Can objects and technology be political?
Introduction to Interface Politics
Introduction
Can objects and technology be used as a political weapon ? Can these inanimate objects have an underlying political motive? The short answer to all these questions is yes*. In this article we will explore how these objects can be used as political tools and define what we mean by yes with an asterisk.
I will start this article with some terms used throughout and define theory behind interface politics. Then, we will cover two ways these objects can be categorized to be political. We briefly discuss how technology can be part of change and adapt to ongoing societal changes. Lastly, we will also discuss how objects and technology can facilitate both positive and negative changes beyond their intended design.
Podcast
I also launched podcast in case if you want to listen instead of reading this article (give it couple seconds to load).
Link to Spotify
Table of Content:
- Clarification and Intent
- Categorization of political objects
- Change by design (Positive and Negative)
- Change by accident (Positive and Negative)
- Technology supporting societal change
- Conclusion
- Back Story
2. Clarification and Intent:
Before we begin discussing research papers and talking about some of the examples, I want to clarify certain terminology and the goal of this article.
Throughout the article the words artifacts and objects are used somewhat interchangeably. In a strict sense, each artifact can be an object, but not vice versa. So an apple can be an object, but won’t be an artifact. The proper definition of the word artifact according to Interaction Design Foundation is as follows:
“An artifact simply means any product of human workmanship or any object modified by man”
Before we begin, I also want to state that some of content can be subjective, but if this article stirs a conversation and you learn something new, I will consider it accomplished its goal. I just enjoyed content taught in class I just took [Refer to 7. Back Story for more info]and wanted to write an article to share with everyone.
So, let’s begin…
2. Categorization of political objects:
In 1980, Langdon Winner wrote a paper “Do Artifacts Have Politics?” that explored the connection between artifacts and politics. In the paper, Winner explores several ways technology and various artifacts can demonstrate political qualities. In general, he purposes two ways objects can be political:
- Inherently political technologies that are only compatible with certain forms of political order
- Objects that have no inherent politics on their own, but can used to execute certain political motives.
Let’s explore those two points:
First, Winner argues that certain technologies are compatible with specific political design structures. As an example he proposes nuclear reactor plant. He argues that due to complex structure, high stakes and the top to bottom organizational structure (i.e. army style) nuclear power plants requires strict and swift execution of commands. As a result, Winner writes that nuclear plant reactor is more compatible with authoritarian power structures [Winner, 1980; Joyner, 2020]
Conversely, he states that renewable energy can push society “towards a more distributed and egalitarian power”. Interestingly, in 2020 Wilkins et al. wrote paper on “Peer-to-Peer Energy Markets…”. In the paper, Wilkins et al proposes an idea where each household produces energy such as solar and they can share with their neighbors. In sense, decentralizing the power supply from big companies and becoming more “egalitarian” just like Winner suggests in his paper. [Winner 1980; Wilkins, 2020]. It is interesting how Winner’s paper is 30 years old, yet we definitely see how his ideas interplay with present day ideas and still holds true in this regard.
Second, Winner argues some objects and technologies have no inherent politics, but are used to achieve certain political motives. As an example, he talks about Robert Moses who was principal architect of the NYC for 40 years [Britannica, 2020]. His projects include The Cross Bronx Expressway, The Lower Manhattan Expressway and Wantagh State Parkway. All these projects Moses designed can be used to illustrate how these roads and parkways by their design closely aligned with Moses’s political agenda.
Commonly known as “The Cross”, the Bronx Expressway by its placement divides the area into two and have caused migration of upper and middle class to northern side. The construction of the expressway displaced roughly 5000 families, whereas the alternative route would have only displaced 1–2% of that amount [MIT, 2003].
Furthermore, Winner states that parkways Moses designed were based on segregationist ideology. For instance, the Wantagh State Parkway contains bridges that are too low for buses to pass. As a result, only wealthy people in private cars were able to visit the park. In general, most constructions Moses undertook prioritized building highways instead of subways and favoring culture of transportation via private cars [Staub, 2017].
