Power’s quiet reach and why it should exercise us

Social geography II: Space and Sociality

“…In recent years, more social geographers have sought to capture the complexity of socio-spatial life and its connections with human and non-human actants, components and events through engagement with the relational turn in geography, and with it, assemblage and infrastructural approaches. This progress report further suggests that topological thinking – an approach that has featured more prominently in political and urban geography to date – presents opportunities for social geographers searching for conceptual tools to excavate how relational proximities are established or dichotomous relations are troubled in the way that power extends its ‘quiet reach’ (Allen, 2020) through sociality and space. As shown below, the three approaches flag distinct socio-spatial dimensions, but they are not mutually exclusive in the way that social geographers have deployed them to inform and enrich their analyses of social life.…”

“…Assemblage theory brings together analyses of human and non-human actants to examine how these components come together or apart at particular junctures of space and time, emphasising processes that are heterogeneous, contingent and interdependent (Allen, 2020; Anderson and McFarlane, 2011). Social geographers have engaged with assemblage theory to study how objects, forces of nature and institutional structures shape social identities, practices and relations spatially.…”

“…Possibly, extant emphases in topological writing on ‘governments, authorities and political organisations’ (Allen, 2020: 408) has led to it being adopted more by political and urban geographers than social geographers. However, power or the ability to influence others – what Allen (2020: 409) terms as the ‘quiet registers of power’ – permeate the everyday processes of social life in lived space.…”

Algorithmic empowerment: A comparative ethnography of two open-source algorithmic platforms – Decide Madrid and vTaiwan

“…The comparative method also moves beyond techno-determinism and fetishism (see Crawford, 2016; Gillespie, 2014), to critically examine how different places and relationships entwined with or within algorithmic platforms empower citizens in policy-making. It frames algorithmic platforms as ‘the more unassuming means by which we are progressively put in place ’ (Allen, 2020: 412, my emphasis).…”

“…smart sensors, surveillance, and navigation platforms) as monitoring, regulating, and disciplining citizens' behaviours (Amoore, 2013;Gabrys, 2014: 34;Vanolo, 2014). In particular, algorithm-powered social media platforms have remotely manipulated Anglo-Saxon democratic elections, as in the case of Cambridge Analytica and the 2016 United States presidential election (Allen, 2020). Similarly, Noble (2018: 3), a digital sociologist, argued that commercial algorithmic platforms such as Facebook and Google, which prioritise the interests of advertisers, pose 'a threat to democracy'.…”