Street Sights: Surveillance in the City

I am interested in exploring the ideas of visual sociology of self-presentation through a field experiment where I dress in two separate (deliberately easy to digest) image-selves and observe the impact of the gaze on my experience on the street. Does this constant surveillance motivate women to keep their outer appearance culturally fit? Also, within the jurisdiction of “cultural fitness” what are the acceptable norms? How does being surveyed impact the way we dress? (Borrowing from Lurie that the way we choose clothes is how we define or describe ourselves) (Lurie, 5).

 I want to play with the types of self presentation we can offer the world and what types of feedback we receive. The idea of developing our self through the exchange of images seems dangerous in some ways.  The process of seeing one’s own self through others leaves a margin of error that is impossible to gauge.  I have noticed as a New Yorker that the cosmopolitan experience engenders a sense of inner surveillance; it encourages a sense of individuality.  I posit that the internal structure we develop resembles the external structure of Bentham’s panopticon. 

To ground the experiment, I plan to outline the outfits and the two locations in advance. I will then open myself to the experience of observing and hopefully capture a few moments via camera. I will also document the “looks” from inside my apartment so that the reader of my experiment can experience the viewpoint of the spectator as well as my viewpoint when I point the camera at the spectators. 

I found that one neighborhood at a time is not enough, and so I decided to extend the experiment’s “locations” taking a subway line from the Fulton Street stop up to Times Square as a part of my experiment.  It is the ultimate people-watching joy ride. 

I also became concerned that the two areas were similar and added a cite (meatpacking district) which I visited in Look 1, at night. 






Planning the Looks  (some underlying factors): 

My Two Looks:

Look 1

Look One: a blush tiered dress and black stockings and black boots (for day) with a slight switch for the meatpacking night extension (supplement heels) with a leather jacket and natural but full makeup: blush, mascara and tousled hair. 

Look Two: is much more causal and has a less trendy/edgy feel to it. I wanted to skew the age younger so I wore tinted moisturizer and chap stick and grey nubby tights (with a cable knit print) and a Betsey Johnson floral dress, with a denim shirt and a brown leather waist-belt and oxfords.  Hair down and naturally straight.

Look 2

*A fun note is the blush dress is actually belted by the same belt—I think it is interesting to assert how differently I can present myself visually while incorporating one piece in both looks.

Also, my apologies for doing a bathroom picture for the second look—I forgot to snap my picture since I was so consumed trying to capture moments of surveillance with my blackberry camera, then realized while at work I should take my own picture so you could see how this look appeared to spectators. 

In crafting the two “looks” or masks I plan to use for my experiment I notice how the norms of what culture dictates through magazines and other forms of media weigh heavily on my decisions. I want to attract the gaze so I have something to study—but I realize that I am creating these looks based on something other than my own inner voice. I am subconsciously asking myself what pieces in my (and my roommates!) closet will elicit the most attention? I am answering this by reflecting on past street interactions.

I realize before even stepping outside to conduct the experiment that the knowledge of being seen dictates more in the fashioning of the self than even the weather for the day! I also am struck by the power held by mass culture (even in a city as highly individualistic and rebellious as New York.)  So I want to explore if a person’s presentation of a self mirrors (to varying extents) what kind of “performance” their society favors. 

Spectators of Midtown: 

As I am walking through midtown (being jostled by a group of tourists I feel a mix of annoyance and pride, since I can group myself as a New Yorker when compared to them)…I realize that we cannot see ourselves whole ever: we must use a mirror to this day to see the full body, head.  So as I imagine what they think of me, since they are staring blatantly at me as I make my way from Broadway toward 8^th Ave.

 I became aware of the Teen Vogue shopping bag I was toting and my mostly black outfit (since the dress is covered by the leather jacket and I have black stocking and boots on) and realized that they probably thought I was a super cool New York girl working at Teen Vogue (or maybe they were smart enough to realize I am a broke college student intern whose knowledge of midtown exceeds theirs by a measly three block radius from her office space!) Either way, I could feel a difference between the way I occupied the space and the way New York visitors did.

I felt like there were levels of energy that separated me and other mid-morning commuters from the tourists. Perhaps there are visual clues that indicate a comprehension of a space’s “systematic rules,” which impact who we want to survey (Geertz, 11).  I found the tourists more interested in being spectators. I think they were trying to decode “an ethnographic algorithm, which, if followed, would make it possible [ for them] to operate, to pass (physical appearance aside) for a native” (Geertz, 11).  I notice the urge for me to reciprocate the stare; to be allowed to play the role of “seer” and “seen” overpowered my ability to remain in my role of “observer of spectator” but I think that in order to fully analyze the interaction I need to experience both.

Times Square

Walking though Midtown in particular I notice that people’s minds seem governed by their visual observation. The reactions to me were indeed very simple (ranging from the “elevator eyes” of the up and down stare to the total ignoring of me in the space). I wonder, of the two, what is the more powerful position?

