60 pages • 2 hours read
The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power
A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Summary
Chapter Summaries & Analyses
Key Figures
Themes
Index of Terms
Important Quotes
Essay Topics
Tools
BetaThemes
Post-Marxism as a Response to Surveillance Capitalism
Karl Marx, perhaps the most influential critic of capitalism in history, is a regular reference point for Zuboff throughout The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. Some of Zuboff’s strategies for defining surveillance capitalism even mimic Marx’s own strategies for defining and critiquing industrial capitalism, reflecting the continued influence of Marx in the field of economics and exhibiting the extent to which Zuboff is inspired by Marx’s work and philosophy. Nevertheless, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism is a post-Marxist book, proven by the very nature of its titular concept. Surveillance capitalism, being an entirely unprecedented force and involving technologies that would have been inconceivable to Marx, could not have been predicted by the philosopher. As such, his critiques of industrial capitalism cannot be applied to surveillance capitalism. While Zuboff uses Marx as a foundational touchstone to provide a framework for her own capitalist critique, she also uses Marxism as a contrast point, developing her own post-Marxist economic perspective to accurately analyze the unique animal of surveillance capitalism and prove how it is different from industrial capitalism. Therefore, in considering that Zuboff both pulls from and contends with this German philosopher, post-Marxism is a consistent theme throughout Zuboff’s book.
Concepts such as the means of behavioral production, historical materialism, and utopia are those that best establish The Age of Surveillance Capitalism’s post-Marxist theme. Marxism dictates that under capitalism, those who own the means of production—the bourgeois class—lie at the top of the economic pyramid and thus have the power to determine the rules of working life and, by extension, the rules of society at large. Meanwhile, in defining surveillance capitalism, Zuboff posits that this economic system relies not on the means of production, but the means of behavioral modification—here, those who have the ability to control behavior, not material, have the power in society. Notably, Zuboff uses very similar terminology, creating an immediate reference to Marxism in her phrasing of “means of behavioral modification.” Additionally, she makes a similar assessment regarding the power that lies in the ownership of behavioral modification; she agrees with the notion that those who own the means of behavioral modification have the power to dictate a new order of society that will influence personal relationships, leisure time, and general ways of living, just as the bourgeois determined what life looked like under industrial capitalism.
Furthermore, Marxism relies on the philosophy of historical materialism. This means that Marxism interprets the history of humankind as something that is determined by materials and how they are owned and divided—as opposed to interpreting history as something that is determined by ideology and the evolution of ideas through time. Marx argues that history can be broken up into periods of different developmental stages relating to ownership and divisions of labor. Capitalism’s infamous class stratification between the bourgeois and the proletariat involves a division of labor, which is determined by ownership of materials: Those who own the means of production have more capital, influence, and privileges than those who do not and therefore must work in order to live. These unique qualities of industrial capitalist society establish capitalism as a particular stage in the Marxist historical progression. For Marx, a Communist utopia was the end stage of mankind’s developmental progression through time. Although Zuboff uses a similar “developmental” framework to establish her own argument as to what mankind’s history has entailed, her own conclusions are markedly different. Zuboff’s entire Chapter 2 is reminiscent of Marx’s historical materialism in its linear structure arguing that the history of mankind can be interpreted as different phases of modernity.
However, instead of arguing that surveillance capitalism is a necessary progression in this historical trajectory, Zuboff sees surveillance capitalism as a regression, breaking from Marx’s methodology and philosophy. Marx consistently argued that society was on a forward, linear progression, wherein each new phase built off of and improved upon the last. Zuboff’s insight into surveillance capitalism, however, challenges this economic philosophy and its insistence that society’s trajectory is linear. As she analyzes the dire socioeconomic conditions that neoliberal policies and surveillance capitalism have caused, Zuboff refers to the work of scholars such as French economist Thomas Piketty:
[Many] have taken to describing these new conditions as neo-feudalism, marked by the consolidation of elite wealth and power far beyond the control of ordinary people and the mechanisms of democratic consent. Piketty calls it a return to ‘patrimonial capitalism,’ a reversion to a pre-modern society in which one's life chances depend upon inherited wealth rather than meritocratic achievement (47).
The Age of Surveillance Capitalism’s post-Marxist theme is pinpointed in this passage. Zuboff insists that surveillance capitalism and the technological innovations it thrusts into the public sphere do not represent progress; they represent a dangerous, tyrannical regression which strips away human rights and only leads to one dire and oppressive end—not to any utopia, as in Marx’s eyes.