Winner notes that even if his connections and friends are long gone from running the NYC, the artifacts he build remain and hold in themselves political value. To quote Winner directly:
“For generations after Moses has gone and the alliances he forged have fallen apart, his public works, especially the highways and bridges he built to favor the use of automobile over the development of mass transit will continue to shape the city.” [Winner, 1980]
Evidence shows that Robert Moses intentionally constructed low bridges and segregated areas because of his political beliefs. The bridges and expressways currently in NYC don’t have any political motive of their own. However, they are and will remain as a symbol of political ideology for years to come.
The example of Robert Moses by no means is the singular occurrence of the technology (or objects) being used for political motives. In 1880, Cyrus McCormick’s reaper manufacturing plant located in Chicago was battling against emerging National Union of Iron Molders. Historian Robert Ozanne showed that McCormick used technology in order to destroy the forming workers’ union. As it turns out, McCormick installed pneumatic molding machine which was producing “inferior casting at higher cost than the earlier process”. After three years, these machines were no longer used, but by that time worker’s union also disappeared [Winner, 1980][Joyner, 2020].
3. Change by Design (Positive and Negative)
The example above about Robert Moses and his architecture plans illustrate that certain objects by design can bring negative change. Although, bridges aren’t political, they were used as a political instrument and it can be argued that they are a symbol of segregation.
Conversely, let’s look into positive change by design. Consider Pokemon Go mobile application published by Nintendo in 2016. The game uses Augmented Reality (AR), GPS location and mobile phone to “capture” virtual creatures called Pokemons. The AR technology merges the real world using camera and displays computer generated graphics within a context of the real world. In order to catch those creatures, users have to walk around certain locations. When first published in the app stores across platforms, the game has been big hit among millions [Source]. Nikou et al. wrote paper where they evaluate 370 individuals and presents positive impact of Pokemon Go on emotional wellness [Nikou, 2018]. It can be argued that the game brings positive change by design because it has a capability to entertain people and makes users walk without explicitly instructing them to do so. The example of Pokemon Go can be used to show how technology could be force for good in invisible way [Joyner, 2020].
4. Change by Accident (Positive and Negative)
The tech developed occasionally can have unintended consequences. Besides their direct task, the technology by its own design can yield unexpected changes in both positive and negative ways.
The 5G technology has a potential to have far-reaching implications in all matters related to internet and connectivity. Instead, the 5G has divided the world so far. Although, the design of the technology can be positive, we are currently witnessing negative change the technology is causing by accident. What was supposed to be the new way of internet that offers lower latency, higher capacity, and increased bandwidth compared to previous broadband technology, instead turned into political weapon by major world super powers.
There is nothing inherently political in the 5G technology, and on it’s own the technology offers nothing but new ways of internet connectivity. Nevertheless, the 5G has been politicized and used a weapon in political arena by various countries. I think the example of 5G can be classified as negative change by happenstance.
Similar argument can be also applied to face recognition technology. On its own, facial recognition could aid with combating human trafficking, serve as a better way of human identification and a new method of verification instead of carrying around physical passports. However, in many cases the face recognition has been used in order crack down on government opposition and mass surveillance under false pretenses. Although, technology on its own is not political, it is used in order to achieve certain political motives.
Presently, countries such as China, Japan and UAE already deploy face recognition as part of government operations. Companies such as Apple and Delta also use face recognition to unlock the phone or check-in prior to departure, respectively. Moving forward, the face recognition is expected to be adopted by dozen more countries and is expected to grow exponentially [Radu, 2019] [GrandViewResearch, 2019]. However, some companies are becoming more cautious of the technology and its applications. Earlier this year, IBM announced that they will stop selling the face recognition technology to government entities, including the police departments. The IBM argued that face recognition technology can be used to perform racial profiling and “racial bias surveillance” [Allyn, 2020]. Some companies will continue to expand the technology, whereas some will roll back the use and development altogether. The use and the applications of face recognitions will definitely become polarizing subject and will be subject to ethical discussions in the future by individuals and societies around the world.
