1

ThePoliticalEconomyofPulse:

Techno-somaticrhythmandreal-timedata

WilliamDavies

Thisisapre-printofanarticletoappearinEphemera18.4.Ephemeraisopenaccessat

http://www.ephemerajournal.org/

Abstract

Inthecontextofubiquitousdatacaptureandthepoliticsofcontrol,thereisgrowing

individualandmanagerialinterestin‘pulse’,bothintheliteralsenseofarterialpulse(now

monitoredthroughwearabletechnology)andinametaphoricalsenseofreal-timetracking

(forinstancetakingthe‘pulseofanorganisation’).Thisarticleusesthecategoryof‘pulse’to

explorepost-Fordismasasetoftechniquesforgoverningrhythms,bothofthebodyandof

technologies.ItdrawsonLefebvre’sworktointroducenotionsofeurhythmia,arrhythmia

and‘internalmeasure’aswaysofexploringsomaticandorganisationallife.Itthen

introducestwocasestudieswheretheideaandphysicalnatureof‘pulse’areatwork.These

provideaninsightintothereal-timenatureofpost-Fordistlife,whereachronicsensingof

quantitiesbecomesthebasisofco-operation,ratherthanajudgementviameasures.

2

VirginPulseisasuiteofworkplacewellbeingproductsandservices,whichtogetherpromise

“technologytoreplenishthemodernworker”.Itinvolvesanappallowingemployeesto

monitortheirownbehaviourwithregardstosleep,activity,happiness,nutrition,stressand

relaxation,andhelpsthemtochangetheirbehaviourtopursueahealthierandhappier

lifestyle.Dataiscollectedviagymmembershipanduseofwearabletechnology,and

personalisedimprovementplansareproducedforeachemployee,oftenusing‘gamification’

techniquesofgoal-setting,competitionwithotheremployeesandrewards.Theschemeis

integratedwithotherHRsystems,andproducesawellbeingdatadashboardformanagers

toinspect.

VirginPulseisanexampleofhowpost-Fordistmanagementpracticeshaveturnedtowards

thebodyasasiteofinterventionandoptimisation,erodingthedistinctionbetweenthe

‘working’andthe‘non-working’bodyintheprocess(Zoller,2003;McGillivray,2005a,

2005b).Initsrelianceonwearable,mobileandsmarttechnologytocollectdataon

wellbeing,italsoindicateshowthispost-Fordistmanagerialprojectisgainingever-greater

surveillancecapacities,nowabletomonitortheemployeeasshemoves,eats,socialisesand

sleeps(Moore,2014;Moore&Robinson,2015).Thearrivalofwearablesandconnected

smartphoneapps,togetherwithacultureof‘self-tracking’,meansthatworkandphysical

exercisemorphintoeachother,bothbeingrepresentedintermsofquantitativeinputsand

outputs(Till,2014;Gilmore,2015;Smith,2016).

ButVirginPulsealsoexhibitssomethingthathasreceivedlessattention:itsemphasison

pulse.Itisimmediatelynoticeablethattheterm‘pulse’mightbeunderstoodintwoparallel

sensesinthiscontext.Ontheonehand,itwouldappeartosignifytheconstant,twenty-four

sevenstreamofdatathattheprogrammewillgenerateandanalyse.Meantmetaphorically,

takingthe‘pulse’ofanorganisation(orothersocialsystem)meansmonitoringitsvarious

vitalsigns:movements,rhythms,patterns,peaksandtroughs.Theimplicationisthatthese

areemergentandself-governing,ratherthanimposedviadisciplineormeasurement.They

arespecificallyextra-institutional,indeedexistential,ratherthanlimitedtoanydesignated

locationortime,otherthanthefinitudeoflifeitself.‘Pulse’issomethingthatmightbelong

toanurbanneighbourhood,afinancialmarketoranentertainmentvenue,tobesensed

throughacombinationofhumanandnon-humanmeans.Theuseoftheterm‘pulse’to

3

refertoVirgin’swellnessprogrammemightbeinterpretedasanappealtoasciencethatis

bothquantitativeand‘real-time’.

Ontheotherhand,actualpulse-rateisnowoneofthecrucialdata-pointsthroughwhich

wellnesscanbemonitoredacrosstimeandspace.Heart-rate,detectedviawristbands,

enablessleepandphysicalexertiontobetracked,withouttheuserneedingtobeconscious

ofthis.Heart-ratevariabilityhaslongbeenviewedasaproxyforhealth:ahealthybody

experienceshighlevelsofheart-ratevariability,betweenperiodsofphysicalexertionand

thoseofrest(Billman,2011).Itisacuriosityofmuchoftheinitialliteratureon‘self-tracking’

and‘quantifiedself’practicesthatitdedicatedagreatdealofattentiontothetechnologies

throughwhichdataisgenerated(wristbands,apps,‘smart’devicesetc)andthecultural

practicesofthosethatadoptthem(the‘quantifiedself’movement,etc)butsomewhatless

tothatwhichisbeingcounted.Morerecentworkonwearabletechnologyhasbegunto

addressthis(e.g.Lupton,2016,Schull,2017,Pinketal,2017;DidžiokaitėandSaukko2017).

Theseareoftenmundaneandnecessaryconditionsofeverydayvitality:eating,sleeping,

drinking,breathingandwalking.Thebanalityofthesemovementsandprocessesisa

necessaryconditionofabroaderprojectofubiquitous,24/7monitoring.Inordertodaily

lifelifeitself,asopposedtotheperformancesandskillsdevelopedforparticulararenas,

surveillancemustbefocusedonthehumdrumandthemundane,thattranscendsany

formalevaluativeorscientificframework.Intracking,quantifyingandrepresentingthese

behaviours,wearabletechnologyactsuponagentsviatheirmostordinaryandrepetitive

day-to-daysourcesandmodesoflife.Pulse-rateisoneofthesenecessaryandordinaryvital

rhythmsthatbecomesatypeofindicatorunderconditionsofdigitalsurveillancecapitalism.

Researchonself-trackinghastypicallytreateditasanewsiteofknowledge-production,

oftendrawingonFoucauldiannotionsofdisciplineorneoliberalsubjectivity.Ithasbeen

arguedthatthisreinforcesaCartesiansplitbetweencognitionandthebody(Moore&

Robinson,2015),producesanewmodeofself-discipline(Lupton,2013;Sanders,2017)and

anewfrontierinthe‘healthism’thatobjectifiesandoptimisesthebodythroughascientific

gaze(Crawford,1980;Lupton,2012;Maturo,2014).FromthisbroadlyFoucauldian

perspective,trackingdevicesallowthebodytoberepresented,benchmarkedand

disciplinedinamoreacutefashion,toproduceamorerigorousformofself-managementor

4

entrepreneurialsubjectivity.Thistreatswearabletechnologyasepistemologicalinfunction.

Bycontrast,thispaperwillseektolookattheinteractionofbodyandtechnologiesinterms

ofthedynamictechno-somaticrhythmsthataresensed,butnotnecessarilyknownin

Cartesianterms.Thesignificanceofpulse(bothinitsliteralarterialsenseanda

metaphoricalsenseofreal-timedata)ispreciselythatitispre-cognitiveand

environmentallyadaptive,ratherthancognitiveornormative.Byexploringthemeaningand

usesofpulse-monitoring,wemightachieveadifferentperspectiveontechno-somatic

interfaces,whichdoesn’tprivilegetheacquisitionofknowledge,butratherpursues

cyberneticcontrolofbodies,environmentsandtheemergentinterplaybetweenthetwo.

AgainstthesuppositionthatwearabletechnologyfacilitatesaCartesianorpositivist

perspectiveonthebody,Ihopetoexplorethewaysinwhichcognitionandtheembodiment

dissolveintoeachother,mediatedbytechno-somaticreal-timesensing.Thisbecomes

possibleifweswitchourattentionfromthetruthofbodiesassuch(pureCartesianres

extensa),totherhythmsoftechnically-equippedbodiesinmotion,withspatial-temporal

properties.

Thisarticleaddressesthepoliticaleconomyof‘pulse’inboththemetaphoricalandthe

literalsensesofthetermsimultaneously,usingtwocasestudieswhichreflectbothsenses.

