The CES 2021 (all virtual) is here, and for tech enthusiasts, those working in the relevant industries and anyone observing the changes in social identity of companies and businesses, it is an experience worth the wait and the worry that no doubt hung in the air until it launched. For those who are unfamiliar with it, CES is all about tech – the who’s who in tech as much as what new products will likely dominate the market in the next year at the very least… but this year, at least to my limited impression (having, after all, a limited experience of the previous ones), it is also an interesting showcase of societal change.
Societal change, with diversity, inclusion and discrimination, as well as sustainability, as the key subtexts, have been the key conversation topics for Forbes’ summits and Just Capital conversations this year; they filled our social media, our news reports, our arguments. Regardless of which side of the argument you stand, they were impossible to miss, and they are here to stay as we recognise human rights as a part of who we are at work as well as outside of it.
Social identity is a complex matter. Before, the key thing for companies to do was be. My personal belief is that this stems from immense amounts of shortages during the Great Depression and after and during both World Wars and, to a certain extent, during the Cold War (you will note, if you look at the US census, that pays and expenses changed drastically from the relatively golden age of the 50s right after the US began recovering from the WW2 to the height of Cold War, and that a similar change can be observed around the Great Recession (2007-2009); in Europe, the data is not dissimilar).
The point of a company “being” in a most emphatic sense during any difficult times is that it offers security on two fronts – in a smaller, but more human way, it means jobs; the more stable the company, the more stable, theoretically, the job (although high unemployment and a stable company can foment careless, discriminatory practices and an almost Stockholm syndrome like relationship between the employee and the employer… with victimisation being rife because “there are plenty of others who would be happy to…” while the victim feels an undue amount of attachment to the abuser due to a form of thankfulness for the seeming stability they have – even if they are paying for it with their life and sanity). In a larger, more political way, stable companies mean a relatively stable domestic market, and a chance to remain active and relevant in the international market. And while markets are absolutely not my expertise, it is relevant to anthropology to note the influence they have on human beings and our behaviour… including how we interact on all levels.
The company of the past, therefore, was built on far different building blocks than what we are trying to build on today. As can be extrapolated from Just Capital’s summits in comparison with history, this also created a specific type of a businessman. Like it or not, both is a part of our past – and while it is important to acknowledge that they are, and consider why things turned out this way, it is equally important to consider our present and the future and build what we want without feeling obliged to be tied to only one behavioural pattern when it comes to business.
This is certainly changing now. What I have seen thus far suggests that companies are keen to be on board this movement towards a business that shows a human side as a part of its social identity. Equally important is the longevity of the products; where once, your great-grandmother’s furniture still existed in your parents’ home, the 50s-90s were predominantly all about progress without consideration of how long things will last, or at least with less and less of it. Now, with environment at the forefront of everyone’s thoughts, the longevity of the product, its quality past the first year and what fate awaits it after it has served its purpose are what companies are considering deeply and what they seek to show they are involved with publicly. I would not be surprised if repairs become more prevalent again as this trend continues, replacing the current logic of getting a new whatever it is that is broken. This could mean changes in price (Samsung’s refrigerators, for instance, come with a hefty price tag), which in turn may impact how we behave financially as well… including how banking, loans and payments are arranged, not merely the personal financial actions.
A low pay version should also be considered if we are serious about sustainability, as it can only work if it ultimately reaches all levels of society.
Another thing that commands interest – at least for me – is personalisation. With uniqueness and authenticity being a trend with especially the younger generations – a stark break from uniformity and homogeneousness of the previous decades when “everyone has one of these” was actually positive, vs the Millenial FOMO-driven wish to indeed have what everyone has, but in a highly personal manner as it is in conflict with rejectionist tendencies -, personalisation is indeed a good marketing strategy, but it is also presented as (and indeed has potential to be) a good sustainability effort in itself, as it would (eg. Samsung’s personalised fridge) theoretically cater to the needs and self-perception of the owner vs a one-size-fits-no-one model.
This doesn’t come without snags; identity, especially social, can change quickly, and I predict that will indeed be the case with the digital generations if Insta-inspired looks are anything to go by (including and as far as beauty procedures, which are on the rise), which might mean that what served the purpose yesterday no longer does three days after. Lack of patience with learning new things (apparently, attention span has been reduced too, though that has been called into question (link 1, link 2, footnote 1) and general lack of understanding how things work may also change the efficacy of the product in question… something that may be somewhat ameliorated through as much interactive technology as possible. Making how-tos simple and difficult to get around should therefore potentially replace the old-fashioned instructions leaflets, which very few people actually utilise or understand (hands up all who, like me, actually possess a folder with leaflets and manuals of all the utilities you possess).
