ArticlePDF Available

Review of Virginia Eubanks (2018). Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor.: New York: St. Martin’s Press. 272 pp. ISBN 9781250074317 (Hardcover)

Review of Virginia Eubanks (2018). Automating
Inequality:How High-Tech Tools Profile,Police,
and Punish the Poor.
New York: St. Martins Press. 272 pp. ISBN 9781250074317
Julia Mañero
#Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019
Keywords Algorithmic cultures .Automatization .High-tech .Inequality.Postdigital .
They tell us that big data shakes up hidebound bureaucracies, stimulates innova-
tive solutions, and increases transparency. But when we focus on programs
specifically targeted at poor and working-class people, the new regime of data
analytics is more evolution than revolution. (Eubanks 2018:36)
Technologies and algorithms are part and parcel of the postdigital society. Pointing
towards difficulties in separation between digital and analog spheres, postdigital
approach describes a blurred environment where our fascination with digital
technologies belongs to the past (Cramer 2015), and where digital systems and
tools have become invisible (Cormier et al. 2019). Contemporary humans do not
only coexist with sophisticated machines; more importantly, these machines also
attain increasing power over human actions. Examples include technological
opportunities for disruption of traditional political economy of production and
distribution of academic knowledge (Jandrićand Hayes 2019), and technological
potentials for democratization and disruption of education using tools such as
massive open online courses (Littlejohn and Hood 2018). In its nuanced descrip-
tions of complex and messy relationships between human beings and technologies
(Jandrićet al. 2018), the postdigital perspective offers a suitable theoretical framework for
analyzing their changing power relationships.
*Julia Mañero
University of Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain
Postdigital Science and Education (2020) 2:489493
Published online: 9 November 2019
In Automating Inequality:How High-Tech Tools Profile,Police,and Punish the Poor,
Virginia Eubanks (2018) asserts that these power relationships indicateoften in a
disguised waya rise of dependence on digital tools and gadgets. The postdigital
condition reinforces this tendency, because our social relationships are dialectically
intertwined with the digital cultures that surround us (Escaño 2019).AccordingtoKnox
(2015) digital cultures have evolved from cybercultures to algorithmic cultures through an
intermediate phase of community cultures. In Automating Inequality Eubanks (2018)
refers predominantly to the current phase of algorithmic cultures, where high-tech pro-
motes automated decision-making and exacerbates inequalities and privileges. Eubanks
shows that algorithmic computer operations have been introduced as neutral facilitators.
Viewed as tools that make great disruptive changes by themselves, technologies are
presented as fair instruments designed to democratize communication, education, and
participation in the public sphere. Following such logic, media literacy has become
instrumentalized and focused almost exclusively on the acquisition of skills required for
taking part in the digital world (Emejulu and McGregor 2016). The absence of critical
consciousness about the nature of algorithmic cultures is noted by critical authors who
claim the need for a postdigital critical media pedagogy that reflects on the political and
philosophical discourses hidden in technological tools (Emejulu and McGregor 2016;
Jandrić2017;Jandrićet al. 2018). In support of this narrative, critical media literacy and
critical data literacy are highly required in our postdigital age (Jandrić2019).
Automating Inequality:How High-Tech Tools Profile,Police,and Punish the Poor
(Eubanks 2018) offers a fascinating glimpse into ways that political and philosophical
background of digital technologies supports new forms of society of controlwhere
technologies are designed to observe, track, monitor and tag (see Jandrić2017). In
developed countries such as the USA, which suffer from unprecedented social inequal-
ity and withdrawal of the middle class (Chomsky 2017), important decisions in health
and social assistance services are increasingly made by algorithmic entities. While
humankind embraces digital technologies, technology develops into a new independent
stage; high levels of automation bring about a situation in which even designers of
these technologies cannot predict their behavior! (Jandrić2019). In Automating In-
equality, Eubanks does not merely describe how automatization and lack of human
control affect the working class and the poor. More importantly, she uses her own
experience to bring together different, meticulously researched stories, which describe
the core of impact of these technologies on poor and working-class people in America.
This exploration of real personal stories enriches the book and brings it close to
potential readers.
