Resisting Algorithmic Determination: Becoming the Political Other in Blast Theory’s Operation Black Antler

William W. Lewis
{"title":"Resisting Algorithmic Determination: Becoming the Political Other in Blast Theory’s Operation Black Antler","authors":"William W. Lewis","doi":"10.1353/dtc.2023.a912006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Resisting Algorithmic Determination: Becoming the Political Other in Blast Theory’s Operation Black Antler William W. Lewis (bio) So here I am, hiding behind a dumpster in a dirty alley in downtown Brighton. I’m doing my best to maintain my cover and make sure that the two people fifty yards ahead are not aware that they are being watched. I have been following these two for the past ten minutes since they slinked out of the pub. Obviously, they must have been trying to give my team the slip, knowing that we were getting too close to uncovering the truth. What can they be talking about I wonder and what is it that they are scheming? Something horrible I suspect. They are political extremists after all. With each move through the neighborhood, I begin to distrust them even more because they seemingly are not doing anything that should raise any suspicions. I’ve been tasked with finding out what cruel intentions Alice has up her sleeves, but all I have been able to tell so far is that she and her companion are having a leisurely stroll on a warm summer evening, telling jokes, and catching a moment to smoke a cigarette together. Surely there is more to this encounter, I’ve been told they are up to no good. Is my distrust unfounded? In the above experience, I was performing the role of covert agent tasked with profiling the behavior patterns of supposed political extremists in a theatrical performance based in role play. As part of this role play, levels of distrust, fear, and contempt for the political Other were amplified to justify my own actions. The experience opened up for me a sense of the ways algorithms embedded in digital media interactions condition my beliefs and daily behavior. It also caused me to question they ways these algorithms invisibly drive political messaging that determines how we perceive and behave toward those around us. Specifically, those of different political beliefs. Through algorithmic determination1 our politics are becoming primary identifiers framing entire social realities and the ways we perform within these frames. In an era where every digital interaction is tracked, analyzed, and recorded to manipulate our future behavior, it makes me question how we might resist? [End Page 49] Algorithmic processes have co-opted many elements of contemporary life, none more than the ways we perceive and communicate with one another online, and through those interactions how we form our political identities. As these processes harden and narrow these identities into specific rigid formations, we become programmed to be suspicious and untrusting of those who think and act differently, creating a social position of the political Other. Social media platforms are often heralded as the digital equivalent of the public square where dialogue helps create a healthy social sphere. In previous non-mediatized paradigms this social space offered an opportunity to create forms of social cohesion through acts of negotiation that might lead to communal understanding. In contrast, online platforms often disguise their underlying intentions—sorting, profiling, and social engineering for corporate profit—by co-opting the human desire to have a voice, to be seen, heard, and understood. Through this digital masking, what was once a tool for the public good has become a tool for the dissolution of social cohesion. Dialogue no longer becomes about reciprocation and listening and instead simply becomes a performance of who can speak louder. There also exists a paradigm of constant surveillance which, whether consciously understood or not, is breeding a sense of distrust and slowly eroding the capacity to empathize with those outside one’s personal political spheres. This paradigm is inherently social but brought about by an increasingly tight network of technological operations through the data-based aspects of mediatization. Embedded within late-stage capitalism, digitalization is causing more and more objects to be embedded with algorithmic systems and technologies2 trained to track and harvest user data via dataveillance.3 Researchers of media sociology refer to this as datafication.4 In the introduction to the 2019 special issue of TDR devoted to algorithms the editors describe algorithms as tools that “optimally organizes the intake of input and...","PeriodicalId":488979,"journal":{"name":"Journal of dramatic theory and criticism","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of dramatic theory and criticism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/dtc.2023.a912006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Resisting Algorithmic Determination: Becoming the Political Other in Blast Theory’s Operation Black Antler William W. Lewis (bio) So here I am, hiding behind a dumpster in a dirty alley in downtown Brighton. I’m doing my best to maintain my cover and make sure that the two people fifty yards ahead are not aware that