Intimate Surveillance: Normalizing Parental Monitoring and Mediation of Infants Online

862 views

Published on

Parents are increasingly sharing information about infants online in various forms and capacities. In order to more meaningfully understand the way parents decide what to share about young people, and the way those decisions are being shaped, this paper focuses on two overlapping areas: parental monitoring of babies and infants through the example of wearable technologies; and parental mediation through the example of the public sharing practices of celebrity and influencer parents. The paper begins by contextualizing these parental practices within the literature on surveillance, with particular attention to online surveillance and the increasing importance of affect. It then gives a brief overview of work on pregnancy mediation, monitoring on social media, and via pregnancy apps, which is the obvious precursor to examining parental sharing and monitoring practices regarding babies and infants. The examples of parental monitoring and parental mediation will then build on the idea of “intimate surveillance” which entails close and seemingly invasive monitoring by parents. Parental monitoring and mediation contribute to the normalization of intimate surveillance to the extent that surveillance is (re)situated as a necessary culture of care. The choice to not survey infants is thus positioned, worryingly, as a failure of parenting.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
862
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
561
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Intimate Surveillance: Normalizing Parental Monitoring and Mediation of Infants Online

  1. 1. Dr Tama Leaver, Internet Studies Intimate Surveillance: Normalizing Parental Monitoring & Mediation of Infants Online 24.10.2016@tamaleaver
  2. 2. Overview. 1. Shifting Contexts of Identity and Surveillance Online 2. Parental Monitoring: Infant Wearables 3. Parental Mediation: Influencers & (Micro-)Microcelebrities Image:http://theindependent.ca/2012/03/21/introducing-the-ibaby/
  3. 3. I. Shifting Contexts of Identity and Surveillance Online
  4. 4. Shifting Identity Online  Push toward real-name and persistent identities (van Dijck, 2013b; van Zoonen, 2013)  Identity as persistent, replicable and searchable (boyd, 2010)  Challenges of context collapse & context collision (Nissenbaum, 2009; Marwick & boyd, 2011; Davis & Jurgenson, 2014)
  5. 5. Changing Surveillance Landscape  Datafication: all social activity is being tracked and digitized  "dataveillance—the monitoring of citizens on the basis of their online data—[which] differs from surveillance on at least one important account: whereas surveillance presumes monitoring for specific purposes, dataveillance entails the continuous tracking of (meta)data for unstated preset purposes" (van Dijck, 2014, p. 205).
  6. 6. Lateral / Peer Surveillance “we are becoming habituated to a culture in which we are all expected to monitor one another—to deploy surveillance tactics facilitated at least in part by interactive media technologies —in order to protect ourselves and our loved ones and to maximise our chances for social and economic success” (Andrejevic, 2007, p. 239).
  7. 7. The Centrality of Affect (or Affective Turn)  Affective publics (Papacharissi, 2014)  “communication in a post-referential era” (Andrejevic, 2013, p. 139)  “communicative capitalism” (Dean, 2010, pp. 3–4)
  8. 8. Intimate Surveillance “the purposeful and routinely well-intentioned surveillance of young people by parents, guardians, friends, and so forth. The surveyed have little or no agency to resist. On one level, intimate surveillance points to the limits of most surveillance models, in that they are incomplete in trying to address subjects who have no agency or awareness of the means of resistance (for obvious reasons).” (Leaver 2015a, p. 153)
  9. 9. NB: Pregnancy Apps & Surveillance  “dominant feature of pregnancy-related apps is the representation of the foetus as already a communicative person in its own right” (Lupton and Thomas, 2015)  Ultrasound image-sharing on Instagram and elsewhere widespread, disclosing personal info (Leaver, 2015a)  “‘device-ification’ of mothering” (Johnson, 2014)  the “co-construction of prenatal life” (Seko & Tiidenberg, 2016, p. 57)
  10. 10. II. Parental Monitoring: Infant Wearables
  11. 11. Google Smart Crib Patent (Awarded 2016)
  12. 12. “Internet of Toys” (Holloway and Green, 2016)
  13. 13. Owlet (Early version) http://owletcare.com/
  14. 14. Owlet