Throughout the three chapters of the book, Eubanks explores welfare
decision-making technology in Indiana, homeless service in Los Angeles, and
child protection algorithm in Pennsylvania. This approach provides the oppor-
tunity to acknowledge tensions between technologies and inequalities they
promote during decision-making processes. When technologies reinforce in-
equalities, they are no longer neutral, and Eubanks vividly describes how
automated decision-making systems punish the poor and middle-class through
persuasive mechanisms of control. Eubanksresearch starts in 2014. In a simple
and colloquial style, she begins by narrating a personal experience and slowly
introduces other protagonists. Through these stories, Eubanks shows how a few
missing digits can determine peoples future. Therefore, she concludes, it is
Postdigital Science and Education (2020) 2:489493
necessary to reflect and promote discourses about how the most vulnerable
sectors of the population face these random failures of the technological
system’—a system to which we are increasingly ceding both power and greater
responsibility (Eubanks 2018). Each chapter is illustrated with heartbreaking
stories, offering a stunningly detailed study from various perspectives including
patients, case workers, activists, police officers, journalists, and other stake-
holders. Through these stories, the book empowers the reader and places a
wager for a fair and socially committed use of technology.
According to Eubanks, digital scrutiny is merely the last stage in the history of the
punishment of the poor. Since the nineteenth century, the aim to regulate poverty has
set into motion powerful mechanisms of observation and manipulation. In the predigital
age, decisions about housing and welfare were supported by human beings. Based on a
combination of objective and subjective perspectives, this approach served as an
exercise in liberating decision-makersconscience and social responsibility in the face
of stark inequalities. Building on this historical overview, Eubanks shows that intro-
ducing high-tech tools in these processes has continued to disempower poor and
working-class people, denying their human rights, and violating their autonomy
(Eubanks 2018). Poorhouses have given way to scientific charities, which will later
evolve into digital poorhouses. Based on this historical overview, Eubanks explains
how computers, presented as neutral tools for optimization of public spending, have
ended up being used as surveillance tools and private data collectors. Used within
opaque algorithms, then, this data ends up determining individual human rights! At this
point of the book readers become more aware of dire implications from transferring
ones personal data: the system equates poverty and homelessness with criminality. In a
passive and socially accepted way, the poor are criminalized and discriminated against,
thus legitimizing the status quo. Policies that benefit only a very small sector of the
population have been increasingly applied by those whom Adam Smith called the
masters of humanity. There is, however, a general lack of popular reaction against
these trends (Chomsky 2017).
Digital tools convince us that the neediest people are getting help based on param-
eters and information that are collected in well-stablished systems. Look the other way,
do not get involved, and everything will be finepoverty is under control. Controver-
sially, however, these digital and high-capacity systems do not accept doubts, errors, or
exceptions. Paradoxically, if the algorithmic sequence fails, a person may lose their
healthcare or drop a list to get a home. Therefore, we need a critical postdigital
perspective to understand ways in which algorithms transcend digital boundaries.
Automating Inequality:How High-Tech Tools Profile,Police,and Punish the Poor
(Eubanks 2018) is an important read for citizens concerned about relationships between
social justice and high-tech, and the impacts of these relationships to our postdigital
world. Targeting some of the most vulnerable sectors of population, technological
policies cross borders which should not be crossed (such as human rights). The
problem is much deeper than (data) surveillance and (often false) algorithmic predic-
tion. Deprived of resources and paralyzed by fear, victims of this politico-technological
system are helpless. Amid this horror stories, Eubanks identifies an opportunity to
realize the necessary social commitment of all and for all. In her words: cultural denial
is the process that allows us to know about cruelty, discrimination, and repression, but
never openly acknowledge it. It is how we come to know what not to know(Eubanks
Postdigital Science and Education (2020) 2:489493 491
2018: 144). The digital poorhouse is hard to understand, massively scalable, and
persistentyet we all live in it. Technologies of the past had been structuring the
world in visible, physical ways, but this latest bout of postdigital algorithmic
restructuring is simultaneously material, non-material, and opaque (Hayes 2019).
Digital technologies create master narratives of today (Fuller and Jandrić2019). These
master narratives are part and parcel of the so-called cybernetic capitalism(Peters and
Jandrić2018), and can be counterbalanced only using postdigital approaches (Jandrić
et al. 2018; Cormier et al. 2019). Arguably the first step in dismantling the digital
poorhouse could be to change ways in which we refer to poverty. Poverty, and its
different meanings as illiteracy, is a form of repression, a mode of domination, and a
form of capitalist production (Peters et al. 2018). Once we recognize the postdigital
nature of our own involvement, it becomes possible to start developing a critical
perspective for potential change, starting with reconsideration of technological systems
and their applications. Automating Inequality:How High-Tech Tools Profile,Police,
and Punish the Poor (Eubanks 2018) may serve as a necessary turning point within the
reach of any reader who wants to get out of their comfort zone and take an active role in
social inequalities. Such postdigital approach may not be comfortable (Cormier et al.