On its own, the face recognition technology can be used in unlocking our cars, serve as biometric identification at the airports, combat human trafficking and serve useful in many more cases. However, the topic of face recognition has become polarizing and is often associated within a negative connotation instead. I think this is yet another example of how technology can bring negative change by accident.
On the other hand, there are some objects that brought positive change by accident. In 1995, Wiebe E. Bijker published a book called: “Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs…” where he explores relationship between society and technology. In his book, Bijker explores “sociotechnical” change that occurred because of innovative technologies such as synthetic plastic, fluorescent light bulb and bicycle [Bijker, 1995].
One of the examples in his book is the invention of bicycle and its unexpected role in the society. He argues that the invention of the bicycle allowed women to pursue daily activities more independently, as opposed to being tied to men to transport them around. Additionally, Bijker states that bicycle necessitated wardrobe change, which in turn also prompted societal change by a degree [Joyner, 2020]. Women’s activist, Susan B. Anthony — one of the most important figures in women’s suffrage movement — said the following about the bicycle in her interview in 1896 [Szczepanski, 2013][Bijker, 1995]:
Let me tell you what I think of bicycling,… I think it has done more to emancipate women than anything else in the world. It gives women a feeling of freedom and self-reliance. I stand and rejoice every time I see a woman ride by on a wheel… the picture of free, untrammeled womanhood
The inventor(s) of the bicycle probably didn’t anticipate the far reaching implications when it was first conceived or even designed. However, according to Bijker, the invention of the bicycle had far reaching unintended positive consequences.
Just as 5G and face recognition are causing negative change by accident, the example of the bicycle provided positive effects beyond their direct use. The innovation and technology are capable of altering our daily lives, but more importantly, they can shape the society as a whole in many ways beyond what is seen at the first glance.
5. Technology supporting societal change
Technology doesn’t always have to dictate change. In fact, sometimes technology can be designed in order to support certain ongoing societal change instead. For instance, more and more websites and places started providing more than just two genders when user signs up for the website. If couple years ago, the only options were male or female, now companies like Instagram and Facebook allow users to set custom gender during sign up process. Some website are taking it a step further and allowing users to set their preferred pronouns in addition to gender. These changes are reflective of ongoing societal change and in some cases, technology is adapting to those needs and preferences because society is changing.
6. Conclusion
The article explored how technology and various objects can be used beyond their intended design. Occasionally, those positive designs result in positive changes as in case with bicycles, but they can also serve to segregate the society which was illustrated with an example using bridges in NYC. At the same time, the technology can be positive or negative by accident as illustrated by face recognition, 5G technology, or Pokemon Go app. Although, these objects don’t have political leanings of their own, people that deploy those technologies can alter the course of their use. As a result, person(s) developing new technology or deploying them should think twice and take into consideration ethics of intentional or unintentional use.
7. Back story:
I just finished Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) course as a part of my Master’s program at GaTech. The course is taught by Prof. Joyner and the course covers general concepts such as design principles, analysis and evaluation of the user interfaces, and how to design prototypes. Truth be told, all of my classes so far (including undergrad courses) have been heavily math focused. This course was the first I’ve ever taken that focused on a) understanding interaction between humans and computers and b) on understanding technology within a context they operate. In one of the lecture units, we covered the topic “Intro to Interface Politics”. Lecture piqued my interest and I wanted to explore it a bit, write a story and share with the world. In a sense, all I am doing is condensing the lecture Prof. Joyner taught and summarizing for people to peruse at their own leisure.
Thanks for reading my article.
Check out my other stories. If you liked it, or have any comments/questions, let me know! Feel free to connect on social media: Instagram, LinkedIn.
Sources:
Joyner, D. A. (2020) “2.9 Introduction to Interface Politics” Class Lecture. Retrieved 23 July, 2020, Atlanta, Georgia Institute of Technology from OMSCS. Course link: http://omscs6750.gatech.edu/