 I am guessing that taking up the space is the powerful role but I feel like that is not a “true” power position since these people were manipulated; it was not my true self as much as a mask of my “self.”  I know Goffman says that the masks we wear are versions of our true self but I can’t help by feel like these quick visual exchanges don’t capture my essence as much as they demonstrate a issue of privacy and the power of fantasy in fashion and in street interactions.

I feel as though this one Asian man (who I snapped a disappointing picture of, he looked down when I pointed my camera-phone in his face) was using my image-clues as a sort of currency. He was collecting information about me, presumably noting the Teen Vogue shopping bag I carried and adding in the fact that we were standing at the cross streets for the Conde Nast building.  These image-clues guide me as an observer but as the observed they give me a chance to define where I would like to be placed in the “world picture” by my spectators.  If I was wearing a beachy-hippy outfit and looked unfit to walk into the Conde Nast building he would probably stare at me for entirely different reasons—not connecting me to that institution.  I could feel him gathering information and according to Lurie “the information becomes a part of our unconscious as we form our judgments” (Lurie, 3).

Spectators of Wall Street:

The experience of being aware of the gaze changed the way I walked down the street in the financial district.   When I was in my "polished" or more adult look in this location I noticed that both men and women (particularly girls about my age) intrigued by me.  I tried so hard to capture these moments in photos but my inability to do so (see above!) led me to a great insight. These moments are fragile and while they hardly last long enough to snap into immortality via film, they leave an impression on the one surveyed that cuts to the very identity of her being.

 I think that the setting of New York City allows people to look at one another without pretending to be doing anything else.  But the information that my surveyors take in invariably changes based on the image that I present.  I feel the difference when I am in my more dainty floral dress when compared to my more edgy jacket look. Unfortunately, there is no way to document this difference nor a way to get inside my surveyor’s minds-- and attempting to infer thoughts would be inaccurate and ineffective. 

In the first image I tried to capture the "unlikely surveyor" which is a category I created to bucketize those who seem uninterested in fashion, or reserved, serious and/or stern (someone who you wouldn't expect to get looped into the seer/seen dynamic (but inevitably do).  This man was staring into my eyes, which caused me to experience more discomfort than the typical "up to down" survey.  I noticed that the walk to the Fulton Street station in the morning was more intimate and the seers were more brazen-- when compared to Midtown.  

This man in the red jacket was  staring at me as he walked down “hill” on john street near a food market and I walked up “hill” toward the subway stop. We had one of my longer interactions so I attempted the picture, but he quickly turned his gaze from me to straight ahead. I think he was really allowing himself to engage in the fantasy of fashion through me. He seemed to be considering me, but not as a person as much as a type—it seems we have all developed a form of socially accepted heuristics that guide our visual presentation. 
I begin to draw boundaries and categorize the icons and images that float through my world picture--- I can spot the Wall Street “Suit” (men who walk briskly in wing-tips and freshly pressed dinner jackets while barking into blackberries about ROIs) whether they are on Wall Street or in Midtown. I think surveying the street teaches us about subcultures.

I notice a few things right away (when at my Wall Street location) I start to pick up on a drive that pluses within me and my “audience” and within every seen/seer interaction.  I see a drive that compels us to observe others, to consume others and ourselves be consumed as an image. As different cultures prefer different qualities, it has been a necessary for the “suits” to put on an un-official Wall Street uniform—which sets the scene for me as a context where I stand out a lot.  Perhaps the more “brazen” seers are just being more responsive to me on Wall and John Street because I am not in the uniform of the suit that surrounds me.
  

 Reflections on The Mirror of Identity: 

I think that the drive to consume is conditioned and fashion is our way of preparing for surveillance-- it is the free speech given to each of us before we are thrust onto the platform of social observation. In Daphne Merkin’s New York Times article “The Politics of Appearance” she posits that appearance has become the coin of the realm.  Merkin sees it as “the locus of our conversation” and this fits nicely with the idea of an exchange of images being a visual barter system.  This system feels like a more sophisticated way of imagining how we interact-- replacing the image of a security camera standing in for the male gaze “eye” zooming in on a girl with a less one-dimensional abstraction.  In order to exchange images in a meaningful way, for street surveillance to impact identity formation, we need to be paying attention.  That said, “we only see what we look at” (Berger, 9).   
Berger’s “Ways of Seeing,” is what initially inspired me to examine surveillance and I think about the issue of power within these interactions and realize that in our “Image Culture” paying attention is paying in an invisible but powerful currency of the eye.

One of my objectives, during the experiment, was to test how native New Yorkers, tourists, construction workers, subway riders and street vendors all responded to me. But as I started the experiment I realized I was interacting with them in some cases as much as they were interacting with me.  As Sarah Berry explores in “Fashion and Personalization of the Web” the customization we have on the web is “fraught with privacy problems” (Berry, 50). 