they are being watched. I have been following these two for the past ten minutes since they slinked out of the pub. Obviously, they must have been trying to give my team the slip, knowing that we were getting too close to uncovering the truth. What can they be talking about I wonder and what is it that they are scheming? Something horrible I suspect. They are political extremists after all. With each move through the neighborhood, I begin to distrust them even more because they seemingly are not doing anything that should raise any suspicions. I’ve been tasked with finding out what cruel intentions Alice has up her sleeves, but all I have been able to tell so far is that she and her companion are having a leisurely stroll on a warm summer evening, telling jokes, and catching a moment to smoke a cigarette together. Surely there is more to this encounter, I’ve been told they are up to no good. Is my distrust unfounded? In the above experience, I was performing the role of covert agent tasked with profiling the behavior patterns of supposed political extremists in a theatrical performance based in role play. As part of this role play, levels of distrust, fear, and contempt for the political Other were amplified to justify my own actions. The experience opened up for me a sense of the ways algorithms embedded in digital media interactions condition my beliefs and daily behavior. It also caused me to question they ways these algorithms invisibly drive political messaging that determines how we perceive and behave toward those around us. Specifically, those of different political beliefs. Through algorithmic determination1 our politics are becoming primary identifiers framing entire social realities and the ways we perform within these frames. In an era where every digital interaction is tracked, analyzed, and recorded to manipulate our future behavior, it makes me question how we might resist? [End Page 49] Algorithmic processes have co-opted many elements of contemporary life, none more than the ways we perceive and communicate with one another online, and through those interactions how we form our political identities. As these processes harden and narrow these identities into specific rigid formations, we become programmed to be suspicious and untrusting of those who think and act differently, creating a social position of the political Other. Social media platforms are often heralded as the digital equivalent of the public square where dialogue helps create a healthy social sphere. In previous non-mediatized paradigms this social space offered an opportunity to create forms of social cohesion through acts of negotiation that might lead to communal understanding. In contrast, online platforms often disguise their underlying intentions—sorting, profiling, and social engineering for corporate profit—by co-opting the human desire to have a voice, to be seen, heard, and understood. Through this digital masking, what was once a tool for the public good has become a tool for the dissolution of social cohesion. Dialogue no longer becomes about reciprocation and listening and instead simply becomes a performance of who can speak louder. There also exists a paradigm of constant surveillance which, whether consciously understood or not, is breeding a sense of distrust and slowly eroding the capacity to empathize with those outside one’s personal political spheres. This paradigm is inherently social but brought about by an increasingly tight network of technological operations through the data-based aspects of mediatization. Embedded within late-stage capitalism, digitalization is causing more and more objects to be embedded with algorithmic systems and technologies2 trained to track and harvest user data via dataveillance.3 Researchers of media sociology refer to this as datafication.4 In the introduction to the 2019 special issue of TDR devoted to algorithms the editors describe algorithms as tools that “optimally organizes the intake of input and...
抵制算法决定:成为爆炸理论黑鹿角行动中的政治他者
抵制算法决定:在爆炸理论的黑鹿角行动中成为政治他者威廉·w·刘易斯(生物)我在这里,躲在布莱顿市中心肮脏小巷的垃圾箱后面。我正在尽我最大的努力保持我的掩护,并确保前面50码的两个人不知道他们被监视了。这两个人溜出酒吧后,我已经跟踪他们十分钟了。很明显,他们肯定是想让我的团队离开,因为他们知道我们离真相太近了。我想知道他们在说什么,他们在策划什么?我怀疑是什么可怕的事情。他们毕竟是政治极端分子。每次在附近走动,我都开始更加不信任他们,因为他们似乎没有做任何应该引起怀疑的事情。我的任务是找出爱丽丝有什么残酷的意图,但到目前为止,我所能告诉我的是,她和她的同伴在一个温暖的夏夜悠闲地散步,讲着笑话,抽着烟一起抽。这次会面肯定不止如此,我听说他们不怀好意。我的怀疑是没有根据的吗?在上面的经历中,我扮演的是一名秘密特工,任务是在一场基于角色扮演的戏剧表演中,对所谓的政治极端分子的行为模式进行分析。作为角色扮演的一部分,对政治他者的不信任、恐惧和蔑视程度被放大,以证明我自己的行为是正当的。这段经历让我意识到,嵌入在数字媒体互动中的算法是如何影响我的信念和日常行为的。这也让我质疑这些算法在不知不觉中驱动政治信息的方式,这些信息决定了我们如何看待和对待周围的人。特别是那些有着不同政治信仰的人。通过算法决定,我们的政治正成为构建整个社会现实和我们在这些框架内行事方式的主要标识符。在一个每一次数字互动都被跟踪、分析和记录以操纵我们未来行为的时代,这让我质疑我们如何抵制?算法过程吸收了当代生活的许多元素,最重要的是我们在网上感知和交流的方式,以及通过这些互动我们如何形成我们的政治身份。随着这些过程的强化和将这些身份缩小到特定的刚性结构中,我们变得对那些思维和行为不同的人产生怀疑和不信任,从而产生了政治他者的社会地位。社交媒体平台通常被誉为数字版的公共广场,在这里,对话有助于创造一个健康的社交领域。在之前的非调解范例中,这个社会空间提供了一个机会,通过可能导致公共理解的谈判行为来创造社会凝聚力的形式。相比之下,在线平台往往会掩饰其潜在的意图——为了企业利润而进行分类、分析和社会工程——通过利用人类的愿望来发出自己的声音,被看到、听到和理解。通过这种数字掩蔽,曾经为公共利益服务的工具变成了瓦解社会凝聚力的工具。对话不再是相互交流和倾听,而只是一种谁说话更大声的表演。还有一种持续监视的模式,无论是否有意识地理解,都在滋生一种不信任的感觉,并慢慢侵蚀人们对个人政治领域之外的人产生同情的能力。这种模式本身是社会性的,但它是由一个日益紧密的技术操作网络通过基于数据的媒介化方面带来的。数字化植根于后期资本主义,正使越来越多的物品嵌入经过训练的算法系统和技术,通过数据监控来跟踪和收集用户数据媒体社会学的研究者称之为数据化在2019年专门讨论算法的TDR特刊的介绍中,编辑们将算法描述为“以最佳方式组织输入和…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信