Explanatory Blog post one Pfaff, Steven

Explanatory Blog post one Pfaff, Steven. 2001"The Limits of Coercive Surveillance: Social and Penal Control in the German Democratic Republic." Punishment Society no. 3(3):381 - 407

The Limits of Coercive surveillance, Social and penal Control in the German Democratic Republic

In this article Stephen Pfaff gives an overview of where coercive surveillance originates from, in what way it is used and the theory behind this. He then moves on to what it is like in to live in the GDR and explains how coercive surveillance kept society  under the control of the party and also how it lead  to its downfall. He asserts that the Foucaultian society is one achieved through self- regulation and obedient citizenry is not able achieve what Foucault indicates it would. Pfaff continues saying that amount of surveillance works to keep people toeing the line and behaving as they should as long as the party in power is strong and maintains full power, as soon as there is a sign of weakness and the cracks start to show the people, who have for so long been simply playing the part, rise up smoothly and swiftly.

The goal was to invade everyone’s consciousness to such a degree that people would police themselves and each other. Physical violence was no longer a first point of call or needed to the same extent yet at the same time it takes a large degree of control and many complicated systems to manage such coercive surveillance. The more the people lost faith in the power of the East German Communist party (SED) the more control that had to be used which then in turn lead to more power being needed.

Pfaff talks of how people were compensated for having such a repressive regime by increases in living standards and social safety nets which in turn enabled them to retreat from such an open political public life to for what he calls social niches. It was in these niches that people were able to truly be themselves.

Pfaff begins with covering the role of police in totalitarian societies saying that the police enforced not only the laws but also ideological devotions to the ruling party, subordination even to the army. An interesting fact about both the Gestapo and in the GDR is although torture and bribery were used to get information, many collaborators were happy to give up the information willingly. Force was used when needed but was not seen as an overall effective way or maintaining power. Coercive surveillance was deemed to be the answer.

The Stasi, who were defenders of the East German Communist party (SED), kept a very vigorous and invasive control over the people living in the GDR to a point that their lives became more a play in which to act, obedience and loyalty became the key roles. The downfall of this is that it forced people to privatise their lives as the only time they could relax and it was in this that people were able to join together, and in doing so, when the opportunity to rise up and over throw the oppressive regime came they were ready. The game of loyalty was nothing but a front and even those who once believed in the ideal of communism now no longer did, yet their outward behaviour and appearance would suggest that they not only supported it but also fully support the government also.

Foucault’s theory, the Carceral system, was devised at a time to show a government how to move past a monarchy and to produce a self–regulated citizenry that would police him or herself with self restraint without the need for force from police. “It was more efficient and profitable in terms of the economy and power to place people under surveillance than to subject them to exemplary punishment” – Foucault (Pfaff, Steven). Under this adapted theory these is no sphere of privacy or any right to personal conviction. CCTV would be an example of this within our society.

Pfaff then goes on to look directly at the GDR under Honecker. Honecker’s forms of  socialisms were ones of social control and moving away from the previous era of more violent control. There was no question of the 300000 strong troops to keep everyone under control if the situation called for it as it had done; control was total which meant focus was able to be placed on surveillance rather than on physical force. The type of socialism on offer was not seen as a heroic project but rather something that was stable and offered security. There was now a new social contract, political compliance and subordination to the Soviet Union and the GDR for security, welfare and career mobility.

People withdrawing into their private lives was acceptable to the SED as it meant discontents were not brought out in public, what they didn’t see was that is signalled passive resignation meaning there was no longer a socialist conviction .

Citizens of East Germany had no security and were if considered to be a political threat put in jail and then often sold to West Germany. The GDR soon saw it as a way of maximising their income and instead of consenting to visas for people to visit friends and family in the west they would trump up charges and sell them. At one point prices were up to DM 1,000,000. Documents on citizens ranging from truth to lies used to discredit and ruin lives ranged in the millions.  (1989) The Sea of files keep on people was about 160km long. 1 in every 30 citizens was an informant for the Stasi, who in their time in power researched “psychological destruction of the soul” and even wrote thesis’s on it. (Youtube Video)

The GDR was a single party state and never throughout its history, starting in 1950, was there and attempt to escape leadership of the party. There was a strong Marxist-Leninist ideology which meant that crime was seen as an alien factor in socialism as it was a consequence of a class society. In the latter half of the SED’s rule the number of Stasi increased dramatically in line with the move from traditional violence and into using coercive surveillance.  

People soon learned to reform their political consciousness and to compromise both personal relationships and deeply held convictions with dealing with the Stasi. This created an even more farcical public personality ever separating themselves from who they really were and therefore deepening their private lives and connections as it was a time to relax more and not have to play that role. This meant that the ideal of socialism was no longer seen as something to aspire to and work towards but something to be feared and pretence to avoid danger. People played along with what was expected of them but it meant nothing. Friendships, neighbourhood groups and religious meetings were the only places for political freedom. People would protest things together not because they had shared values of morals but simply because they worked together or lived on the same street. Your immediate private life became very important. The Stasi were able to infiltrate these but saw no value in what they found as it was not in direct political opposition to the SED.

The Stasi were focused so intently on public life and behaviour that they over looked the power of the private lives and discontent for the socialism forced on them meaning that as soon as there was seen to be a weakness in the party people were ready and eager to rise up. Another factory leading to the discontent was that in the late 80’s welfare began to fail due to economic stagnation making living situations intolerable. There was no longer the initial social contract in place as the SED were no longer meeting their end of the bargain.

Pfaff finishes up by mentioning another of Foucault’s theories, one in which has more in line with the GDR, this is quasi-totalitarian. Pfaff refers to these as ‘cameralism’ where a “new form of science policing is guided by rational principles of security and welfare”(Pfaff, Steven). To me this sounds very much like what is going on in the US now and what people fear is happening in NZ with the GSCB bill; Surveillance in the name of keeping people safe. Pfaff surmises that there is no way to have total control, even when there is such widespread coercive surveillance there are always ways, no matter how small and seemingly insignificant, that people manage to rebel.  Pfaff refers to Weeden’s study on political repression where she has found that the regimes need to not only eliminate opposing powers but also have strategies to make such punishments unnecessary. 

Pfaff, Steven. 2001"The Limits of Coercive Surveillance: Social and Penal Control in the German Democratic Republic." Punishment Society no. 3(3):381 - 407

Sebestyen, Victor. 2009 "1989, The fall of the Soviet Empire". New York. Random House Inc.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy8J37X7umY

For an overview of the Stasi in easy to follow documentaries try out these two videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy8J37X7umY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrMAvy_Aoak

300292566