Bystudyingthesesidebyside,andlookingathowtheyfitintocontemporaryworkingand

organisationalpractices,wegainadifferentperspectiveonpost-Fordistcapitalismandthe

technologiesofcontrolthatmediateandsustainit.‘Pulse’servesasboththecultural-

ideationalmodelofhowallphysicalmovementcanbeconceivedandaparticularsomatic

rhythmtobesurveilled–bothsignifierandsignified.Thisdualprojectofpulse-monitoring

canbeunderstoodasanefforttosenseandinfluencetherhythmofsocialandindividual

life,inwaysthatpromiseanewpost-disciplinarymodeofmanagerialcontrol,underpinned

byapost-disciplinarynotionofeconomictimethatisfluidbutneverthelessnumbered.By

emphasisingthemetronomic,repetitivequalitiesofhumanlife,itispossibletoarriveat

quantitativeexpressionsthatare(oratleastappear)tobeemergentandnaturalrather

thanmeasured.

Therestofthearticleisinfourparts.Firstly,Ilayoutthearticle’stheoreticalpremises,

namelythepost-Fordistcontext,the‘crisisofmeasure’thatcharacterisesit,andthealleged

5

potentialfortrackingtechnologiestoovercomethatcrisis.Itiscrucialheretodistinguish

between‘measurement’and‘quantification’andtherelationofonetotheother,

conceptualissuesthathavesometimesbeenunder-appreciatedinliteratureonself-

tracking.SecondlyIlookathowalloflifepotentiallybecomesconceivedasrhythmical,in

post-disciplinarysocieties,somethingthatLefebvre’snotionof‘rhythmanalysis’isideally

suitedtoexplore.Thirdly,Ilookattwocasestudies,reflectingthemetaphoricalandliteral

statusof‘pulse’incontemporaryworkinglife.Oneoftheseconcernsanewwearable

technology(thoughnotatrackingdevice)aimedatmoderatingthewearer’spulse;the

otheratanewworkplacetechnologyaimedatcapturingemployeesentiment(whichrefers

toorganisational‘pulse’inametaphoricalsense).Thissectionofthepaperdrawson

interviewswiththedevelopersanddesignersofthetechnologiesconcerned.Finally,the

paperseekstotheorisethesenewtechniquesofrhythmicmonitoringandcontrol,andthe

modeof‘metronomicvitality’thattheymediate.

Quantitybeforemeasure

Itiswidelyrecognisedthatanewstyleoftechnicaleconomicgovernmentemerged

followingthecrisesofthe1970s,whichallowedformoreflexiblemanagementand

monitoringofemployeesandconsumers.Thishasbeengenerallyreferredtoas‘post-

Fordism’(Jessop,2002;Amin,2011),aconceptthatiscloselyalignedwiththeideaof

‘societiesofcontrol’(Deleuze,1992).FollowingthecrisesofFordismandKeynesianismthat

escalatedfrom1968onwards,corporationsadoptedvariousnewtechniquesthroughwhich

toovercomepoliticaloppositionandwintheenthusiasmofemployeesandcustomers.

Vertically-manageddisciplinaryinstitutions,suchastheTayloristfactoryandtheWeberian

bureaucracy,gavewaytomorefluid,horizontally-coordinatedinstitutionsthatweremore

adaptabletofluctuationsinmarketdemand.Corporationsco-optedanti-capitalistrhetoric

intheserviceofmanagement,therebychannellingnon-capitalisthopestowardsincreased

productivityandconsumption(Frank,2007;Boltanski&Chiapello,2006).Meanwhile,the

affectivedimensionofworkandconsumptionbecameintegraltoeconomicvaluecreation,

ofteninaformofco-productionbetweenproducerandconsumerassignifiedbybrands

(Arvidsson,2006,2011).Thesechangesrequirednewformsofexpertiseandmethods

6

throughwhichthe‘soft’psychologicalandculturaldimensionsoftheeconomycouldbe

knownandmanaged,andchangecouldbecomeconstant(Thrift,2005,2008).

Theshiftintopost-Fordismhasproduceddistinctiveproblematicsofquantificationand

measurementinsocialandeconomiclife.Atthesametime,ithasseizedtheaffordancesof

networkedcomputingtoenableashiftfromtechniquesofroutinized‘discipline’tomore

flexibleformsof‘control’(Franklin,2015).Inmanyways,thepromisesofdataanalyticsthat

haveemergedintheearly21stcenturyrepresentaconjoiningofthesetwoissues,whereby

ubiquitousdigitaldatacaptureoffsomatFersanewbasisforquantificationand

measurement–thatisanargumentadoptedinthispaper,butitisworthunpackingthata

little.Twofeaturesof‘post-Fordistcontrolsocieties’needrecognising,orelsethereisarisk

ofobscuringkeydifferencesfrom‘Fordistdiscipline’.

Firstly,post-Fordismisdefinedbyaproblemofintangiblevalue,elicitingwhathasbeen

referredtoasa‘crisisofmeasure’(Virno,2004;Hardt&Negri,2005).Tayloristfactories

couldmeasureinputsandoutputsinarelativelyexplicitway,trackingproductivityusing

linearCartesianprinciplesoftimeandspace.Measureshaveanaprioristatus:they

transcendthecontingencyofasituationtoprovideabasisforcomparisonor

‘commensuration’(Espeland&Stevens,1998).Arguablythemosttransformative(oratleast

iconic)exampleofamodernmeasurementdeviceisthatofdouble-entrybook-keeping,

whichprovidedastandardwaytoaccountforcreditanddebitacrosstimeandspace

(Carruthers&Espeland,1991;Poovey,1998).Thecrucialqualityofanymeasureisthatit

holdsitsformacrosstimeandspace,providingabasisonwhichtojudgecertainoutcomes

repeatedly,reliablyandimpersonally.Hence,the9-5workingdayisapossiblemeasure

throughwhichtoassessproductivity;anintelligencetestisapossiblemeasurethrough

whichtoassessjobcandidates.Measuresmaybequantitative(aswithatapemeasure)and

areoftenawayofintroducingquantityinadisciplinaryfashion(aswithanIQtest).Theyare

toolsofdisciplineandofjudgement–buttheyarenotnecessarilytoolsofquantification.

Forexample,amarketresearchsurveyactsasameasureforcomparingpeopleina

standardisedfashion,butitmaydososimplybyputtingpeopleintoqualitativecategories,

ratherthanattachinganumbertothem.Standardisedprocessesofjudgement,suchas

workplaceperformancereviews,maydrawonnumericaldata,butnotnecessarily.A

7

measurementdevicemaybefarmoreefficient(asabasisforcomparison)ifitquantifies,

butitneedn’tdoso.

Measuresarethereforefundamentallynormativetools,thatcanbeintroducedinto

situationstowinconsensus(Boltanski&Thevenot,2006).Inordertowork,theyneedto

possessaquasi-liberalauthority,whichcanapplyafixedsetofcriteriatoapluralityofcases

(Davies,2014).Thequestionofmeasurementisthereforeintimatelyassociatedwiththe

questionofhegemony,whichinthecaseofFordismis“borninthefactory”,because

hegemonyimpliesanover-archingethicalframeworkwhichrenderscapitalistproduction

legitimateandnotonlytechnicallyviable(Gramsci,2011:285).Theapriorinatureof

measuresprovidesthejuridicalprinciplewhichproduceshegemony.Measuressuchasclock

timeallowtheworkingdaytobebroughtwithinanormativelygovernedframework.

Toarguethatpost-Fordismwitnessesa‘crisisofmeasure’isnottosuggestthatvalue

becomesunquantifiable,butthatiteludesthequasi-juridicalroutinesandconsensual

qualityofeffectivemeasurement.Wherevalueisintangible(andpartlycaptured

subjectivelyintheexperiencesoftheconsumer)thereisanabsenceofstable,publicly

legitimatecommensurationdevicesandritualsthroughwhichitcanbeassessedand

ranked.Thisraisestheimportanceofprocessesofcriticaldeliberationandthesocialsearch

forvalue(Stark,2009),whichispotentiallydemocratising,butalsolessefficientfroma

narrowlycapitalistperspective(Arvidsson&Peiterson,2013).Qualitativemethodsof

evaluationandresearch,suchasfocusgroups,riseinimportance,butdonotserveto

providerobustcommensurationinthewaythatquantitativetoolsofmeasurementdo.

Secondly,asdigitisationhasspreadfurtherintoeconomic,culturalandpersonallife,ithas

radicallyincreasedpossibilitiesforquantification,whichhaverapidlyturnedinto

inevitabilitiesofquantification.Increasingly,quantificationissomethingthatwecantryto

ignorebydeliberatelyavoidingorconcealingpiecesofdata,butnotsomethingthatwecan

optoutof.Computerpowerhaslongextendedbeyondthecapabilitiesofhumancognition,

buttheubiquityofdatacapturenowextendsbeyondtheneedsorintentionsofhuman

societiesaswell(Hansen,2015).Dataiscapturedbydefault,generatingarchivesofso-

8

called‘BigData’,whichwethenfacethechallengeofinterrogatingshouldwefindareason

ordesireto(Andrejevic,2013).