  15. 15. Owlet Product Vision https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT9Vc68BfTI
  16. 16. Owlet = Big Data “The thing that’s most interesting is we’re collecting the largest data set about infant health and sleep and wellness and safety that’s ever been collected.”
  17. 17. Owlet = Tech Startup Company  $US9 million dollars in startup funding (TechCrunch, 2015)  Best Startup Award at CES 2016  Two products: • The Owlet Wearable device itself. • The collated big data collected from all infants wearing Owlet  The big profit expectations come from the BIG DATA sets and whatever insight these can offer.
  18. 18. Review of Infant Wearables “medical professionals and consumers need to be aware that such devices have no proved use in safeguarding infants or detecting health problems, and they certainly have no role in preventing SIDS.” (King 2014, p. 2)
  19. 19. Owlet Terms of Use This Application, the Services and our Monitor are not medical devices and are not intended to replace, modify or supplement any prescribed medical device. Further, this Application, the Services and Monitor are not for high risk infants and are not intended to be a substitute for obtaining medical advice and/or treatment from a physician or other health care practitioner. (Owlet Baby Care, 2016b).
  20. 20. Owlet Features
  21. 21.  “sensor society” (Andrejevic and Burdon, 2015)  “self-tracked data are used as a medium to generate stories for and about the body/self. But equally, the digital devices and dataflows themselves provide their own unique forms of authorship. In this way, the data-subject [or their parents] translates the data just as the data apps and outputs translate the actions of the self-tracker.” (Smith and Vonthethoff 2016)  Design displaces other narratives (Rettberg, 2014)
  22. 22.  infant wearables, of which the Owlet is for now the most well-known, are normalising parental practices of monitoring and surveillance.  Owlet encourages an intimate surveillance in which well- intentioned parents are recording their infant’s biometric data  Owlet aggregates and monetizes this as a valuable big data resource.  Owlet and related devices directly associate with good parenting with surveillance which is an association which is likely to persist as a child grows.
  23. 23. III. Parental Mediation: Influencers
  24. 24. Parental Influencers & (Micro-)micro-celebrities  influencers (Abidin, 2015a, 2016).  Micro-celebrity is the result of purposeful self-presentation strategies online which often utilise the same techniques as marketing and branding campaigns, but at a smaller and more seemingly more intimate or personal level as a means to increase their online popularity and ongoing audience (Marwick, 2013; Senft, 2013).
  25. 25. HappilyEvaAfter.com
  26. 26. Positively Oakes
  27. 27. Boomer Phelps “micro-microcelebrities” (Abidin, 2015)
  28. 28.  Influencers / micro-celebrities act as “more authentic” online role models for parents  Are affective amplifiers, heightening the emotional desirability of certain products/practices (eg Owlet)  Micro-microcelebrities normalize infants (being shared) online but often are managed/assisted by agents, social media managers (something audiences do not have)
  29. 29. Overall Conclusions  Infancy is becoming monitored and datafied at an unprecedented scale, exemplified in the surveillance and aggregation of big data via infant wearables  Parental micro-celebrity/influencer parents as affective amplifiers, leading the normalisation of practices, devices and norms about online sharing on infancy  Intimate surveillance from infancy onward is being normalised as a form of parental care and pathologising unplugged parenting as irresponsible  (Urgent) Future Work: (1) map the extent and drivers of intimate surveillance; (2) surface, document and share resistant practices; and (3) better inform parents about the ramifications of the choices they are making for their infants today.
  30. 30. References  Abidin, C. (2015a). Communicative Intimacies: Influencers and Perceived Interconnectedness.❤ Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology, (8). https://doi.org/10.7264/N3MW2FFG  Abidin, C. (2015b). Micro-microcelebrity: Branding Babies on the Internet. M/C Journal, 18(5). Retrieved from http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/viewArticle/1022  Abidin, C. (2016). Visibility labour: Engaging with Influencers’ fashion brands and #OOTD advertorial campaigns on Instagram. Media International Australia, 1329878X16665177. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X16665177  Andrejevic, M. (2007). iSpy: Surveillance and Power in the Interactive Era. Lawrence, Kan.: Univ Press of Kansas.  