Facebook Twitter Instagram
    Trending
    • Trend-Whisperer and Tetris Machines
    • CALL FOR PAPERS Threads of Hope: Ancestral Knowledge and Feminist Futures
    • From Wolves to Care Bears: Insights from the Caloundra Futures Thinking and Transformational Strategy Masterclass
    • JFS | Podcast
    • A Rocket to the Future – Futures Triangle for Children
    • Editors’ Introduction to Hesitant Feminist’s Guide to the Future Symposium
    • Rebellious girls needed – the urgency to imagine more feminist futures
    • Feminist International Relations: a knowledge-based proposition
    Journal of Futures Studies
    • Who we are
      • Editorial Board
      • Editors
      • Core Team
      • Digital Editing Team
      • Consulting Editors
      • Indexing, Rank and Impact Factor
      • Statement of Open Access
    • Articles and Essays
      • In Press
      • 2025
        • Vol. 29 No. 4 June 2025
        • Vol. 29 No. 3 March 2025
      • 2024
        • Vol. 29 No. 2 December 2024
        • Vol. 29 No. 1 September 2024
        • Vol. 28 No. 4 June 2024
        • Vol. 28 No. 3 March 2024
      • 2023
        • Vol. 28 No. 2 December 2023
        • Vol. 28 No. 1 September 2023
        • Vol. 27 No. 4 June 2023
        • Vol. 27 No. 3 March 2023
      • 2022
        • Vol. 27 No. 2 December 2022
        • Vol. 27 No.1 September 2022
        • Vol.26 No.4 June 2022
        • Vol.26 No.3 March 2022
      • 2021
        • Vol.26 No.2 December 2021
        • Vol.26 No.1 September 2021
        • Vol.25 No.4 June 2021
        • Vol.25 No.3 March 2021
      • 2020
        • Vol.25 No.2 December 2020
        • Vol.25 No.1 September 2020
        • Vol.24 No.4 June 2020
        • Vol.24 No.3 March 2020
      • 2019
        • Vol.24 No.2 December 2019
        • Vol.24 No.1 September 2019
        • Vol.23 No.4 June 2019
        • Vol.23 No.3 March 2019
      • 2018
        • Vol.23 No.2 Dec. 2018
        • Vol.23 No.1 Sept. 2018
        • Vol.22 No.4 June 2018
        • Vol.22 No.3 March 2018
      • 2017
        • Vol.22 No.2 December 2017
        • Vol.22 No.1 September 2017
        • Vol.21 No.4 June 2017
        • Vol.21 No.3 Mar 2017
      • 2016
        • Vol.21 No.2 Dec 2016
        • Vol.21 No.1 Sep 2016
        • Vol.20 No.4 June.2016
        • Vol.20 No.3 March.2016
      • 2015
        • Vol.20 No.2 Dec.2015
        • Vol.20 No.1 Sept.2015
        • Vol.19 No.4 June.2015
        • Vol.19 No.3 Mar.2015
      • 2014
        • Vol. 19 No. 2 Dec. 2014
        • Vol. 19 No. 1 Sept. 2014
        • Vol. 18 No. 4 Jun. 2014
        • Vol. 18 No. 3 Mar. 2014
      • 2013
        • Vol. 18 No. 2 Dec. 2013
        • Vol. 18 No. 1 Sept. 2013
        • Vol. 17 No. 4 Jun. 2013
        • Vol. 17 No. 3 Mar. 2013
      • 2012
        • Vol. 17 No. 2 Dec. 2012
        • Vol. 17 No. 1 Sept. 2012
        • Vol. 16 No. 4 Jun. 2012
        • Vol. 16 No. 3 Mar. 2012
      • 2011
        • Vol. 16 No. 2 Dec. 2011
        • Vol. 16 No. 1 Sept. 2011
        • Vol. 15 No. 4 Jun. 2011
        • Vol. 15 No. 3 Mar. 2011
      • 2010
        • Vol. 15 No. 2 Dec. 2010
        • Vol. 15 No. 1 Sept. 2010
        • Vol. 14 No. 4 Jun. 2010
        • Vol. 14 No. 3 Mar. 2010
      • 2009
        • Vol. 14 No. 2 Nov. 2009
        • Vol. 14 No. 1 Aug. 2009
        • Vol. 13 No. 4 May. 2009
        • Vol. 13 No. 3 Feb. 2009
      • 2008
        • Vol. 13 No. 2 Nov. 2008
        • Vol. 13 No. 1 Aug. 2008
        • Vol. 12 No. 4 May. 2008
        • Vol. 12 No. 3 Feb. 2008
      • 2007
        • Vol. 12 No. 2 Nov. 2007
        • Vol. 12 No. 1 Aug. 2007
        • Vol. 11 No. 4 May. 2007
        • Vol. 11 No. 3 Feb. 2007
      • 2006
        • Vol. 11 No. 2 Nov. 2006
        • Vol. 11 No. 1 Aug. 2006
        • Vol. 10 No. 4 May. 2006
        • Vol. 10 No. 3 Feb. 2006
      • 2005
        • Vol. 10 No. 2 Nov. 2005
        • Vol. 10 No. 1 Aug. 2005
        • Vol. 9 No. 4 May. 2005
        • Vol. 9 No. 3 Feb. 2005
      • 2004
        • Vol. 9 No. 2 Nov. 2004
        • Vol. 9 No. 1 Aug. 2004
        • Vol. 8 No. 4 May. 2004
        • Vol. 8 No. 3 Feb. 2004
      • 2003
        • Vol. 8 No. 2 Nov. 2003
        • Vol. 8 No. 1 Aug. 2003
        • Vol. 7 No. 4 May. 2003
        • Vol. 7 No. 3 Feb. 2003
      • 2002
        • Vol. 7 No.2 Dec. 2002
        • Vol. 7 No.1 Aug. 2002
        • Vol. 6 No.4 May. 2002
        • Vol. 6 No.3 Feb. 2002
      • 2001
        • Vol.6 No.2 Nov. 2001
        • Vol.6 No.1 Aug. 2001
        • Vol.5 No.4 May. 2001
        • Vol.5 No.3 Feb. 2001
      • 2000
        • Vol. 5 No. 2 Nov. 2000
        • Vol. 5 No. 1 Aug. 2000
        • Vol. 4 No. 2 May. 2000
      • 1999
        • Vol. 4 No. 1 Nov. 1999
        • Vol. 3 No. 2 May
      • 1998
        • Vol. 3 No. 1 November 1998
        • Vol. 2 No. 2 May. 1998
      • 1997
        • Vol. 2 No. 1 November 1997
        • Vol. 1 No. 2 May. 1997
      • 1996
        • Vol. 1 No. 1 November 1996
    • Information
      • Submission Guidelines
      • Publication Process
      • Duties of Authors
      • Submit a Work
      • JFS Premium Service
      • Electronic Newsletter
      • Contact us
    • Topics
    • Authors
    • Perspectives
      • About Perspectives
      • Podcast
      • Multi-lingual
      • Exhibits
        • When is Wakanda
      • Special Issues and Symposia
        • The Hesitant Feminist’s Guide to the Future: A Symposium
        • The Internet, Epistemological Crisis And The Realities Of The Future
        • Gaming the Futures Symposium 2016
        • Virtual Symposium on Reimagining Politics After the Election of Trump
    • JFS Community of Practice
      • About Us
      • Teaching Resources
        • High School
          • Futures Studies for High School in Taiwan
        • University
          • Adults
    Journal of Futures Studies
    Home»Articles and Essays»Vol.24 No.4 June 2020»Confronting a High-Tech Nightmare: A Review of Zuboff’s the Age of Surveillance Capitalism

