An Essay on data and its influence in Global Politics
The nature of geographical knowledge has undergone a consistent pattern of change since its inception (Driver. F. 1992). However, one thing that has remained unchanged throughout the transition of geographical epochs is the inherent functionalism of geographical knowledge to relations of power. For example, in his essay, The New Geography and the New Imperialism (1977) Hudson argues that “Geography is an aid to statecraft” (Driver. F. 1992. pp.27). This is still extremely relevant today, as currently, we are seeing the increasing prevalence of a new age of geographical knowledge: a technological epoch, where the pursuit and use of data in the current socio-political climate constitutes power.
Social media has given rise to an industry that utilises the available datasets for political means. Platforms such as WhatsApp, Instagram and most notably, Facebook are accruing the data of their users, which in turn, is being harvested and analysed by companies such as Cambridge Analytica in order “to find tiny slivers of influence that can tip an election” in any country (Cadwalladr, C. 2019). Having just had an election, the United Kingdom should be reminded of the spheres of influence that affect their politics. Cambridge Analytica, which has been labelled a “psychological warfare firm”, represents a growing breed of data analytics companies that have the tools to meddle with the oldest democratic process in the world, let alone in newly formed democracies that “don’t have any rules” (Cadwalladr, C. 2019). There is a growing belief that the political ‘right’, who share social ties with these data analytics companies and thus have greater access to valuable datasets, are more powerful. Trump’s refutation of climate change as an anthropogenic problem and the undermining of MMR vaccinations are such examples (Davenport, C. 2019). An iconoclastic backlash from the media offers a feeble resistance to the affluent political right in a technological plutocracy. The data analytics industry, which controls what people see and read on social media, is heavily inclined to its investors (Cadwalladr, C. 2019). In today’s world, Demeritt’s assertion that “claims to knowledge are claims to power” is still extremely relevant but can be refined in saying that ‘claims to data analytics are claims to power’ (Demeritt, D. 2001).
The perennial turn of phrase ‘Knowledge is power’ is widely respected – some argue it to be irrefutable. And, it is no less relevant today than ever before. With regard to how the pursuit and use of data in today’s socio-political climate showcases the continuing relevance of this assertion it is important to clarify that data does not equate to knowledge, and thus data does not render power. Data is accessible to anyone and everyone who wants it. It is not exclusive to those in power. In fact, the key to knowledge lies in how this data is interpreted, and the key to power is knowing how to target specific groups by using this data. Growing anxiety over how our data is being harvested and used against our will has peaked in the fallout out of the Cambridge Analytica scandal. An investigation was carried out into how our data, which is mined from our social media profiles and patterns. Platforms such as WhatsApp, Instagram and most notably Facebook, were used to influence people’s voting patterns. It has since been revealed that both the Trump administration and the Leave.EU campaign have used data analytics services to help target so-called “persuadable” voters via their social media news feeds. Essentially, Cambridge Analytica, which is now a debunked data analytics firm, collected data points on millions of Facebook users to identify if they could be politically coerced into voting for to leave the European Union in the 2016 referendum and to vote for Donald Trump following his presidential election campaign in 2015.
JB Harley once wrote that, as a source of geographical knowledge, all maps, “even the most scientific” of maps, are a product of the contemporary norms and values of social tradition. Furthermore, he believed that it was “our task to search for the social forces… and to locate the presence of power – and its effects” in these maps (Harley, J.B. 1989). Similarly, as a source of geopolitical knowledge, Big Data, and the way that it is used, should be seen as representing the world from a particular standpoint. It is thus our duty, as inspired by Harley, to locate the presence of power behind data-driven campaigns in the 21st century. In this case, the political agendas of Leave.eu and Trump’s presidential election campaign. In the same way that Edward Said’s Orientalism became a system of geographical knowledge and “an accepted grid for filtering through the orient in western consciousness”, preapproved agendas, such as anti-climate change, anti-immigration, anti-Clinton and anti-Europe messages are proliferating out of social media as a result of data-driven think tanks into general culture (Krishna, S. 2009. pp.75) and have the potential to influence the voting ‘consciousness’ of many political agents. These are known and ‘PsyOps’ (short for Psychological Operations), which in principle mirrors the use of propaganda as a military method to change public opinion during a war (Cadwalladr, C. 2019).
This year has seen a major shift in the way climate change is being conceived and discussed. Climate Science, as an accepted body of scientific knowledge, or paradigm, has undergone a prospective transition (Kuhn, T. 1962). The surrounding discourse on climate change has been polarised: on the one hand, and majorly outbalancing the other, climate change has been lauded as a ‘climate crisis’ where there is an urgent need for action and investment, and now. On the other hand, climate sceptics are stepping up their defence by attempting to “fool the public by obscuring the certainty of a closed argument” such as climate change (Latour, B. 2004). Among the sceptics are none other than Donald Trump himself, whose insistent refutation of climate science has undermined the efficacy of a climate change solution. Throughout his tenure as US president, Trump has rolled back environmental regulations, pulled out of the Paris climate accord and “turned the term ‘global warming’ into a punchline rather than a prognosis.” (Davenport, C. 2019). However, it seems that the success of his anti-climate change rhetoric greatly depends on ‘who’ and ‘how many’ have access to it. For example, if data-analytics companies, such as Cambridge Analytica was, can locate ‘persuadable’ online users by accruing their data, then their employers, (allegedly) the Trump administration, can run advertisements and propaganda through the social media platforms that they are on. Anti-climate change reports, adverts and speeches – as sources of geographical knowledge – will litter their feed; with the potential of politically influencing their mindset.
Latour argues that critique has run out of steam (Latour, B. 2004); that scholars and intellectuals are, nowadays, continually dragged into “wars against ignorance and wars out of ignorance”. Matters of fact have lost credence within the scientific debate. Instead, critique has taken on a new form. It is a critique that centres around an iconoclastic backlash of people and a continuance “to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue” (verification), rather than the falsification of the scientific proposal (Latour, B. 2004. pp. 226). Karl Popper believed that science should be based on falsification rather than verification, as it is impossible to prove something as absolute truth empirically. Moreover, scientific (geographical) knowledge should centre around whether it can be successfully falsified as correctly-formulated theories can always be proved wrong – and this is the route to progress in science (Popper, K. 1963). Today, data analytics companies make it easier to target voters with artificially maintained controversies; neglecting to “emancipate the public from prematurely naturalized objectified facts” (Latour, B. 2004. pp. 227). This is coupled with a repertoire of instant revisionism, meaning that before the dust begins to settle in the aftermath of an event, many alternate truths or conspiracy theories begin revising the initial account (Latour, B. 2004). This debunking impetus was evident during the anti-MMR vaccination media tirade that followed a report by Andrew Wakefield that linked measles vaccinations to autism. In this, parents were led to believe that vaccinations were an unnecessary risk to their children, in turn causing vaccination numbers to majorly decrease, even though the report was flawed and misrepresented its findings (Wakefield, A. 1999). Latour poses the question: “what’s the real difference between a conspiracy and a popularized, teachable version of social critique?” (Latour, B. 2004. pp. 227) – such as those of anti-climate change, anti-vaccination, anti-immigration, anti-Clinton and anti-European messages. And, these are the messages that are aimed at persuadable social media users through data analytics, or as Latour calls them: “gullible masses, swallowing naturalized facts” (Latour, B. 2004. pp. 230).
Latour posits that the threat to critique has changed so much but, “our arsenal is still directed east or west while the enemy has moved to a very different place” (Latour, B. 2004. pp. 230). The threat from data analytics, and the systems of knowledge that employs it, is unprecedented in the 21st century. If we do not arm ourselves against the messages of naturalized facts and propaganda with a better method of critique, then relations of power are only going to become more disparate. The futility of discourse analysis and iconoclasm by the media against the militants of data analytics is known. Critique must reposition itself in the form of moral deconstructionism, underpinned by a working legal framework. Laws must be put in place to wrest the power from data analytics companies, and their employers, on moral grounds. The power lies in the ability to influence elections and change the nature of ‘democracy’. This burgeoning ability is made possible by data analytics as a system of geographical knowledge.
The vulnerability of voters by data mining and its subsequent analysis has been noticed, but the threat persists. Despite the media execution of Cambridge Analytica, and the release of the documentary, The Great Hack, on streaming site, Netflix, not much has changed to protect social media users. Legally, there has been talk of change, but no concrete action. Similarly, Facebook has announced its commitment to help protect its users from data exposure but has little to show for it. Zuckerberg’s plan “has little to do with protecting privacy and everything to do with protecting market share” (Wong, J.C. 2019). ‘Persuadable’ voters are still at risk of PsyOps on social media, and with the upcoming presidential election of 2020, this is an ominous realisation. However, Democratic candidate, Elizabeth Warren is looking to #BreakUpBigTech by taking a stand against ‘tech monopolists’ such as Facebook, Google, and Amazon, who use our data to gain profit and eliminate competition. She accuses the political right, Robert Mercer (owned Cambridge Analytica) and Steve Bannon (Trump’s chief strategist) of attempting to “…smash the mainstream media and replace it with one comprising alternative facts, fake history, and right-wing propaganda” (Cadwalladr, C. 2019). This is potentially enlightening to millions of voters and could pave the way for ubiquitous tech controls and data protection laws to take their place. However, as it stands, the pursuit and use of data in today’s socio-political climate showcases the continuing relevance of Demeritt’s (1996:485) assertion that “claims to knowledge are claims to power”.
