The Social Implications of Wearable TechnologyThomas Conner

Introduction• Apple Watch—Announced September 9, 2014• First new product category in five years and since

Steve Jobs died• Result of several years of growing interest in

wearable technology by both consumers and manufacturers

• Major social implications now that wearable technology has gone mainstream

Research Questions• How do wearable producers and consumers

navigate the line between fashionable and gendered technology?

• What is the potential for wearable technology to change society and social communication practices?

• Is wearable technology, and specifically smartwatches, really necessary?

Theory—Panopticism• 1975—Michel Foucault on Jeremy Bentham’s idea

for a prison• Circular building with a tower in the middle and

windows on both ends of the cells• Constant possibility of surveillance without

knowing

Theory—Panopticism“[The Panopticon] was once a sort of dark room into which individuals spied; it has become a transparent building in which the exercise of power may be supervised by society

as a whole.”Foucault, 1975, p. 207

Recent Theory—Panopticism• 2008—Kingsley Dennis—“Sous-veillance”• Bottom-up surveillance

• 2013—Mike Featherstone—Inescapable Visibility• True privacy does not exist in the age of the Internet

Theory—Simulacrum• 1981—Jean Baudrillard—Simulacra and Simulation• Reality has been replaced by signs and symbols—

representations• Three types of simulacra:• First Order—Premodern—Clear difference between

representation and real. Tangible realness of object• Second Order—Modern—Representation is as real as

the real. No clear difference• Third Order—Postmodern—Representation overtakes

the real. Nothing original left

Recent Theory—Simulacrum • 2012—Steve Conway—We used to win, we used to

lose, we used to play: Simulacra, hypo-ludicity and the lost art of losing• Video games bypass the struggle of difficult parts

and the resulting joy• “I wonder if I am even playing the game, or simply

paying to watch the game win itself.” (p. 29)• 2007—Seth Giddings—Dionysiac machines—

Videogames and the Triumph of the Simulacra• “Simulacral character of contemporary

technoculture and its devices [is not] the implosion of reality, but…its production.”

• Digital simulacra are not results of reality; they produce reality

Theory—Medium is the Message• 1964—Marshall McLuhan—Understanding Media:

The Extension of Man• Attributes of a medium affect society more than

the message it delivers• The medium affects the content

• A medium is “any extension of ourselves” (p. 7)

By continuously embracing technologies, we relate ourselves

to them as servomechanisms. This is why we must, to usethem at all, serve these objects, these extensions of

ourselves,as gods or minor religions. An Indian is the servomechanismof his canoe, as the cowboy of his horse or the executive of

hisclock. (p. 55)

“”

Recent Theory—Medium is the Message• 2013—Thomas McMillan—The smartphone in the

sanctuary• Reading Scripture on a smartphone is a much

different experience than reading it on paper• Unparalleled access• Speed reading• Distracting interruptions

Not that books have no distractions, but with the smartphone, interruptions come

from within the same device.“ ”

Method• Mixed Method• Textual analysis

• 50 sources from professional and amateur articles• Interviews

• Four interviews with users of wearable technology• Two with fitness tracker users• Two with smartwatch users

Analysis—Fashion and Gender• Thin line between fashionable and gendered • “But the tech industry has a particularly

unnecessary penchant for taking something that is fundamentally gender neutral and lacquering it in pink, appealing to society’s basest stereotypes, and making women feel “other” under the auspices of being “personalized for” and catered to.” –Wired Editor Emily Dreyfuss, 2014

• Important to offer customization, but not “personalize for” according to gender stereotypes

Analysis—Privacy • Concerned, but changing notions• Generally harmless data; more visibility

• Younger smartwatch users were not concerned at all

• Older fitness tracker users were more concerned, but not concerned enough to stop using it• Fear of third parties using data against users

• Virtual Panopticon• Accountability with data reporting

• “If I slack off they’re going to know, even if they don’t really care, which they probably don’t.”

• Constant worry of being watched• User = Prisoner; Facebook Friend = Watchman

Analysis—Digital Simulacra• Less emphasis on activity in the real world and

more on digital representations of it• Third Order simulacra—Representation precedes the

real• Walking around living room to get steps• Posting screenshots of weight loss on Facebook

• Potential effect of further withdrawal from reality• Sending drawings and heartbeats on the Apple

Watch• Representation replaces original

Analysis—Digital SimulacraWhen I was at Disneyworld last week, I was super excited. I was gonna get so many steps. I wonder how many steps I’m gonna get? Who gives a crap? I walk the steps anyway. But it’s similar to what I’ve noticed with my life on social media. If you don’t

post about it or it’s not documented with the technology, did it even happen?

“”

Analysis—Interpersonal Communication• Medium is the message• Smartwatches allow more flexibility, less

commitment in choosing whether or not you respond to something right away than smartphones• “I thought…it would be a lot better than taking out my

phone for every little message. I can just check real quick and see if it’s anything important and then obviously I can go from there if it’s important or not.”• Medium determines importance of message

• “It’s easier to just check something real quick on your wrist and read it than it is to pull out your phone, unlock it, and then you’re pretty much obligated to respond to it at that point because you have it right in front of you.”• Smartphone is a more demanding medium

Conclusion• Limitations• Time and timing• Never used wearable tech

• Wearables have a long way to go• Better looking without “othering”• Tighten privacy policies or wait until people’s notions

of privacy adapt• New, unique use cases to differentiate from

smartphones• Important because it has dramatic implications for

how we balance our technological world with our physical world• Could have as much impact as smartphones did

Sources• McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York, NY:

McGraw-Hill.• Dreyfuss, E. (2014, Nov. 28). What women want, according to the designers of women’s

wearables. Wired. • Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York, NY: Random

House, Inc.• Featherstone, M. (2013). Preliminary reflections on the visible, the invisible and social

regulation: Panopticisim, biopolitics, neoliberalism, and data consumption. Journal of Critical Studies in Business and Society, 4(1), 6-37.

• Dennis, K. (2008). Keeping a close watch—the rise of self surveillance and the threat of digital exposure. The Sociological Review, 56(3), 347-357.

• Baudrillard, J. (1995). Simulacra and Simulation. (S.F. Glaser, Trans.) Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. (Original work published 1981)

• Gow, G. (2010). Marshall McLuhan and the end of the world as we know it. English Studies in Canada, 36(2/3), 19-23.

• McMillan, T. (2013). The smartphone in the sanctuary. Online Journal of Christian Communication and Culture.

• Conway, S. (2012) We used to win, we used to lose, we used to play: Simulacra, hypo-ludicity, and the lost art of losing. Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture, 9(1), 27-46

• Giddings, S. (2007). Dionysiac machines: Videogames and the triumph of the simulacra. Convergence: The Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 13(4), 417-431.

• Hegarty, P. (2004). Jean Baudrillard: Live theory. London, UK: Continuum.