AsHansenargues,thedistinguishing‘tendency’of21stcenturymediaistocapturefarmore

thanhumanconsciousnesscouldeveraccommodate.Thisisnotaprostheticenhancement

ofhumanconsciousness,butatransformationgoingonbeyondthelimitsofhuman

perception(Hansen,2015:53).Whereasthecamera,forexample,offeredanaugmentation

ofexistingformsofhumanvision,somethinglikeafitnesstrackerallowshumanbeingsto

engagewiththeworld(andthemselves)inwaysthatpreviouslyevadedourownsubjectivity

altogether.Theseare,Hansenargues,toolsofsensationnotofperception:theirfunctionis

tomonitorinunfathomabledetail,generatingquantitativedataintheprocess.Fitness

trackershavenotreplacedhumancognition,butperformsensoryactivitiesofmovements

(steps,sleep,pulseetc)thatwerepreviouslyun-sensedandhenceunquantified.Theyopen

up“thepossibilityofexperiencingsomethingnotimmediatelyavailabletoconsciousness”

(Hansen,2015:139).

FollowingHansen’sanalysis,wemightsaythatubiquitousdigitaltrackingfacilitatesvast

expansioninpossibilitiesforquantification,butwithoutofferinganynewmeasure.Thisisn’t

necessarilytrueofself-trackingingeneral,whichcanbecarriedoutusingvariousformsof

quantitativemeasuresuchasweight-scalesordiaries(Crawfordetal,2015),butitis

certainlytrueofsomethinglikepulse-tracking.Measuresmaybepresent–minutes,

kilometres,calories,degreesCelsius–butitisnotalwaysthemainaffordanceofthe

technologytointroducethese,inthewaythatitisof(say)atapemeasure.Asdevicesof

sensation,ratherthanofperceptionorevaluation,digitaltrackingtechnologiesoften

performarelativelybanalfunctionofcountingasmuchaspossible(quantification),rather

thanofcomparingasmuchaspossible(measurement).Wearableself-trackingtechnologies

haveabiastowardsaspectsofthehumanthatcanbecounted,evenintheabsenceofany

measure-steps,inhalationsandexhalations,arterialpulse–justassocialmediaplatforms

servetoquantifysocialconnectionswithoutnecessarilyhelpingtojudgethem.Wherethese

movementsandmomentsarequantified,measurescanofcoursebeintroduced,suchas

settingatargetornormforthenumberofstepstobetakeneachday.Buttheprimary

affordanceofthedeviceistocountnottocompare.

9

Acriticalquestionforpost-Fordistorganisationandgovernmentiswhethertechnologiesof

controlcaneverbecomesufficientlyextensiveandempiricallysensitiveastoreplacethe

needfornormativemeasurementaltogether.Toputthatanotherway,doesthecrisisof

measureandtheproblemofhegemonyeventuallyevaporate,onceenoughdatahasbeen

collected?Totheextentthatpost-Fordismbringsaboutnewcyborg-typeassemblagesof

bodies,codes,screensandmachines,itarguablyavoidsorcircumventstherequirementfor

hegemonicdiscursiveconsensus-formation,ofthesortthatFordismdependedon(Lash,

2007;Lazzarato,2014).Semioticandinter-subjectiveconventionspotentiallybecome

replacedbyinterfaceswhichmediatenon-representationalcode,inaconstantcybernetic

loopofaction,feedbackandadaptation.Decision-makingcanpotentiallybypassspacesof

consciousdeliberativejudgement(asthecaseofhigh-frequencytradingexemplifies)and

consciousnessisthenpresentedwithaworldthathasalreadybeenrearrangedby‘pre-

cognitive’techniquesofanalysisanddecision(Hansen,2015).Epistemologically,this

translatesintothehopethatalgorithmicdataanalyticscansupplantdisciplinarymethods,

spottingandrespondingtopatternsastheyemergefromdatasets,ratherthanimposing

measuresuponthem(Savage&Burrows,2007).

Governingthroughrhythm

However,thepost-hegemonicvisionofcontroldoesplaceonecrucialobligationonagents,

withoutwhichubiquitousdatacaptureisnotpossible:theymustkeepmovingand

interactingacrossinterfacesofvariouskinds.Thisisscarcelyanormativeduty,asitis

unspecifiedwhattheformortelosofthisactivityshouldbe,andmovementmightequally

beunconsciouslyphysiologicalasconsciouslydecided.Andasinterfacesbecomeembedded

inthephysicalenvironmentandbody,thereisreducednormativeinjunctiontoconsciously

‘use’them.Butthemanagerialandepistemologicalprojectofachievingcontrolwithout

consensusdoesrequirethatnothingeverstayfixedinplace.AsBoltanskiandChiapello

observeofthepost-Fordistworkplace,“tobedoingsomething,tomovetochange–thisis

whatenjoysprestigeasagainststability,whichisoftenregardedassynonymouswith

inaction”(Boltanski&Chiapello,2007:155).AppleCEOTimCook’snotorious2015remark

10

that“sittingisthenewcancer”wasmadewhilepromotingtheAppleWatch,whichcanbuzz

toremindthewearertostandupandmove.

Insocietiesof‘discipline’,movementoccursbetweendifferentdesignatedspacesand

institutions(factory,hospital,homeetc),butmovementitselfisnotacrucialobjectof

observation(Deleuze,1992).Theregulartimedisplayedontheclockiswhatdetermines

whenthesubjectofdisciplinemovesfromonesuchenclosedspacetoanother,asthe

notionof‘clockingon’and‘off’suggests.Timeisinterruptedbydisciplinarymeasurement,

(asnotionsofauditandinspectionsuggest)ratherthanitsobject.Anyrepetitionof

movementovertimeisacontingentside-effectofnormativeconvention.Thedominanceof

clocksindicatesthattimeisreallybeingsubsumedunderspace,producingwhatBergson

termed‘homogeneoustime’,whichusesspatialmetaphors(anddevicessuchasclocks)to

representtimeinregular,conciseunitssuchas‘minutes’and‘days’(Bergson,2002:86).

Thisemphasisondisciplinarytechnologiessuchasclocksisadenialoravoidanceoftimeas

‘pureduration’,allowingtheunitsof‘homogeneoustime’tocreatetheillusionthat

temporalityconsistsofseparate,isolatedmoments.Thisexperienceoftimeasamenableto

delineationandseparationisasignificanteffectofFordistanddisciplinarytechniquesof

power.

Bycontrast,societiesof‘control’requirebodiesinmotiontobemonitored,suchthat

patternsandrhythmscanbedetected,intheabsenceofapriorinormativeconventions.

Manyaspectsofsocialrhythmareeffectsandlegaciesofdisciplinarynormsand

institutions,suchastheworkingday,theweekend,commuting,a2-weekholidayandsoon.

Butotherrepetitivemovementsareemergent,suchassocialising,leisureactivities,sexual

activityandtherhythmsofthebodyitself.Lefebvrearguedthatitistheinteraction

betweenthesetwoformsthatgeneratestherhythmofmodernlife,thatinthesynthesis

betweenthetwois“naturalandrational,andneitheronenortheother”(Lefebvre,2013:

19).Asheargued:

Everydaytimeismeasuredintwoways,orrathersimultaneouslymeasuresandis

measured.Ontheonehand,fundamentalrhythmsandcyclesremainsteadyandon

11

theother,thequantifiedtimeofwatchesandclocksimposesmonotonous

repetitions.

(Lefebvre,2013:83)

Asdigitalinterfacesbecomeembeddedinourphysicalenvironmentsandbodies,thisraises

thepossibilitythatemergent,unmeasuredrhythmsmightbecomevisibleinandof

themselves,evenintheabsenceofanyinstitutionstogovernthem.Quasi-natural

movements–someofwhich,suchasarterialpulse,areconstant–cansimplybetracked

ratherthansubjectedtomeasurement.Repetitionsandpatternsthatemergeoutsideofthe

realmsofmeasuredbehaviourordisciplinaryactivitymightsuggestaformofsystemic

sustainability,thatisemergentratherthanimposed–aformofrhythmicharmonythat

Lefebvreidentifiesas‘eurhythmia’.Insomecases,‘homogeneoustime’keepingtoolsmay

evenbedeliberatelyremovedtofacilitatethisharmonious,repetitivemovementacross

interfaces,astheabsenceofclocksincasinossuggestsortheclockinthetherapists

consultingroomthattheclientisunabletosee.Theabsenceof‘clocktime’mayhelp

individualstoenteragreaterconditionofpost-cognitive,embodiedharmonyor“perfect

contingency”withtheirphysicalenvironment,ofthesortthatSchulldiscoversamongst

machine-gamblingaddicts(Schull,2012).

