Lifelogging pp 81-108 | Cite as

21st Century Men and the Digital Amalgamation of Life

A Science and Technology Perspective on Lifelogging


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.


Smart Device Smart Technology Analogue Technology Technological Frame Training Partner 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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
  2. Allen, A. L. (2008). Dredging up the past: Lifelogging, Memory, and Surveillance. The University of Chicago Law Review, 75(1), 47-74.Google Scholar
  3. Baecker, D. (2007). Studien zur nächsten Gesellschaft. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkmap.Google Scholar
  4. Bardini, T., & Horvath, A. T. (1995). The Social Construction of the Personal Computer User. Journal of Communication, 45(3), 40-65.Google Scholar
  5. Bauman, Z., & Lyon, D. (2013). Daten, Drohnen, Disziplin. Ein Gespräch über flüchtige Überwachung. Berlin: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  6. Belliger, A., & Krieger, D. J. (2006). ANThology. Ein einführendes Handbuch zur Akteur-Netzwerk-Theorie. Bielefeld: transcript.Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. Bijker, W. E. (2012). Do we live in water cultures? A methodological comment. Social Studies of Science, 42(4), 624-627.Google Scholar
  10. Bijker, W. E. (2010). How is technology made?—That is the question! Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34, 63-76.Google Scholar
  11. Bijker, W. E., Hommels, A., & Messman, J. (2014). Vulnerability in Technological Cultures. New Directions in Research and Governance. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bühl, A. (1999). Computerstile. Vom individuellen Umgang mit dem PC im Alltag. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Comor, E. (2011). Contextualizing and Critiquing the Fantastic Prosumer: Power, Alienation and Hegemony. Critical Sociology, 37 (3), 309-327.Google Scholar
  15. Dijk, van J. (2012). The Network Society. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  16. Dolata, U. (2013). The Transformative Capacity of New Technologies. A Theory of Sociotechnical Change. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. Foucault, M. (1977). Überwachen und Strafen. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  20. Foucault, M. (1981). The History of Sexuality. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  21. Fuller, S. (1994). Making Agency Count. American Behavioral Scientist Press, 37(6), 741-753.Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36, 399-417.Google Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Geser, H. (1989). Der PC als Interaktionspartner. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 18(3), 230-243.Google Scholar
  27. Ihde, D. (2003). Chasing Technoscience: Matrix for Materiality. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Hackett, E. J., Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M., & Wajcman, J. (2007). The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Heath, C., & Luff, P. (2000). Technology in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Hine, C. (2007). Multi-sited Ethnography as a Middle Range Methodology for Contemporary STS. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 32(6), 652-671.Google Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Hörning, K. H., Ahrens, D., & Gerhard, A. (1996). Vom Wellenreiter zum Spieler. Soziale Welt, 1, 7-23.Google Scholar
  35. Hughes, T. P. (1986). The Seamless Web: Technology, Science, Etcetera, Etcetera. Social Studies of Science, 16(2), 281-292.Google Scholar
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. 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
  40. Lanier, J. (2010). You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  41. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Latour, B. (1996). Aramis, or the Love of Technology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora‘s hope: essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. 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
  46. Law, J. (2011). Heterogeneous Engineering and Tinkering. Accessed 20 July 2015.
  47. 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
  48. MacKenzie, D. A., & Wajcman, J. (1999). The social shaping of technology. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Meckel, M. (2013). NEXT: Erinnerungen an eine Zukunft ohne uns. Reinbek: rororo.Google Scholar
  50. Ming, W. (2011). Fetishism of Digital Commodities and Hidden Exploitation: the cases of Amazon and Apple. Available under Accessed 05 Nov 2015.
  51. Morozov, E. (2013). Smarte neue Welt: Digitale Technik und die Freiheit des Menschen. München: Karl Blessing.Google Scholar
  52. 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
  53. 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
  54. 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
  55. Oudshoorn, N. & Pinch, T. (2003). How Users Matter. The Co-Construction of Users and Technology. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  56. Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter Bubble. London: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  57. Peterhans, M., & Neubarth, W. (2011). Digitale Gesellschaft 2011. Die digitale Gesellschaft in Deutschland – Sechs Nutzertypen im Vergleich. Berlin: Initiative D21.Google Scholar
  58. 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
  59. Potthast, J. (2010). Science and Technology Studies. In D. Simon, A. Knie, & S. Hornbostel (Eds.), Handbuch Wissenschaftspolitik (pp. 91-105). Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
  60. 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
  61. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  62. Rammert, W. (1993). Technik aus soziologischer Perspektive. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  63. Rammert, W. (2007). Technik – Handeln – Wissen. Zu einer pragmatischen Technik- und Sozialtheorie. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
  64. Rammert, W., & Schubert, C. (2006). Technografie. Zur Mikrosoziologie der Technik. Frankfurt a.M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  65. 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
  66. Rheingold, H. (2012). Net Smart. How to Thrive Online. Cambridge: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  67. Schirrmacher, F. (2009). Payback. München: Blessing.Google Scholar
  68. Schirrmacher, F. (2015). Technologischer Totalitarismus. Berlin: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  69. Schubert, C. (2006). Die Praxis der Apparatemedizin. Ärzte und Technik im Operationssaal. Frankfurt a.M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  70. Sellen, A., & Whittaker, S. (2010). Beyond Total Capture: A Constructive Critique of Lifelogging. Communications of the ACM, 53(5), 70-77.Google Scholar
  71. Selke, S. (2014a.) Lifelogging: Wie die digitale Selbstvermessung unsere Gesellschaft verändert. Berlin: econ.Google Scholar
  72. 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
  73. Selke, S., & Biniok, P. (2015). Assistenzensembles in der Gesellschaft von morgen. In VDE (Ed.), 8. AAL-Kongress (pp. 50-56), Berlin: VDE.Google Scholar
  74. 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
  75. Shaw, I. G. R., & Meehan, K. (2013). Force-full: power, politics and object-oriented philosophy. Area, 45(2), 216-222.Google Scholar
  76. Sismondo, S. (2004): An introduction to science and technology studies. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  77. Smith, A. (2007). Translating Sustainabilities between Green Niches and Socio-Technical Regimes. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 19(4), 427-450.Google Scholar
  78. 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. Accessed 08 Dec 2015.
  79. Strauss, A. L. (1978). A Social World Perspective. Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 1, 119-128.Google Scholar
  80. Wagner, G. (1994). Vertrauen in Technik. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 23(2), 145-157.Google Scholar
  81. 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
  82. Weyer, J. (2008): Techniksoziologie. Genese, Gestaltung und Steuerung sozio-technischer Systeme. Weinheim: Juventa.Google Scholar
  83. Wilde, de R. (2000). De Voorspellers: een kritiek op de toekomstindustrie. Amsterdam: de Balie.Google Scholar
  84. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.FurtwangenDeutschland

Personalised recommendations