Tag: criticality

Differing ethnographic accounts of the effectiveness of technology

I’m curious as I compare two recent papers, one by Christin [2017] and one by Levy [2015], both about the role of technology in society. and backed by ethnographic data.

What interests me is that the two papers both examine the use of algorithms in practice, but they differ in their account of the effectiveness of the algorithms used. Christin emphasizes the way web journalists and legal professionals deliberately undermine the impact of algorithms. Levy discusses how electronic monitoring achieves central organizational control over truckers.

I’m interested in the different framings because, as Christin points out, a central point of contention in the critical scholarship around data and algorithms is the effectiveness of the technology, especially “in practice”. Implicitly if not explicitly, if the technology is not as effective as its advocates say it is, then it is overhyped and this debunking is an accomplishment of the critical and often ethnographic field.

On the other hand, if the technology is effective at control, as Levy’s article argues that it is, then it poses a much more real managerialist threat to worker’s autonomy. Identifying that this is occurring is also a serious accomplishment of the ethnographic field.

What must be recognized, however, is that these two positions contradict each other, at least as general perspectives on data-collection and algorithmic decision-making. The use of a particular technology in a particular place cannot be both so ineffective as to be overhyped and so effective as to constitute a managerialist threat. The substance of the two critiques is at odds with each other, and they call for different pragmatic responses. The former suggests a rhetorical strategy of further debunking, the latter demands a material strategy of changing working conditions.

I have seen both strategies used in critical scholarship, sometimes even in the same article, chapter, or book. I have never seen critical scholars attempt to resolve this difference between themselves using their shared assumptions and methods. I’d like to see more resolution in the ethnographic field on this point.

Correction, 8/10/17:

The apparent tension is resolved on a closer reading of Christin (2017). The argument there is that technology (in the managerialist use common to both papers) is ineffective when its intended use is resisted by those being managed by it.

That shifts the ethnographic challenge to technology away from an attack on the technical quality of the work (which is a non-starter) to accomplish what it is designed to do, but rather on the uncontroversial proposition that the effectiveness of technology depends in part on assumptions on how it will be used, and that these assumptions can be violated.

The political question of to what extent these new technologies should be adopted can then be addressed straightforwardly in terms of whether or not it is fully and properly adopted, or only partially and improperly adopted. Using language like this would be helpful in bridging technical and ethnographic fields.


Christin, 2017. “Algorithms in practice: Comparing journalism and criminal justice.” (link)

Levy, 2015. “The Contexts of Control: Information, Power, and Truck-Driving Work.” (link)

Habermas seems quaint right now, but shouldn’t

By chance I was looking up Habermas’s later philosophical work today, like Between Facts and Norms (1992), which has been said to be the culmination of the project he began with The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere in 1962. In it, he argues that the law is what gives pluralistic states their legitimacy, because the law enshrines the consent of the governed. Power cannot legitimize itself; democratic law is the foundation for the legitimate state.

Habermas’s later work is widely respected in the European Union, which by and large has functioning pluralistic democratic states. Habermas emerged from the Frankfurt School to become a theorist of modern liberalism and was good at it. While it is an empirical question how much education in political theory is tied to the legitimacy and stability of the state, anecdotally we can say that Habermas is a successful theorist and the German-led European Union is, presently, a successful government. For the purposes of this post, let’s assume that this is at least in part due to the fact that citizens are convinced, through the education system, of the legitimacy of their form of government.

In the United States, something different happened. Habermas’s earlier work (such as the The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere) was introduced to United States intellectuals through a critical lens. Craig Calhoun, for example, argued in 1992 that the politics of identity was more relevant or significant than the politics of deliberation and democratic consensus.

That was over 25 years ago, and that moment was influential in the way political thought has unfolded in Europe and the United States. In my experience, it is very difficult to find support in academia for the view that rational consensus around democratic institutions is a worthwhile thing to study or advocate for. Identity politics and the endless contest of perspectives is much more popular among students and scholars coming out of places like UC Berkeley. In my own department, students were encouraged to read Habermas’s early work in the context of the identity politics critique, but never exposed to the later work that reacted to these critiques constructively to build a theory that was specifically about pluralism, which is what political identities need in order to unify as a legitimate state. There’s a sense in which the whole idea that one should continue a philosophical argument to the point of constructive agreement, despite the hard work and discipline that this demands, was abandoned in favor of an ideology of intellectual diversity that discouraged scrutiny and rigor across boundaries of identity, even in the narrow sense of professional or disciplinary identity.