    Confronting a High-Tech Nightmare: A Review of Zuboff’s the Age of Surveillance Capitalism

    View PDF

    Journal of Futures Studies, June 2020, 24(4): 99–102

    Confronting a High-Tech Nightmare: A Review of Zuboff’s the Age of Surveillance Capitalism

    Richard A. Slaughter, Foresight International, PO Box 793, Indooroopilly, Queensland 4068, Australia. rslaughter@ozemail.com.au , www. foresightinternational.com.au

    * Web Text version of each JFS paper here is for easy reading purpose only, for the valid and published context of each article, please refer to the PDF version. 

     

    During recent decades the ‘myth of progress’ lost credibility and it’s not hard to see why. Many expectations of human improvement that were supposed to flow from new knowledge, advances in human organisation and successive waves of technical innovation have proved hollow or ambiguous. That’s not to say that there have been no such improvements. But taking these as evidence of overall human improvement requires a kind of mental gymnastics undertaken only by the courageous or the hopelessly misguided. Politicians are prominent among those who seem wedded to this view. What cannot be overlooked for much longer is the way that humanity has manoeuvred itself into a fateful collision with the planetary systems upon which it depends entirely for sustenance and renewal. One need not dig very far into the current sense of frustration and malaise afflicting political systems to acknowledge that there can only be one ‘winner’ in humanity’s self-chosen ‘collision course’ with the planet. It’s not us (Higgs, 2014).

