Person of Interest or Crime and Surveillance on Post-9/11 Network TV

  • Anna Krawczyk-Łaskarzewska
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Crime, Media and Culture book series (PSCMC)


This chapter examines some of the narrative and ideological aspects of portraying the contemporary surveillance state in a scripted network TV series. The inherent ambiguity of the discourse of surveillance and security is highlighted using selected surveillance studies paradigms. As regards their practical application, references are made to Person of Interest, a show which goes beyond the generic confines of science fiction and crime drama in order to address the anxieties of the post-9/11 world allegedly on the brink of technological singularity. The chapter also discusses human and non-human character development in the series and draws attention to the ways in which the demands of mainstream storytelling may have undermined its subversive potential.


Artificial intelligence Surveillance TV Character development Person of Interest 


  1. Aletheia. (2014). Person of Interest [TV programme]. CBS, January 7.Google Scholar
  2. Anders, C. J. (2014, December 17). The Most Terrible Revelation in Last Night’s ‘Person of Interest.’ io9 [Online]. Retrieved April 17, 2018, from
  3. Andrejevic, M. (2015). Foreword. In R. E. Dubrofsky & S. A. Magnet (Eds.), Feminist Surveillance Studies (pp. ix–xviii). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bakir, V. (2017). Spaces of Surveillance: States and Selves Afterword. In S. Flynn & A. Mackay (Eds.), Spaces of Surveillance: States and Selves (pp. 245–259). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Ball, K., Haggerty, K. D., & Lyon, D. (Eds.). (2012). Routledge Handbook of Surveillance Studies. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Bauman, Z., & Lyon, D. (2013). Liquid Surveillance: A Conversation. Cambridge and Malden, MA: Polity.Google Scholar
  7. Bear, E. (2017). ‘Frankenstein’ Reframed; Or, the Trouble with Prometheus. In D. H. Guston, E. Finn, & J. S. Robert (Eds.), Mary Shelley. Frankenstein Or, the Modern Prometheus. Annotated for Scientists, Engineers, and Creators of All Kinds (pp. 231–236). Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bigo, D. (2006). Security, Exception, Ban and Surveillance. In D. Lyon (Ed.), Theorizing Surveillance: The Panopticon and Beyond (pp. 46–68). Portland, OR: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Deleuze, G. (1990). Postscript on Control Societies. In M. Joughin (Trans.), Negotiations (pp. 177–182). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  11. Frois, C. (2013). Peripheral Vision: Politics, Technology and Surveillance. New York and Oxford: Berghahn.Google Scholar
  12. Fuchs, C., Boersma, K., Albrechtslund, A., & Sandoval, M. (2012). Introduction: Internet and Surveillance. In C. Fuchs, K. Boersma, A. Albrechtslund, & M. Sandoval (Eds.), Internet and Surveillance: The Challenges of Web 2.0 and Social Media (pp. 1–28). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Gan, V. (2013). How TV’s ‘Person of Interest’ Helps Us Understand the Surveillance Society. [Online]. Retrieved November 17, 2017, from
  14. Gorton, K. (2009). Media Audiences Television, Meaning and Emotion. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hardt, M. (1995). The Withering of Civil Society. In E. Kaufman & K. J. Heller (Eds.), Deleuze & Guattari: New Mappings in Politics, Philosophy, and Culture (pp. 23–39). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hendler, J., & A. M. Mulvehill, (Eds.). (2016). Social Machines: The Coming Collision of Artificial Intelligence, Social Networking, and Humanity. Apress. E-book.Google Scholar
  17. Hong, S. (2017). Criticising Surveillance and Surveillance Critique: Why Privacy and Humanism are Necessary But Insufficient. Surveillance & Society, 15(2), 187–203. Retrieved February 17, 2018, from Scholar
  18. Jenner, M. (2016). American TV Detective Dramas: Serial Investigations. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lacy, Mark. 2008. Designer Security: Control Society and MoMA’s SAFE: Design Takes on Risk. Security Dialogue, 39 (Apr.), 333–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lyon, D. (2006). The Search for Surveillance Theories. In D. Lyon (Ed.), Theorizing Surveillance. The Panopticon and Beyond (pp. 3–20). Portland, OR: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Maloney, M. (2015). The Search for Meaning in Film and Television: Disenchantment at the Turn of the Millennium. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mitrou, L., Kandias, M., Stavrou, V., & Gritzalis, D. (2014). Social Media Profiling: A Panopticon or Omniopticon Tool? Paper presented at the 6th Biannual Surveillance and Society Conference. Retrieved April 17, 2018, from
  23. Newitz, A. (2016, May 4). ‘Person of Interest’ Remains One of the Smartest Shows about AI on Television. Arstechnica [Online]. Retrieved November 17, 2017, from
  24. Poster, M. (1990). The Mode of Information: Poststructuralism and Social Context. Cambridge and Malden, MA: Polity.Google Scholar
  25. Rose, N. (1999). Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rothman, J. (2014, January 14). ‘Person of Interest’: The TV Show That Predicted Edward Snowden. The New Yorker [Online]. Retrieved November 17, 2017, from
  27. Sheehan, B. (2007, July 22). Dark New World. Washington Post [Online]. Retrieved September 15, 2011, from
  28. Stewart, G. (2015). Closed Circuits: Screening Narrative Surveillance. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Synecdoche. (2016). Person of Interest [TV programme]. CBS, June 7.Google Scholar
  30. Szollosy, M. (2017). Freud, Frankenstein and Our Fear of Robots: Projection in Our Cultural Perception of Technology. AI & SOCIETY, 32(3). Scholar
  31. Torrance, S. (2012). Artificial Agents and the Expanding Ethical Circle. AI & SOCIETY, 28(4). Scholar
  32. Tusseau, G. (2012). Panopticism, the Panopticon and Cybertechnology. In A. Brunon-Ernst (Ed.), Beyond Foucault: New Perspectives on Bentham’s Panopticon (pp. 188–190). Farnham, Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  33. Walton, J. (2008, July 22). The Singularity Problem and Non-Problem. [Online]. Retrieved November 17, 2017, from
  34. Wolven. (2015, March 5). Fairytales of Slavery: Societal Distinctions, Technoshamanism, and Nonhuman Personhood. A Future Worth Thinking About [Online]. Retrieved February 17, 2018, from

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna Krawczyk-Łaskarzewska
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Warmia and Mazury in OlsztynOlsztynPoland

Personalised recommendations