Algorithms as fetish: Faith and possibility in algorithmic work

Abstract

Algorithms are powerful because we invest in them the power to do things. With such promise, they can transform the ordinary, say snapshots along a robotic vacuum cleaner's route, into something much more, such as a clean home. Echoing David Graeber's revision of fetishism, we argue that this easy slip from technical capabilities to broader claims betrays not the ''magic'' of algorithms but rather the dynamics of their exchange. Fetishes are not indicators of false thinking, but social contracts in material form. They mediate emerging distributions of power often too nascent, too slippery or too disconcerting to directly acknowledge. Drawing primarily on 2016 ethnographic research with computer vision professionals, we show how faith in what algorithms can do shapes the social encounters and exchanges of their production. By analyzing algorithms through the lens of fetishism, we can see the social and economic investment in some people's labor over others. We also see everyday opportunities for social creativity and change. We conclude that what is problematic about algorithms is not their fetishization but instead their stabilization into full-fledged gods and demonsthe more deserving objects of critique.

Evolving netnography: how brand auto-netnography, a netnographic sensibility, and more-than-human netnography can transform your research

“…When using netnography as a marketing research technique, it is crucial to remember, as Ariztia's (2015) work reveals, that netnography becomes one of the multiple social and cultural processes that construct the consumer as a type of boundary object to connect brand managers with a type of mysterious other. The fact that this work has moved from advertising agency psychoanalysis to sophisticated big data algorithms does not alter its basic nature: the brand or product becomes a fetish object, invested by the method with suprahuman significance and granted in material form an abjectly needful power to change the material circumstances of consumers, such as those who quantify the self (Thomas, Nafus, & Sherman, 2018). In the face of this netnography can help us to avoid 'digital opportunism', as Reid and Duffy (2018) assert, because we must reflexively ask ourselves what we are assuming, thinking and doing, and, we would argue, why we are doing them.…”

The Challenges of Algorithm-Based HR Decision-Making for Personal Integrity

“…Traditionally, white affluent men have developed and funded the technological advancement of algorithms (Crawford 2016; Thomas et al 2018; Watson 2016). Hence, it is not surprising that the algorithms these men created might also represent their worldview (Seaver 2017; Striphas 2015; Zuboff 2015).…”

“…Assuming that algorithms are more accurate than humans, users of analytics tools simply cannot explain or even retrace the reasons for algorithmic recommendations. Since algorithms are presumably superior, it is difficult to argue against such recommendations (Thomas et al 2018). Thus, the more complex a decision, the more tempting it is to believe in the superiority of algorithms.…”

Samhället utmanat?

“…En annan fara är att en för snäv förståelse skapas av AI. Frågan om superintelligens är extrem i bemärkelse att den handlar om en ny typ av risk: ett tekniskt system (kroppslös intelligens) som i ett digitaliserat samhälle kan visa sig vara ostyrbar, okontrollerbar och ostoppbar (Thomas, Nafus & Sherman 2018).…”