Inthepracticalsettingsofneoliberalcapitalism,thedistinctionbetween‘discipline’and

‘control’israrelyabsolute.Theriseofthelatter’srationalitydoesnotinitselfsignalthe

subsidenceoftheformer,anymorethantheriseofdisciplinarypowermeantthe

disappearanceofsovereignty(Munro,2000).Oftentechnologiesandpracticesofcontrol

willbeemployedtoachieveahigherlevelofdisciplinethandisciplinaryinstitutions

themselvescouldachieveontheirown.Disciplinarytoolsofaudit,testingandmeasurement

continuetoprovideanorganisingtemplateforinstitutionsunderpost-Fordism,butnowa

muchwiderrangeofbehaviorsand‘datapoints’arebeingtrackedtoanticipatehow

individualsororganisationsarelikelytoperforminthesemomentsofdisciplinary

judgement.Thankstocontroltechnologies(whichareubiquitousandradicallyempiricist),it

becomespossibletoorienttheselfevenmoreacutelytowardsdisciplinarytechnologies

(whichareperiodicanddecisive),potentiallybringingthenormsofdisciplineclosertothe

psycheandbody(Hardt&Negri,2000:23).Manyemergentsocialrhythmsandformsof

12

playfulness,whichcannowbecaptureddigitally,ariseinthetimeandspacethatdiscipline

ostensiblyleavesalone,suchastheweekend,publicspaceornight-time.Thisrendersthe

relationshipbetweendisciplineandcontrolambiguous:ontheonehand,itallows

spontaneousordertobeoptimised,potentiallytosubsumeitunderdisciplinarypower,but

ontheotheritpointstothepossibilityofapost-disciplinaryorder,inwhichthepowerof

measurementgraduallyrecedes.

WhatLefebvretermsthe‘natural’dimensionsofrhythm(whichreallymeansthoseaspects

whicharenotimposedby‘rationality’)resiststheCartesiangazeofscientificanalysis.Or

rather,effortstosubjectittoobjectivescrutiny(suchasthoseimposedbydisciplinary

measure)immediatelymisrepresentordamageit.Lefebvre’sexampleisofhorsedressage,

whichcannotbesimplyimposedonthehorseinthewayadogistrained(Lefebvre,2013:

49).Instead,ifoneisto“graspthisfleetingobject,whichisnotexactlyanobject,itis

thereforenecessarytosituateoneselfsimultaneouslyinsideandoutside”,totryandfeel

therhythmandtoknowtherhythmsimultaneously(Lefebvre,2013:37).Thetaskisoneof

sensationratherthanofjudgement–henceitlendsitselftotechnologiesofmonitoring

ratherthanofmeasuring.Themoresensorydevicesthereareembeddedinthephysical

environmentandhumanbody,thegreaterthepotentialtoadoptthis‘insideandoutside’,

feelingandknowing,orientationtowardsrhythm,bethatofthecity,theorganisation,the

socialnetworkortheorganism.

Tofeelrhythmfromthe‘inside’isonewayofunderstandingthepromiseofferedby‘real-

time’datacapture.Inthecontextof‘smartcities’,forexample,theidealbehindtheblanket

monitoringofallurbanlifeisthatsurgesofmovement,sentimentormarketdemandcanbe

sensedastheyoccur,allowingforresponsestobemadeinstantly(Kitchin,2014).Equally,in

thecontextofsecurity,thehopeisapost-Cartesianone,thatthreatscanbesensedand

acteduponbeforetheyareempiricallyknown(Amoore,2013).Themonitoringof

movementovertimeallowsasenseof‘normal’rhythmtoemerge,andconsequentlythe

capacitytodetectabnormalmovement(‘arrhythmia’)orsuddenchangesinspeedof

movement.Stockmarkettickersofferanearlyexampleofatechnologygearedaroundthe

detectionofrhythm,focusedonpricemovementsratherthanonpricelevelsassuch

(Preda,2006).Yetubiqitiousdigitisationofsociallife–thecity,thehumanbody,thehome

13

–facilitatesanewattentiontothesensingofrhythm.Muchofthismonitoringand

reactivitytakesplacebeyondthelimitsofpublicdiscourseorsubjectiveconsciousness,

shapingtheworldthatisencounteredsubjectively(Hansen,2015).Alternatively,itenters

ourfieldofperceptionviatheinterfaceofdashboardsofvariouskinds,aparticularmodeof

representationthatseekstoinfluencedecision-makingwithoutissuingfactsorjudgements

(Mattern,2015).

Therhythmofarterialpulse

Scientificandmedicalinterestinarterialpulsehasalwaysadvancedintandemwithtime-

measuringdevices(Ghasemzadeh&Zafari,2011).Theearliestknownattempttomeasure

arterialpulseisthatofHerophilus(335-280BC),whomeasureditusingawaterclockknown

asthe‘clepsydra’.Galileo’sinventionofthependulumintheearly17thcenturywas

followedbytheinventionofthepulsilogybySantorioSanctorius,apendulumthatcouldbe

adjustedtomatchpulserate.Thecontemporaryapproachtoarterialpulsemeasurementis

creditedtoJohnFloyercirca1707-10,whotookadvantageofadvancesinthedesignof

clockstointroducethemedicalpracticeofcountingthenumberofheart-beatsinasingle

minute.Whilepulseoffersawayofsensingthebody’srhythm,whichmayormaynotbe

subjectedtoanyformalmeasureintermsof‘homogeneoustime’,itisworthrecognising

thatitcannotberepresentedobjectively,withoutsomestandardisednotionoftime

(typicallyminutes)withwhichtocompareit.

Thereisstillcontroversyamongstmedicalresearchersastowhatexactlydeterminesheart-

rate,thoughthemostsignificantfactorisrespiration(Billman,2011).Itincreasesduring

inhalationanddecreasesduringexpiration,andacceleratesduringtimesofaccelerated

inhalationsuchasexercise.Varioussocialandphysicalcuescaninfluenceheart-rate,for

instancethespeedofapieceofmusic(Larsen&Galletly,2006).Fromamedical

perspective,themostsignificanttraitofahumanheart-rateisnotitslevelatanyone

moment,butitscapacitytovary:lowratesofheart-ratevariabilityareanindicatorofpoor

health,whilehigh-ratesofheart-ratevariabilityindicatehigherfitnesslevels.Butpulsealso

carriesamoreexistentiallysignificantmedicalstatus:itisthefirstthingthatissoughtin

14

distinguishingwhetheranapparentlyunconsciousbodyisaliveordead.Equally,pulse-

checkingisoneofthefirsttechniquesoffirstaidthatistaughttothenon-medicalspecialist,

suggestingthatarterialpulseiswhatgrantsthehumanbodyitsordinary,day-to-daystatus

asa‘living’organism.

Immediatelywemightnotecertainattributesofarterialpulsethatwouldresonatewiththe

cyberneticimaginaryofcontrolunderpost-Fordism.Firstly,arterialpulserespectsnolimits

oftimeandspace,andisanindicatorthatfunctions‘24/7’(Crary,2015).Theconditionof

humanbeingsin‘societiesofcontrol’,Deleuzeargues,isoneofconstant‘modulation’and

‘surfing’,neverbeingfinishedwithanything(Deleuze,1992).Arterialpulseissomethingthe

humanbodydoessolongasitisalive,regardlessofwhetheritisatwork,asleeporon

holiday.However,thescientificfocusonpulse-ratehasneverthelessbeenconfinedto

expertsandexpertinstitutionsuntilrelativelyrecently.Thestethoscope,datingbacktothe

early19thcentury,enabledheartstobelistenedtobydoctors,whilethefirstheart-rate

monitoringtechnology(ECG)wasdevelopedforhospitalsintheearly20thcentury.Butit

wasn’tuntil1983thatawireless(hencemobile)heart-ratemonitoringdevicewas

developed(Pantzar&Ruckenstein,2015).Thesubsequentmass-marketdevelopmentof

pulse-monitoringwristbandsandsmartwatchesrepresentsamajorstepinthe

amateurisationofpulse-monitoring,whichenablespulsetobecomenotonlyaneveryday

behaviouralphenomenon,butalsoaneverydayquantitativeindicator.Wearableand

wirelesspulsemonitorsarethereforevehiclesforthequantificationofeverydaylife.