One of the most prominent examples of post-Marxism in Surveillance Capitalism is its critique of utopianism. Marx was an ardent utopian; he concluded that Communism, in its abolishment of private property and divisions of labor, “differs from all previous [historical] movements” and will thus serve “as the end of history” (Marx, Karl. “The German Ideology, Vol. 1.” The Portable Karl Marx. London: Penguin Books. 1983. p. 189.). Zuboff, however, offers harsh critiques of utopian philosophy and its inevitablism. Linking to her interpretation of surveillance capitalism as regression, Zuboff lambasts utopianism by arguing that this philosophy serves to shield surveillance capitalist oppressors from government regulations, critical oversight, and popular resistance. Utopianism relies on inevitability, presenting history as a narrative with a firm, conclusive ending—however, Zuboff argues that “inevitability is the opposite of politics and history” (213). Inevitablism breeds resignation, particularly in the case of surveillance capitalism. People internalize surveillance capitalists’ philosophy of “history written in stone” and grow resigned to the fact that their oppression through the apparatus cannot be fought. Zuboff goes so far as to link Marx’s linear argument of historical materialism to surveillance capitalists’ own narrative of the apparatus, bitterly noting, “The rise of the apparatus is alternatively cast as the inauguration of a new ‘age.’ [...] This kind of historical framing conveys the futility of opposition to the categorical inevitability of the march toward ubiquity” (213). Her language in this quote is especially important. In referencing the imagery of a new age and structuring her critique of surveillance capitalism around the concept of history comprising distinct eras, Zuboff clearly recalls Marx and his insistence that the future will only bring progress and an inevitable utopia—not regression. With her post-Marxist theme, Zuboff makes the curious observation that Marx, in seeking to dismantle capitalism, actually provided a philosophical framework that is helping shield one of the most exploitative forms of capitalism that history has ever seen.
The Relationship Between Surveillance Capitalism and the State
Surveillance capitalism’s close ties with the state is a recurring theme throughout the book, as this elective affinity is one of the most effective strategies in assuring the continued existence of the economic form. Although Zuboff acknowledges that surveillance capitalism has formed close relationships with various governments throughout the world—as seen in her China social credit case study in Chapter 13—she primarily analyzes how surveillance capitalism has enmeshed itself with the American government, because Silicon Valley was the birthplace of this capitalist mutation. As such, Zuboff is very concerned with exploring how this American “invention” has affected the country’s democracy.
In Chapter 11’s rigorous outline of the 16 reasons why surveillance capitalism has been able to survive thus far, Zuboff notes that historical circumstances and fortifications have played a significant role in protecting and encouraging surveillance capitalism. Cold War anxieties and Western fears of the spread of Communist fueled the state’s research into behavioral modification. This is reflected in the case of MKUltra, which sought to identify methods to control human behavior in the 1970s. Neoliberalism’s regimes of self-regulation and the “hands off” governing approach provided shelter for surveillance capitalism. Even the successfully-passed legislation regarding technology tends to work in surveillance capitalism’s behavior, such as Section 230 passed in 1996, which allowed internet companies to do what they wished with online content and protected them from legal sanctions. The War on Terror characterizing the 21st century has only pushed the state to embrace surveillance tactics, as the American government seeks rash defensive measures in response to the trauma of 9/11. All these facets of historical circumstance display the close-knit exchanges between surveillance capitalism and governments that have existed for decades, with the state shielding surveillance capitalism from scrutiny while the tech firms provide the government with the advanced tools to carry out its ideological will on the people.
The Age of Surveillance Capitalism was published in the United States in January 2019 during the Trump administration; as such, one might anticipate that a book published during this time discussing the links between technology and democracy would immediately reference the Cambridge Analytica scandal associated with Trump. Zuboff does discuss Cambridge Analytica’s rise and manipulation of social media during the 2016 election, albeit briefly. However, more real estate is dedicated to studying the concerning elective affinity between Silicon Valley—in particular, Google—and Obama, both in terms of his elections and his administration’s policies. These policies include his strategy for dealing with the December 2015 Paris terrorist attacks, when the White House pushed tech firms to create algorithms to sift through social media posts and compile profiles on posters who were identified as radicals. This focus on Obama is likely for two reasons: Obama was a two-term president from 2008-2016, and his administration coincided well with Zuboff’s research window, which began in spanned 12 years from 2006-2018. However, this emphasis on the concerning ties between a Democratic president and Silicon Valley also illustrates how surveillance capitalism’s intimate, mutual relationship with state actors crosses the aisle of American democracy—thus emphasizing precisely how dangerous it is.
A focused analysis of Obama, coinciding with a 2019 publication date during the Trump administration, emphasizes Zuboff’s thesis that society cannot take a passive role in resisting surveillance capitalism because the government has a vested interest in its survival. As Zuboff summarizes in Chapter 10 with her analysis of MKUltra, in the case of the United States,
a weakened state in which elected officials depend upon corporate wealth in every election cycle has shown little appetite to contest behavioral modification as a market project, let alone to stand for the moral imperatives of the autonomous individual (308).
This quote identifies the power dynamics involved with this elective affinity as well; state actors in the United States actively rely on surveillance capitalists, both for their funds during elections and new innovations that allow the state to strengthen its surveillance tactics. While the surveillance capitalists also rely on the government to protect it from regulations, this elective affinity is not an equal exchange. Surveillance capitalism’s relationship with the state has compromised its ability to effectively serve the people, thus compromising the very nature of American democracy.
