The Political Economy of Pulse: Techno-somatic rhythm and ... · Virgin Pulse is a suite of...
Transcript of The Political Economy of Pulse: Techno-somatic rhythm and ... · Virgin Pulse is a suite of...
1
ThePoliticalEconomyofPulse:
Techno-somaticrhythmandreal-timedata
WilliamDavies
Thisisapre-printofanarticletoappearinEphemera18.4.Ephemeraisopenaccessat
http://www.ephemerajournal.org/
Abstract
Inthecontextofubiquitousdatacaptureandthepoliticsofcontrol,thereisgrowing
individualandmanagerialinterestin‘pulse’,bothintheliteralsenseofarterialpulse(now
monitoredthroughwearabletechnology)andinametaphoricalsenseofreal-timetracking
(forinstancetakingthe‘pulseofanorganisation’).Thisarticleusesthecategoryof‘pulse’to
explorepost-Fordismasasetoftechniquesforgoverningrhythms,bothofthebodyandof
technologies.ItdrawsonLefebvre’sworktointroducenotionsofeurhythmia,arrhythmia
and‘internalmeasure’aswaysofexploringsomaticandorganisationallife.Itthen
introducestwocasestudieswheretheideaandphysicalnatureof‘pulse’areatwork.These
provideaninsightintothereal-timenatureofpost-Fordistlife,whereachronicsensingof
quantitiesbecomesthebasisofco-operation,ratherthanajudgementviameasures.
2
VirginPulseisasuiteofworkplacewellbeingproductsandservices,whichtogetherpromise
“technologytoreplenishthemodernworker”.Itinvolvesanappallowingemployeesto
monitortheirownbehaviourwithregardstosleep,activity,happiness,nutrition,stressand
relaxation,andhelpsthemtochangetheirbehaviourtopursueahealthierandhappier
lifestyle.Dataiscollectedviagymmembershipanduseofwearabletechnology,and
personalisedimprovementplansareproducedforeachemployee,oftenusing‘gamification’
techniquesofgoal-setting,competitionwithotheremployeesandrewards.Theschemeis
integratedwithotherHRsystems,andproducesawellbeingdatadashboardformanagers
toinspect.
VirginPulseisanexampleofhowpost-Fordistmanagementpracticeshaveturnedtowards
thebodyasasiteofinterventionandoptimisation,erodingthedistinctionbetweenthe
‘working’andthe‘non-working’bodyintheprocess(Zoller,2003;McGillivray,2005a,
2005b).Initsrelianceonwearable,mobileandsmarttechnologytocollectdataon
wellbeing,italsoindicateshowthispost-Fordistmanagerialprojectisgainingever-greater
surveillancecapacities,nowabletomonitortheemployeeasshemoves,eats,socialisesand
sleeps(Moore,2014;Moore&Robinson,2015).Thearrivalofwearablesandconnected
smartphoneapps,togetherwithacultureof‘self-tracking’,meansthatworkandphysical
exercisemorphintoeachother,bothbeingrepresentedintermsofquantitativeinputsand
outputs(Till,2014;Gilmore,2015;Smith,2016).
ButVirginPulsealsoexhibitssomethingthathasreceivedlessattention:itsemphasison
pulse.Itisimmediatelynoticeablethattheterm‘pulse’mightbeunderstoodintwoparallel
sensesinthiscontext.Ontheonehand,itwouldappeartosignifytheconstant,twenty-four
sevenstreamofdatathattheprogrammewillgenerateandanalyse.Meantmetaphorically,
takingthe‘pulse’ofanorganisation(orothersocialsystem)meansmonitoringitsvarious
vitalsigns:movements,rhythms,patterns,peaksandtroughs.Theimplicationisthatthese
areemergentandself-governing,ratherthanimposedviadisciplineormeasurement.They
arespecificallyextra-institutional,indeedexistential,ratherthanlimitedtoanydesignated
locationortime,otherthanthefinitudeoflifeitself.‘Pulse’issomethingthatmightbelong
toanurbanneighbourhood,afinancialmarketoranentertainmentvenue,tobesensed
throughacombinationofhumanandnon-humanmeans.Theuseoftheterm‘pulse’to
3
refertoVirgin’swellnessprogrammemightbeinterpretedasanappealtoasciencethatis
bothquantitativeand‘real-time’.
Ontheotherhand,actualpulse-rateisnowoneofthecrucialdata-pointsthroughwhich
wellnesscanbemonitoredacrosstimeandspace.Heart-rate,detectedviawristbands,
enablessleepandphysicalexertiontobetracked,withouttheuserneedingtobeconscious
ofthis.Heart-ratevariabilityhaslongbeenviewedasaproxyforhealth:ahealthybody
experienceshighlevelsofheart-ratevariability,betweenperiodsofphysicalexertionand
thoseofrest(Billman,2011).Itisacuriosityofmuchoftheinitialliteratureon‘self-tracking’
and‘quantifiedself’practicesthatitdedicatedagreatdealofattentiontothetechnologies
throughwhichdataisgenerated(wristbands,apps,‘smart’devicesetc)andthecultural
practicesofthosethatadoptthem(the‘quantifiedself’movement,etc)butsomewhatless
tothatwhichisbeingcounted.Morerecentworkonwearabletechnologyhasbegunto
addressthis(e.g.Lupton,2016,Schull,2017,Pinketal,2017;DidžiokaitėandSaukko2017).
Theseareoftenmundaneandnecessaryconditionsofeverydayvitality:eating,sleeping,
drinking,breathingandwalking.Thebanalityofthesemovementsandprocessesisa
necessaryconditionofabroaderprojectofubiquitous,24/7monitoring.Inordertodaily
lifelifeitself,asopposedtotheperformancesandskillsdevelopedforparticulararenas,
surveillancemustbefocusedonthehumdrumandthemundane,thattranscendsany
formalevaluativeorscientificframework.Intracking,quantifyingandrepresentingthese
behaviours,wearabletechnologyactsuponagentsviatheirmostordinaryandrepetitive
day-to-daysourcesandmodesoflife.Pulse-rateisoneofthesenecessaryandordinaryvital
rhythmsthatbecomesatypeofindicatorunderconditionsofdigitalsurveillancecapitalism.
Researchonself-trackinghastypicallytreateditasanewsiteofknowledge-production,
oftendrawingonFoucauldiannotionsofdisciplineorneoliberalsubjectivity.Ithasbeen
arguedthatthisreinforcesaCartesiansplitbetweencognitionandthebody(Moore&
Robinson,2015),producesanewmodeofself-discipline(Lupton,2013;Sanders,2017)and
anewfrontierinthe‘healthism’thatobjectifiesandoptimisesthebodythroughascientific
gaze(Crawford,1980;Lupton,2012;Maturo,2014).FromthisbroadlyFoucauldian
perspective,trackingdevicesallowthebodytoberepresented,benchmarkedand
disciplinedinamoreacutefashion,toproduceamorerigorousformofself-managementor
4
entrepreneurialsubjectivity.Thistreatswearabletechnologyasepistemologicalinfunction.
Bycontrast,thispaperwillseektolookattheinteractionofbodyandtechnologiesinterms
ofthedynamictechno-somaticrhythmsthataresensed,butnotnecessarilyknownin
Cartesianterms.Thesignificanceofpulse(bothinitsliteralarterialsenseanda
metaphoricalsenseofreal-timedata)ispreciselythatitispre-cognitiveand
environmentallyadaptive,ratherthancognitiveornormative.Byexploringthemeaningand
usesofpulse-monitoring,wemightachieveadifferentperspectiveontechno-somatic
interfaces,whichdoesn’tprivilegetheacquisitionofknowledge,butratherpursues
cyberneticcontrolofbodies,environmentsandtheemergentinterplaybetweenthetwo.
AgainstthesuppositionthatwearabletechnologyfacilitatesaCartesianorpositivist
perspectiveonthebody,Ihopetoexplorethewaysinwhichcognitionandtheembodiment
dissolveintoeachother,mediatedbytechno-somaticreal-timesensing.Thisbecomes
possibleifweswitchourattentionfromthetruthofbodiesassuch(pureCartesianres
extensa),totherhythmsoftechnically-equippedbodiesinmotion,withspatial-temporal
properties.
Thisarticleaddressesthepoliticaleconomyof‘pulse’inboththemetaphoricalandthe
literalsensesofthetermsimultaneously,usingtwocasestudieswhichreflectbothsenses.
