describe a world where certain trends in contemporary societies are taken to extremes exposing their underlying flaws, and sometimes, we can draw a parallel between the threats that our society is facing and the fictitious world described in these novels. Nowadays, the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the precarity of our systems of government and the contrast between the privileged classes and the working class. As citizens, we have witnessed how our life passed under the watchful eye of the state and how easily our rights could disappear in a crisis. In this respect, dystopian novels constantly remind us of the impermanence of reality where nothing is as secure as we think.

Dystopia refers to an imaginary place or state in which everything is extremely bad or unpleasant. The dystopian fiction is arguably defined as a subgenre of science fiction that employs a negative portrayal of an alternative society as a way to generate a new perspective of real-word societies. In the dystopian novels, hegemonic ideologies imposed by totalitarian regimes are described as an attempt to create docile, conformed bodies that further allow the regime to sustain and maintain its power over society. The notion of societies controlled by constant surveillance and monitoring raises several political and ethical questions related to privacy and data protection. Many dystopian novels such as 1984, A Scanner Darkly and The Circle all portray an imaginary futuristic surveillance society, which  could be seen as foreshadowing a future where surveillance is not limited and citizens are controlled by their governments. Nowadays, we can see a parallel that exists in relation to contemporary surveillance societies and their application of technological devices through which the government interferes and limits the private life of its citizens.

Seventy years ago, the classic novel 1984 by English author George Orwell was published, and from that moment onwards the famous line “Big Brother is watching you!” became an integral part of popular culture. However, the trends of surveillance, power, and control present in the novel are still relatable themes in our society today. Today, during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is almost impossible not to draw a connection between the world portrayed in dystopian novels and the new surveillance methods enacted to limit the spread of the virus.

After the first news about a virus that originated in China spread around the world, new laws to contain the infection rate appeared from every government. From the implementation of social distance rules and the mandatory requirement of wearing face masks to the border closures, the virus changed our society. The fear of being infected forced people to obey authority and get used to this situation in a really short time, also when it involved the restriction of fundamental rights. For these reasons, our current situation is proof that the world that dystopias offer us is not far from reality. In particular, many governments are considering the use of facial recognition or tracking devices to slow the spread of the virus, for example, Italy and Germany have opted for a phone storage-centric model which forgoes the use of GPS charting. However, these measures could lead to the creation of a surveillance society that will strip away people’s personal liberties.

In the case of the pandemic, what is controversial is the fact that surveillance is enacted towards a specific purpose which is to prevent worldwide disease. During the pandemic, governments around the world have employed different surveilling tactics in an attempt to restrict and manage the virus. By implementing social monitoring, governments around the world can track the coronavirus and further uphold the state-induced quarantine.

For example, China has increased its use of surveillance, by installing cameras that point directly to the front door of people’s homes or even within their homes. Following the lift of the coronavirus lockdown, China created a color-coded health system that identifies the health status of people through a questionnaire with details such as health and body temperature. Based on the information provided, people get assigned a color. People with a green code are permitted to move unrestrictedly, people with a yellow code may be asked to stay at home for seven days, while people with a red code are required to self-quarantine for two weeks.

At the same time, city authorities in Moscow  ordered  its 12 million citizens to remain indoors with only a few exceptions. To enforce this measure, the government provided its citizens with an app that tracks their movements outside their homes, as well as a QR-code containing personal data which must be presented to the police upon request.

The increased surveillance and data collection have contributed to people’s concerns on the growing digital arsenal which the governments are acquiring and likely will continue to have also when the pandemic finally ends. According to UN Special Rapporteur Joseph Cannataci: “Dictatorships and authoritarian societies often start in face of a threat […] that is why it is important to be vigilant today and not give away all our freedoms”. This does not necessarily mean that people have to fight any kind of surveillance during this pandemic, but instead that society should ensure that once the pandemic has passed, the data collected and the surveillance techniques are erased and abolished. If governments will be able to honor these promises, the surveillance needed during this pandemic won’t be considered wrong and that will make our reality different from all the dystopian novels.

Nathalie is completing her Master's degree in European Competition Law and Regulation at the University of Amsterdam. As an undergraduate, she studied European Law at Maastricht University. During her studies, she lived in London for a semester and attended Westminster University. She worked as an intern in a law firm in Italy, and she is currently working at Alber & Geiger in the EU Governmental Relations team. She is fluent in Italian and English and can communicate in Dutch, French and Chinese.