USC Fence and Visibility Politics

Retrieved from Change.org

Responding to security concerns regarding an on-campus shooting in the fall of 2012, the University of Southern California (USC) built a chain-link fence around its campus for the start of the 2013 spring semester. The main section of USC’s University Park Campus was enclosed and ushered in with it new security protocols. Previously, the campus was a free space to walk through at any time of day. Now, anyone wishing to enter campus must negotiate the new openings around the fence. USC affiliates and visitors alike are subject to the gaze of security guards who check identification at specified gate entrances after 9pm. In spite of USC’s presence that extends outside of the main campus area, community members and non-USC affiliates are restricted from accessing campus spaces. The previously unfettered access of the community to campus spaces has been replaced by prominent visual and physical barrier to movement and agency.

The fence has been justified as a security measure to protect students on campus during certain hours. USC does have a primary importance in protecting its students, but choosing to isolate community members because of a few representatives influences the entire community. The consequence of such a symbolic action is to conflate a few violent individuals with the community and to reinforce narratives that off-campus spaces are not safe. This physical division operates as a linguistic turn from the USC community to USC vs. the community. This “us vs. them” mentality occurs through labeling the community as separate from USC affiliates. Carrying a USC ID card provides one access; without it, bodies are turned away and disciplined from entering. In creating this distinction, the community is labeled as violent, criminals, trespassers, unwelcome, and the other. “These names shape our relations with our fellows. They prepare us for some functions and against others, for or against the persons representing these functions. The names go further: they suggest how you shall be for or against” (Burke, 1984, p. 4). The fence helps establish hierarchies in naming that teach USC affiliates how to respond to and treat community members. These rules only operate between 9pm and 6am, but the labels last longer. Symbolic naming reconstructs the relationship between the community and USC that cannot be changed by the hour of the day.           

Foucault's Panopticon as surveillance

In restricting the movement of the body, USC also controls when those bodies can be seen, have a presence, and occupy certain spaces. Control over the body, or biopower and biopolitics, is a power over the movement of the body, its ability to be seen, and to be heard (Foucault, 1982; Hollinshead, 1999). Casper and Moore (2009) refer to “hysterical blindness” where institutions or people either choose not to or are somehow restricted from seeing or being seen (p. 10). “Hypervisuality” is this opposite, where people are targeted, heavily observed, and monitored (Casper & Moore, 2009, p. 10). This “complex system” of sight and obstruction means that powerful political entities can control who can see and who is seen (Casper & Moore, 2009, p. 10). At USC, bodies of students become marked, by carrying a marked ID, and those of community members unmarked as the “other,” not welcome within campus spaces (Phelan, 2004). Visitors to campus can apply for single-entry access for a specific purpose, creating a temporary mark of approval and access by institutions of power. The body receives either acceptance or denial at the fence border based on its membership in the Trojan Family. As Greg Dickinson (2002) notes, “the subject comes to known itself in some more or less coherent way depends on an ability to locate itself” (p. 7). Locating oneself either inside or outside of the campus borders changes how one defines membership, identity, and body autonomy. Knowledge of surveillance by guards also contributes to one’s ability to locate oneself within the political power structure as a target or threat worth monitoring.

There are concerns that these policies endanger community members while offering little extra protection for USC. Vice President of Student Affairs Michael Jackson published an updated campus policy online that said, “We are taking these steps because we care about the security and safety of our students, faculty, staff, guests and neighbors” (para. 4). It is an interesting rhetorical decision to separate “guests” of USC from its “neighbors,” but certainly these are fluctuating categories. The real importance in this statement is that somehow the construction of the fence will not only add protection for USC affiliates but also to the community members. To the contrary, the Los Angeles Times reported on January 13^th, 2013, that blocking the USC campus off from non-students, faculty, and staff poses a risk to community members. For example, community members exiting the Exposition/USC stop on the new Metro Expo line used to be able to walk through “the safe, well-lit shortcut through campus” to catch buses at prominent Jefferson Boulevard stops (Jennings & Xia, 2013, para. 9). Now, community members have to circle the entire USC campus or change their regularly traveled public transportation routes home. The construction of the fence not only places the community under additional surveillance, but it also directly influences the movements of the community, with yet unseen benefits for USC. A Daily Trojan letter to the editor echoed these concerns noting that “as a university we should not sacrifice freedom of movement for relatively little or no added security” (Brown, 2013, para. 4).

Though erected and implemented for supposed safety and benefit, borders oftentimes exacerbate economic, class, and racial divides by establishing rhetorical divisions in identity and membership. How bodies are restricted in their movement, displaced, or undervalued also restricts voice and visibility in terms of the powerful and the powerless. Surveillance, monitoring, and the construction of boundaries are all ways that bodies are disciplined and controlled. These barriers to full cooperation and integration, both physical and symbolic, construct an environment where identity is defined through one’s relationship with institutions of power. USC’s fence highlights the modern implications of race, borders, and visibility, where hierarchies still enact biopower and violate political autonomy. 

Retrieved from Mutual Responsibility

A Change.org petition has been started to “Take down the USC gates.” This petition notes the importance of welcoming, opening spaces, and condemn the “us vs them” mentality that the fence represents. The petition includes a space for comments and a letter addressed to USC President Max Nikias and the Provost Elizabeth Garrett. The petition is nearing the 500 signatures needed to be sent to Nikias and Garrett. The power of such a petition may be limited in terms of practical changes, but the petition is itself symbolic that the USC community is in part against the policy instituted by the administration. A lack of student support and involvement, however, many indicate that many are already accustomed to the surveillance and limitations that it imposes. Some may be optimistic about the future of surveillance, but it appears that great action and effort to shift notions of visibility are needed to reclaim privacy and personal autonomy.

References

Brown, N. (2013, January 22). In response to security measures. Daily Trojan. Retrieved from http://dailytrojan.com/2013/01/22/letter-to-the-editor-75/

Burke, K. (1984). Attitudes toward history. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Casper, M. J., & Moore, L. J. (2009). Missing bodies: The politics of visibility. New York, NY: New York University Press.

Dickinson, G. (2002). Joe’s rhetoric: Finding authenticity at Starbucks. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 32(4), 5–27. doi:10.1080/02773940209391238

Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical inquiry, 8(4), 777–795.

Foucault, M. (2012). The history of sexuality: An introduction. New York, NY: Random House Digital, Inc.

Hollinshead, K. (1999). Surveillance of the worlds of tourism: Foucault and the eye-of-power. Tourism Management, 20(1), 7–23. doi:10.1016/S0261-5177(98)00090-9

Jennings, A., & Xia, R. (2013, January 15). USC rolls out the unwelcome mat. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/15/local/la-me-usc-safety-20130116

Phelan, P. (2004). Unmarked: The politics of performance. New York, NY: Routledge.