Bystudyingthesesidebyside,andlookingathowtheyfitintocontemporaryworkingand
organisationalpractices,wegainadifferentperspectiveonpost-Fordistcapitalismandthe
technologiesofcontrolthatmediateandsustainit.‘Pulse’servesasboththecultural-
ideationalmodelofhowallphysicalmovementcanbeconceivedandaparticularsomatic
rhythmtobesurveilled–bothsignifierandsignified.Thisdualprojectofpulse-monitoring
canbeunderstoodasanefforttosenseandinfluencetherhythmofsocialandindividual
life,inwaysthatpromiseanewpost-disciplinarymodeofmanagerialcontrol,underpinned
byapost-disciplinarynotionofeconomictimethatisfluidbutneverthelessnumbered.By
emphasisingthemetronomic,repetitivequalitiesofhumanlife,itispossibletoarriveat
quantitativeexpressionsthatare(oratleastappear)tobeemergentandnaturalrather
thanmeasured.
Therestofthearticleisinfourparts.Firstly,Ilayoutthearticle’stheoreticalpremises,
namelythepost-Fordistcontext,the‘crisisofmeasure’thatcharacterisesit,andthealleged
5
potentialfortrackingtechnologiestoovercomethatcrisis.Itiscrucialheretodistinguish
between‘measurement’and‘quantification’andtherelationofonetotheother,
conceptualissuesthathavesometimesbeenunder-appreciatedinliteratureonself-
tracking.SecondlyIlookathowalloflifepotentiallybecomesconceivedasrhythmical,in
post-disciplinarysocieties,somethingthatLefebvre’snotionof‘rhythmanalysis’isideally
suitedtoexplore.Thirdly,Ilookattwocasestudies,reflectingthemetaphoricalandliteral
statusof‘pulse’incontemporaryworkinglife.Oneoftheseconcernsanewwearable
technology(thoughnotatrackingdevice)aimedatmoderatingthewearer’spulse;the
otheratanewworkplacetechnologyaimedatcapturingemployeesentiment(whichrefers
toorganisational‘pulse’inametaphoricalsense).Thissectionofthepaperdrawson
interviewswiththedevelopersanddesignersofthetechnologiesconcerned.Finally,the
paperseekstotheorisethesenewtechniquesofrhythmicmonitoringandcontrol,andthe
modeof‘metronomicvitality’thattheymediate.
Quantitybeforemeasure
Itiswidelyrecognisedthatanewstyleoftechnicaleconomicgovernmentemerged
followingthecrisesofthe1970s,whichallowedformoreflexiblemanagementand
monitoringofemployeesandconsumers.Thishasbeengenerallyreferredtoas‘post-
Fordism’(Jessop,2002;Amin,2011),aconceptthatiscloselyalignedwiththeideaof
‘societiesofcontrol’(Deleuze,1992).FollowingthecrisesofFordismandKeynesianismthat
escalatedfrom1968onwards,corporationsadoptedvariousnewtechniquesthroughwhich
toovercomepoliticaloppositionandwintheenthusiasmofemployeesandcustomers.
Vertically-manageddisciplinaryinstitutions,suchastheTayloristfactoryandtheWeberian
bureaucracy,gavewaytomorefluid,horizontally-coordinatedinstitutionsthatweremore
adaptabletofluctuationsinmarketdemand.Corporationsco-optedanti-capitalistrhetoric
intheserviceofmanagement,therebychannellingnon-capitalisthopestowardsincreased
productivityandconsumption(Frank,2007;Boltanski&Chiapello,2006).Meanwhile,the
affectivedimensionofworkandconsumptionbecameintegraltoeconomicvaluecreation,
ofteninaformofco-productionbetweenproducerandconsumerassignifiedbybrands
(Arvidsson,2006,2011).Thesechangesrequirednewformsofexpertiseandmethods
6
throughwhichthe‘soft’psychologicalandculturaldimensionsoftheeconomycouldbe
knownandmanaged,andchangecouldbecomeconstant(Thrift,2005,2008).
Theshiftintopost-Fordismhasproduceddistinctiveproblematicsofquantificationand
measurementinsocialandeconomiclife.Atthesametime,ithasseizedtheaffordancesof
networkedcomputingtoenableashiftfromtechniquesofroutinized‘discipline’tomore
flexibleformsof‘control’(Franklin,2015).Inmanyways,thepromisesofdataanalyticsthat
haveemergedintheearly21stcenturyrepresentaconjoiningofthesetwoissues,whereby
ubiquitousdigitaldatacaptureoffsomatFersanewbasisforquantificationand
measurement–thatisanargumentadoptedinthispaper,butitisworthunpackingthata
little.Twofeaturesof‘post-Fordistcontrolsocieties’needrecognising,orelsethereisarisk
ofobscuringkeydifferencesfrom‘Fordistdiscipline’.
Firstly,post-Fordismisdefinedbyaproblemofintangiblevalue,elicitingwhathasbeen
referredtoasa‘crisisofmeasure’(Virno,2004;Hardt&Negri,2005).Tayloristfactories
couldmeasureinputsandoutputsinarelativelyexplicitway,trackingproductivityusing
linearCartesianprinciplesoftimeandspace.Measureshaveanaprioristatus:they
transcendthecontingencyofasituationtoprovideabasisforcomparisonor
‘commensuration’(Espeland&Stevens,1998).Arguablythemosttransformative(oratleast
iconic)exampleofamodernmeasurementdeviceisthatofdouble-entrybook-keeping,
whichprovidedastandardwaytoaccountforcreditanddebitacrosstimeandspace
(Carruthers&Espeland,1991;Poovey,1998).Thecrucialqualityofanymeasureisthatit
holdsitsformacrosstimeandspace,providingabasisonwhichtojudgecertainoutcomes
repeatedly,reliablyandimpersonally.Hence,the9-5workingdayisapossiblemeasure
throughwhichtoassessproductivity;anintelligencetestisapossiblemeasurethrough
whichtoassessjobcandidates.Measuresmaybequantitative(aswithatapemeasure)and
areoftenawayofintroducingquantityinadisciplinaryfashion(aswithanIQtest).Theyare
toolsofdisciplineandofjudgement–buttheyarenotnecessarilytoolsofquantification.
Forexample,amarketresearchsurveyactsasameasureforcomparingpeopleina
standardisedfashion,butitmaydososimplybyputtingpeopleintoqualitativecategories,
ratherthanattachinganumbertothem.Standardisedprocessesofjudgement,suchas
workplaceperformancereviews,maydrawonnumericaldata,butnotnecessarily.A
7
measurementdevicemaybefarmoreefficient(asabasisforcomparison)ifitquantifies,
butitneedn’tdoso.
Measuresarethereforefundamentallynormativetools,thatcanbeintroducedinto
situationstowinconsensus(Boltanski&Thevenot,2006).Inordertowork,theyneedto
possessaquasi-liberalauthority,whichcanapplyafixedsetofcriteriatoapluralityofcases
(Davies,2014).Thequestionofmeasurementisthereforeintimatelyassociatedwiththe
questionofhegemony,whichinthecaseofFordismis“borninthefactory”,because
hegemonyimpliesanover-archingethicalframeworkwhichrenderscapitalistproduction
legitimateandnotonlytechnicallyviable(Gramsci,2011:285).Theapriorinatureof
measuresprovidesthejuridicalprinciplewhichproduceshegemony.Measuressuchasclock
timeallowtheworkingdaytobebroughtwithinanormativelygovernedframework.
Toarguethatpost-Fordismwitnessesa‘crisisofmeasure’isnottosuggestthatvalue
becomesunquantifiable,butthatiteludesthequasi-juridicalroutinesandconsensual
qualityofeffectivemeasurement.Wherevalueisintangible(andpartlycaptured
subjectivelyintheexperiencesoftheconsumer)thereisanabsenceofstable,publicly
legitimatecommensurationdevicesandritualsthroughwhichitcanbeassessedand
ranked.Thisraisestheimportanceofprocessesofcriticaldeliberationandthesocialsearch
forvalue(Stark,2009),whichispotentiallydemocratising,butalsolessefficientfroma
narrowlycapitalistperspective(Arvidsson&Peiterson,2013).Qualitativemethodsof
evaluationandresearch,suchasfocusgroups,riseinimportance,butdonotserveto
providerobustcommensurationinthewaythatquantitativetoolsofmeasurementdo.
Secondly,asdigitisationhasspreadfurtherintoeconomic,culturalandpersonallife,ithas
radicallyincreasedpossibilitiesforquantification,whichhaverapidlyturnedinto
inevitabilitiesofquantification.Increasingly,quantificationissomethingthatwecantryto
ignorebydeliberatelyavoidingorconcealingpiecesofdata,butnotsomethingthatwecan
optoutof.Computerpowerhaslongextendedbeyondthecapabilitiesofhumancognition,
buttheubiquityofdatacapturenowextendsbeyondtheneedsorintentionsofhuman
societiesaswell(Hansen,2015).Dataiscapturedbydefault,generatingarchivesofso-
8
called‘BigData’,whichwethenfacethechallengeofinterrogatingshouldwefindareason
ordesireto(Andrejevic,2013).