2019), yet it is a necessary philosophical approach for anyone committed to equality,
social justice, and emancipation.
Chomsky, N. (2017). Requien for the American dream: the 10 principles of concentration of wealth & power.
New York: Seven Stories Press.
Comier, D., Jandrić, P., Childs, M., Hall, R., White, D., Phipps, L., Truelove, Ian., Hayes, S., & Fawns, T.
(2019). Ten years of the postdigital in the 52group: reflections and developments 20092019. Postdigital
Science and Education, 1(2), 475506.
Cramer, F. (2015). What is post-digital?InPostdigital aesthetics: art, computation and design (pp. 1226).
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Emejulu, A., & McGregor, C. (2016). Towards a radical digital citizenship in digital education. Critical
Studies in Education, 6 0(1), 117.
Escaño, C. (2019). Sociedad postdigital (ontología de la remezcla). Iberoamérica Social: Revista-Red de
Estudios Sociales, 7(XII), 5153.
Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality. How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor.New
York: St. Martins Press.
Fuller, S., & Jandrić, P. (2019). The postdigital human: making the history of the future. Postdigital Science
and Education, 1(1), 190217.
Hayes, S. (2019). No false promises. Postdigital Science and Education 1(1), 47.
Jandrić,P.(2017).Learning in the age of digital reason. Rotterdam: Sense.
Jandrić, P. (2019). The postdigital challenge of critical media literacy. The International Journal of Critical
Media Literacy, 1(1), 2637.
Jandrić, P., & Hayes, S. (2019). The postdigital challenge of redefining academic publishing from the margins.
Learning, Media and Technology, 00(0), 113.
Jandrić, P., Knox, J., Besley, T., Ryberg, T., Suoranta, J., & Hayes, S. (2018). Postdigital science and
education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 50(10), 893899.
Knox, J. (2015). Critical education and digital cultures. In M. A. Peters (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational
Philosophy and Theory (pp. 16).
Postdigital Science and Education (2020) 2:489493
Littlejohn, A., & Hood, N. (2018). Reconceptualising learning in the digital age: the [un]democratising
potential of MOOCs. Singapore: Springer.
Peters,M.A.,&Jandrić,P.(2018).The digital university: a dialogue and manifesto. New York: Peter Lang.
Peters, M. A., Rider, S., Hyvönen, M., & Besley, T. (2018). Post-truth, Fake News. Viral Modernity & Higher
Education. Singapore: Springer.
Postdigital Science and Education (2020) 2:489493 493
Full-text available
This paper traces ten years of development of the concept of the postdigital in the works of six scholars (Richard Hall, Ian Truelove, David White, Mark Childs, David Cormier, and Lawrie Phipps) acting under the collective pseudonym the 52group. The first part of the paper reproduces the 52group’s manifesto entitled ‘Preparing for the postdigital era’. The second part of the paper reproduces 2015 responses to ‘Preparing for the postdigital era’ published on group members’ blogs and websites. The third part of the paper brings together group members’ responses written in 2019 for the purpose of this article. The conclusion analyses these developments and situates them within recent developments in postdigital thinking. The article provides deep insights into the nature of our postdigital reality and offers two main contributions. First, the article offers some intellectual ancestry for postdigital theory and practice. Second, the article offers a unique insight into the evolution of feelings of people who have thought deeply about our postdigital era. With these contributions, the article offers a much-needed historical view to the postdigital and situates current postdigital thought into wider philosophical, social, and educational contexts.
