@VersoBooks and his selfie pic.twitter.com/uJtkdVSIHT
– Will Davies (@davies_will) July 9, 2015
Clive Barnett – new paper on segmentation practices & policy
My colleague Clive Barnett has blogged about a new paper he has coming out with Nick Mahoney in Policy and Politics concerning segmentation methods for marking practices and how these are used in the public and ‘third’ sectors.
Clive says, on his blog:
This paper seeks to open up some interpretative space for exploring what is going on when marketing practices get used in non-commercial sectors, without presuming in advance that what is going on is something to be called ‘neoliberalism’.
I find the paper interesting not only for this reason, but also because when preparing my article “Memory Programmes” I briefly looked into segmentation systems (like MOSAIC and Tapestry) when looking at supermarket loyalty card schemes like Tesco’s ‘Clubcard’ – and the sorts of (monitoring/ surveillance) apparatus they construct.
As Clive and his co-author argue, there is:
a shared rationale underlying the strategic use of segmentation methodologies. First, across these varied fields, segmentation methods are used to generate relatively stable images of public attitudes and values. Second, these images are used to inform strategies that seek to either change these dispositions or to mobilise them in support of new behaviours.
This stabilising of categories of attitude and value that can then be used as a parameter in/with a dataset that is continually interrogated and processed in order to attempt to gain ‘insights’ that may influence behaviour. I argued in my article that:
The geographical imaginary Clubcard invokes is of populations of consumers, segmented by lifestyle preferences and socio-economic factors, distributed and delimited (or ‘bordered’) through particular categorisations of space. The consumer is thus enrolled into an industrial system that retains habits of consumption in significant detail, both at an individual and collective scale, and operates on that historiography in order to influence prospective future habits.
In addressing the public sector use of segmentation Clive and Nick Mahoney argue that
the configuration of fields of agency should be the core focus of further research focussed on the critical evaluation of the deployment of ‘dividing practices’ such as segmentation methods
I think this call probably stands for the commercial use of segmentation too…
“The Computer Girls”
“The Computer Girls,” a 1967 Cosmopolitan piece about a weird new field, programming, that was dominated by women. pic.twitter.com/juZMBOqAdK
– Clive Thompson (@pomeranian99) July 8, 2015
“Love where you live” and other lies of gentrification, by Oli Mould
Over on Open Democracy, Oli Mould has a very forthright piece concerning the ethics (or lack thereof) of gentrification.
‘Love where you live’, and other lies of gentrification
Let’s admit that gentrification is an immoral urban process. It is a deliberate policy of social engineering and needs to be tackled at its source.
Gentrify this! Flickr/Spacebahr. Some rights reserved.
The marketing mantra of “love where you live” courses through the ongoing ‘redevelopment’ of the Heygate Estate in London’s Elephant and Castle into Trafalgar Place. The City Quays project in Greenwich offers “a private island in London to call your own”. Lillie Square, which will be built on the Earls Court site hawks “modern garden square living” where you can “dwell in luxury”. All these (and many more) are symptomatic of a language of disavowal. It denigrates existing residents and paints them as unworthy of their homes as they were. And it is, in essence, inhumane.
But it is just a small part of a sweeping narrative of cities needing to be developed and regenerated, into ever more profitable, consumerist and homogenous centres of middle-class spending. And in all of this, the incumbent residents and their communities are of no consequence. It is a narrative that stretches all the way from advertising-speak to broadsheet journalism.
Read the full article.
Repost> Call for applications: digital activist residency in Berlin, Oct + Nov 2015
The Tactical Tech collective have a call for applications for a residency later this year which looks great!
Tactical Tech is offering a residency in its offices in Berlin, Germany, for two months starting at the beginning of October 2015. The residency is designed to support activists from Latin America, Africa, Asia, Central Asia, the Caucasus or the Middle East, who utilise digital technologies extensively in their work.
This is part of a project launched by the Tactical Technology Collective and Reporters without Borders Germany, meant to strengthen Berlin as a hub for a creative community that can inspire change around the world. In parallel, Reporters Without Borders will host a residency for a journalist.