But at least in theory, personalisation works… and it has potential to appeal at the very least to the better earning, settled individuals or partners of any age group who value objects for their usefulness, and not as a tool for social recognition.
Can this change how technology is perceived?
The last few years especially have seen a lot of techlash and bad press on all sides. Theoretically, showing care, changing policies to work with the times and be overall more positive in impact on the world in general should be a great step towards this changing.
However, I can see three problems that could still influence how technology and indeed tech companies are perceived in general.
1. As Professor Citron states, digital life is all about the comfort zone. On internet, everyone can be loud, it’s easy to find people to be loud with, and it’s a very good way to whack the frustration hammer on someone’s head… and everyone can be frustrated at some point. The more we attempt to pursue ontological turn (so every point is valid perspective) as a policy for how humanity should work, the more we risk indulging and embracing abusive behaviours as well as neurotic ones as a norm. In terms of tech companies, but also everything else, this might mean that all good efforts will be denied, overlooked and dismissed (as faking “goodness”) simply because it is easy and necessary, for certain personalities, to have someone to hate, and tech companies are already there as a “we hate this” entity.
This will be difficult to combat; the key does not, however, lie in dissuading the haters, but in convincing those who are not haters, or could be haters because of peer pressure.
2. Quick fixes may not be fixes at all. As environmentalism grows bigger and bigger, both in positive and negative ways, but with little check on what is positive and what is negative, let alone what is realistic and how it can be made realistic, most everyone is trying their best to adapt not only to the trend because they want to appeal to their audience, but to the needs of humanity and environment both. Unfortunately, pressure causes haste, and haste may cause more trouble. As we all go electric, for instance, the dialogue of what happens with the lithium batteries we will and do rely on, as well as the environmental impact of them at all stages of production and life, is somewhat pushed to the side. As activism tends to either work completely anti-establishment in any case or tends to work on case to case basis with little understanding and continuity, it is imperative that this ends; the new activists should be chemists, engineers, physicists… working for governments and big and small companies trying to resolve matters outside of that approach, for far more comprehensive, realistic results. At the same time, activism of pressure groups should be reconsidered in social context, especially where dialogue is impossible and there is very little to no technical knowledge to support the demands. We certainly need activism – it can drive positive social change – but, more than ever, we need this activism to be in adaptation and innovation… not on the internet and in the streets.
3. Trust in unverified sources and veracity of information available must change first.
In order for a lot of things in our society to change, this in particular is one problem that we need to tackle before we can hope for any changes to effectively take place. If the past few years have taught us anything, it should be that we are all too willing to jump on any bit of information that – again borrowing from prof. Citron – appeals to us because it confirms our opinions in some way, and, I would add, confirms our identity and self. A lot of activism – and I use the word loosely, because it represents a current behavioural social trend but not the entirety of what activism is and has been, or indeed could be – is sparked and informed by dubious sources. People attacking others (online or in real life) over unverified information that they believe is, in its own way, activism too, and while not endemic to this era at all (there have always been actions taken because of something someone said somewhere unverified the listener trusted), plagues us perhaps more intensely than ever before.
What of misuse especially of technology?
My interests lie especially in those advances of technology that could make the Deepfakes phenomenon worse and less easy to detect. Make no mistake – ultimately, it is the point 3 of the above that really decides whether or not someone believes something; but battling fakes in a clear manner is important too, because it offers a point of reference to how deception works, and what to be on guard for. It gives the non-conspiracist a framework to rely on when being bombarded with conspiracy theories, and the law (and hopefully juries and judges) something to rely on. I expect that technology will feature more and more in our legal struggles of the future, as self, society and privacy are again and again redefined and we struggle to adapt, not only to our own created objects and what we might accidentally do with them (think autonomous vehicles, driver expectations, resulting diminished responsibility and crashes), but deliberate adapting of criminals of all kinds who will find new and innovative uses for those objects. Technology of the near future will give rise to a new ugly; not because it will somehow inspire it, but because ugly often adapts faster than we do and finds ways to poison our society even where we would have never imagined it possible. This particular part of the battle is only partially the responsibility of the tech companies; it remains with people like myself to offer advice and professional help across the divide of disciplines, and with us all as a society to learn, be responsible and remain on our guard. Misuses will always exist. But what we need is greater social awareness of how they might happen, planning for how to best control and prevent them, and what recourses are available to us when they do. And this, perhaps, is the greatest challenge for social inclusion – creating a well-informed society in which everyone is on the same page where everyday life and its snags are concerned.
Footnotes:
1. For reference, I must say I concur with the refutation of this theory, rather than the theory itself, but would like to add that constantly repeating that our attention span is shrinking may in fact have that effect on some people, as ideas can become facts simply through repetition; moral panic works this way, as does placebo