Andrejevic, M. (2013). Infoglut: How Too Much Information Is Changing the Way We Think and Know (1 edition). New York: Routledge.  Andrejevic, M., & Burdon, M. (2015). Defining the Sensor Society. Television & New Media, 16(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476414541552  boyd, danah. (2014). It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.  Davis, J. L., & Jurgenson, N. (2014). Context collapse: theorizing context collusions and collisions. Information, Communication & Society, 17(4), 476–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.888458  Dean, J. (2010). Blog Theory: Feedback and Capture in the Circuits of Drive. Cambridge: Polity.  Holloway, D., & Green, L. (2016). The Internet of Toys. Presented at the ANZCA: Creating space in the Fifth Estate, Newcastle, Australia.  Johnson, S. A. (2014). “Maternal Devices”, Social Media and the Self-Management of Pregnancy, Mothering and Child Health. Societies, 4(2), 330–350. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc4020330  King, D. (2014). Marketing wearable home baby monitors: real peace of mind? BMJ, 349, g6639. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g6639  Leaver, T. (2015a). Born Digital? Presence, Privacy, and Intimate Surveillance. In Hartley, John & W. Qu (Eds.), Re-Orientation: Translingual Transcultural Transmedia. Studies in narrative, language, identity, and knowledge (pp. 149–160). Shanghai: Fudan University Press.  Lupton, D., & Thomas, G. M. (2015). Playing Pregnancy: The Ludification and Gamification of Expectant Motherhood in Smartphone Apps. M/C Journal, 18(5). Retrieved from http://journal.media- culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/1012  Martino, E. A. (2016, June 29). Peace Of Mind With Owlet Baby Care. Retrieved September 8, 2016, from http://happilyevaafter.com/peace-of-mind-with-owlet-baby-care/  Marwick, A. E. (2013). Status Update: Celebrity, Publicity, and Branding in the Social Media Age. New Haven: Yale University Press.  Marwick, A. E., & boyd, danah. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810365313  Nissenbaum, H. (2009). Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life. Stanford Law Books.  Oakes, J. (2015, October 22). The Secret to Better Sleep Moms: Owlet Baby Monitor. Retrieved from http://www.positivelyoakes.com/blog/2015/10/22/the-secret-to-better-sleep-moms-owlet-baby-monitor/  Owlet Baby Care. (2015). More Than Just A Gadget- The Owlet Vision. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT9Vc68BfTI  Owlet Baby Care. (2016). Terms and Conditions. Retrieved from http://www.owletcare.com/terms/  Papacharissi, Z. (2014). Affective Publics: Sentiment, Technology, and Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.  Rettberg, J. W. (2014). Seeing Ourselves Through Technology: How We Use Selfies, Blogs and Wearable Devices to See and Shape Ourselves. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.  Seko, Y., & Tiidenberg, K. (2016). Birth through the Digital Womb: Visualizing Prenatal Life Online. In Paul G. Nixon, Rajash Rawal, & Andreas Funk (Eds.), Digital Media Usage Across the Lifecourse (pp. 50–66). London & New York: Routledge.  Senft, T. M. (2013). Microcelebrity and the Branded Self. In J. Hartley, J. Burgess, & A. Bruns (Eds.), A companion to new media dynamics (pp. 346–354). Chicester: Wiley. Retrieved from http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=1120692  Smith, G. J. D., & Vonthethoff, B. (2016). Health by numbers? Exploring the practice and experience of datafied health. Health Sociology Review, 0(0), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14461242.2016.1196600  TechCrunch. (2015, August 18). Owlet Baby Care. Retrieved September 27, 2016, from https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/owlet#/entity  van Dijck, J. (2013b). “You have one identity”: performing the self on Facebook and LinkedIn. Media, Culture & Society, 35(2), 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443712468605  van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big Data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 197–208.  van Zoonen, L. (2013). From identity to identification: fixating the fragmented self. Media, Culture & Society, 35(1), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443712464557  Veron, M. (2016, June 30). Crib with Embedded Smart Sensors. Retrieved from http://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?docid=20160183695
  31. 31. Questions or Comments? Or find me later … www.tamaleaver.net @tamaleaver t.leaver@curtin.edu.au

×