We are looking for an experienced digital activist interested in joining a small team working internationally on issues related to Tactical Tech’s current strategic priorities. This means you should be experienced in working in at least one of the following areas of activity :
- Understanding and exposing issues; using data, design and technology to help people understand and investigate systemic issues in their own societies. (Primary Tactical Tech project: Exposing the invisible.)
- The politics of data; understanding what it means to live in a ‘data society’, how we leave digital traces and what this means for the privacy of everyday users in different contexts. (Primary Tactical Tech project: Me and My Shadow)
- Digital security for human rights defenders and journalists; working practically to sustain freedom of expression in the digital sphere. (Primary Tactical Tech project: Security-in-a-box)
Reblog> to be invisible or not to be invisible: that is the power. or is it?
Over on her blog Visual / Method / Culture, Gillian Rose has written an interesting blogpost about the politics of ‘visibility’ online and the rendering visible of digital/electronic things and their infrastructures. She draws on some interesting work (that I didn’t know) by Shannon Mattern and Adam Rothstein.
This got me thinking about a couple of other related things, that compliment and provide further examples for Gillian’s argument…
Of course a big chunk of the early geographical fascination with all things web/internet was about visualisations and mappings as Dodge & Kitchin’s “Atlas of Cyberspace“ attests”¦ It also brings to mind the recent cases of the “right to be forgotten“ in search results, and the ways in which those with the means can render what they deem undesirable “invisible” – the corollary of which is the increasing practices of public ‘shaming’ [see this great essay by Ben Jackson in the LRB], and the repugnant exploit of “revenge porn”.
So the politics of visibility Gillian teases out – and perhaps, here, more the *in*visible than the visible – is refracted through existing politics of those that have (money, status and power and so the means to render themselves selectively visible) and those that do not – who increasingly find themselves visible to all sorts of agencies.
to be invisible or not to be invisible: that is the power. or is it?
I’ve been pondering the rhetoric of ‘invisibility’ that surrounds so much critical discussion of digital technologies, particularly those that intersect with our everyday lives: the software that ‘hides’ behind smartphone screens, for example, or the intangibility of the ‘cloud’ that stores our photos and our contacts, or the invisibility of digital infrastructure. As a both Shannon Mattern and Adam Rothstein have pointed out recently, it’s a rhetoric that’s also used to describe an awful lot of other kinds of infrastructure too at the moment.
read the whole blogpost.
JOB> 0.5 Research Fellow, The Automation of Everyday Life (UWE Bristol)
The Digital Cultures Research Centre is advertising for a part-time (0.5) Research Fellow to support a project led by Dr Patrick Crogan on ‘The Automation of Everyday Life’:
The Digital Cultures Research Centre is seeking a Research Fellow in Digital Cultures: The Automation of Everyday Life on a part time (50%) and fixed term basis until 31 August 2016.
From software agents, predictive systems and recommendation services, to robotics, drones, and artificial companions, automated text and design experiments, and on to the internet of things, the automation of choices, actions and production is already a crucial theme in the emergence of 21st century digital culture.
In this role you will play a key part in developing the DCRC’s research and knowledge exchange programme in the area of the automation of cultural production and practices.
You will engage with a significant expansion of DCRC activities in this rapidly emerging area. Working across the DCRC’s local community, through regional, national and international connections, the post holder will develop interdisciplinary dialogues and partnerships with researchers and digital producers on projects that address and/or experiment with critical or creative responses to the automation of everyday life. You will help to grow the DCRC network of media, arts, robotics and software researchers and practitioners around this area, supporting and initiating the development of proposals to a variety of external funding bodies.
You will assist on increased DCRC initiatives across this theme, taking a lead in co-ordination and organisational support of externally facing research and knowledge exchange activities with a view to maximising impact. In addition to developing and extending your own specific programme of research, you will be expected to publish at an international level. Acting as a member of the editorial team for the DCRC website, you will play an important part in the promotion and external communication of DCRC research.
As a candidate (I’m guessing) you should probably be theoretically informed and take a look at some of Bernard Stiegler’s recent work on automation (this is probably the impetus for the project). You should probably also take a look at the Pervasive Media Studio to get a sense of where the DCRC operates…
Here’s the full advert with the necessary instructions for application…
Book review forum on Andrew Barry’s Material Politics
I’m a bit late to this but… In the latest issue of Dialogues in Human Geography there is a book review forum on Andrew Barry’s Material Politics: Disputes Along the Pipeline. This book review forum follows on from an excellent ‘author meets interlocutors’ session at last year’s RGS-IBG annual conference.
The book itself is an interesting foray into thinking through the kinds of politics Barry was already moving towards in his Political Machines, and ties together a variegated assemblage of people, ideas, events and artefacts.
The contributions (which include one from my colleague Gail Davies) are thoughtful and provocative, ranging across the various intellectual terrains Barry addresses and I encourage people to read the whole forum. Unfortunately, this journal is behind the paywall and so access is limited.
Equipments of power: Reblog> Deleuze, Guattari, Foucault and Fourquet’s discussions of ‘Les équipements du pouvoir’, by @
Stuart Elden has blogged about Keith Harris‘ (no, not that one) work on excavating and translating some of the missing bits of the conversation published (in part) as Les équipements du pouvoir.
Stuart offers some interesting context and links to Harris’ excellent work – seems like an interesting piece for geographers, not least in relation to cities…
Deleuze, Guattari, Foucault and Fourquet’s discussions of ‘Les équipements du pouvoir’
Keith Harris has been saying a bit about Deleuze, Guattari, Foucault and Fourquet’s discussions of ‘Les équipements du pouvoir’. He first shared his reading notes on Guattari’s contributions to a discussion with Foucault and Fourquet; and has followed up today with a clarification on the initial publication details.
Keith links to my list of Foucault’s collaborative projects, which I think illustrates just how important this model of working was for him. The pieces in question were first published in Généalogie du capital: 1 Les équipements du pouvoir: villes, territoires et équipements collectifs, Recherches, No 13, December 1973; which was then reissued as François Fourquet and Lion Murard, Les équipements du pouvoir, Paris: Union Générales d’Éditions 10/18, 1976. The Recherches issue isn’t that easy to find today, but the 10/18 book is fairly widely available.
Read the full blogpost.
Reblog> Embracing interdisciplinarity
Really nice blogpost by Sam Merrill about interdisciplinarity over on his blog. I definitely identify with some of the experiences Sam relates, albeit in different institutional contexts…
Embracing interdisciplinarity
I recently read Matt Houlbrook’s excellent blog post, ‘on being a one trick historian’ (appropriately accompanied by The Smiths’ Stop Me If You Think You’ve Heard This One Before) and was struck by the particular resonance of some of his words.“It is not easy to turn new tricks in the world we inhabit. Starting from scratch is an uncomfortable experience – it means admitting our ignorance, addressing the reading we have not done, relying upon the kindness of academic strangers.
It takes time”
As Matt does elsewhere on his website, I tend to emphasise the mobility that has characterised my academic pathway to date and the benefits I believe it has brought my scholarly practice. This mobility extends beyond study and employment spells at different UK higher educations institutions, which depending on how strictly I define ‘spells’ ranges from between three and five universities, to also include periods of education and work in different national and cultural settings including at two universities in Germany and two in Australia. Most importantly, however, this mobility also pertains to the level of scholarly flexibility that I have tried to uphold through a willingness to cross academic borders and expose my research to the perspectives of new disciplines. This is reflected by the fact that in the last ten years I have spent time in archaeology and ancient history, heritage studies, cultural geography, urban studies, business, economics and tourism, and modern languages departments. I do not mean this list to sound conceited, not least because I have come across enough criticism and regularly grapple with the potential risks of this chosen path to know that it is not something that all would feel proud of or feel comfortable about.