February 21, 2006
Ana Viseu’s Sociotechnical Worlds:
The Visions and Realities of Bodynets
Imagine two cities separated by a river and connected only by boat. Now think of the changes that are brought about by the construction of a bridge; Transformations will be experienced in both cities. These transformations will, to a great extent, be caused simply by the appearance of the new artefact (bridge). But, the properties of the artefact will also influence the character of the changes. There is, for example, a great difference between a small wooden bridge that can only carry pedestrians and bicycles, and a steel bridge that is equipped for cars, trucks and trains, but not for pedestrians. The characteristics of the bridge will affect the two cities it connects. The contrary is also true, that is, the characteristics of the cities will affect the shape and use of the bridge. Before the actual building of the bridge, studies were done (hopefully) and, assumptions were made (certainly), regarding the characteristics and needs of the cities on both sides of the river.
What we see here is an example of mutual-shaping interaction. Much in the same way that the social (the two cities) is shaped by the technical (the bridge), the bridge is shaped by the cities it connects. This is true both of the processes of development and implementation of the technical artefact (the bridge).
However, it is also true that the identity of the elements/actors is not infinitely fluid or malleable. Technological artefacts have characteristics that need to be taken into account in this mutual shaping relationship. For instance, a bridge that is made for pedestrians may be used by bicycles, perhaps even cars, but certainly not by trains.
This same metaphor applies to bodynets. Bodynets are bodies networked for (potentially) continuous communication with the environment (humans or computers) through at least one wearable device—a body-worn computer that is always on, always ready and always accessible. Bodynets can be thought of as new bridges between individuals and the environment (constituted by humans & nonhumans, or things and non-things). As they (re)connect and mediate, they transform (and are transformed by) all elements involved in this interaction. Hence, these technological artefacts are not merely tools to be used, but active shapers of experience. A bodynet can be used, for instance, as a "reality mediator" (Mann 2001), that is, it can alter, by enhancing or diminishing, one’s perception of the world. Steve Mann’s Eyetap is perhaps the best example of this. The Eyetap transforms the eye into a camera and a screen where reality is projected. When the eye looks reality is recorded and then projected onto the eye itself. This allows all sorts of manipulations, for instance, it is possible to do retroactive recording!
Bodynets, these new bridges, also contain assumptions about that which they connect, and these assumptions affect their shape, the nature of their mediation, and the behaviors they enhance. Thus, these bodynets are not neutral or ‘transparent’ technological artefacts. In fact, all technologies have biases. In 1951 Harold Innis, in a ground-breaking book The Bias of Communication, argued that while stone (communication through stone) is biased towards space (it can not be easily transported), papyrus is biased towards time. Nowadays, it is frequently said that television is biased towards fragmentation and sound bites. What are the biases of bodynets?
The metaphor of bodynets as ‘bridges’ spells out the broader theoretical foundations of this study. It stresses the networked character of a (socio)technological project, and emphasizes the bi-directional influence that actors’ actions have. Finally, it also stresses the point that technologies are socially constructed and reflect the society that produces them; And that society, on the other hand, is shaped by its tools and cannot be understood without them (cf. Latour 1993; Castells 1996; Callon & Law 1997; Bijker 1995).
All technologies are sociotechnologies, they are constituted by technical and social elements, i.e., not only are they materializations of a given view of society and behavior, they also enhance or constrain social dynamics. A bodynet that is equipped only with a transmitter allows its user to transmit data, but not receive it. If this transmitter is controlled by a third party, then the user has no control over the data flow. If the bodynet is equipped with a transceiver and is controlled by the user, then the user is able to control every piece of information that enters, and leaves, his/her personal space. In a sense we can say that the way a certain technology is, that is, its present shape, shows us the result of the struggle between different actors (Latour 1991). [...]
[via nicolas on pasta and vinegar]
Posted by jo at February 21, 2006 12:04 PM