Secondly,pulse-rateisawayinwhichbodiescan‘speak’withoutbeingmediatedby

language.Thisquestfornon-semioticorpost-representationalmodesofcommunication

hasbeendubbedthe‘declineofsymbolicefficiency’,andanalysedasakeyfeatureofpost-

Fordistmodesofmanagementandregulation(Dean,2009;Andrejevic,2013).Yetthe

interestinpulseasthelanguageofthebody(asopposedtothesubject)hasamuchlonger

history.Whenconsideringhowtheintensityofotherpeople’spleasuremightmonitoredin

autilitariansociety,Benthamproposedtwopossiblesolutions(McReynolds,1968).Thefirst

wastousemoneyasaproxy(ontheassumptionthatconsumerswouldspendmoneyin

directproportiontotheutilitythatresulted)buttheotherwasthatpulse-ratemightserve

asanindicatorofaffectivestates.Pulse-ratewasoneofvariousphysicalsymptomsthat

15

physiologistsofthelate19thcenturyfocusedon,inseekingtounderstandhowphysicallaws

ofenergyandentropyaffectedthehumanbody,especiallythelabouringbody(Rabinbach,

1992;Danziger,1997).Theinterestinpulsesuggestedaproto-cyberneticimaginary,in

whichthebodycontaineditsownmechanicalrhythmsthatcouldbebroughtintodialogue

withthoseofexperimentalequipment.Bythesametoken,itsuggestsadesiretoget

aroundthereportsofthesubject(Davies,2017).

Whatthebodyisabletoauthoritativelycommunicateviasignssuchasarterialpulseis“how

Iamrightnow”.Theself-conscioussubjectislesstrustworthyonthismatter,becauseshe

hasatendencytobringinbroaderreflectionsonhowthingsaregenerallyorhavebeen

overtime.Thecyborgbody,however,cannothelpbutprovideaccuratedataonitspresent

state.Itdoessoina‘pre-cognitive’form,thattherebyavoidsbeingmediatedbysemiotic

andculturalrepresentations,andwhichpotentiallybi-passessubjectiveconsciousness

altogether(Hansen,2015).

Thirdly,arterialpulseofferstheprospectofaquantitythatispriortomeasure,and

thereforeapost-hegemonicmodeofcontrol.PulseiswhatLefebvretermsa‘natural’

rhythm,ratherthana‘rational’one,thoughpulse-rateisonlydiscernibleoncepulseis

judgedusingclocktime.Whereclocktimebeatsatasteadyspeed,withthetickingofthe

secondhand,andtheslowmovingoftheminuteandhourhands,thespeedofpulse

changesdependingoncircumstances.Itoffersarhythmthatadjuststoactivityand

environment,speedingupduringtimesofanxietyorstress,andslowingdownduringtimes

ofrelaxation.Arterialpulsesignifiesamodeofnon-disciplinarytemporalitythatis

contingentuponthesituation.Inaworldwherearterialpulsewasamoreimportantrhythm

thanclocks,thegoalwouldnotbepunctuality(asinsocietiesofdiscipline)buteurhythmia,

inwhichbodyspeediswellsynchronisedwithenvironmentalspeed,risingandfalling

appropriately.Thecapacityofpulse-ratetovaryaccordingtocircumstancesisitskey

attribute.Thatsaid,thepossibilityofpule-ratebeingrepresentedasanumberdoesrequire

that(inLefebvre’sterms)naturalrhythmbemarriedtorationalrhythm,suchthatthe

numberofbodilybeatsiscomparedtothenumberofmechanicalseconds.Thepulse-rate

monitoristhereforebothasensingdeviceandameasuringdevice.

16

Ifcompetitivesportoffersadefiningsymbolofmeasuredphysicalquantification(witha

whistlebeingblown,goalsbeingawarded),thenjoggingofferstheequivalentfor

unmeasuredquantification,wherebythebodyentersastateofflow,andthepassageof

timebecomesforgotten.Theformerhasanexplicittelosandevaluativebenchmarkwhich

theplayersmustkeepinmind,whereasthepurposeofthelatteristoachievesomestateof

health-enhancing,unconsciousbodilyrhythm,acentralcomponentofwhichisaccelerated

respirationandpulse-rate.Theadditionofwearabletechnologiesmakesvisibleaspectsofa

jogthatwouldotherwiseremainoutsideofcognition(suchasstepstaken,aswellasheart

rate).Yetitalsoallowsforfurthertechnicalaugmentations,suchastheselectionofa

musicalplaylistthatissynchronisedwithspeedandpulse,somethingthattheSpotifymusic-

streamingserviceoffers.

Arterialpulseisatangible,quantifiablesignofhowthebodyis(orisnot)adjustingtoits

immediatesituation,rightnow.Butbecauseitishasthisstatusasa24/7,cybernetic,post-

disciplinaryindicator,theterm‘pulse’hasalsotakenonametaphoricalstatuswhichimplies

datathatiscollectedandsharedinreal-time,forinstancevia‘smartcity’infrastructures.It

isherethatwemightspeakof‘pulse’moreasideology,inasmuchastheideapromotesthe

logicofcontrol.Inparticular,itpromotesanidealofbodiessoeurhythmicallyimmersedin

theirsituationsastolosetrackofCartesiancoordinatesoftimeandspace-theworker,for

example,whohasachievedsuchastateofflowthattheyhaveforgottentoleavethe

workplaceorceasedtonoticeanydistinctionbetween‘work’and‘leisure’.Theideologyof

‘pulse’seeksnotonlytheprivatisationofspace,butalsotheprivatisationoftime,where

publicmeasuresoftimearewithdrawn.ThisisincontrasttoFordism,wherethefactoryis

privatelyowned,butitsroutines(9-5,lunch-break,cigarettebreaketc)arenot.Thenagain,

measuredoesnotentirelydisappearfrompost-Fordistcontexts:ifpulseistobe

representedas‘pulse-rate’,thenanobserver(anexperimenter,doctor,manager,governor

etc)inpossessionofaclockisrequired.Thustheidealofpulsetacitlyimpliesapanoptical

powerstructure,inwhichthemajorityarelostin‘natural’rhythms,whileaminority

observethesevia‘rational’ones.Asinthecaseofthetherapyroom,onepartycannotsee

theclock,buttheotheronecan.

17

Controllingpulse

Inowwanttoturntotwoempiricalexamplesoftechnologieswhicharedesignedaround

thesensingand/orcontrollingofpulse.Aswillbecomeclear,oneoftheseisfocusedon

arterialpulseinaliteralsense,thoughnottomeasurepulse-rate;theotherisfocusedon

‘pulse’inthemetaphoricalsense,ofanemergentsocialrhythmthat(asLefebvreputsit)

canbesensedfromthe‘inside’.Byexploring‘pulse’inthesetwowayssimultaneously,we

canthinkabouthow‘natural’oremergentrhythmcanbesensedfrombothwithinand

withoutthebodyitself.Thesignificanceofpulseasamatterofconcern(whethermedically,

economicallyorwhatever)isthatitprovidesawayofknowingorfeelinghowwelladapted

abodyistoitsenvironment.Initsmetaphoricalsense,itcomestosignifyseeminglynatural

rhythmsoftheenvironment(workplace,cityetc)itself.

Boththesecasesareimplicitlygearedaroundmanagerialagendas,bethatthemanagement

oftheselforoftheorganisation.Botharetechnologiesofcontrol,whichtake‘pulse’(either

literallyormetaphorically)asthatwhichneedstobecontrolled.Yetneitherisnecessarily

orientedtowardsperformanceoptimisationordiscipline,evenifthatisanimplicitor

backgroundagenda.Toresearchthesetwocases,Iconductedinterviewswiththe

entrepreneursanddesignerswhowereresponsibleforconceivingofanddevelopingthe

technologies.Theyarebothatarelativelyearlystageofdevelopment,andonlyrecently

arrivedonthemarket.Contactwiththeseintervieweeswasestablishedbycoldemailing,

andinterviewsconductedinlate2015andearly2016,eitherinpersonintheinterviewee’s

officeorviaSkype.Iwillintroducetheminturn,andthenexploresomeofthecommon

themesthatemerge.

Cases

Thefirstcase,Moodbox,isanewtechnology,whicharrivedonthemarketin2012,that

aimstomonitoremployeeengagementonaday-to-daybasis.1Itdoesthisprincipally

throughtwoinstruments:aninterfacewhichemployeesareinvitedtointeractwithasthey

leavework,andadashboarddisplayprovidingmanagers(andpotentiallyemployees)with

1Namesofcasestudieshavebeenchanged

18

anindicatorofresponsesovertime.Theinterfaceisasmallboxthatattachestothewall,

displayingaredandagreenbuttonunderthequestion"Howwasyourday?”.Asthe

employeeleaveswork,theypressoneofthesetosignalpositiveornegativeemotions,and

astheydosolightsflashupindicatingtheaggregateofothers’responses.Theseinterfaces

sendthedatatoacentralrepository,fromwheretheyaredisplayedingraphicalformfor

thebenefitofmanagers.Theread-outofmoodiscalled‘TheDailyPulse’,whose

fluctuationscanthenbeseenoverseveraldaysandweeks.

