Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

21st Century Men and the Digital Amalgamation of Life

A Science and Technology Perspective on Lifelogging

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Lifelogging

Abstract

We investigate the field of lifelogging from the perspective of Science and Technology Studies and by means of three interrelated and co-dependent analytical aspects: usage of technologies, development of technologies, and technological trajectories. Apple iPhone 5s advertisements illustrate the prevalent ‘zeitgeist’ of lifelogging and act as techno-stories of ideal smartphone use. We show how lifelogging technologies become endowed with more agency and how lifelogging practices may stimulate narcissistic behaviour and meet a favourable socio-economic climate in which excessive self-modulation has become normalised. People adapt to smart devices and let discipline them. People trust in smart devices for numerous, albeit vague reasons. People are becoming increasingly entrenched in technologically mediated relations with the environment. Consequently, we argue to consider (more) social and societal factors in the construction and usage of lifelogging technologies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Akrich, M. (1992). The De-Scription of Technical Objects. In W. E. Bijker, & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping Technology/Building Society. Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 205-224). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, A. L. (2008). Dredging up the past: Lifelogging, Memory, and Surveillance. The University of Chicago Law Review, 75(1), 47-74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baecker, D. (2007). Studien zur nächsten Gesellschaft. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkmap.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bardini, T., & Horvath, A. T. (1995). The Social Construction of the Personal Computer User. Journal of Communication, 45(3), 40-65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauman, Z., & Lyon, D. (2013). Daten, Drohnen, Disziplin. Ein Gespräch über flüchtige Überwachung. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belliger, A., & Krieger, D. J. (2006). ANThology. Ein einführendes Handbuch zur Akteur-Netzwerk-Theorie. Bielefeld: transcript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bijker, W. E., Hughes T. P., & Pinch, T. J. (1987). The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bijker, W. E. (2006). The Vulnerability of Technological Culture. In H. Nowotny (Ed.), Cultures of Technology and the Quest for Innovation (pp. 52-69). New York: Berghahn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bijker, W. E. (2012). Do we live in water cultures? A methodological comment. Social Studies of Science, 42(4), 624-627.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bijker, W. E. (2010). How is technology made?—That is the question! Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34, 63-76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bijker, W. E., Hommels, A., & Messman, J. (2014). Vulnerability in Technological Cultures. New Directions in Research and Governance. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bühl, A. (1999). Computerstile. Vom individuellen Umgang mit dem PC im Alltag. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, A. E. (1991). Social Worlds/Arenas Theory as Organizational Theory. In D. R. Maines (Ed.), Social Organization and Social Process. Essays in Honor of Anselm Strauss (pp. 119-158). New York: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comor, E. (2011). Contextualizing and Critiquing the Fantastic Prosumer: Power, Alienation and Hegemony. Critical Sociology, 37 (3), 309-327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dijk, van J. (2012). The Network Society. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolata, U. (2013). The Transformative Capacity of New Technologies. A Theory of Sociotechnical Change. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy, 11(3), 147-162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Du Gay, P., Hall, S., Janes, L., Mackay, H., & Negus, K. (1997). Doing Cultural Studies: The Story of the Sony Walkman. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1977). Überwachen und Strafen. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1981). The History of Sexuality. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, S. (1994). Making Agency Count. American Behavioral Scientist Press, 37(6), 741-753.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a casestudy. Research Policy, 31(8-9), 1257-1274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geels, F. W. (2004). From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems. Insights about dynamic and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research Policy, 33, 897-920.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36, 399-417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geertz, C. (1984): “From the native´s point of view”. On the nature of anthropological understanding. In R. A. Shweder, & R. A. Levine (Eds.), Culture Theory: Essays on Mind, Self and Emotion (pp. 123-136). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geser, H. (1989). Der PC als Interaktionspartner. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 18(3), 230-243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ihde, D. (2003). Chasing Technoscience: Matrix for Materiality. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacquemard, T., Novitzky, P., O’Brolcháin, F., Smeaton, A. F., & Gordijn, B. (2014). Challenges and Opportunities of Lifelog Technologies: A Literature Review and Critical Analysis. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20(2), 379-409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackett, E. J., Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M., & Wajcman, J. (2007). The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath, C., & Luff, P. (2000). Technology in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath, C., Knoblauch, H., & Luff, P. (2000). Technology and social interaction: the emergence of ‘workplace studies’. British Journal of Sociology, 51(2), 299-320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hine, C. (2007). Multi-sited Ethnography as a Middle Range Methodology for Contemporary STS. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 32(6), 652-671.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hörning, K. H. (1995). Technik und Kultur : ein verwickeltes Spiel der Praxis. In J. Halfmann, G. Bechmann, & W. Rammert (Eds.), Technik und Gesellschaft (pp. 131-151). Frankfurt a.M.: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hörning, K. H., Ahrens, D., & Gerhard, A. (1996). Vom Wellenreiter zum Spieler. Soziale Welt, 1, 7-23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, T. P. (1986). The Seamless Web: Technology, Science, Etcetera, Etcetera. Social Studies of Science, 16(2), 281-292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, T. P. (1994). Technological momentum. In M. R. Smith, & L. Marx (Eds.), Does technology drive history? The dilemma of technological determinism (pp. 101-113). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins, E., & Klausen, T. (1996). Distributed cognition in an airline cockpit. In Y. Engeström, & D. Middleton (Eds.), Cognition and Communication at Work (pp. 15-34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoblauch, H. (2009): Videography. Focused Ethnography and Video Analysis. In H. Knoblauch, B. Schnettler, J. Raabe, & H.-G. Soeffner (Eds.), Video analysis: methodology and methods. Qualitative audiovisual data analysis in sociology (pp. 35-50). Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knorr-Cetina, K. (1995). Laboratory Studies. The Cultural Approach to the Study of Science. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (pp. 140-166). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lanier, J. (2010). You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto. New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1996). Aramis, or the Love of Technology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1998). Eine neue Politik der Dinge und für die Menschen. In W. Fricke (Ed.), Innovationen in Technik, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft (pp. 147-181). Bonn: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1999). Pandora‘s hope: essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, J. (1987). Technology and Heterogeneous Engineering: The Case of Portuguese Expansion. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology (pp. 111-134). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, J. (2011). Heterogeneous Engineering and Tinkering. http://www.heterogeneities.net/publications/Law2011HeterogeneousEngineeringAndTinkering.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2015.