    I take the view that the most vital responses to such circumstances are neither external nor technological. They include having the inner courage and conviction to think and feel clearly, regaining our bearings and understanding the broader reality of which we are part. Nothing less will help remove the scales from our eyes so that we can act in ways that truly make sense. Humanity has a planet to manage and if it fails to rise to the occasion the human outlook looks distinctly ominous (Slaughter, 2020). The focus of this review, however, is not that of the wider ‘global problematique’ but, rather, a work that deals with an issue that has crept upon us almost unawares. For this writer it provides tangible inspiration, hope and a rationale for action when they are in short supply.

    To be clear at the outset, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism is not a particularly easy read. This is not because it is poorly written or in any way obscure but because it takes the reader into new and unfamiliar territory. It takes a while to adjust, absorb the language and come to grips with what this lucid and courageous work is saying. In effect, the book re-frames the last two or three decades, the very time when Information Technology (IT) took on new forms and literally invaded human awareness, ways of life, long before anyone had grasped what was happening. And that’s the point. Now that Zuboff has documented in compelling detail many of the details of that invasion – and the rampant dispossession that followed – it becomes possible to envision a fundamental reorientation both to the high-tech systems around us and to those in whose interests the present deceptions are maintained. This is clearly no small achievement. A revised understanding of the recent past leads to a re-consideration of the present from which may emerge rather different futures to those currently in prospect.

    One question that is answered early on is: who was responsible for this invasion? There’s a distinct cast of characters, prominent among which are those who created Google, Facebook and similar companies. Behind these organisations, however, are many others including neo-liberal ideologists, venture capitalists, several US presidents and powerful agencies closely associated with the US government. Yet even that’s too simple. Bin Laden, as prime mover of 9/11, also had an influence since it was this event that led US security agencies to abandon earlier concerns about ‘privacy’ in favour of a particularly invasive and regressive form of ‘security’. It’s a bit like the ‘rabbit hole’ featured in the Matrix film trilogy: the further down you go, the more you find. Zuboff, however, is very far from getting lost. She locates dates, events, players and consequences in a highly disciplined and comprehensible way. As a result, we can finally know what happened, understand it and gain clarity about emerging threats to the human future. As mentioned above, to have any hope of dealing with the wider global predicament we above all need agency, clarity and understanding. It is simply unacceptable for any constellation of entities, some of whom are now driving some of the most powerful technologies ever seen on planet Earth, to acquire riches beyond measure by actively working in opposition to humanity’s long-term interests.

    Rather than go into a detailed account of Zuboff’s terminology it can simply be noted that she has provided a language and a framework that can be used to open out much of what’s been hidden and to pursue the kind of projects and actions that are clearly needed. A couple of examples will suffice. One is a notion of the ‘two texts;’ while a second is about learning to distinguish between ‘the puppet’ and ‘the puppet master.’ In the former case she makes a strong distinction between what she calls the ‘forward text’ and the ‘shadow text.’ The forward text refers to that part of the on-line world that users of, say, Google and Facebook, can see, use and be generally be aware of. This embraces the whole gamut of design features intended to keep people in the system where their actions and responses can be constantly harvested and on-sold to others (data processors, advertising companies, political parties and the like). The simplest way to think of this ‘text’ is to view it as the ‘bait’ that keeps people returning. The shadow text refers to the vast hidden world owned by, controlled by, and singularly benefitting from what Zuboff calls the ‘extraction imperative’. This is a highly secretive world that has thus-far experienced minimal regulatory oversight, especially in the US. Similarly, in the second case, a so-called ‘smart phone’ can be regarded as ‘the puppet’ whereas the hidden intelligences (including AI) that employ it for their own purposes are the invisible and currently unaccountable masters. Knowing how to use the former as a tool and enabler is one thing. Coming to grips with the hidden imperatives of the puppet masters is quite another.