SomesignificantdesignfeaturesofMoodboxareworthnotingaboutthistool.Firstly,it

takestheworkingdayasitstemporalunitofanalysis.Thedeveloperexplainedtomethat

‘daily’is“prettymuchtherhythmofacompany”;inLefebvre’sterms,itprovidesthe

‘rational’rhythmthattheninteractswith‘natural’rhythm.ThelegacyofFordismprovides

structuresthatpost-Fordistpracticescanexploit,atleastfromamanagerialperspective.Or,

toputthatanotherway,theproblemof‘control’remainslocatedwithinthetime-space

legaciesof‘discipline’.Secondly,theemployeedoesnotofferascorefortheirmood,but

simplyselectsoneoftwooptions:positiveornegative.Thiswasadeliberatedecisionbythe

designers,deliberatelyavoidedaneutraloption,therebyrequiringachoicetobemadeone

wayortheother.Thisreferredtoas“castingyourpulse”,implyingsomehybridof

democracy(asin‘casting’avote)andbehaviouralreflex.

Thirdly,thereisnowayinwhichthedevicecanavoidasingleemployeepressingabutton

repeatedly,whichmakesitunlikeasurveythataimsfor‘representativeness’.Iaskedthe

developeraboutthisproblem,buthedidn’tviewitasadefect,insteadoptingimplicitlyto

viewthedataasontologicalnotepistemological:

Yes,peoplecouldcheatbutnonetheless,maybethefactofthingsisthattherehas

beensomanypulses,thatisfactual…thekeythingisthatmetricisusefulforyouto

improve.

Finally,Moodboxmakesnoattempttocollectanyadditionaldatathatmighthelpexplain

whymoodwasrisingorfallingovertime.Asmyintervieweesaidtome,“sometimes

managementdoesn’tknowwhytheyarehavingaverygoodday,sometimestheyhaveto

19

researchit”.TouseHansen’sdichotomy,itcreatesaninfrastructureofsensationthatonly

subsequentlyisavailabletoperceptiononthepartofmanagement(Hansen,2015).My

intervieweereferredtotheDailyPulseasgeneratinga“brutalfact”thatwasthenavailable

tomanagementtograpplewith,butwithoutprovidinganycognitiveorinterpretive

assistancefordoingso.Thebrutalityofthis‘fact’derivesfromthewayitispresented

withoutanyapriorievaluativeframework(i.e.ameasure)withwhichtointerpretit:the

quantityofmoodhassimplychanged.

Thesecondcaseisawearabletechnology,Ripple,thatisstillindevelopmentphase.Ripple

isawrist-band,butunlikemanywearabletechnologiesitspurposeisnottocollectdatafor

thewearertothenview,somuchastostimulatethebodyinoneoftwodirections.

Influencedbyexperimentsonsocialinfluencesonheart-rate(forinstanceofthesynchingof

twolovers’heart-rates),Rippleprovideswhatthedeveloperscalla“mechanicalheart-beat”

thatthewearercanselectandwhichinfluencestheirownheart-rate.Thewrist-bandsits

directlyabovethearterialpulseonthewrist,andprovidesajust-noticeabledoublerhythm

ontotheinsideofthewristtowhichthewearer’sactualheart-beatisthenexpectedto

synch.Thisislikeatickingclock,butwhichisprivatelyexperiencedbyasingleindividualand

adjustabledependingoncircumstances.Thewearersetsthepaceoftherhythmby

caressingasmallblackdisconthewristband,movingtheirfingerinonedirectionfor‘speed

up’andtheoppositedirectionfor‘slowdown’.Thedesignprinciplebehindthisistoallow

thewearertochangethepaceoftheirRippleasunobtrusivelyaspossible,forinstance

whileinameeting.Researchonthetechnology(includingrandomisedcontroltrials)

confirmstothedevelopersthatthistechnologycanworkinalteringthepaceofheart-rate.

Rippleassumes,asperWilliamJames’stheoryofemotions,thatalteringphysiological

responsesisawaytoinfluencepsychologicalaffectivestates(James,1884).Oneofmy

intervieweesatRipplevolunteeredJames’stheorytomeinexplainingwhythetechnology

worked.Alteringone’spulse-ratemightthereforehavevarioususes.Itcouldcalmsomeone

downduringamomentofanxietyorstress,orhelpthemrelaxpriortogoingtobed.Orit

couldenergisethemlikecaffeine,immediatelyafterlunchorwhentheyfirstwakeup.I

askedoneintervieweeiftherewereanycompetitorsonthemarket,towhichsheonlyhalf-

jokinglyreplied‘coffee’.

20

Rippleinteractswithanapp,butnotsoastocollectandrepresentheart-rate,asvarious

wearabletechnologiesdo.Itdoesn’tseektoprovidemeasurementofanykind,forinstance

viaadashboardthatcantrackthebodyovertime.Thetechnologycangaugewhetheritisin

synchwiththeheart-rate,andtherebylearnswhatthewearer’srestingheart-rateis.The

userthenidentifiesarangeofdifferentratesaroundthat(whichcanbenamed‘jogging’or

‘pre-bed-time’or‘givingapresentation’etc)whichcanbeselectedviatheapp.Thewhole

purposeofthedeviceistograntcontroloverphysiologicalrhythm,ratherthantoachieve

measurementoftimeandspace.Thisisatechnologythatisnotsomuch‘pre-cognitive’(in

Hansen’sphrase)as‘non-cognitive’:itexistspurelyasaninterfacebetweenbodyand

environment,thatoffersthewearersomeadditionalcontrol,butnotanyempirical

representation.Whilesuchatechnologymaybeusefulinsupportingthewearerin

situationswheretheyneedtoperformorimprove,itmightequallybeusefulinhelping

themwinddownfromthesesituationsorescapethem.

Controlthrough‘internalmeasure’

Thesecasesbothpresentexamplesoftechnologiesof‘control’,inasmuchastheyseekto

renderindividuals(orinRipple’scase,selves)manageableinsomethingcloseto‘real-time’.

Buttherearesomeveryobviousdifferencesbetweentheirtechnicalcapabilitiesand

strategicfunctions.Moodboxisatoolofmonitoringandsubsequentrepresentation,which

collects‘pulse’onlyinthemetaphoricalsenseofanunconscious,always-ondatapoint.

Rippleisaninterfacebetweentheconscioussubjectandtheirphysiologywhichseeksto

influencethepaceofthebody,inthehopeofenhancingsomeidealofsubjective

autonomy.Yet‘pulse’isentirelyliteralinthisexample.However,inordertoconsiderhow

‘pulse’worksasanidealandaphysicalfeatureofcontemporarypost-Fordistcontrol,Iwant

toidentifysomecommonfeaturesofthesetechnologies.Bydoingso,Ihopetoindicate

somethingofhowmanagementmightworkinpost-hegemonicorwhatLazzaratoterms

‘asemiotic’forms(Lazzarato,2014).

Thefirstissuetoconsideristheroleofrhythmicsynchronisationthatisimpliedinthe

governanceofpulse.AswithadanceorLefebvre’sexampleofhorsedressage,these

technologiesdonotgoverntheindividualvianormsordiscipline,butneverthelessthey

21

providesomechoreographicrhythmtowhichtheindividualmightconform,perhaps

withoutevennoticingit.Moodboxdoesnotonlyfunctioninapanopticalfashiontoprovide

factstothemanager,butalsoprovidesdailyfeedbacktoemployeesastohowtheyare

‘fittingin’withthemoodoftheorganisation(i.e.after‘castingtheirpulse’theythenseea

displaysignallingcollectivemoodthatday).Thedeveloperexplainedtomethat:

Whatwethinkisthatwhenyougoandpressredandyouseethateverybody’s

pressinggreen,hopethatthatisalsogoingtotriggerathinkingprocess.Afterwhich

pointareyoupartoftheproblem?

Anunhappyemployeemight,overtime,cometoappearlikethey’re‘outofstep’(tousean

aptchoreographicmetaphor)withtherestofthecompany.Thisissomethingthatemerges

andwhichtheydiscover,ratherthansomethingwhichisjudgedordecidedbymanagement

viaevaluation,butitisneverthelessexclusionary.