Full-text available
This article situates contemporary critical media literacy into a postdigital context. It examines recent advances in data literacy, with an accent to Big Data literacy and data bias, and expands them with insights from critical algorithm studies and the critical posthumanist perspective to education. The article briefly outlines differences between older software technologies and artificial intelligence (AI), and introduces associated concepts such as machine learning, neural networks, deep learning, and AI bias. Finally, it explores the complex interplay between Big Data and AI and teases out three urgent challenges for postdigital critical media literacy. (1) Critical media literacy needs to reinvent existing theories and practices for the postdigital context. (2) Reinvented theories and practices need to find a new balance between the technological aspects of data and AI literacy with the political aspects of data and AI literacy, and learn how to deal with non-predictability. (3) Critical media literacy needs to embrace the posthumanist challenge; we also need to start thinking what makes AIs literate and develop ways of raising literate thinking machines. In our postdigital age, critical media literacy has a crucial role in conceptualisation, development, and understanding of new forms of intelligence we would like to live with in the future.
Full-text available
This paper explores relationships between knowledge production and academic publication and shows that the current political economy of mainstream academic publishing has resulted from a complex interplay between large academic publishers, academics, and hacker-activists. The process of publishing is a form of ‘social production’ that takes place across the economy, politics and culture, all of which are in turn accommodating both old and new technology in our postdigital age. Technologies such as software cannot be separated from human labour, academic centres cannot be looked at in isolation from their margins, and the necessity of transdisciplinary approaches does not imply the disappearance of traditional disciplines. In the postdigital age, the concept of the margins has not disappeared, but it has become somewhat marginal in its own right. We need to develop a new language of describing what we mean by ‘marginal voices’ in the social relations between knowledge production and academic publication. Universities require new strategies for cohabitation of, and collaboration between, various socio-technological actors, and new postdigital politics and practice of knowledge production and academic publishing.
Full-text available
This edited collection brings together international authors to discuss the meaning and purpose of higher education in a “post-truth” world. The editors and authors argue that notions such as “fact” and “evidence” in a post-truth era must be understood not only politically, but also socially and epistemically. The essays philosophically examine the post-truth environment and its impact on education with respect to our most basic ideas of what universities, research and education are or should be. The book brings together authors working in Australia, China, Croatia, Romania, Canada, New Zealand, Portugal, Sweden, UK and USA.
Full-text available
Learning in the Age of Digital Reason contains 16 in-depth dialogues between Petar Jandrić and leading scholars and practitioners in diverse fields of history, philosophy, media theory, education, practice, activism, and arts. The book creates a postdisciplinary snapshot of our reality, and the ways we experience that reality, at the moment here and now. It historicises our current views to human learning, and experiments with collective knowledge making and the relationships between theory and practice. It stands firmly at the side of the weak and the oppressed, and aims at critical emancipation. Learning in the Age of Digital Reason is playful and serious. It addresses important issues of our times and avoids the omnipresent (academic) sin of pretentiousness, thus making an important statement: research and education can be sexy. Interlocutors presented in the book (in order of appearance): Larry Cuban, Andrew Feenberg, Michael Adrian Peters, Fred Turner, Richard Barbrook, McKenzie Wark, Henry Giroux, Peter McLaren, Siân Bayne, Howard Rheingold, Astra Taylor, Marcell Mars, Tomislav Medak, Ana Kuzmanić, Paul Levinson, Kathy Rae Huffman, Ana Peraica, Dmitry Vilensky (Chto Delat?), Christine Sinclair, and Hamish Mcleod.
This article discusses the postdigital as a term that can be used to describe either a contemporary disenchantment with digital information systems and media gadgets, or a period in which our fascination with these systems and gadgets has become historical. After Edward Snowden’s disclosures of the NSA’s all-pervasive digital surveillance systems, this disenchantment has quickly grown from a niche ‘hipster’ phenomenon to a mainstream position — one which is likely to have a serious impact on all cultural and business practices based on networked electronic devices and Internet services.
In this article, we attempt to define and explore a concept of ‘radical digital citizenship’ and its implications for digital education. We argue that the ‘digital’ and its attendant technologies are constituted by on-going materialist struggles for equality and justice in the Global South and North which are erased in the dominant literature and debates in digital education. We assert the need for politically informed understandings of the digital, technology and citizenship and for a ‘radical digital citizenship’ in which critical social relations with technology are made visible and emancipatory technological practices for social justice are developed.
In January 2013, a picture of a young man typing on a mechanical typewriter while sitting on a park bench went ‘viral’ on the popular website Reddit. The image was presented in the typical style of an ‘image macro’ or ‘imageboard meme’ (Klok 2010, 16–19), with a sarcastic caption in bold white Impact typeface that read: ‘You’re not a real hipster — until you take your typewriter to the park.’