    Step by step the author explores how this system became established and how it morphed from being something useful that initially supported peoples’ authentic needs (for connection, communication, identity, location etc.) into an all-out assault on each person’s interior life. Even now, after the Cambridge Analytica and similar scandals, few people have yet grasped just how far this process of yielding their interiority to what Zuboff calls ‘Big Other’ has gone. For example, she documents how it exerts particularly savage consequences on young people at the very time when their identities, sense of self etc., are already unstable as they proceed through the upheavals of adolescence. She has strong words for what is involved. For example:

    Young life now unfolds in the spaces of private capital, owned and operated by surveillance capitalists, mediated by their ‘economic orientation’ and operationalised in practices designed to maximise surveillance revenues… (Consequently) …Adolescents and emerging young adults run naked through these digitally mediated social territories in search of proof of life… . (Zuboff, 2019, p. 456, p. 463)

    Immersion in social media is known to be associated with a range of unwelcome symptoms such as anxiety and depression but this particular rabbit hole goes far deeper. Viewed through the evidence presented here a combination of this form of ‘rogue capitalism’ with the far-reaching capabilities of digital technology are bearing down on the capacity of everyone to know and value their inner selves. In this connection Zuboff introduces a pivotal concept – the primacy of what she calls ‘the latency of the self’. She writes:

    What we are witnessing is a bet-the-farm commitment to the socialisation and the normalisation of instrumental power for the sake of surveillance revenues… In this process the inwardness that is the source of autonomous action and moral judgement suffers and suffocates. (Zuboff, 2019, p. 468)

    So very far from being the fulfilment of humanity’s aspirations and dreams, surveillance capitalism leads to ‘the blankness of perpetual compliance.’ But wait, the attentive reader might say, have we not seen this before? We have, both in some of the great Dystopian fiction and also in recent history. When whole populations are deprived of their inner lives, their deepest sense of self, they become depressed, diminished, disposable. Many accounts of this are available but one of the most powerful is arguably that by Masha Gessen whose book The Future is History provides a moving collective portrait of Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union (Gessen, 2017). What, therefore, needs to be done? Zuboff gives due credit to some of the early steps that have already been taken, many of them by European Union. But there’s a long way to go before the myths promulgated by the Internet Oligarchs are recognised by entire populations (and the politicians that represent them) and seen for what they are: a sustained assault by secretive but radically indifferent private entities on the very foundations of their humanity.

    One of the main ideas that emerges is the need for new kinds of countervailing authority to re-constitute the digital realm along lines that are just, fair and democratic. Zuboff is clear that the present shape this high-tech nightmare has taken was never inevitable, never inherent in the technology itself. It was a consequence of values, choices and decisions taken by particular people at specific times and long before the implications were understood. There are, in particular, two claims of particular significance to Futurists and foresight practitioners which she refers to as: ‘the right to the future tense’ and ‘the right to sanctuary’. Here’s how she describes the relevance of the former. She frames her decision to spend seven years working on this book as an act of will that constitutes part of her own personal claim to the future. She then continues:

    Will is the organ with which we summon our futures into existence…The freedom of the will is the bone structure that carries the moral flesh of every promise…These are necessary for the possibility of civilisation as a ‘moral milieu’…(They are) the basis of contracts…collective decisions to make our vision real. ( Zuboff, p. 331-3)

    The notion of ‘civilisation as a moral milieu’ is a powerful and compelling one. By contrast, the conditions and agreements demanded by Google, for example, require centuries of human legal practice to be set aside in favour of what she calls ‘Uncontracts’. These are forced ‘agreements’ created by the ‘positivist calculations of automated machine processes.’ In place of human qualities such as dialogue, problem solving and empathy, the ‘Uncontract’ again leads back to ‘the blankness of perpetual compliance’ referred to above (Zuboff, p. 334-6).

    The right to sanctuary is also of primary significance. In Zuboff’s account it is among the most ancient of human rights and thus of vital and enduring value. But it is far from impregnable when ‘physical places, including our homes are increasingly saturated with informational violations as our lives are rendered as behaviour and expropriated as surplus.’ Moreover, the power of Big Other ‘outruns society and law in a self-authorised destruction of (this right) as it overwhelms considerations of justice with its tactical mastery of shock and awe’ So what is required, in this view, are ‘new forms of countervailing authority and power.’ In place of a swelling ‘social void’ her depth critique envisages both ‘direct challenges’ to the power of Surveillance Capitalism and a commitment to ‘new forms of creative action’ (Zuboff, p. 479-86).

    Near the end of the book Zuboff advances a number of key suggestions about what, in her view, needs to be done to rein in Surveillance Capitalism (SC). In summary they include:

    • The first step begins with naming, establishing our bearings, re-awakening our astonishment and sharing a sense of righteous dignity.
    • Giving voice to our collective outrage and refusal of the diminished futures on offer.
    • Becoming alert to the historical contingency of SC by calling attention to ordinary values and expectations that existed before it began its campaign of psychic numbing.
    • The establishment of new centres of countervailing civic power equipped with laws that reject the fundamental legitimacy of SC’s declarations and interrupt its most basic operations

    While researching this article I was reminded of a short piece by the Chinese artist and dissident Al Weiwei from early 2019. In the opening paragraph it reinforces an underlying concern of Zuboff’s work to value and protect human dignity and autonomy. As such it provides a satisfying coda to this brief review of a remarkable work.

    What does it mean to be human? That question sits at the core of human rights. To be human has specific implications: human self-awareness and the actions taken to uphold human dignity – these are what gives the concept of humanity a special meaning. Human self-awareness and human actions determine the interplay between individual thought and language and the wider society. It is our actions as humans that deliver economic security, the right to education, the right to free association and free expression; and which create the conditions for protecting expression and encouraging bold thinking. When we abandon efforts to uphold human dignity, we forfeit the essential meaning of being human, and when we waver in our commitment to the idea of human rights, we abandon our moral principles. What follows is duplicity and folly, corruption and tyranny, and the endless stream of humanitarian crises that we see in the world today. (Weiwei, 2019)

    A long line of techno-optimists has long asserted that technology should be seen as the key to the future. But there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that is not the case. What Zuboff has demonstrated yet again is that when instrumental reason is linked to values such as power, money and greed its products become pathological. If, on the other hand, the systems and products of the IT revolution can be re-aligned with positive values and life-affirming purposes, then the human and global prospect would improve dramatically.

    References

    Gessen, M. (2017). The future is history: How totalitarianism reclaimed Russia. London: Granta.

    Higgs, K. (2014). Collision course: Endless growth on a finite planet. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Slaughter, R. (2020). Farewell alternative futures? In Press. Futures, Elsevier.

    Weiwei, A. (2019, January 21). Human dignity is in danger. In 2019 we must stand as one to survive. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/01/human-dignity-danger-ai-weiwei

    Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. London: Profile Books.

     

    Top Posts & Pages
    • Homepage
    • An Autoethnography of Swift Futuring in Practice
    • Towards an Explicit Research Methodology: Adapting Research Onion Model for Futures Studies
    • CALL FOR PAPERS Threads of Hope: Ancestral Knowledge and Feminist Futures
    • Vol. 29 No. 4 June 2025
    • Teasing Paradoxes to Explore Transformative Futures of Peace
    • WFSF XXV Conference Special Issue: The New, The Novel, and the Liminal in Futures Studies
    • Trauma-Transformative Foresight: Exploring the Liminal Spaces between Futures Unconsciousness and Futures Consciousness
    • The Ways of Informatization in Foresight Activities: Informatization in Foresight
    • “Words And Dreams”: Using Liminality for Empowerment
    In-Press

    Emerging Grand Challenges and Megatrends for the Future of Europe

    June 16, 2025

    Article Simon Önnered1, 2 *, Ksenija Komazec3, Malin Elvin4 1Department of Innovation Management, Mälardalen University,…

    From Science Fiction to Science Fact: Aerial Drones in Warfare in Russo-Ukraine War

    June 4, 2025

    An Autoethnography of Swift Futuring in Practice

    June 4, 2025

    Drama to Dharma and the Holographic Buddha: Futures Thinking in Thailand

    May 4, 2025

    Codes of Tomorrow: Genomic Sequencing Futures in Mexico of 2035

    May 4, 2025

    The Tale of Three Futures: Conquest, Reverence or Reconciliation?

    May 4, 2025

    Extreme Heat Governance Futures for Sydney – What Now, and What If?

    April 21, 2025

    Mama Coca Chronicles: Navigating Ancestral Heritage and Future Narratives

    April 21, 2025

    Parliaments and Foresight: Scanning and Reflections on Parliamentary Futures Work

    March 16, 2025

    Beyond the Gaia-Borg Dichotomy: Imagining a Second Chance

    January 28, 2025

    The Journal of Futures Studies,

    Graduate Institute of Futures Studies

    Tamkang University

    Taipei, Taiwan 251

    Tel: 886 2-2621-5656 ext. 3001

    Fax: 886 2-2629-6440

    ISSN 1027-6084

    Tamkang University
    Graduate Institute of Futures Studies
    © 2025 ThemeSphere. Designed by ThemeSphere.

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.