AsHansenargues,thedistinguishing‘tendency’of21stcenturymediaistocapturefarmore
thanhumanconsciousnesscouldeveraccommodate.Thisisnotaprostheticenhancement
ofhumanconsciousness,butatransformationgoingonbeyondthelimitsofhuman
perception(Hansen,2015:53).Whereasthecamera,forexample,offeredanaugmentation
ofexistingformsofhumanvision,somethinglikeafitnesstrackerallowshumanbeingsto
engagewiththeworld(andthemselves)inwaysthatpreviouslyevadedourownsubjectivity
altogether.Theseare,Hansenargues,toolsofsensationnotofperception:theirfunctionis
tomonitorinunfathomabledetail,generatingquantitativedataintheprocess.Fitness
trackershavenotreplacedhumancognition,butperformsensoryactivitiesofmovements
(steps,sleep,pulseetc)thatwerepreviouslyun-sensedandhenceunquantified.Theyopen
up“thepossibilityofexperiencingsomethingnotimmediatelyavailabletoconsciousness”
(Hansen,2015:139).
FollowingHansen’sanalysis,wemightsaythatubiquitousdigitaltrackingfacilitatesvast
expansioninpossibilitiesforquantification,butwithoutofferinganynewmeasure.Thisisn’t
necessarilytrueofself-trackingingeneral,whichcanbecarriedoutusingvariousformsof
quantitativemeasuresuchasweight-scalesordiaries(Crawfordetal,2015),butitis
certainlytrueofsomethinglikepulse-tracking.Measuresmaybepresent–minutes,
kilometres,calories,degreesCelsius–butitisnotalwaysthemainaffordanceofthe
technologytointroducethese,inthewaythatitisof(say)atapemeasure.Asdevicesof
sensation,ratherthanofperceptionorevaluation,digitaltrackingtechnologiesoften
performarelativelybanalfunctionofcountingasmuchaspossible(quantification),rather
thanofcomparingasmuchaspossible(measurement).Wearableself-trackingtechnologies
haveabiastowardsaspectsofthehumanthatcanbecounted,evenintheabsenceofany
measure-steps,inhalationsandexhalations,arterialpulse–justassocialmediaplatforms
servetoquantifysocialconnectionswithoutnecessarilyhelpingtojudgethem.Wherethese
movementsandmomentsarequantified,measurescanofcoursebeintroduced,suchas
settingatargetornormforthenumberofstepstobetakeneachday.Buttheprimary
affordanceofthedeviceistocountnottocompare.
9
Acriticalquestionforpost-Fordistorganisationandgovernmentiswhethertechnologiesof
controlcaneverbecomesufficientlyextensiveandempiricallysensitiveastoreplacethe
needfornormativemeasurementaltogether.Toputthatanotherway,doesthecrisisof
measureandtheproblemofhegemonyeventuallyevaporate,onceenoughdatahasbeen
collected?Totheextentthatpost-Fordismbringsaboutnewcyborg-typeassemblagesof
bodies,codes,screensandmachines,itarguablyavoidsorcircumventstherequirementfor
hegemonicdiscursiveconsensus-formation,ofthesortthatFordismdependedon(Lash,
2007;Lazzarato,2014).Semioticandinter-subjectiveconventionspotentiallybecome
replacedbyinterfaceswhichmediatenon-representationalcode,inaconstantcybernetic
loopofaction,feedbackandadaptation.Decision-makingcanpotentiallybypassspacesof
consciousdeliberativejudgement(asthecaseofhigh-frequencytradingexemplifies)and
consciousnessisthenpresentedwithaworldthathasalreadybeenrearrangedby‘pre-
cognitive’techniquesofanalysisanddecision(Hansen,2015).Epistemologically,this
translatesintothehopethatalgorithmicdataanalyticscansupplantdisciplinarymethods,
spottingandrespondingtopatternsastheyemergefromdatasets,ratherthanimposing
measuresuponthem(Savage&Burrows,2007).
Governingthroughrhythm
However,thepost-hegemonicvisionofcontroldoesplaceonecrucialobligationonagents,
withoutwhichubiquitousdatacaptureisnotpossible:theymustkeepmovingand
interactingacrossinterfacesofvariouskinds.Thisisscarcelyanormativeduty,asitis
unspecifiedwhattheformortelosofthisactivityshouldbe,andmovementmightequally
beunconsciouslyphysiologicalasconsciouslydecided.Andasinterfacesbecomeembedded
inthephysicalenvironmentandbody,thereisreducednormativeinjunctiontoconsciously
‘use’them.Butthemanagerialandepistemologicalprojectofachievingcontrolwithout
consensusdoesrequirethatnothingeverstayfixedinplace.AsBoltanskiandChiapello
observeofthepost-Fordistworkplace,“tobedoingsomething,tomovetochange–thisis
whatenjoysprestigeasagainststability,whichisoftenregardedassynonymouswith
inaction”(Boltanski&Chiapello,2007:155).AppleCEOTimCook’snotorious2015remark
10
that“sittingisthenewcancer”wasmadewhilepromotingtheAppleWatch,whichcanbuzz
toremindthewearertostandupandmove.
Insocietiesof‘discipline’,movementoccursbetweendifferentdesignatedspacesand
institutions(factory,hospital,homeetc),butmovementitselfisnotacrucialobjectof
observation(Deleuze,1992).Theregulartimedisplayedontheclockiswhatdetermines
whenthesubjectofdisciplinemovesfromonesuchenclosedspacetoanother,asthe
notionof‘clockingon’and‘off’suggests.Timeisinterruptedbydisciplinarymeasurement,
(asnotionsofauditandinspectionsuggest)ratherthanitsobject.Anyrepetitionof
movementovertimeisacontingentside-effectofnormativeconvention.Thedominanceof
clocksindicatesthattimeisreallybeingsubsumedunderspace,producingwhatBergson
termed‘homogeneoustime’,whichusesspatialmetaphors(anddevicessuchasclocks)to
representtimeinregular,conciseunitssuchas‘minutes’and‘days’(Bergson,2002:86).
Thisemphasisondisciplinarytechnologiessuchasclocksisadenialoravoidanceoftimeas
‘pureduration’,allowingtheunitsof‘homogeneoustime’tocreatetheillusionthat
temporalityconsistsofseparate,isolatedmoments.Thisexperienceoftimeasamenableto
delineationandseparationisasignificanteffectofFordistanddisciplinarytechniquesof
power.
Bycontrast,societiesof‘control’requirebodiesinmotiontobemonitored,suchthat
patternsandrhythmscanbedetected,intheabsenceofapriorinormativeconventions.
Manyaspectsofsocialrhythmareeffectsandlegaciesofdisciplinarynormsand
institutions,suchastheworkingday,theweekend,commuting,a2-weekholidayandsoon.
Butotherrepetitivemovementsareemergent,suchassocialising,leisureactivities,sexual
activityandtherhythmsofthebodyitself.Lefebvrearguedthatitistheinteraction
betweenthesetwoformsthatgeneratestherhythmofmodernlife,thatinthesynthesis
betweenthetwois“naturalandrational,andneitheronenortheother”(Lefebvre,2013:
19).Asheargued:
Everydaytimeismeasuredintwoways,orrathersimultaneouslymeasuresandis
measured.Ontheonehand,fundamentalrhythmsandcyclesremainsteadyandon
11
theother,thequantifiedtimeofwatchesandclocksimposesmonotonous
repetitions.
(Lefebvre,2013:83)
Asdigitalinterfacesbecomeembeddedinourphysicalenvironmentsandbodies,thisraises
thepossibilitythatemergent,unmeasuredrhythmsmightbecomevisibleinandof
themselves,evenintheabsenceofanyinstitutionstogovernthem.Quasi-natural
movements–someofwhich,suchasarterialpulse,areconstant–cansimplybetracked
ratherthansubjectedtomeasurement.Repetitionsandpatternsthatemergeoutsideofthe
realmsofmeasuredbehaviourordisciplinaryactivitymightsuggestaformofsystemic
sustainability,thatisemergentratherthanimposed–aformofrhythmicharmonythat
Lefebvreidentifiesas‘eurhythmia’.Insomecases,‘homogeneoustime’keepingtoolsmay
evenbedeliberatelyremovedtofacilitatethisharmonious,repetitivemovementacross
interfaces,astheabsenceofclocksincasinossuggestsortheclockinthetherapists
consultingroomthattheclientisunabletosee.Theabsenceof‘clocktime’mayhelp
individualstoenteragreaterconditionofpost-cognitive,embodiedharmonyor“perfect
contingency”withtheirphysicalenvironment,ofthesortthatSchulldiscoversamongst
machine-gamblingaddicts(Schull,2012).
