Exploration via emendations of attributes of "fetishes" in Thomas et al.'s "Algorithms as fetish"

fetish_metonymy_conduit.md

Fetish, Metonymy, and the Conduit Metaphor: Exploratory Emendations

Link to tweet.

Building on Thomas et al.'s "Algorithms as fetish: Faith and possibility in algorithmic work" (2018)

---

1.

Emendation re Metonymy & Algorithms: Fetish Work of Algorithms

Four Attributes of [Algorithms]: The Distribution of Power as Capability, Promise, Faith and Possibility

1. The [algorithm] is a material object imbued with capabilities that are not inherently properties or functions of the object itself.
2. These excess capabilities are generated at the point of contact between differently positioned people and thus widen the scope of their outcomes to the social, cultural and economic.
3. These social, cultural and economic outcomes are misrecognized or substituted as belonging to the [algorithm] object as its promise.
4. This substitution or misrecognition is itself efficacious: it enables something to take place that might otherwise not happen.

[ . . . ]

Finally, as we analyze algorithms as [the four attributes], it is not to say that other people are naive to believe in algorithms’ efficacy while we remain wiser. Rather, it is to say that people position algorithms in ways that make algorithms promise more than they can deliver in strictly material terms.

[ . . . ]

Using the [the four attributes] as a heuristic, we can lay out the steps by which people vest algorithms with promises and possibilities that extend beyond what the math, lines of code, steps or ingested sensors can do.

---

2.

Emendation re the Conduit Metaphor & Information: Fetish Work of Information

Four Attributes of [Information]: The Distribution of Power as Capability, Promise, Faith and Possibility

1. The ["information"] is a material object imbued with capabilities that are not inherently properties or functions of the object itself.
2. These excess capabilities are generated at the point of contact between differently positioned people and thus widen the scope of their outcomes to the social, cultural and economic.
3. These social, cultural and economic outcomes are misrecognized or substituted as belonging to the ["information"] object as its promise.
4. This substitution or misrecognition is itself efficacious: it enables something to take place that might otherwise not happen.

[ . . . ]

Finally, as we analyze ["information"] as [the four attributes], it is not to say that other people are naive to believe in ["information"’s] efficacy while we remain wiser. Rather, it is to say that people position ["information"] in ways that make ["informations"] promise more than they can deliver in strictly material terms.

[ . . . ]

Using the [the four attributes] as a heuristic, we can lay out the steps by which people vest ["information"] with promises and possibilities that extend beyond what the [numbers, letters, symbols, or images] can do.

---

C.f. Reddy's "Conduit Metaphor: A Case of Frame Conflict in Our Language about Language" (1979)

Link to screenshots and comments from me on Twitter on 2019-01-15

---

We have algorithm fetishes (and algorithm mythologies), for good and ill, but we also have information ("it's an information [

access

communication

delivery

literacy

organization

processing

retrievability

seeking

trust

] problem") fetishes and mythologies.

---

__

3.

Original excerpts from Thomas et al.'s "Algorithms as fetish: Faith and possibility in algorithmic work" (2018):

we distill four attributes of the fetish and how they distribute power as capability, promise, faith and possibility:

1. The fetish is a material object imbued with capabilities that are not inherently properties or functions of the object itself.
2. These excess capabilities are generated at the point of contact between differently positioned people and thus widen the scope of their outcomes to the social, cultural and economic.
3. These social, cultural and economic outcomes are misrecognized or substituted as belonging to the fetishized object as its promise.
4. This substitution or misrecognition is itself effica- cious: it enables something to take place that might otherwise not happen.

[ . . . ]

Finally, as we analyze algorithms as fetishes, it is not to say that other people are naive to believe in algo- rithms’ efficacy while we remain wiser. Rather, it is to say that people position algorithms in ways that make algorithms promise more than they can deliver in strictly material terms.

[ . . . ]

Using the fetish as a heuristic, we can lay out the steps by which people vest algorithms with promises and possibilities that extend beyond what the math, lines of code, steps or ingested sensors can do.

• Excerpts from Thomas et al.'s "Algorithms as fetish: Faith and possibility in algorithmic work" (2018) also shared on Twitter on 2019-01-27