IS TECHNOLOGY ALWAYS TOP-DOWN?
*previously published on Squarespace on March 10, 2020*
My past few months of studying at the London School of Economics (LSE) has proved to be fruitful as it has pushed me to look at the world with a critical-eye. My masters program, City Design and Social Science, consists of: social scientists, geographers, architects, and urban planners. I came into the program with an interest in smart cities, without fully understanding what the concept means from many sociologists perspectives. During the first few months of my program, I’ve heard the argument, again and again, about how technology is effectively ruining cities. This thinking perplexed me — for me technology isn’t bad, it’s convenient and efficient. But in the spirit of considering the topic from another vantage point, I wanted to share a conversation I had with my fellow classmates as it brought to light some pointed critiques of smart cities, technology, and what it means to be an academic.
It’s 11pm on a Thursday night in Athens, Greece. After finishing a day of research, exploring the effects of gentrification on the city, my classmates and I are sharing a few drinks. It’s a pleasant 60° F (~15° C) and we’re cozied up around a table with a few heat lamps radiating from above. The table is composed of a couple twenty-somethings from around the world: a Turk, two Norwegians, a Canadian, and two Americans (including myself). The diversity of the group resulted in lively conversations, ranging from light-hearted topics, such as how much feta cheese we’ve consumed in Greece to more intense conversations, like the role of the European Union in the climate crisis.
Likely without any precedent, I begin going on a rant about how I feel the people who oppose smart cities have a myopic understanding of the scope of technology and are oftentimes hypocrites as they use their apple watches, smart TVs, and smartphones on a daily basis. I end my rant with something along the lines of suggesting that if you’re going to radically oppose technology, particularly as it relates to cities, you should be avoiding it entirely. Basically suggesting: practice what you preach.
One of the Norwegians and the Canadian stare at each other and both remark that they are anti-smart cities. I ask them to elaborate.
*Note, this conversation was not recorded. This transcript is paraphrased from memory.*
The Canadian: Kyja, do you define yourself as a sustainability-advocate?
Me: That means different things to different people, but for the sake of this conversation, yes.
The Canadian: I do too. But we ate meat today, despite knowing it’s not good for the environment. In other words, you can believe in something, but not always act in ways that support that belief.
The Norwegian: Yes, exactly. In academia, people often oppose a construct or an idea, such as neoliberalism, but it’s not something we can combat ourselves. In other words, as an academic, I’m not approaching ideas from an individualist perspective. For me, technology and neoliberalism are one in the same. I oppose neoliberalism and thus I oppose technology.
Me: Why can’t technology and neoliberalism be separated? Technology could mean the invention of the wheel or electricity. Both of these inventions happened before the rise of neoliberalism in the late 20th century.
The Canadian: Technology definitely exacerbated neoliberalism, but I would actually argue technology and capitalism are dependent on one another. Capitalism, for many, has represented growth and efficiency. Arguably, technology has represented the same. Slaves could be seen as a technology because they stimulated the economy and allowed countries to grow. Some benefitted from this ‘technology’ and others clearly did not. Ergo, technology initiatives don’t consider equity, they’re top-down. This is the reason I fundamentally oppose smart cities.
Me: What about health-technology? You’re opposed to that too? It has helped you and your loved ones live longer.
The Canadian: I’m not opposed to living longer, but the whole health industry is based on a model of consumerism. Innovation is driven by money, not equity.
Me:The evolution of technology is inevitable though. How do you wrestle with that idea if you’re so opposed to it?
The Norwegian: It’s not necessarily inevitable, there could be a revolution against it.
Me: That seems unlikely, but not impossible. Bringing another idea into the mix — what about China? They’ve helped lift huge numbers of their population out of the middle class with technology. They use data to make efficient and informed decisions about their massive population — from construction of buildings to transit system improvements. While I recognize their authoritarian government model and communist ideologies aren’t always the most humanitarian approaches, they have still leveraged technology to help a lot of people escape poverty.
The Norwegian: I would argue this is still based on the idea of growth and top-down governance, even if it is theoretically more equitable.
Me: I envision myself working for a large private company upon graduation in the fall. Knowing that private companies, particularly technology companies, have immense powers and are able to circumvent government laws (through resources, data, knowledge, and money) I feel the best way I can make a difference in my work is to come into a private company with an ethical perspective about how to implement technology in cities — perhaps, a top down approach isn’t the only way. I’m not naive, I recognize that private companies exist to make money, not equality, but I want to push that idea to consider how private companies can provide more equitable growth in cities — perhaps through public-private partnerships (co-production), crowdsourcing, or open data initiatives.
The Norwegian: Now we’re back to where we started. I want to be an academic. I will consider societal constructs in my line of work. I’m not an individualist. On the other hand, your approach is one based on individualism. You believe you can create change through your work in the private sector. Whereas, via academia, I believe I can inspire change through research, teaching, and writing.
This is how the conversation ended. In summary it suggested that academics, combat societal constructs, such as capitalism, from a communal perspective. Thus, while some academics may not necessarily embody their beliefs through their lifestyle, these beliefs and oppositions manifest in journals, research, and teaching. This means, a person can be anti-smart cities and anti-establishment, but still reap the benefits of these constructs in their daily lives. On the flipside, when I rationalize my future work I consider it from an individualist perspective. I want to encourage ethical models of business that consider how to build strong communities, livable cities, and happy citizens.
As I continue my studies at The London School of Economics, my understanding of smart cities is constantly evolving. In the next few months as I begin to dive into my dissertation research, I want to explore what a bottom-up model for smart cities looks like and perhaps, one day, I can meet my classmates in the middle. On the other hand, perhaps the only idea my classmates and I will be able to agree on is that idealism fuels both of our livelihoods.
Till then, some food for thought:
How can private companies facilitate bottom-up technology interventions in cities?
Can private companies continue to grow fiscally while also promoting equity?