Regarding Surveillance Capitalism’s ultimate solution to the elective affinity between tech firms and the American government, it is important to acknowledge the fact that Zuboff is a reformist, not a revolutionary. Although she critiques the relationship between surveillance capitalism and the state and pulls from Marxism, she does not call for a radical revolution to dismantle the government—or even the capitalist structure in general. Rather, she insists that there must be collective popular action to break the intimate ties shared between surveillance capitalism and the state. Ultimately, Zuboff believes in the state’s potential for good. Thomas Piketty’s philosophy of “uncooked” capitalism is consistently referenced throughout Zuboff’s book because she agrees with his assessment that capitalism, if left unregulated, results in dire consequences for democracy. However, according to The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, a regulated capitalism can function well alongside democracy. This is an argument that rejects Marx’s conclusion of revolutionary action and instead embraces a reformist future. The theme of post-Marxism then leads right into Zuboff’s ultimate thesis asserting that collective popular action can convince the state of the dangers of surveillance capitalism and compel it to act through new regulations and legislation, just as those citizens during the Gilded Age and Cold War Germany did in the 20th century when faced with their own respective oppressors.
Digital Imperialism
One of the strategies Zuboff uses to capture the depths of how dangerous surveillance capitalism is to society is to frame its methods of exploitation and oppression as a form of imperialism. Surveillance capitalism engages in digital imperialism to lay claim to people’s experiences, enforcing an asymmetric knowledge structure that fuels its power. The digital realm is the new frontier of conquest, and surveillance capitalists have perfected their imperialist strategies to glean as much profit from this frontier as they can, reaping the benefits of its raw material: citizens’ behavioral data surplus.
Zuboff first draws a connection between surveillance capitalism and imperialism in Chapter 4. As she explains surveillance capitalism’s logic of expansion, she conducts a comparative analysis of tech firms’ methodologies and those of British imperialism in Africa and Asia during the 19th century. Analyzing the language often used by imperialist powers to justify their conquest of territories, Zuboff identifies terms such as the “frontier” and “lawlessness” as particularly important concepts: Imperialists would label any country that did not follow its own customs, values, and social structure as “backward,” lawless lands that needed to be “enlightened” as to the proper ways of civilization. These are ideas shared by surveillance capitalism, wherein surveillance capitalists’ ideology of human frailty views the mass public as irrational beings prone to failure that require an outside intervening force to “correct” their behavior and save society from its own pitfalls.
In these philosophies justifying conquest, there is an inherent power dynamic linked to the act of “knowing.” As Zuboff continuously asks throughout The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, “[W]ho knows? Who decides? Who decides who decides?” (309). These series of questions define the division of learning that characterizes surveillance capitalism and its “texts.” Surveillance capitalism is composed of two texts that enforce its division of knowledge and, subsequently, its power dynamic of conquest. The first, public facing text is the body of material that any online user can see—public posts, videos, likes and dislikes, etc. The real power lies in the second text, which is the cumulative body of behavioral information drawn from the first text. This second text lies only in the hands of surveillance capitalists, thus giving them two powers: that of exclusive knowledge and that of the means of behavioral modification. With the second text’s knowledge comes the ability to actively intervene in the behavior that is observed and analyzed).
The role that knowledge plays in constructing power recalls the work of prominent anti-imperialist scholar Edward Said, who in his analysis of Britain’s foreign office documents justifying the occupation of Egypt observed that the act of knowing and having the ability to observe a civilization, analyze it, and strategize how to dominate it in the future carries an immediate power imbalance of inferiority and superiority. Said wrote, “To have such knowledge of such a thing is to dominate it, to have authority over it” (Said, Edward. Orientalism. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 1978. p. 40.). The power dynamics identified in postcolonial theory mirror the power dynamics present in surveillance capitalism: those who are studied—whether Egyptians or the mass public online—are inferior; those who study—the British empire or the surveillance capitalists—are superior. Zuboff’s language when analyzing surveillance capitalism even recalls the work of anti- imperialist scholars such as Said. In analyzing the first and second texts, Zuboff claims they enforce a “structure of invasion and conquest”, going on to assert that surveillance capitalists “have discovered that they can muscle their way to dominance of the division of learning in society by setting their sights on these rendition operations and the fortunes they tell. They aim to be unchallenged in their power to know, to decide who knows, and to decide who decides” (266-67). In her decision to employ terms such as invasion, conquest, and domination, Zuboff recalls the same violent imagery of British colonization described by studies like Said’s Orientalism. One might event turn to the book’s title—The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a New Human Future at the New Frontier of Power—as another example of how Zuboff employs referential language (e.g., “frontier”) that recalls specific disciplines and historical topics such as postcolonialism and establishes the exploitative power dynamics involved with the unprecedented concept of surveillance capitalism.
With her title, Zuboff establishes her theme of digital imperialism immediately. Throughout her book, this theme is elaborated upon through historical comparisons, theoretical analyses, and use of specific terminology. All three of these tools reference the work of anti-imperialist and postcolonial scholars, situating the book—and surveillance capitalism as a concept—within a historical trajectory that emphasizes how economic, political, and social forces of the past are still at work on the generations of today.
Unlock all 60 pages of this Study GuidePlus, gain access to 8,800+ more expert-written Study Guides.
Including features: