Show simple item record

Files in this item

Thumbnail

Item metadata

dc.contributor.authorMcNamara, Meghan E.
dc.contributor.authorReicher, Stephen D.
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-22T08:30:05Z
dc.date.available2019-10-22T08:30:05Z
dc.date.issued2019-10-22
dc.identifier.citationMcNamara , M E & Reicher , S D 2019 , ' The context-variable self and autonomy : exploring surveillance experience, (mis)recognition, and action at airport security checkpoints ' , Frontiers in Psychology , vol. 10 , 2258 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02258en
dc.identifier.issn1664-1078
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 261314972
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: 7371f065-9f48-4026-91c2-9a953ceff75c
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 85074494046
dc.identifier.otherWOS: 000496456800001
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10023/18734
dc.description.abstractThis paper critiques and extends the notion of autonomy by examining how common autonomy definitions construct selfhood, with the support of an analysis of airport surveillance experiences. In psychology, autonomy is 1) often oriented around volition and action rather than the-self-that-acts and 2) the-self-that-acts is construed in singular terms. This neglects the multiple, context-variable self: while others may confirm our self-definitions (recognition), identity claims may also be rejected (misrecognition). The autonomy critique is sustained through an ethnographic analysis of airport security accounts (N = 156) in multiple nations with comparable security procedure (e.g., identification checks, luggage screening, questioning). Such procedures position people in multiple ways (e.g. as safe/dangerous, human/object, respectable/trash). Where respondents felt recognized, they experienced the security procedures positively, actively assisted in the screening process (engaged participation), and did not adapt their behaviors. Where respondents felt misrecognized, they experienced surveillance negatively, were alienated, and responded by either accommodating their behavior to avoid scrutiny, seeking to disrupt the process, or else withdrawing from screening sites. In misrecognition, the strategies that are open to the subject are incompatible with autonomy, if autonomy is defined solely in terms of volition. Accordingly, the concept of autonomy needs to be analyzed on two levels: in terms of the subject’s ability freely to determine their own sense of self, as well as the actor’s ability freely to enact selfhood.
dc.format.extent19
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofFrontiers in Psychologyen
dc.rightsCopyright © 2019 McNamara and Reicher. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.en
dc.subjectAirportsen
dc.subjectAutonomyen
dc.subjectImposed categoriesen
dc.subjectRecognition/misrecognitionen
dc.subjectSecurityen
dc.subjectSocial identityen
dc.subjectSurveillanceen
dc.subjectFrame of referenceen
dc.subjectIdentity claimsen
dc.subjectSelfhooden
dc.subjectBF Psychologyen
dc.subjectNDASen
dc.subject.lccBFen
dc.titleThe context-variable self and autonomy : exploring surveillance experience, (mis)recognition, and action at airport security checkpointsen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.description.versionPublisher PDFen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. School of Psychology and Neuroscienceen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. Centre for Research into Equality, Diversity & Inclusionen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. St Andrews Sustainability Instituteen
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02258
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record