Inthepracticalsettingsofneoliberalcapitalism,thedistinctionbetween‘discipline’and
‘control’israrelyabsolute.Theriseofthelatter’srationalitydoesnotinitselfsignalthe
subsidenceoftheformer,anymorethantheriseofdisciplinarypowermeantthe
disappearanceofsovereignty(Munro,2000).Oftentechnologiesandpracticesofcontrol
willbeemployedtoachieveahigherlevelofdisciplinethandisciplinaryinstitutions
themselvescouldachieveontheirown.Disciplinarytoolsofaudit,testingandmeasurement
continuetoprovideanorganisingtemplateforinstitutionsunderpost-Fordism,butnowa
muchwiderrangeofbehaviorsand‘datapoints’arebeingtrackedtoanticipatehow
individualsororganisationsarelikelytoperforminthesemomentsofdisciplinary
judgement.Thankstocontroltechnologies(whichareubiquitousandradicallyempiricist),it
becomespossibletoorienttheselfevenmoreacutelytowardsdisciplinarytechnologies
(whichareperiodicanddecisive),potentiallybringingthenormsofdisciplineclosertothe
psycheandbody(Hardt&Negri,2000:23).Manyemergentsocialrhythmsandformsof
12
playfulness,whichcannowbecaptureddigitally,ariseinthetimeandspacethatdiscipline
ostensiblyleavesalone,suchastheweekend,publicspaceornight-time.Thisrendersthe
relationshipbetweendisciplineandcontrolambiguous:ontheonehand,itallows
spontaneousordertobeoptimised,potentiallytosubsumeitunderdisciplinarypower,but
ontheotheritpointstothepossibilityofapost-disciplinaryorder,inwhichthepowerof
measurementgraduallyrecedes.
WhatLefebvretermsthe‘natural’dimensionsofrhythm(whichreallymeansthoseaspects
whicharenotimposedby‘rationality’)resiststheCartesiangazeofscientificanalysis.Or
rather,effortstosubjectittoobjectivescrutiny(suchasthoseimposedbydisciplinary
measure)immediatelymisrepresentordamageit.Lefebvre’sexampleisofhorsedressage,
whichcannotbesimplyimposedonthehorseinthewayadogistrained(Lefebvre,2013:
49).Instead,ifoneisto“graspthisfleetingobject,whichisnotexactlyanobject,itis
thereforenecessarytosituateoneselfsimultaneouslyinsideandoutside”,totryandfeel
therhythmandtoknowtherhythmsimultaneously(Lefebvre,2013:37).Thetaskisoneof
sensationratherthanofjudgement–henceitlendsitselftotechnologiesofmonitoring
ratherthanofmeasuring.Themoresensorydevicesthereareembeddedinthephysical
environmentandhumanbody,thegreaterthepotentialtoadoptthis‘insideandoutside’,
feelingandknowing,orientationtowardsrhythm,bethatofthecity,theorganisation,the
socialnetworkortheorganism.
Tofeelrhythmfromthe‘inside’isonewayofunderstandingthepromiseofferedby‘real-
time’datacapture.Inthecontextof‘smartcities’,forexample,theidealbehindtheblanket
monitoringofallurbanlifeisthatsurgesofmovement,sentimentormarketdemandcanbe
sensedastheyoccur,allowingforresponsestobemadeinstantly(Kitchin,2014).Equally,in
thecontextofsecurity,thehopeisapost-Cartesianone,thatthreatscanbesensedand
acteduponbeforetheyareempiricallyknown(Amoore,2013).Themonitoringof
movementovertimeallowsasenseof‘normal’rhythmtoemerge,andconsequentlythe
capacitytodetectabnormalmovement(‘arrhythmia’)orsuddenchangesinspeedof
movement.Stockmarkettickersofferanearlyexampleofatechnologygearedaroundthe
detectionofrhythm,focusedonpricemovementsratherthanonpricelevelsassuch
(Preda,2006).Yetubiqitiousdigitisationofsociallife–thecity,thehumanbody,thehome
13
–facilitatesanewattentiontothesensingofrhythm.Muchofthismonitoringand
reactivitytakesplacebeyondthelimitsofpublicdiscourseorsubjectiveconsciousness,
shapingtheworldthatisencounteredsubjectively(Hansen,2015).Alternatively,itenters
ourfieldofperceptionviatheinterfaceofdashboardsofvariouskinds,aparticularmodeof
representationthatseekstoinfluencedecision-makingwithoutissuingfactsorjudgements
(Mattern,2015).
Therhythmofarterialpulse
Scientificandmedicalinterestinarterialpulsehasalwaysadvancedintandemwithtime-
measuringdevices(Ghasemzadeh&Zafari,2011).Theearliestknownattempttomeasure
arterialpulseisthatofHerophilus(335-280BC),whomeasureditusingawaterclockknown
asthe‘clepsydra’.Galileo’sinventionofthependulumintheearly17thcenturywas
followedbytheinventionofthepulsilogybySantorioSanctorius,apendulumthatcouldbe
adjustedtomatchpulserate.Thecontemporaryapproachtoarterialpulsemeasurementis
creditedtoJohnFloyercirca1707-10,whotookadvantageofadvancesinthedesignof
clockstointroducethemedicalpracticeofcountingthenumberofheart-beatsinasingle
minute.Whilepulseoffersawayofsensingthebody’srhythm,whichmayormaynotbe
subjectedtoanyformalmeasureintermsof‘homogeneoustime’,itisworthrecognising
thatitcannotberepresentedobjectively,withoutsomestandardisednotionoftime
(typicallyminutes)withwhichtocompareit.
Thereisstillcontroversyamongstmedicalresearchersastowhatexactlydeterminesheart-
rate,thoughthemostsignificantfactorisrespiration(Billman,2011).Itincreasesduring
inhalationanddecreasesduringexpiration,andacceleratesduringtimesofaccelerated
inhalationsuchasexercise.Varioussocialandphysicalcuescaninfluenceheart-rate,for
instancethespeedofapieceofmusic(Larsen&Galletly,2006).Fromamedical
perspective,themostsignificanttraitofahumanheart-rateisnotitslevelatanyone
moment,butitscapacitytovary:lowratesofheart-ratevariabilityareanindicatorofpoor
health,whilehigh-ratesofheart-ratevariabilityindicatehigherfitnesslevels.Butpulsealso
carriesamoreexistentiallysignificantmedicalstatus:itisthefirstthingthatissoughtin
14
distinguishingwhetheranapparentlyunconsciousbodyisaliveordead.Equally,pulse-
checkingisoneofthefirsttechniquesoffirstaidthatistaughttothenon-medicalspecialist,
suggestingthatarterialpulseiswhatgrantsthehumanbodyitsordinary,day-to-daystatus
asa‘living’organism.
Immediatelywemightnotecertainattributesofarterialpulsethatwouldresonatewiththe
cyberneticimaginaryofcontrolunderpost-Fordism.Firstly,arterialpulserespectsnolimits
oftimeandspace,andisanindicatorthatfunctions‘24/7’(Crary,2015).Theconditionof
humanbeingsin‘societiesofcontrol’,Deleuzeargues,isoneofconstant‘modulation’and
‘surfing’,neverbeingfinishedwithanything(Deleuze,1992).Arterialpulseissomethingthe
humanbodydoessolongasitisalive,regardlessofwhetheritisatwork,asleeporon
holiday.However,thescientificfocusonpulse-ratehasneverthelessbeenconfinedto
expertsandexpertinstitutionsuntilrelativelyrecently.Thestethoscope,datingbacktothe
early19thcentury,enabledheartstobelistenedtobydoctors,whilethefirstheart-rate
monitoringtechnology(ECG)wasdevelopedforhospitalsintheearly20thcentury.Butit
wasn’tuntil1983thatawireless(hencemobile)heart-ratemonitoringdevicewas
developed(Pantzar&Ruckenstein,2015).Thesubsequentmass-marketdevelopmentof
pulse-monitoringwristbandsandsmartwatchesrepresentsamajorstepinthe
amateurisationofpulse-monitoring,whichenablespulsetobecomenotonlyaneveryday
behaviouralphenomenon,butalsoaneverydayquantitativeindicator.Wearableand
wirelesspulsemonitorsarethereforevehiclesforthequantificationofeverydaylife.