  • Mackay, H., Carne, C., Beynon-Davies, P., & Tudhope, D. (2000). Reconfiguring the User: Using Rapid Application Development. Social Studies of Science, 30(5), 737-757.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, D. A., & Wajcman, J. (1999). The social shaping of technology. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meckel, M. (2013). NEXT: Erinnerungen an eine Zukunft ohne uns. Reinbek: rororo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ming, W. (2011). Fetishism of Digital Commodities and Hidden Exploitation: the cases of Amazon and Apple. Available under http://www.wumingfoundation.com/english/wumingblog/?p=1895. Accessed 05 Nov 2015.

  • Morozov, E. (2013). Smarte neue Welt: Digitale Technik und die Freiheit des Menschen. München: Karl Blessing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nover, I. (2013). Der disziplinierte Körper – Ethik, Prävention und Terror in Juli Zehs Corpus Delicti. Ein Prozess. Kritische Ausgabe. Zeitschrift für Germanistik & Literatur. 17(24), 79-84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Offenberger, U. (2010). Technologie und Geschlecht: Vergeschlechtlichte Praktiken, Objektivierungen und Deutungsmuster an der Schnittstelle von Entwicklung und Nutzung von Energietechnologien. In P. Biniok (Ed.), Technik, Wissenschaft und Politik. Neue Forschungsperspektiven (pp. 85-94). Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • O‘Hara, K., Tuffield, M., & Shadbolt, N. (2009). Lifelogging: Privacy and Empowerment with Memories for Life. Identity in the Information Society, 1(2), 2-3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oudshoorn, N. & Pinch, T. (2003). How Users Matter. The Co-Construction of Users and Technology. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter Bubble. London: Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterhans, M., & Neubarth, W. (2011). Digitale Gesellschaft 2011. Die digitale Gesellschaft in Deutschland – Sechs Nutzertypen im Vergleich. Berlin: Initiative D21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, A. (1993). The Mangle of Practice: Agency and Emergence in the Sociology of Science. American Journal of Sociology, 99(3), 559-589.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potthast, J. (2010). Science and Technology Studies. In D. Simon, A. Knie, & S. Hornbostel (Eds.), Handbuch Wissenschaftspolitik (pp. 91-105). Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, B., Petkovic, M., Spiekermann, S., Wright, D., Brown, I., Dickman, P., Friedewald, M., & Langheinrich, M. (2011). To Log or Not To Log—Risks and Benefits of Emerging Life-Logging Applications. ENISA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rammert, W. (1993). Technik aus soziologischer Perspektive. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rammert, W. (2007). Technik – Handeln – Wissen. Zu einer pragmatischen Technik- und Sozialtheorie. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rammert, W., & Schubert, C. (2006). Technografie. Zur Mikrosoziologie der Technik. Frankfurt a.M.: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rammert, W., & Schulz-Schaeffer, I. (2002). Technik und Handeln. Wenn soziales Handeln sich auf menschliches Verhalten und technische Abläufe verteilt. In W. Rammert, & I. Schulz-Schaeffer (Eds.), Können Maschinen handeln? Soziologische Beiträge zum Verhältnis von Mensch und Technik (pp. 11-64), Frankfurt a.M.: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rheingold, H. (2012). Net Smart. How to Thrive Online. Cambridge: MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Schirrmacher, F. (2009). Payback. München: Blessing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schirrmacher, F. (2015). Technologischer Totalitarismus. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, C. (2006). Die Praxis der Apparatemedizin. Ärzte und Technik im Operationssaal. Frankfurt a.M.: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sellen, A., & Whittaker, S. (2010). Beyond Total Capture: A Constructive Critique of Lifelogging. Communications of the ACM, 53(5), 70-77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selke, S. (2014a.) Lifelogging: Wie die digitale Selbstvermessung unsere Gesellschaft verändert. Berlin: econ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selke, S. (2014b). Lifelogging als soziales Medium? – Selbstsorge, Selbstvermessung und Selbstthematisierung im Zeitalter der Digitalität. In J. Jähnert, & C. Förster (Eds.), Technologien für digitale Innovationen (pp. 173-200), Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selke, S., & Biniok, P. (2015). Assistenzensembles in der Gesellschaft von morgen. In VDE (Ed.), 8. AAL-Kongress (pp. 50-56), Berlin: VDE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selwyn, N. (2003). Apart from technology: understanding people’s non-use of information and communication technologies in everyday life. Technology in Society, 25, 99-116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, I. G. R., & Meehan, K. (2013). Force-full: power, politics and object-oriented philosophy. Area, 45(2), 216-222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sismondo, S. (2004): An introduction to science and technology studies. Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. (2007). Translating Sustainabilities between Green Niches and Socio-Technical Regimes. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 19(4), 427-450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staiger, L., Kasper, B., Urbanczyk, M., Flischikowski, Ch., Ehlert, P., Gerloch, T., Hammerl, A., Schleifer, T., Klaiber, M., Klose, M., & Wurst, M. (2015). Das vermessene Selbst. Praktiken und Diskurse digitaler Selbstvermessung. http://dx.doi.org/10.15496/publikation-1200. Accessed 08 Dec 2015.

  • Strauss, A. L. (1978). A Social World Perspective. Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 1, 119-128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, G. (1994). Vertrauen in Technik. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 23(2), 145-157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weyer, J., Kirchner, U., Riedl, L., & Schmidt, J. F. K. (1997). Technik, die Gesellschaft schafft. Soziale Netzwerke als Ort der Technikgenese. Berlin: edition sigma.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weyer, J. (2008): Techniksoziologie. Genese, Gestaltung und Steuerung sozio-technischer Systeme. Weinheim: Juventa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilde, de R. (2000). De Voorspellers: een kritiek op de toekomstindustrie. Amsterdam: de Balie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolgar, S. (1991). Configuring the user: the case of usability trials. In J. Law (Ed.), A Sociology of Monsters: essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 58-100). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Furtwangen, Deutschland

    Peter Biniok & Ines Hülsmann

Authors
  1. Peter Biniok
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ines Hülsmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Biniok .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Hochschule Furtwangen University, Furtwangen, Germany

    Stefan Selke

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Biniok, P., Hülsmann, I. (2016). 21st Century Men and the Digital Amalgamation of Life. In: Selke, S. (eds) Lifelogging. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-13137-1_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-13137-1_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-13136-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-13137-1

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation