The return of the social: Algorithmic identity in an age of symbolic demise

Abstract

This article explores the socio-algorithmic construction of identity categories based on an ethnographic study of the Israeli data analytics industry. While algorithmic categorization has been described as a post-textual phenomenon that leaves language, social theory, and social expertise behind, this article focuses on the return of the social—the process through which the symbolic means resurface to turn algorithmically produced clusters into identity categories. I show that such categories stem not only from algorithms’ structure or their data, but from the social contexts from which they arise, and from the values assigned to them by various individuals. I accordingly argue that algorithmic identities stem from epistemic amalgams—complex blends of algorithmic outputs and human expertise, messy data flows, and diverse inter-personal factors. Finally, I show that this process of amalgamation arbitrarily conjoins quantitative clusters with qualitative labels, and I discuss the implausibility of seeing named algorithmic categories as explainable.

Algorithmic branding through platform assemblages: core conceptions and research directions for a new era of marketing and service management

“…As well as delving into the important ethical considerations of algorithms and algorithmic branding, future research might productively investigate a key consequence of algorithmic branding: "the socio algorithmic construction of identity categories" (Kotliar, 2020). What Kotliar's term means in the context of branding practice is that, more and more, knowledge about consumers by marketers is manifest through the algorithmic creation of profiles.…”

“…Personas are replaced by profiles. Investigations might fruitfully examine how algorithmic outputs, human expertise, messy flows of data and diverse interpersonal factors conjoin quantitative clustering with qualitative identity-based labels for market segmentation to produce the lens through which marketers meet and monitor those who consume their products and services (Kotliar, 2020).…”

Resolving the problem of Algorithmic Dissonance: An unconventional solution for a sociotechnical problem

“…With algorithms "seeing" people as multiplicities (Kotliar 2020) and working incessantly on creating new variations of system identities through never-ending streams of data, no social scientific definition of an "algorithmic identity" (p. 1154) can afford to ignore a racial context, even if a more technical definition of the concept accurately represents the preferences that algorithmic systems (and their constituent algorithms) exhibit for the behavioral characteristics of their users/subjects. Indeed, at least some, if not all algorithmic identities and any correlated experiences of algorithmic dissonance can certainly be seen as racialized.…”

Programmed welfare: An ethnographic account of algorithmic practices in the public distribution system in India

“…Treating the computational properties of the algorithm as stable and fixed gives the illusion that the outcome can therefore be audited for biases, accountability and transparency (Lee, 2020). However, as many scholars in critical algorithm studies would contend, the actual nature of an algorithm can only be understood in its performative agency enacted within a network of human and non-human actors (Eubanks, 2018; Kotliar, 2020; Lee et al, 2019; Seaver, 2014; Ziewitz, 2017). This perspective of the algorithm as assemblage (e.g.…”