Secondly,pulse-rateisawayinwhichbodiescan‘speak’withoutbeingmediatedby
language.Thisquestfornon-semioticorpost-representationalmodesofcommunication
hasbeendubbedthe‘declineofsymbolicefficiency’,andanalysedasakeyfeatureofpost-
Fordistmodesofmanagementandregulation(Dean,2009;Andrejevic,2013).Yetthe
interestinpulseasthelanguageofthebody(asopposedtothesubject)hasamuchlonger
history.Whenconsideringhowtheintensityofotherpeople’spleasuremightmonitoredin
autilitariansociety,Benthamproposedtwopossiblesolutions(McReynolds,1968).Thefirst
wastousemoneyasaproxy(ontheassumptionthatconsumerswouldspendmoneyin
directproportiontotheutilitythatresulted)buttheotherwasthatpulse-ratemightserve
asanindicatorofaffectivestates.Pulse-ratewasoneofvariousphysicalsymptomsthat
15
physiologistsofthelate19thcenturyfocusedon,inseekingtounderstandhowphysicallaws
ofenergyandentropyaffectedthehumanbody,especiallythelabouringbody(Rabinbach,
1992;Danziger,1997).Theinterestinpulsesuggestedaproto-cyberneticimaginary,in
whichthebodycontaineditsownmechanicalrhythmsthatcouldbebroughtintodialogue
withthoseofexperimentalequipment.Bythesametoken,itsuggestsadesiretoget
aroundthereportsofthesubject(Davies,2017).
Whatthebodyisabletoauthoritativelycommunicateviasignssuchasarterialpulseis“how
Iamrightnow”.Theself-conscioussubjectislesstrustworthyonthismatter,becauseshe
hasatendencytobringinbroaderreflectionsonhowthingsaregenerallyorhavebeen
overtime.Thecyborgbody,however,cannothelpbutprovideaccuratedataonitspresent
state.Itdoessoina‘pre-cognitive’form,thattherebyavoidsbeingmediatedbysemiotic
andculturalrepresentations,andwhichpotentiallybi-passessubjectiveconsciousness
altogether(Hansen,2015).
Thirdly,arterialpulseofferstheprospectofaquantitythatispriortomeasure,and
thereforeapost-hegemonicmodeofcontrol.PulseiswhatLefebvretermsa‘natural’
rhythm,ratherthana‘rational’one,thoughpulse-rateisonlydiscernibleoncepulseis
judgedusingclocktime.Whereclocktimebeatsatasteadyspeed,withthetickingofthe
secondhand,andtheslowmovingoftheminuteandhourhands,thespeedofpulse
changesdependingoncircumstances.Itoffersarhythmthatadjuststoactivityand
environment,speedingupduringtimesofanxietyorstress,andslowingdownduringtimes
ofrelaxation.Arterialpulsesignifiesamodeofnon-disciplinarytemporalitythatis
contingentuponthesituation.Inaworldwherearterialpulsewasamoreimportantrhythm
thanclocks,thegoalwouldnotbepunctuality(asinsocietiesofdiscipline)buteurhythmia,
inwhichbodyspeediswellsynchronisedwithenvironmentalspeed,risingandfalling
appropriately.Thecapacityofpulse-ratetovaryaccordingtocircumstancesisitskey
attribute.Thatsaid,thepossibilityofpule-ratebeingrepresentedasanumberdoesrequire
that(inLefebvre’sterms)naturalrhythmbemarriedtorationalrhythm,suchthatthe
numberofbodilybeatsiscomparedtothenumberofmechanicalseconds.Thepulse-rate
monitoristhereforebothasensingdeviceandameasuringdevice.
16
Ifcompetitivesportoffersadefiningsymbolofmeasuredphysicalquantification(witha
whistlebeingblown,goalsbeingawarded),thenjoggingofferstheequivalentfor
unmeasuredquantification,wherebythebodyentersastateofflow,andthepassageof
timebecomesforgotten.Theformerhasanexplicittelosandevaluativebenchmarkwhich
theplayersmustkeepinmind,whereasthepurposeofthelatteristoachievesomestateof
health-enhancing,unconsciousbodilyrhythm,acentralcomponentofwhichisaccelerated
respirationandpulse-rate.Theadditionofwearabletechnologiesmakesvisibleaspectsofa
jogthatwouldotherwiseremainoutsideofcognition(suchasstepstaken,aswellasheart
rate).Yetitalsoallowsforfurthertechnicalaugmentations,suchastheselectionofa
musicalplaylistthatissynchronisedwithspeedandpulse,somethingthattheSpotifymusic-
streamingserviceoffers.
Arterialpulseisatangible,quantifiablesignofhowthebodyis(orisnot)adjustingtoits
immediatesituation,rightnow.Butbecauseitishasthisstatusasa24/7,cybernetic,post-
disciplinaryindicator,theterm‘pulse’hasalsotakenonametaphoricalstatuswhichimplies
datathatiscollectedandsharedinreal-time,forinstancevia‘smartcity’infrastructures.It
isherethatwemightspeakof‘pulse’moreasideology,inasmuchastheideapromotesthe
logicofcontrol.Inparticular,itpromotesanidealofbodiessoeurhythmicallyimmersedin
theirsituationsastolosetrackofCartesiancoordinatesoftimeandspace-theworker,for
example,whohasachievedsuchastateofflowthattheyhaveforgottentoleavethe
workplaceorceasedtonoticeanydistinctionbetween‘work’and‘leisure’.Theideologyof
‘pulse’seeksnotonlytheprivatisationofspace,butalsotheprivatisationoftime,where
publicmeasuresoftimearewithdrawn.ThisisincontrasttoFordism,wherethefactoryis
privatelyowned,butitsroutines(9-5,lunch-break,cigarettebreaketc)arenot.Thenagain,
measuredoesnotentirelydisappearfrompost-Fordistcontexts:ifpulseistobe
representedas‘pulse-rate’,thenanobserver(anexperimenter,doctor,manager,governor
etc)inpossessionofaclockisrequired.Thustheidealofpulsetacitlyimpliesapanoptical
powerstructure,inwhichthemajorityarelostin‘natural’rhythms,whileaminority
observethesevia‘rational’ones.Asinthecaseofthetherapyroom,onepartycannotsee
theclock,buttheotheronecan.
17
Controllingpulse
Inowwanttoturntotwoempiricalexamplesoftechnologieswhicharedesignedaround
thesensingand/orcontrollingofpulse.Aswillbecomeclear,oneoftheseisfocusedon
arterialpulseinaliteralsense,thoughnottomeasurepulse-rate;theotherisfocusedon
‘pulse’inthemetaphoricalsense,ofanemergentsocialrhythmthat(asLefebvreputsit)
canbesensedfromthe‘inside’.Byexploring‘pulse’inthesetwowayssimultaneously,we
canthinkabouthow‘natural’oremergentrhythmcanbesensedfrombothwithinand
withoutthebodyitself.Thesignificanceofpulseasamatterofconcern(whethermedically,
economicallyorwhatever)isthatitprovidesawayofknowingorfeelinghowwelladapted
abodyistoitsenvironment.Initsmetaphoricalsense,itcomestosignifyseeminglynatural
rhythmsoftheenvironment(workplace,cityetc)itself.
Boththesecasesareimplicitlygearedaroundmanagerialagendas,bethatthemanagement
oftheselforoftheorganisation.Botharetechnologiesofcontrol,whichtake‘pulse’(either
literallyormetaphorically)asthatwhichneedstobecontrolled.Yetneitherisnecessarily
orientedtowardsperformanceoptimisationordiscipline,evenifthatisanimplicitor
backgroundagenda.Toresearchthesetwocases,Iconductedinterviewswiththe
entrepreneursanddesignerswhowereresponsibleforconceivingofanddevelopingthe
technologies.Theyarebothatarelativelyearlystageofdevelopment,andonlyrecently
arrivedonthemarket.Contactwiththeseintervieweeswasestablishedbycoldemailing,
andinterviewsconductedinlate2015andearly2016,eitherinpersonintheinterviewee’s
officeorviaSkype.Iwillintroducetheminturn,andthenexploresomeofthecommon
themesthatemerge.
Cases
Thefirstcase,Moodbox,isanewtechnology,whicharrivedonthemarketin2012,that
aimstomonitoremployeeengagementonaday-to-daybasis.1Itdoesthisprincipally
throughtwoinstruments:aninterfacewhichemployeesareinvitedtointeractwithasthey
leavework,andadashboarddisplayprovidingmanagers(andpotentiallyemployees)with
1Namesofcasestudieshavebeenchanged
18
anindicatorofresponsesovertime.Theinterfaceisasmallboxthatattachestothewall,
displayingaredandagreenbuttonunderthequestion"Howwasyourday?”.Asthe
employeeleaveswork,theypressoneofthesetosignalpositiveornegativeemotions,and
astheydosolightsflashupindicatingtheaggregateofothers’responses.Theseinterfaces
sendthedatatoacentralrepository,fromwheretheyaredisplayedingraphicalformfor
thebenefitofmanagers.Theread-outofmoodiscalled‘TheDailyPulse’,whose
fluctuationscanthenbeseenoverseveraldaysandweeks.
SomesignificantdesignfeaturesofMoodboxareworthnotingaboutthistool.Firstly,it
takestheworkingdayasitstemporalunitofanalysis.Thedeveloperexplainedtomethat
‘daily’is“prettymuchtherhythmofacompany”;inLefebvre’sterms,itprovidesthe
‘rational’rhythmthattheninteractswith‘natural’rhythm.ThelegacyofFordismprovides
structuresthatpost-Fordistpracticescanexploit,atleastfromamanagerialperspective.Or,
toputthatanotherway,theproblemof‘control’remainslocatedwithinthetime-space
legaciesof‘discipline’.Secondly,theemployeedoesnotofferascorefortheirmood,but
simplyselectsoneoftwooptions:positiveornegative.Thiswasadeliberatedecisionbythe
designers,deliberatelyavoidedaneutraloption,therebyrequiringachoicetobemadeone
wayortheother.Thisreferredtoas“castingyourpulse”,implyingsomehybridof
democracy(asin‘casting’avote)andbehaviouralreflex.
Thirdly,thereisnowayinwhichthedevicecanavoidasingleemployeepressingabutton
repeatedly,whichmakesitunlikeasurveythataimsfor‘representativeness’.Iaskedthe
developeraboutthisproblem,buthedidn’tviewitasadefect,insteadoptingimplicitlyto
viewthedataasontologicalnotepistemological:
Yes,peoplecouldcheatbutnonetheless,maybethefactofthingsisthattherehas
beensomanypulses,thatisfactual…thekeythingisthatmetricisusefulforyouto
improve.
Finally,Moodboxmakesnoattempttocollectanyadditionaldatathatmighthelpexplain
whymoodwasrisingorfallingovertime.Asmyintervieweesaidtome,“sometimes
managementdoesn’tknowwhytheyarehavingaverygoodday,sometimestheyhaveto
19
researchit”.TouseHansen’sdichotomy,itcreatesaninfrastructureofsensationthatonly
subsequentlyisavailabletoperceptiononthepartofmanagement(Hansen,2015).My
intervieweereferredtotheDailyPulseasgeneratinga“brutalfact”thatwasthenavailable
tomanagementtograpplewith,butwithoutprovidinganycognitiveorinterpretive
assistancefordoingso.Thebrutalityofthis‘fact’derivesfromthewayitispresented
withoutanyapriorievaluativeframework(i.e.ameasure)withwhichtointerpretit:the
quantityofmoodhassimplychanged.
Thesecondcaseisawearabletechnology,Ripple,thatisstillindevelopmentphase.Ripple
isawrist-band,butunlikemanywearabletechnologiesitspurposeisnottocollectdatafor
thewearertothenview,somuchastostimulatethebodyinoneoftwodirections.
Influencedbyexperimentsonsocialinfluencesonheart-rate(forinstanceofthesynchingof
twolovers’heart-rates),Rippleprovideswhatthedeveloperscalla“mechanicalheart-beat”
thatthewearercanselectandwhichinfluencestheirownheart-rate.Thewrist-bandsits
directlyabovethearterialpulseonthewrist,andprovidesajust-noticeabledoublerhythm
ontotheinsideofthewristtowhichthewearer’sactualheart-beatisthenexpectedto
synch.Thisislikeatickingclock,butwhichisprivatelyexperiencedbyasingleindividualand
adjustabledependingoncircumstances.Thewearersetsthepaceoftherhythmby
caressingasmallblackdisconthewristband,movingtheirfingerinonedirectionfor‘speed
up’andtheoppositedirectionfor‘slowdown’.Thedesignprinciplebehindthisistoallow
thewearertochangethepaceoftheirRippleasunobtrusivelyaspossible,forinstance
whileinameeting.Researchonthetechnology(includingrandomisedcontroltrials)
confirmstothedevelopersthatthistechnologycanworkinalteringthepaceofheart-rate.
Rippleassumes,asperWilliamJames’stheoryofemotions,thatalteringphysiological
responsesisawaytoinfluencepsychologicalaffectivestates(James,1884).Oneofmy
intervieweesatRipplevolunteeredJames’stheorytomeinexplainingwhythetechnology
worked.Alteringone’spulse-ratemightthereforehavevarioususes.Itcouldcalmsomeone
downduringamomentofanxietyorstress,orhelpthemrelaxpriortogoingtobed.Orit
couldenergisethemlikecaffeine,immediatelyafterlunchorwhentheyfirstwakeup.I
askedoneintervieweeiftherewereanycompetitorsonthemarket,towhichsheonlyhalf-
jokinglyreplied‘coffee’.
20
Rippleinteractswithanapp,butnotsoastocollectandrepresentheart-rate,asvarious
wearabletechnologiesdo.Itdoesn’tseektoprovidemeasurementofanykind,forinstance
viaadashboardthatcantrackthebodyovertime.Thetechnologycangaugewhetheritisin
synchwiththeheart-rate,andtherebylearnswhatthewearer’srestingheart-rateis.The
userthenidentifiesarangeofdifferentratesaroundthat(whichcanbenamed‘jogging’or
‘pre-bed-time’or‘givingapresentation’etc)whichcanbeselectedviatheapp.Thewhole
purposeofthedeviceistograntcontroloverphysiologicalrhythm,ratherthantoachieve
measurementoftimeandspace.Thisisatechnologythatisnotsomuch‘pre-cognitive’(in
Hansen’sphrase)as‘non-cognitive’:itexistspurelyasaninterfacebetweenbodyand
environment,thatoffersthewearersomeadditionalcontrol,butnotanyempirical
representation.Whilesuchatechnologymaybeusefulinsupportingthewearerin
situationswheretheyneedtoperformorimprove,itmightequallybeusefulinhelping
themwinddownfromthesesituationsorescapethem.
Controlthrough‘internalmeasure’
Thesecasesbothpresentexamplesoftechnologiesof‘control’,inasmuchastheyseekto
renderindividuals(orinRipple’scase,selves)manageableinsomethingcloseto‘real-time’.
Buttherearesomeveryobviousdifferencesbetweentheirtechnicalcapabilitiesand
strategicfunctions.Moodboxisatoolofmonitoringandsubsequentrepresentation,which
collects‘pulse’onlyinthemetaphoricalsenseofanunconscious,always-ondatapoint.
Rippleisaninterfacebetweentheconscioussubjectandtheirphysiologywhichseeksto
influencethepaceofthebody,inthehopeofenhancingsomeidealofsubjective
autonomy.Yet‘pulse’isentirelyliteralinthisexample.However,inordertoconsiderhow
‘pulse’worksasanidealandaphysicalfeatureofcontemporarypost-Fordistcontrol,Iwant
toidentifysomecommonfeaturesofthesetechnologies.Bydoingso,Ihopetoindicate
somethingofhowmanagementmightworkinpost-hegemonicorwhatLazzaratoterms
‘asemiotic’forms(Lazzarato,2014).
Thefirstissuetoconsideristheroleofrhythmicsynchronisationthatisimpliedinthe
governanceofpulse.AswithadanceorLefebvre’sexampleofhorsedressage,these
technologiesdonotgoverntheindividualvianormsordiscipline,butneverthelessthey
21
providesomechoreographicrhythmtowhichtheindividualmightconform,perhaps
withoutevennoticingit.Moodboxdoesnotonlyfunctioninapanopticalfashiontoprovide
factstothemanager,butalsoprovidesdailyfeedbacktoemployeesastohowtheyare
‘fittingin’withthemoodoftheorganisation(i.e.after‘castingtheirpulse’theythenseea
displaysignallingcollectivemoodthatday).Thedeveloperexplainedtomethat:
Whatwethinkisthatwhenyougoandpressredandyouseethateverybody’s
pressinggreen,hopethatthatisalsogoingtotriggerathinkingprocess.Afterwhich
pointareyoupartoftheproblem?
Anunhappyemployeemight,overtime,cometoappearlikethey’re‘outofstep’(tousean
aptchoreographicmetaphor)withtherestofthecompany.Thisissomethingthatemerges
andwhichtheydiscover,ratherthansomethingwhichisjudgedordecidedbymanagement
viaevaluation,butitisneverthelessexclusionary.
