Wednesday, September 17, 2008
micro-targeting
I think the discussion about micro-targeting voters and why it bothers some is a very interesting discussion. From what I heard to day, I think the problem with micro-targeting is really about how it constructs the voter. It seems that "citizens today are as much a definable-sortable-searchable-targetable entity in commercial databases as they are a set of complex, yet anonymous rational-critical actors that exist as subject of governmental action. And these data trails produced through consumption habits are increasingly becoming part of their status and location as citizens". In essence, the problem is that micro-targeting constructs the citizen as nothing more than a list of consumer choices. If that is the case, we are seemingly robbed of our ability to critically think and engage our surroundings. Thus, we are robbed of our agency. So my problem with micro-targeting is this: how are we supposed to function in a democracy as rational actors if our politicians are not engaging us as such?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
The sense I got from our discussions in class was that microtargeting makes some of us feel "vulnerable." That's certainly understandable. I don't know that we're necessarily robbed of agency though. Keep in mind that the same technology that allows politicians to discover our consumer habits also allows us to do the very same to them. Never before have we had access to so much personal (not to mention professional and policy-related) information about office-seekers.
That ability, provided to us by the internet (thank you, Al Gore!), increases the information we can use when, to paraphrase you, Carl, we think critically and engage our surroundings.
While I was not privy to your discussion yesterday, I would like to note that Steven Schier took on the issue of micro-targeting in his book By Invitation Only: The Rise of Exclusive Politics in the United States (2000). In doing so, he makes a distinction between mobilization (the old way of doing things, although bitterly partisan) and activation (the new way of focusing on the individual groups necessary to secure victory). And Schier is not happy with the shift: “Mobilization encouraged popular rule. Activation impedes it. Sadly, the rise of activation destroyed the prospects for majority rule in American politics.” So what does he offer as an alternative? A return to stronger parties whose job it would be to reach out to the most possible voters and changes in election laws which would produce a more user-friendly election system. Perhaps his suggestions might work, but I’m suspicious.
I’m suspicious because I believe that all the “rational” voters are already paying attention and sifting through the crap that both parties and all their ancillary interest group tentacles are throwing about, with, of course, help from overworked, underpaid, and (sometimes) unqualified news media. So what the micro-targeting seems to do is to activate those individuals who would most likely not participate if not otherwise encouraged to do so. So my question: is this a good thing? Should we just leave these uninterested voters alone in their apathy? Or do we find ways to make them interested (i.e. rational) actors?
What’s next wired-tap focus groups?
I suggested in discussion that strategists working for anti-gay candidates would absolutely target gay voters if they could do so without being caught. Isn’t being caught the only thing that stops anyone from trying anything that might get a candidate closer to the finish line? To borrow an analogy from a friend, isn’t that exactly what candidates are doing when they appeal to low-income voters using wedge issues in an attempt to cloak the aspects of their agenda that will directly affect those voters? Talk of fiscal responsibility and small government aimed at individuals by way of values appeals are what leads millions of Americans to cast votes that work against their practical interests, both in the areas of finance, education and government services. There is no question that this strategy works, but I argue that doesn’t mean we should use it.
Micro-targeting is a symptom of a much larger problem. Consumerism is eating Democracy alive. At what point will we exhaust our ability to divide, sub-divide and categorize the electorate? We may justify it as responsibility in campaign finance allocation, or that the other guy is doing it so why shouldn’t we? And I can see how those justifications function if you believe that this is just the way it is. It is reality. My problem is with “this” reality.
To quote the unusually tall Jeff Goldblum as Dr. Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park “Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.” I think most of us would concede that in our lifetimes the issue of privacy is at the top of the list of relevant American policy and identity questions. In Communication Studies we construct the notion of a “public sphere” and a “private sphere” for use in a number of credible theories. Micro-targeting is taking public debate and public discourse and positioning it in the private realm, and it is doing so without the knowledge or permission of the individuals involved. What ramifications does this have for the future? If the two major parties, and through them our government, sanction this level of invasive and yes, insidious, information acquisition and implementation, then what precedent does that set for not only consumer practices, but for the interpretation of the laws that protect our privacy. With technology developing at an exponential rate the possibility exists that future campaigns could institute the use of wire-tap focus groups, you have a few friends over for drinks and a computer system tracks and tags your conversation. Forget what soap you buy, or what movies you bought from your local cable provider, we could discover on a genetic level which way you’re likely to vote and get it down to the only six likely voters in your district that we really can’t figure out and then go sit them down directly – we’ll bring chocolate and our check book. This sort of Big Brother stuff is intended to be more humorous than literal, but micro-targeting seems an awful lot like the early warning stages of the kind of privacy and agency questions raised by Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” and Phillip K. Dick’s “Minority Report.”
As academics and campaign practitioners we do have a responsibility to consider the individuals on the other side of the message. In a very literal sense we are inoculated to the kinds of appeals and strategies that we all monitor and discuss daily. We have the time, the resources and the education to interpret this degree of persuasion and the choice whether or not to use it. If we see someone on the other side of the street being attacked do we try and stop it? Or, do we simply accept the fact that people get beat up all the time, and absolve ourselves by thinking its above my pay grade to work to change the way things are? Work in the field is about getting candidates elected. I get that. But, the tactics we use to speak to the electorate are exactly why so many Americans would admit to frustration with the current political system and a lifetime of distrust and often disinterest. I for one would like to think it is possible to elect candidates through substance and issues even if that is not the order of the day. And I would like to believe that we could do so in ways that are befitting of democracy, not an easily lampooned restaurant chain’s strategy for selling more chicken tenders and micro-waved steaks.
These links serve as a fairly tangential response to J.D.'s post.
http://online.logcabin.org/
http://online.logcabin.org/news_views/reading-room-back-up/log-cabin-endorses-sen-john.html
I think we sometimes assume that the "gay vote" will go to Democrats. From the press release linked above:
“I expect Sen. McCain will receive strong support from gay and lesbian Americans,” said Sammon. “LGBT people are not single-issue voters. Gay rights issues are a critical part of the equation, but so are many other issues impacting our daily lives—foreign policy, the economy, jobs, energy policy, health care reform, and taxes. Gay and lesbian Republicans believe Sen. John McCain is the most qualified person to lead our country.”
Post a Comment