Subway Platform: Browsing Me and His Phone

The idea of website browsing involving an “implicit” data gathering seems very similar to the person-browsing we do when on the street.  As web-sites research for the best way to sell their product, street surveyors research through seeing others ways to better sell the self. The subway was the cite where the browsing felt most invasive because on a crowded train there is no way to release the pressure by physically removing oneself.  The same goes for the platform. I found one man surveying me and then when our gaze met he would browse on his phone (assuming he somehow had service) which is a perfect example of how the media we interact with impacts the mode in which we interact with others.

I suppose the dominance of visual clues is what I learn in this small example. I would say that in New York City in my experiment I found what Merkin exposes to be true: in our image-saturated, relentlessly scrutinizing Visual Age we trade images of ourselves based on how we fashion the self—this can be subliminally or overtly (3).  I chose to appear as a downtown young “party-ready” girl in a blush tiered dress black tights and heels and a leather jacket and was received as such (asked by two different promoters if I would like to go to various lounges in the meatpacking area). I was received based on my appearance that night and during my two-day locations (Wall Street and Midtown) I can assume similar assessment took place even if the judgments didn't prgoress to verbal action.  Merkin sees this assessment as timeless saying “you were assessed then as we are largely assessed now, by your projected style, by the way you wear your self” (2).

I think keeping my hair loose and down created a natural movement (from the breeze) and perhaps driving more attention to me. I also notice that people pay more attention on Wall Street (regardless of my “look”) leading me to posit the context of the space dictates the level of surveillance.  On Wall Street there were less people on the street, offering a surveyor a better chance to digest an image in its entirety.  This led me to question how do the surveyors digest an image, or decode a person? Borrowing from Lurie’s idea of clothing having a language I imagine the visual clues as parts of a sentence that forms the very syntax of my identity. 
This identity is one phrase on the page of people mingling within a cityscape.  In keeping with my theory I will proceed to dismantle my outfits considering my “trimmings and accessories as adjectives or adverbs,” to imagine what my spectators would have described me as if I had asked them (Lurie 10).  I imagine the jacket giving off downtown vibes of a girl who is free-spirited and fun—but read with the blush tiered dress—it forms a picture of a classier and worldly girl, less punk more polish.  But the idea of me being a party-girl really only came across to me (and my spectators) when I was in the meatpacking district. I attribute this to location I was in (and the heels!)

I notice on the street that people who are surveying me are considering the conditions that surround this mask for me they are imagining them.  Lurie says “the meaning of any costume depends on circumstances,” and the circumstances include my context and my demeanor. I think the impression I “give off” when standing on the street at night with friends is more carefree than the one I emit when rushing to work dodging tourists in midtown-- so these judgments are more accurate than I perceived initially.

I also felt a sense of connection with the Suits despite my causal attire—the feeling that we were a group: all heading off to work. I felt a sense of being a part of that group, but simultaneously not a part of their “group” due to my “slang” attire of a printed dress and denim shirt.  It is interesting that a part of the surveillance is done onto the self while the spectator is examining. Surely the Suit didn’t know I had a denim top on under my coat, but his glance triggered self-reflection.   Hodkinson described goth subculture communication as starting with an “exchange of glances, a clear sense of our shared identity” which I felt most when about to enter the Conde Nast building—smiling shyly to fellow ‘coworkers” at the fact that we are all heading toward that same building: a common destination (Hodkinson, 1).

While context influences interpretation, the key player according to Hollander and Lurie, are the actual fashion choices, which “convey a whole spectrum of social and personal information” (Hollander, 20).  I think it is through this interaction on the street watching others and knowing we are being watched ourselves that I think we cultivate taste.

The Stage/Cite of Surveillance/City Street

I realize we can only orient ourselves to how we look through visualization of that form, either through literal mirror-use or through the interaction with others--- we see ourselves through the other’s gaze. So while we may "speak glitter" or "mumble in flannel" the language of our clothing will become irrelevant if there is no one to hear their utterances.

"Even if we are never introduced, clothes tell about class status, age, family origin, personal opinion, taste, current mood or even give information about erotic interest and sexual status," Lurie said. To that, I say I guess we share more about ourselves on the street than we realize, in an effort to receive feedback that fuels the way we will choose to speak through our outfit tomorrow.

Works Cited:

Berger, John. Ways of Seeing;. London: British Broadcasting Corporation, 1972. Print.

Goffman, Erving. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Double Day, 1959. 

Geertz, Clifford.  “Thick Description.”  The Interpretation of Cultures.  New York: Basic Books, 1973.
Hodkinson, Paul. "Reworking Subculture." Goth: Identity, Style and Subculture. Oxford: Berg, 2002. 1-20. 
Hollander, Anne. Sex and Suits. New York: Kodansha International. 1994.

Lurie, Alison. The Language of Clothes. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 2000. p. 4-36.

Merkin, Daphne. “The Politics of Appearance.” New York Times, August 26, 2007.