ThequestionofsynchronisationismoreexplicitinthecaseofRipple,wherethechallenge

ofachievingeurhythmiaoperatesontwolevels.Thetechnologyisinspiredbythepotential

problemofanindividualwhosepulseisnotoperatingatthepacebestsuitedtotheir

environment.Eitheritisfasterthantheywouldlike,andmakingthemfeelanxiousor

overstimulated;oritisslowerthantheywouldlike,andmakingthemfeeldrowsyor

unproductive.Thepurposeofthetechnologyistoachievegreatersynchronisationbetween

subjectandworld,butitpursuesthisbyachievingsynchronisationbetween‘mechanical

heart-rate’and‘naturalheart-rate’,creatingaunifiedtechno-somaticrhythm.Herethe

individualisseekingtomanagethemselves,andthereisnopanopticalstructureatworkat

all(nodataisbeingcollectedorshared).However,thereisneverthelessateleologyof

conformityatwork,albeitnotonethatisgeneratedbyexternally-bindingorpublicnorms.It

isaconformitytoroutinesthatareemergent,contingentandprivate,asopposedtothose

thatcharacteriseFordistmanagementwhicharenormativeandpublic.

Connectedtothistechnicalambitionofsynchronicityofindividual,mechanicalandsocial

rhythmisasecondcommonfeatureofMoodboxandRipplethatdeservesrecognising.This

isthewaythattheyarecalibratedaroundtheexistingrhythmoftheuser,deliberately

22

avoidingemployingmeasuresorbenchmarksfromotherorganisations,individuals,experts

orthepublicatlarge.Instead,itisvariationsinpulsethatarebeingcontrolledinbothcases.

Justasheart-ratevariabilityisamoreimportantindicatorofhealththanactualheart-rate,

sothetechnologiesbeingstudiedherebothaimtodetectorinfluencechangesinrhythm

ratherthantoofferajudgementofrhythm.

ThedeveloperofMoodboxwasunconcernedwiththeepistemologicaldimensionofthe

technology.Ashesaidinourinterview:

Wemightacceptthatthereisascopeforinaccuracyinourmetricbutitisvery

consistentthatitisagoodguidetoimproveyourworkplace.

ThewayMoodbox’sDailyPulseisrepresentedinadashboardisnotintermsofany

externallyconsistentscale,butinhowfarfluctuationshavedivergedfromthatspecific

organisation’snorm.Equally,Rippleestablishestherestingheart-rateofthewearer,and

thenallowsthemtoselecttheirownpersonallyusefulpulse-ratesinrelationtothat.The

ideaofnormalityisinfluentialhere,butitisanemergentoneorwhatLefebvrecharacterise

asan“internalmeasure”(Lefebvre,2013:87).

Thisnotionofan‘internalmeasure’isintriguingandapparentlyoxymoronic.Itimpliesa

formofquantitativejudgement,butwithoutthepossibilityofcomparison,renderingit

utterlyunlikeastandardmeasure.Inthatsense,itclosertoanaestheticjudgementthanto

anempiricalone.AsinKant’saesthetics,itjudgestheparticularinitsparticularity,creating

astandardforothersintheprocess,ratherthanadoptingastandardbywhichtocarryout

judgement(Kant,2007).Itascendsfromtheparticulartothegeneral,whileempirical

judgement(likeameasuredevaluation)movesintheoppositedirection.Butunlikean

aestheticjudgement,itisexpressednumerically,ratherasadancerorconductormightsay

“one,two,one,two”intimetoapieceofmusic.Suchjudgementisrootedinthefeelofthe

immediatesituation,notinanyexternalstandardthatisbroughttobear.

Conclusion:tacticsbecomestrategies

23

Thecentraldilemmaofpost-Fordismisofhowtoachieveco-operation,conformityand

consent,butwithoutresorttojuridical,disciplinarytechniquesofpower,whichmight

damagethe‘creative’andaffectivevaluethatisprivilegedunderpost-Fordistcapitalism.

Thiscanproducesomeseeminglyparadoxicalformsofgovernanceandmanagement,such

asforinstancetheemploymentofanti-capitalistrhetoricsintheserviceofcapitalism

(Boltanski&Chiapello,2006),arepresentationofworkas‘leisure’andofsociallifeasa

formof‘work’.Theboundariesofthe‘economic’seemtodissolve,yetthereisstillaneed

foreconomicrationalitytodominate,iforganisationsaretosurviveincompetitive

economicconditionssuchasthoseofcapitalism.Giventhis,agradualpermeationof

workinglifebyculturalvaluecanquiteeasilyflipintoitsopposite,aradicalisedTaylorism

whereeconomiclifebecomesreducedtopost-humanassemblagesofmachinesandbodies,

underconditionsofdigitalsurveillance(Lazzarato,2014).Theradicaloptimismofsome

visionsofpost-Fordism(inwhichsocietyitselfbecomesthesourceofallvalue)can,witha

modicumoftechnologicalenhancement,swiftlyturnintosomethingmorefrightening,

whereallofsocietybecomespermeatedbyprivatemanagement.

Byfocusingontherhythmofpulse-rate–understoodbothinitssomaticandmetaphorical

sense–thispaperhasexploredcontemporarytechniquesofpowerwhichcarveapath

betweenthemostoptimisticandmostpessimisticanalysesofpost-Fordism.Post-Fordismis

characterisedbya‘crisisofmeasure’,thoughnotacrisisofquantificationnecessarily.The

affordancesofsensorydevicesanddataanalyticsaretoderivewhatLefebvreterms

“internalmeasures”fromdatathatisconstantlyaccumulatinginclosetoreal-time.One

thingthatdistinguishesan‘internalmeasure’isthatitexistsnecessarilyintime.Itrefersto

thefeelofrhythm,thatemergesnaturallyfromthebodyorsocialcontext,likeapulse-rate.

Ahealthypulse-rateisonethatisinsynchwithitssituation,butalsowhichvariesin

appropriateandrevealingwaysintime.Heart-ratevariabilityisausefulindicatorofhealth,

buttherateatanyonetimeisnotausefulfact.

Thiseurhythmicidealisofco-operation,butwithoutconventionorconvenor;of

quantificationbutwithoutmeasure.Ittakesthepracticesandbehavioursthatwere

traditionallyviewedasbeyondmanagement,andseekstoinfluencethemintosome

conformitywitheachother,thoughnotintoconformitywithadisciplinarynorm.Politically

24

speaking,thischallengesassumptionsabouttechniquesofpowerandalsoaboutthoseof

resistance.InDeCerteau’sfamousdistinctionbetween‘strategies’and‘tactics’,domination

operatesthroughtheseparationofdiscretespaces,whichthencometosignifydifferent

times.Thisiswhatheterms‘strategies’,resonatingwithFordistanddisciplinarypower,and

the‘homogeneoustime’producedbyclocks(DeCerteau,1988:36).Resistancetothis

occursthrough‘tactics’,whichexploitcontingentopportunitiesforemergentpracticesof

play,jokes,conversationandpranks,inthosemomentsandmarginalspacesthatevade

strategicoversight.‘Tactics’areopportunistic.

Post-Fordistsocietiesofcontrolarenolongerdominatedbyexplicit‘strategies’,ofthe

planned,rationalformdescribedbyDeCerteau.Theidealofcontrolistoinsinuatepower

into‘tactics’instead,penetratingostensiblycontingentandemergentrhythmsofeveryday

life,andco-optingthemtowardsmanagerialgoals.Butwhatuseorvalueisthereina

‘tactic’ifitthereisno‘strategy’toplaytricksonortohidefrom?Whetherthisbe

understoodpessimisticallyoroptimistically,wemightthereforeconcludethatweare

witnessingaconvergenceof‘tactics’and‘strategies’,producinganidealof‘internally

measured’eurhythmiaofhumanandnon-humanpulse.Like‘tactics’,thiscanonlybe

understoodasatemporalphenomenon;butlike‘strategies’,itisrootedinsurveillance

capacities.Thequestioniswhatmodeofresistanceorpoliticsliesdormantintheideaof

arrhythmia,thebodyormachinethatdoesnot,cannotorwillnotconvergewiththepulse-

rateofitsenvironment.

25

References

Amin,A.(2011).Post-Fordism:AReader.JohnWiley&Sons.

Amoore,L.(2013).ThePoliticsofPossibility:RiskandSecurityBeyondProbability.Duke

UniversityPress.

Andrejevic,M.(2013).InfoGlut:HowTooMuchInformationIsChangingtheWayWeThink

andKnow.Routledge.

Arvidsson,A.(2006).Brands:MeaningandValueinMediaCulture.Routledge.

Arvidsson,A.(2011).GeneralSentiment:howvalueandaffectconvergeintheinformation

economy.TheSociologicalReview,59(s2),39–59.

