It is often said that surveillance has massively transformed our social lives (Lyon, Haggerty, and Ball 2012: 1), but this claim is weakened by the admission that its “effects are difficult to isolate or observe, as they are embedded within many normal aspects of daily life” (ibid.). Picking up the analytic challenge, this paper investigates the everyday interactional practice and experience of being surveilled, and to do so, it draws on Goffman’s account of the interaction order, dwelling closely on unfocused interaction, in which people maintain a side-of-the-eye, half-an-ear awareness of the people, objects, and events in the space around them. After introducing key concepts from Goffman, the paper discusses three scenes of surveillance: a woman walking down a city street, two men putting up street stickers (a civil offence), and passengers being scanned at an airport (Pütz 2012). It shows how different senses of potential threat and illegality enter the experience of surveillance, and it builds a rudimentary model. The paper considers only a tiny fraction of contemporary surveillance, but it shows Goffman’s value as an analytic resource that can hold large-scale generalisations about the surveillance society to account, allowing us to see agentive responses to surveillance that are too subtle to be captured by notions like subversion and resistance. Indeed, Goffman corroborates Green and Zurawski’s (2015) suggestion that surveillance is a basic mode of the social, elaborated in different ways in different environments. According to the first page of the Routledge Handbook of Surveillance Studies (Ball, Haggerty, and Lyon (eds.) 2012), contemporary developments in surveillance have produced “social changes in the dynamics of power, identity, institutional practice and interpersonal relations on a scale comparable to the changes brought by industrialization, globalization or the historical rise of urbanization” (Lyon, Haggerty, and Ball 2012: 1). And yet there are empirical uncertainties: “[the] effects [of surveillance] are difficult to isolate and observe, as they are embedded within many normal aspects of daily life” (ibid.: 1; also 9). Comparably, Green and Zurawski argue from an anthropological perspective that surveillance studies tends to operate with an “a priori categorization of what constitutes surveillance,” treating “surveillance as so large, and such a complex set of processes, that it can best be researched and understood through its systems and structures, at the expense of attention to embeddedness in everyday life” (2015: 31; see also Ball 2002, 2005, 2009; Ball and Wilson 2000; Ball et al. 2015). In sociolinguistics, our own (sub-)discipline, there is a long tradition of ethnographic work that examines power, ideology, and social change in everyday communicative practice. This covers class, ethnicity, sexuality, gender, generation, etc. across a host of sites (including homes, communities, schools, workplaces, clinics, mass and new media). So in principle, sociolinguistics ought to be able to contribute to the studies of everyday surveillance relations advocated by Lyon, Haggerty, and Ball and Green and Zurawski, particularly if surveillance is an interactional relationship between watcher and watched, as many suggest. But somewhat remarkably, there is very little sociolinguistic research on surveillance (see however Jones 2015, 2017; Rampton 2016, 2017: 11-12; Lyon, Haggerty, and Ball 2012: 6).

中文翻译：

---

日常监视，戈夫曼和不专心的互动

人们常说监视已经极大地改变了我们的社交生活（Lyon，Haggerty和Ball 2012：1），但这种说法由于承认“其效果难以隔离或观察，因为它们嵌入了许多正常的环境中”而被削弱。日常生活方面”（同上）。面对分析性挑战，本文研究了日常的互动实践和被监视的经验，为此，它借鉴了戈夫曼对互动顺序的描述，密切关注不专心的互动，在这种互动中，人们保持了偏见对周围空间中的人，物体和事件的半眼识别。在介绍了戈夫曼（Goffman）的关键概念之后，本文讨论了三个监视场景：一个女人在城市街道上行走，两个男人贴上街道标贴（民事罪行），以及在机场进行扫描的乘客（Pütz，2012年）。它显示了如何将不同的潜在威胁和违法感引入监视体验，并建立了一个基本模型。本文仅考虑了当代监视的一小部分，但它表明了戈夫曼作为一种分析资源的价值，可以对监视社会进行大规模概括，以使我们能够看到对监视的代理反应太微妙而无法被捕获。颠覆和抵抗等概念。确实，戈夫曼证实了格林和祖拉斯基（2015）的建议，即监视是社会的一种基本模式，在不同的环境中以不同的方式进行阐述。根据Routledge监视研究手册的第一页（Ball，Haggerty和Lyon（编辑）2012年），监控的当代发展已产生了“权力，身份，制度实践和人际关系动力方面的社会变化，其规模可与工业化，全球化或城市化的历史上升带来的变化相提并论”（Lyon，Haggerty和Ball，2012年： 1）。但是，存在经验上的不确定性：“ [监视]的效果难以隔离和观察，因为它们嵌入了日常生活的许多正常方面”（同上：1；也有9）。相比之下，格林和祖拉夫斯基从人类学的角度认为，监视研究往往以“构成监视的先验分类”进行，将“监视如此之大，如此复杂的一组过程视为最好进行研究和研究”。通过其系统和结构来理解 （以牺牲对日常生活的关注为代价”（2015：31；另请参见Ball 2002、2005、2009； Ball and Wilson 2000； Ball等人，2015）。在我们自己的（子）学科社会语言学中，民族志研究有着悠久的传统，它在日常交际实践中研究权力，意识形态和社会变革。这涵盖了许多站点（包括家庭，社区，学校，工作场所，诊所，大众媒体和新媒体）中的阶级，种族，性别，性别，世代等等。因此，从原则上讲，社会语言学应该能够为里昂，哈格蒂，鲍尔，格林和祖拉夫斯基所倡导的日常监视关系的研究做出贡献，特别是如果监视是观察者和被观察者之间的互动关系时，尤其如此。但有一点值得注意