ThequestionofsynchronisationismoreexplicitinthecaseofRipple,wherethechallenge
ofachievingeurhythmiaoperatesontwolevels.Thetechnologyisinspiredbythepotential
problemofanindividualwhosepulseisnotoperatingatthepacebestsuitedtotheir
environment.Eitheritisfasterthantheywouldlike,andmakingthemfeelanxiousor
overstimulated;oritisslowerthantheywouldlike,andmakingthemfeeldrowsyor
unproductive.Thepurposeofthetechnologyistoachievegreatersynchronisationbetween
subjectandworld,butitpursuesthisbyachievingsynchronisationbetween‘mechanical
heart-rate’and‘naturalheart-rate’,creatingaunifiedtechno-somaticrhythm.Herethe
individualisseekingtomanagethemselves,andthereisnopanopticalstructureatworkat
all(nodataisbeingcollectedorshared).However,thereisneverthelessateleologyof
conformityatwork,albeitnotonethatisgeneratedbyexternally-bindingorpublicnorms.It
isaconformitytoroutinesthatareemergent,contingentandprivate,asopposedtothose
thatcharacteriseFordistmanagementwhicharenormativeandpublic.
Connectedtothistechnicalambitionofsynchronicityofindividual,mechanicalandsocial
rhythmisasecondcommonfeatureofMoodboxandRipplethatdeservesrecognising.This
isthewaythattheyarecalibratedaroundtheexistingrhythmoftheuser,deliberately
22
avoidingemployingmeasuresorbenchmarksfromotherorganisations,individuals,experts
orthepublicatlarge.Instead,itisvariationsinpulsethatarebeingcontrolledinbothcases.
Justasheart-ratevariabilityisamoreimportantindicatorofhealththanactualheart-rate,
sothetechnologiesbeingstudiedherebothaimtodetectorinfluencechangesinrhythm
ratherthantoofferajudgementofrhythm.
ThedeveloperofMoodboxwasunconcernedwiththeepistemologicaldimensionofthe
technology.Ashesaidinourinterview:
Wemightacceptthatthereisascopeforinaccuracyinourmetricbutitisvery
consistentthatitisagoodguidetoimproveyourworkplace.
ThewayMoodbox’sDailyPulseisrepresentedinadashboardisnotintermsofany
externallyconsistentscale,butinhowfarfluctuationshavedivergedfromthatspecific
organisation’snorm.Equally,Rippleestablishestherestingheart-rateofthewearer,and
thenallowsthemtoselecttheirownpersonallyusefulpulse-ratesinrelationtothat.The
ideaofnormalityisinfluentialhere,butitisanemergentoneorwhatLefebvrecharacterise
asan“internalmeasure”(Lefebvre,2013:87).
Thisnotionofan‘internalmeasure’isintriguingandapparentlyoxymoronic.Itimpliesa
formofquantitativejudgement,butwithoutthepossibilityofcomparison,renderingit
utterlyunlikeastandardmeasure.Inthatsense,itclosertoanaestheticjudgementthanto
anempiricalone.AsinKant’saesthetics,itjudgestheparticularinitsparticularity,creating
astandardforothersintheprocess,ratherthanadoptingastandardbywhichtocarryout
judgement(Kant,2007).Itascendsfromtheparticulartothegeneral,whileempirical
judgement(likeameasuredevaluation)movesintheoppositedirection.Butunlikean
aestheticjudgement,itisexpressednumerically,ratherasadancerorconductormightsay
“one,two,one,two”intimetoapieceofmusic.Suchjudgementisrootedinthefeelofthe
immediatesituation,notinanyexternalstandardthatisbroughttobear.
Conclusion:tacticsbecomestrategies
23
Thecentraldilemmaofpost-Fordismisofhowtoachieveco-operation,conformityand
consent,butwithoutresorttojuridical,disciplinarytechniquesofpower,whichmight
damagethe‘creative’andaffectivevaluethatisprivilegedunderpost-Fordistcapitalism.
Thiscanproducesomeseeminglyparadoxicalformsofgovernanceandmanagement,such
asforinstancetheemploymentofanti-capitalistrhetoricsintheserviceofcapitalism
(Boltanski&Chiapello,2006),arepresentationofworkas‘leisure’andofsociallifeasa
formof‘work’.Theboundariesofthe‘economic’seemtodissolve,yetthereisstillaneed
foreconomicrationalitytodominate,iforganisationsaretosurviveincompetitive
economicconditionssuchasthoseofcapitalism.Giventhis,agradualpermeationof
workinglifebyculturalvaluecanquiteeasilyflipintoitsopposite,aradicalisedTaylorism
whereeconomiclifebecomesreducedtopost-humanassemblagesofmachinesandbodies,
underconditionsofdigitalsurveillance(Lazzarato,2014).Theradicaloptimismofsome
visionsofpost-Fordism(inwhichsocietyitselfbecomesthesourceofallvalue)can,witha
modicumoftechnologicalenhancement,swiftlyturnintosomethingmorefrightening,
whereallofsocietybecomespermeatedbyprivatemanagement.
Byfocusingontherhythmofpulse-rate–understoodbothinitssomaticandmetaphorical
sense–thispaperhasexploredcontemporarytechniquesofpowerwhichcarveapath
betweenthemostoptimisticandmostpessimisticanalysesofpost-Fordism.Post-Fordismis
characterisedbya‘crisisofmeasure’,thoughnotacrisisofquantificationnecessarily.The
affordancesofsensorydevicesanddataanalyticsaretoderivewhatLefebvreterms
“internalmeasures”fromdatathatisconstantlyaccumulatinginclosetoreal-time.One
thingthatdistinguishesan‘internalmeasure’isthatitexistsnecessarilyintime.Itrefersto
thefeelofrhythm,thatemergesnaturallyfromthebodyorsocialcontext,likeapulse-rate.
Ahealthypulse-rateisonethatisinsynchwithitssituation,butalsowhichvariesin
appropriateandrevealingwaysintime.Heart-ratevariabilityisausefulindicatorofhealth,
buttherateatanyonetimeisnotausefulfact.
Thiseurhythmicidealisofco-operation,butwithoutconventionorconvenor;of
quantificationbutwithoutmeasure.Ittakesthepracticesandbehavioursthatwere
traditionallyviewedasbeyondmanagement,andseekstoinfluencethemintosome
conformitywitheachother,thoughnotintoconformitywithadisciplinarynorm.Politically
24
speaking,thischallengesassumptionsabouttechniquesofpowerandalsoaboutthoseof
resistance.InDeCerteau’sfamousdistinctionbetween‘strategies’and‘tactics’,domination
operatesthroughtheseparationofdiscretespaces,whichthencometosignifydifferent
times.Thisiswhatheterms‘strategies’,resonatingwithFordistanddisciplinarypower,and
the‘homogeneoustime’producedbyclocks(DeCerteau,1988:36).Resistancetothis
occursthrough‘tactics’,whichexploitcontingentopportunitiesforemergentpracticesof
play,jokes,conversationandpranks,inthosemomentsandmarginalspacesthatevade
strategicoversight.‘Tactics’areopportunistic.
Post-Fordistsocietiesofcontrolarenolongerdominatedbyexplicit‘strategies’,ofthe
planned,rationalformdescribedbyDeCerteau.Theidealofcontrolistoinsinuatepower
into‘tactics’instead,penetratingostensiblycontingentandemergentrhythmsofeveryday
life,andco-optingthemtowardsmanagerialgoals.Butwhatuseorvalueisthereina
‘tactic’ifitthereisno‘strategy’toplaytricksonortohidefrom?Whetherthisbe
understoodpessimisticallyoroptimistically,wemightthereforeconcludethatweare
witnessingaconvergenceof‘tactics’and‘strategies’,producinganidealof‘internally
measured’eurhythmiaofhumanandnon-humanpulse.Like‘tactics’,thiscanonlybe
understoodasatemporalphenomenon;butlike‘strategies’,itisrootedinsurveillance
capacities.Thequestioniswhatmodeofresistanceorpoliticsliesdormantintheideaof
arrhythmia,thebodyormachinethatdoesnot,cannotorwillnotconvergewiththepulse-
rateofitsenvironment.
25
References
Amin,A.(2011).Post-Fordism:AReader.JohnWiley&Sons.
Amoore,L.(2013).ThePoliticsofPossibility:RiskandSecurityBeyondProbability.Duke
UniversityPress.
Andrejevic,M.(2013).InfoGlut:HowTooMuchInformationIsChangingtheWayWeThink
andKnow.Routledge.
Arvidsson,A.(2006).Brands:MeaningandValueinMediaCulture.Routledge.
Arvidsson,A.(2011).GeneralSentiment:howvalueandaffectconvergeintheinformation
economy.TheSociologicalReview,59(s2),39–59.