The problem with this approach to intellectualism is that it is fractious and undermines itself. When these qualities are taken as intellectual virtues, it is no wonder that boorish overconfidence can take advantage of it in an open contest. And indeed the political class in the United States today has been undermined by its inability to justify its own power and institutions in anything but the fragmented arguments of identity politics.

It is a sad state of affairs. I can’t help but feel my generation is intellectually ill-equipped to respond to the very prominent challenges to the legitimacy of the state that are being leveled at it every day. Not to put too fine a point on it, I blame the intellectual laziness of American critical theory and its inability to absorb the insights of Habermas’s later theoretical work.

Addendum 8/7/17a:

It has come to my attention that this post is receiving a relatively large amount of traffic. This seems to happen when I hit a nerve, specifically when I recommend Habermas over identitarianism in the context of UC Berkeley. Go figure. I respectfully ask for comments from any readers. Some have already helped me further my thinking on this subject. Also, I am aware that a Wikipedia link is not the best way to spread understanding of Habermas’s later political theory. I can recommend this book review (Chriss, 1998) of Between Facts and Norms as well as the Habermas entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which includes a section specifically on Habermasian cosmopolitanism, which seems relevant to the particular situation today.

Addendum 8/7/17b:

I may have guessed wrong. The recent traffic has come from Reddit. Welcome, Redditors!


is science ideological?

In a previous post, I argued that Beniger is an unideological social scientist because he grounds his social scientific theory in robust theory from the natural and formal sciences, like theory of computation and mathematical biology. Astute commenter mg has questioned this assertion.

Does firm scientific grounding absolve a theoretical inquiry from ideology – what about the ideological framework that the science itself has grown in and is embedded in? Can we ascribe such neutrality to science?

This is a good question.

To answer it, it would be good to have a working definition of ideology. I really like one suggested by this passage from Habermas, which I have used elsewhere.

The concept of knowledge-constitutive human interests already conjoins the two elements whose relation still has to be explained: knowledge and interest. From everyday experience we know that ideas serve often enough to furnish our actions with justifying motives in place of the real ones. What is called rationalization at this level is called ideology at the level of collective action. In both cases the manifest content of statements is falsified by consciousness’ unreflected tie to interests, despite its illusion of autonomy. The discipline of trained thought thus correctly aims at excluding such interests. In all the sciences routines have been developed that guard against the subjectivity of opinion, and a new discipline, the sociology of knowledge, has emerged to counter the uncontrolled influence of interests on a deeper level, which derive less from the individual than from the objective situation of social groups.

If we were to extract a definition of ideology from this passage, it would be something like this: an ideology is:

  1. an expression of motives that serves to justify collective action by a social group
  2. …that is false because it is unreflective of the social group’s real interests.

I maintain that the theories that Beniger uses to frame his history of technology are unideological because they are not expressions of motives. They are descriptive claims whose validity has been tested thoroughly be multiple independent social groups with conflicting interests. It’s this validity within and despite the contest of interests which gives scientific understanding its neutrality.

Related: Brookfield’s “Contesting Criticality: Epistemological and Practical Contradictions in Critical Reflection” (here), which I think is excellent, succinctly describes the intellectual history of criticality and how contemporary usage of it blends three distinct traditions:

  1. a Marxist view of ideology as the result of objectively true capitalistic social relations,
  2. a psychoanalytic view of ideology as a result of trauma or childhood,
  3. and a pragmatic/constructivist/postmodern view of all knowledge being situated.

Brookfield’s point is that an unreflective combination of these three perspectives is incoherent both theoretically and practically. That’s because while the first two schools of thought (which Habermas combines, above–later Frankfurt School writers deftly combined Marxism is psychoanalysis) both maintain an objectivist view of knowledge, the constructivists reject this in favor of a subjectivist view. Since discussion of “ideology” comes to us from the objectivist tradition, there is a contradiction in the view that all science is ideological. Calling something ‘ideological’ or ‘hegemonic’ requires that you take a stand on something, such as the possibility of an alternative social system.