Arvidsson,A.,&Peitersen,N.(2013).TheEthicalEconomy:RebuildingValueAftertheCrisis.

ColumbiaUniversityPress.

Bergson,H.(2002).KeyWritings.(K.AnsellPearson&J.Mullarkey,Eds.).London:

Bloomsbury.

Billman,G.E.(2011).HeartRateVariability–AHistoricalPerspective.Frontiersin

Physiology,2.

Boltanski,L.,&Chiapello,E.(2007).TheNewSpiritofCapitalism.London:Verso.

Boltanski,L.,&Thévenot,L.(2006).OnJustification:EconomiesofWorth.Princeton:

PrincetonUniversityPress.

Carruthers,B.G.,&WendyNelsonEspeland.(1991).AccountingforRationality:Double-

EntryBookkeepingandtheRhetoricofEconomicRationality.TheAmericanJournalof

Sociology,97(1),31–69.

Certeau,M.de.(1988).ThePracticeofEverydayLife.(S.Rendall,Trans.).Universityof

CaliforniaPress.

Crary,J.(2013).24/7:LateCapitalismandtheEndsofSleep.VersoBooks.

Crawford,R.(1980).Healthismandthemedicalizationofeverydaylife.InternationalJournal

ofHealthServices:Planning,Administration,Evaluation,10(3),365–388.

Crawford,K.,Lingel,J.,&Karppi,T.(2015).Ourmetrics,ourselves:Ahundredyearsofself-

trackingfromtheweightscaletothewristwearabledevice.EuropeanJournalof

CulturalStudies,18(4–5),479–496.

Danziger,K.(1994).ConstructingtheSubject:HistoricalOriginsofPsychologicalResearch.

CambridgeUniversityPress.

26

Davies,W.(2014).TheLimitsofNeoliberalism:Authority,SovereigntyandtheLogicof

Competition.SAGE.

Davies,W.(2017).ThePoliticsofSilentCitizenship:psychologicalgovernmentandthe‘facts’

ofhappiness.InPykett,J.etal.(eds.)(2017).PsychologicalGovernanceandPublic

Policy:GoverningtheMind,BrainandBehaviour.Abingdon:Routledge.

Dean,J.(2009).DemocracyandOtherNeoliberalFantasies:CommunicativeCapitalismand

LeftPolitics.DukeUniversityPress.

Deleuze,G.(1992).Postscriptonthesocietiesofcontrol.October,59,3–7.

Didžiokaitė,G.,Saukko,P.,&Greiffenhagen,C.(2017).Themundaneexperienceof

everydaycalorietrackers:BeyondthemetaphorofQuantifiedSelf.NewMedia&

Society,

Espeland,W.N.,&Stevens,M.L.(1998).CommensurationasaSocialProcess.Annual

ReviewofSociology,24(1),313–343.

Frank,T.(1997).TheConquestofCool:BusinessCulture,Counterculture,andtheRiseofHip

Consumerism.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Franklin,S.(2015).Control:DigitalityasCulturalLogic.MITPress.

Ghasemzadeh,N.,&Zafari,A.M.(2011).ABriefJourneyintotheHistoryoftheArterial

Pulse.CardiologyResearchandPractice,2011,1–14.

Gilmore,J.N.(2015).Everywear:Thequantifiedselfandwearablefitnesstechnologies.New

Media&Society,1461444815588768.

Gramsci,A.,(2011).PrisonNotebooks.ColumbiaUniversityPress.

Hansen,M.B.N.(2015).Feed-Forward:OnTheFutureOfTwenty-First-CenturyMedia.

Chicago ;London:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Hardt,M.&Negri,A.(2001).Empire.Cambridge,Mass:HarvardUniversityPress

Hardt,M.,&Negri,A.(2005).Multitude:WarandDemocracyintheAgeofEmpire.London:

HamishHamilton.

James,W.(1884).WhatisanEmotion.Mind,9(34),188–205.

Jessop,B.(2002).TheFutureofCapitalistState.Oxford:Polity.

Kant,I.(2007).CritiqueofJudgement.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Kitchin,R.(2014).Thereal-timecity?Bigdataandsmarturbanism.GeoJournal,79(1),1–14.

Larsen,P.D.,&Galletly,D.C.(2006).Thesoundofsilenceismusictotheheart.Heart,

92(4),433–434.

27

Lash,S.(2007).PowerafterHegemony:CulturalStudiesinMutation?Theory,Culture&

Society,24(3),55–78.

Lazzarato,M.(2014).SignsandMachines:CapitalismandtheProductionofSubjectivity.

Semiotext(e).

Lefebvre,H.(2013).Rhythmanalysis:Space,TimeandEverydayLife.BloomsburyPublishing.

Lupton,D.(2012).M-healthandhealthpromotion:Thedigitalcyborgandsurveillance

society.SocialTheory&Health,10(3),229–244.

Lupton,D.(2013).Quantifyingthebody:monitoringandmeasuringhealthintheageof

mHealthtechnologies.CriticalPublicHealth,23(4),393–403.

Lupton,D.(2016).TheQuantifiedSelf.London:Wiley

Mattern,S.(2015).MissionControl:AHistoryoftheUrbanDashboard.Places,March2015.

https://placesjournal.org/article/mission-control-a-history-of-the-urban-dashboard/

(accessedJuly2017)

Maturo,A.(2014).Fatism,self-monitoringandthepursuitofhealthinessinthetimeof

technologicalsolutionism.ItalianSociologicalReview,4(2),157.

MCGILLIVRAY*,D.(2005a).Fitter,happier,moreproductive:Governingworkingbodies

throughwellness.CultureandOrganization,11(2),125–138.

McGillivray,D.(2005b).GoverningWorkingBodiesThroughLeisure.LeisureSciences,27(4),

315–330.

McReynolds,P.(1968).ThemotivationalpsychologyofJeremyBentham:II.Effortstoward

quantificationandclassification.JournaloftheHistoryoftheBehavioralSciences,4(4),

349–364.

Moore,P.(2014).TrackingBodies,the“quantifiedself”andthecorporealturn.InB.Cohen

&M.Watson(Eds.),TheInternationalPoliticalEconomyofProduction.Cheltenham:

EdwardElgar.

Moore,P.,&Robinson,A.(2015).Thequantifiedself:Whatcountsintheneoliberal

workplace.NewMedia&Society.

Munro,L.(2000).Non-DisciplinaryPowerandtheNetworkSociety.Organization,7(4),679–

695.

Pantzar,M.,&Ruckenstein,M.(2015).Theheartofeverydayanalytics:emotional,material

andpracticalextensionsinself-trackingmarket.ConsumptionMarkets&Culture,

18(1),92–109.

28

Pink,S.,Sumartojo,S.,Lupton,D.,&HeyesLaBond,C.(2017).Mundanedata:Theroutines,

contingenciesandaccomplishmentsofdigitalliving.BigData&Society,4(1).

Poovey,M.(1998).AHistoryoftheModernFact:ProblemsofKnowledgeintheSciencesof

WealthandSociety.UniversityofChicagoPress.

Rabinbach,A.(1992).TheHumanMotor:Energy,Fatigue,andtheOriginsofModernity.

UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Sanders,R.(2017).Self-trackingintheDigitalEra:Biopower,Patriarchy,andtheNew

BiometricBodyProjects.Body&Society,23(1),36–63.

Savage,M.,&Burrows,R.(2007).TheComingCrisisofEmpiricalSociology.Sociology,41(5),

885–899.

Schüll,N.D.(2012).AddictionbyDesign:MachineGamblinginLasVegas.Princeton

UniversityPress.

Schull,N.D.(2017).KeepingTrack:PersonalInformatics,Self-regulationandData-driven

Life.NewYork:Farrar,Straus&Giroux

Smith,G.J.D.(2016).Surveillance,DataandEmbodimentOntheWorkofBeingWatched.

Body&Society,22(2),108–139.

Stark,D.(2009).TheSenseofDissonance:AccountsofWorthinEconomicLife.Princeton,

N.J:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Thrift,N.(2008).TheMaterialPracticesofGlamour.JournalofCulturalEconomy,1(1),9–23.

Thrift,N.J.(2005).KnowingCapitalism.London:SAGEPublications.

Till,C.(2014).ExerciseasLabour:QuantifiedSelfandtheTransformationofExerciseinto

Labour.Societies,4(3),446–462.

Virno,P.(2004).AGrammaroftheMultitude:ForanAnalysisofContemporaryFormsof

Life.LosAngeles,Calif:Semiotext(e).

Zoller,H.M.(2003).WorkingOutManagerialisminWorkplaceHealthPromotion.

ManagementCommunicationQuarterly,17(2),171–205.