Arvidsson,A.,&Peitersen,N.(2013).TheEthicalEconomy:RebuildingValueAftertheCrisis.
ColumbiaUniversityPress.
Bergson,H.(2002).KeyWritings.(K.AnsellPearson&J.Mullarkey,Eds.).London:
Bloomsbury.
Billman,G.E.(2011).HeartRateVariability–AHistoricalPerspective.Frontiersin
Physiology,2.
Boltanski,L.,&Chiapello,E.(2007).TheNewSpiritofCapitalism.London:Verso.
Boltanski,L.,&Thévenot,L.(2006).OnJustification:EconomiesofWorth.Princeton:
PrincetonUniversityPress.
Carruthers,B.G.,&WendyNelsonEspeland.(1991).AccountingforRationality:Double-
EntryBookkeepingandtheRhetoricofEconomicRationality.TheAmericanJournalof
Sociology,97(1),31–69.
Certeau,M.de.(1988).ThePracticeofEverydayLife.(S.Rendall,Trans.).Universityof
CaliforniaPress.
Crary,J.(2013).24/7:LateCapitalismandtheEndsofSleep.VersoBooks.
Crawford,R.(1980).Healthismandthemedicalizationofeverydaylife.InternationalJournal
ofHealthServices:Planning,Administration,Evaluation,10(3),365–388.
Crawford,K.,Lingel,J.,&Karppi,T.(2015).Ourmetrics,ourselves:Ahundredyearsofself-
trackingfromtheweightscaletothewristwearabledevice.EuropeanJournalof
CulturalStudies,18(4–5),479–496.
Danziger,K.(1994).ConstructingtheSubject:HistoricalOriginsofPsychologicalResearch.
CambridgeUniversityPress.
26
Davies,W.(2014).TheLimitsofNeoliberalism:Authority,SovereigntyandtheLogicof
Competition.SAGE.
Davies,W.(2017).ThePoliticsofSilentCitizenship:psychologicalgovernmentandthe‘facts’
ofhappiness.InPykett,J.etal.(eds.)(2017).PsychologicalGovernanceandPublic
Policy:GoverningtheMind,BrainandBehaviour.Abingdon:Routledge.
Dean,J.(2009).DemocracyandOtherNeoliberalFantasies:CommunicativeCapitalismand
LeftPolitics.DukeUniversityPress.
Deleuze,G.(1992).Postscriptonthesocietiesofcontrol.October,59,3–7.
Didžiokaitė,G.,Saukko,P.,&Greiffenhagen,C.(2017).Themundaneexperienceof
everydaycalorietrackers:BeyondthemetaphorofQuantifiedSelf.NewMedia&
Society,
Espeland,W.N.,&Stevens,M.L.(1998).CommensurationasaSocialProcess.Annual
ReviewofSociology,24(1),313–343.
Frank,T.(1997).TheConquestofCool:BusinessCulture,Counterculture,andtheRiseofHip
Consumerism.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Franklin,S.(2015).Control:DigitalityasCulturalLogic.MITPress.
Ghasemzadeh,N.,&Zafari,A.M.(2011).ABriefJourneyintotheHistoryoftheArterial
Pulse.CardiologyResearchandPractice,2011,1–14.
Gilmore,J.N.(2015).Everywear:Thequantifiedselfandwearablefitnesstechnologies.New
Media&Society,1461444815588768.
Gramsci,A.,(2011).PrisonNotebooks.ColumbiaUniversityPress.
Hansen,M.B.N.(2015).Feed-Forward:OnTheFutureOfTwenty-First-CenturyMedia.
Chicago ;London:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Hardt,M.&Negri,A.(2001).Empire.Cambridge,Mass:HarvardUniversityPress
Hardt,M.,&Negri,A.(2005).Multitude:WarandDemocracyintheAgeofEmpire.London:
HamishHamilton.
James,W.(1884).WhatisanEmotion.Mind,9(34),188–205.
Jessop,B.(2002).TheFutureofCapitalistState.Oxford:Polity.
Kant,I.(2007).CritiqueofJudgement.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Kitchin,R.(2014).Thereal-timecity?Bigdataandsmarturbanism.GeoJournal,79(1),1–14.
Larsen,P.D.,&Galletly,D.C.(2006).Thesoundofsilenceismusictotheheart.Heart,
92(4),433–434.
27
Lash,S.(2007).PowerafterHegemony:CulturalStudiesinMutation?Theory,Culture&
Society,24(3),55–78.
Lazzarato,M.(2014).SignsandMachines:CapitalismandtheProductionofSubjectivity.
Semiotext(e).
Lefebvre,H.(2013).Rhythmanalysis:Space,TimeandEverydayLife.BloomsburyPublishing.
Lupton,D.(2012).M-healthandhealthpromotion:Thedigitalcyborgandsurveillance
society.SocialTheory&Health,10(3),229–244.
Lupton,D.(2013).Quantifyingthebody:monitoringandmeasuringhealthintheageof
mHealthtechnologies.CriticalPublicHealth,23(4),393–403.
Lupton,D.(2016).TheQuantifiedSelf.London:Wiley
Mattern,S.(2015).MissionControl:AHistoryoftheUrbanDashboard.Places,March2015.
https://placesjournal.org/article/mission-control-a-history-of-the-urban-dashboard/
(accessedJuly2017)
Maturo,A.(2014).Fatism,self-monitoringandthepursuitofhealthinessinthetimeof
technologicalsolutionism.ItalianSociologicalReview,4(2),157.
MCGILLIVRAY*,D.(2005a).Fitter,happier,moreproductive:Governingworkingbodies
throughwellness.CultureandOrganization,11(2),125–138.
McGillivray,D.(2005b).GoverningWorkingBodiesThroughLeisure.LeisureSciences,27(4),
315–330.
McReynolds,P.(1968).ThemotivationalpsychologyofJeremyBentham:II.Effortstoward
quantificationandclassification.JournaloftheHistoryoftheBehavioralSciences,4(4),
349–364.
Moore,P.(2014).TrackingBodies,the“quantifiedself”andthecorporealturn.InB.Cohen
&M.Watson(Eds.),TheInternationalPoliticalEconomyofProduction.Cheltenham:
EdwardElgar.
Moore,P.,&Robinson,A.(2015).Thequantifiedself:Whatcountsintheneoliberal
workplace.NewMedia&Society.
Munro,L.(2000).Non-DisciplinaryPowerandtheNetworkSociety.Organization,7(4),679–
695.
Pantzar,M.,&Ruckenstein,M.(2015).Theheartofeverydayanalytics:emotional,material
andpracticalextensionsinself-trackingmarket.ConsumptionMarkets&Culture,
18(1),92–109.
28
Pink,S.,Sumartojo,S.,Lupton,D.,&HeyesLaBond,C.(2017).Mundanedata:Theroutines,
contingenciesandaccomplishmentsofdigitalliving.BigData&Society,4(1).
Poovey,M.(1998).AHistoryoftheModernFact:ProblemsofKnowledgeintheSciencesof
WealthandSociety.UniversityofChicagoPress.
Rabinbach,A.(1992).TheHumanMotor:Energy,Fatigue,andtheOriginsofModernity.
UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Sanders,R.(2017).Self-trackingintheDigitalEra:Biopower,Patriarchy,andtheNew
BiometricBodyProjects.Body&Society,23(1),36–63.
Savage,M.,&Burrows,R.(2007).TheComingCrisisofEmpiricalSociology.Sociology,41(5),
885–899.
Schüll,N.D.(2012).AddictionbyDesign:MachineGamblinginLasVegas.Princeton
UniversityPress.
Schull,N.D.(2017).KeepingTrack:PersonalInformatics,Self-regulationandData-driven
Life.NewYork:Farrar,Straus&Giroux
Smith,G.J.D.(2016).Surveillance,DataandEmbodimentOntheWorkofBeingWatched.
Body&Society,22(2),108–139.
Stark,D.(2009).TheSenseofDissonance:AccountsofWorthinEconomicLife.Princeton,
N.J:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Thrift,N.(2008).TheMaterialPracticesofGlamour.JournalofCulturalEconomy,1(1),9–23.
Thrift,N.J.(2005).KnowingCapitalism.London:SAGEPublications.
Till,C.(2014).ExerciseasLabour:QuantifiedSelfandtheTransformationofExerciseinto
Labour.Societies,4(3),446–462.
Virno,P.(2004).AGrammaroftheMultitude:ForanAnalysisofContemporaryFormsof
Life.LosAngeles,Calif:Semiotext(e).
Zoller,H.M.(2003).WorkingOutManagerialisminWorkplaceHealthPromotion.
ManagementCommunicationQuarterly,17(2),171–205.