I’ve returned from the 2012 FYEO conference in Brussels full
of fresh ideas and impetus. Lots to take away, but an overriding impression is
the need for more social understanding of privacy. While we often fixate on
policy, regulatory and technical solutions to privacy (and these are all useful
discussion and endeavours), I was more struck by the ways in which privacy is
embedded in everyday life and the ways in which the “personal is political”, to
borrow the feminist adage.
Day 1 saw a number of ethnographic and qualitative
approaches that totally skewed public/private divisions by means of
highlighting the ways in which may be surveilled in the domestic sphere, yet
enjoy anonymity in public. My own panel on commodification (along with Rob Heyman,
Claudia Diaz, Vincent Toubiana, and ably chaired by Jo Pierson and summarised
by Ike Picone) accounted for changes in advertising. My own presentation (slides
on the right-hand-side) focused on changes in the character of advertising,).
This was a philosophical discussion on how the function of advertising has
developed from attempts to fix the “being” of things (items, objects,
experience and social processes). The latter part of my talk addressed the move
away from representation in critical theory to political economy approaches
(audience-as-commodity), progressing to posit a Whiteheadian and ‘event’-based
take on advertising that sees fleeting arrangements, aggregation,
disaggregation and advertising that is of a temporary character as we negotiate
the heterogeneous web.
Day 2 saw some fascinating talks beginning with computer
scientists and tech folk. What surprised me was their call for a broader and
more holistic approach to privacy. This theme continued into the second panel
that clearly laid out the need for a social constructionist account of privacy,
particularly in relation to social over institutional/paternalistic norms. This
progressed to think about privacy in terms of power and what struck me most were
the clear connections to classical media and cultural studies, and the need to
better understand the ‘micropolitics’ of everyday life. This situates privacy,
commodification of users’ traces and sociality within a wider much field that
historically has included power, gender, race and mainstays of cultural
studies. I think it’s time to dust off some of those undergrad
cultural studies books!
And, finally, a comedy moment: I'm on the train heading out of Manchester Piccadilly at 1am writing up this post along with other ideas from the conference. Lots of jolly very worse for wear folk wondering what I’m dong typing so fervently: “You writing the next 50 Shades of Grey?” “Well, I am
typing up notes for a book?” “What’s the book about?” “Privacy.” (Cue raucous
laughter!)
No comments:
Post a Comment