Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.stmartins.com
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
1
A SIM PLE I DEA O F A R CHI TE CT URE
The Inspection-House
If this was a picture, you’d have seen it before. History, you see, is repeating
itself. With our new digital century comes a familiar problem from the in-
dustrial age. A social tyranny is once again encroaching upon individual
liberty. Today, in the early twenty-first century, just as in the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries, this social threat comes from a simple idea in architec-
ture.
In 1787, at the dawn of the mass industrial age, Jeremy Bentham designed
what he called a “simple idea in architecture” to improve the management of
prisons, hospitals, schools and factories. Bentham’s idea was, as the architec-
tural historian Robin Evans noted, a “vividly imaginative” synthesis of archi-
tectural form with social purpose.2 Bentham, who amassed great personal
wealth as a result of his social vision,3 wanted to change the world through
this new architecture.
Bentham sketched out this vision of what Aldous Huxley described as a
“plan for a totalitarian housing project”4 in a series of “open”5 letters written
from the little Crimean town of Krichev, where he and his brother, Samuel,
20 ANDREW KEEN
placed the medieval “gaol” in the city’s castle with a building designed to
supervise prisoners’ every movement and control their time down to the
very minute.
But Bentham’s simple idea of architecture “reformed” more than just pris-
ons. It represented an augury of an industrial society intricately connected by
an all-too-concrete network of railroads and telegraph lines. The mechanical
age of the stream train, the large-scale factory, the industrial city, the nation-
state, the motion picture camera and the mass market newspaper did indeed
create the physical architecture to transform us into efficient individual
exhibits—always, in theory, observable by government, employers, media
and public opinion. In the industrial era of mass connectivity, factories,
schools, prisons and, most ominously, entire political systems were built
upon this crystalline technology of collective surveillance. The last two hun-
dred years have indeed been the age of the great exhibition.
Yet nobody in the industrial era, apart from the odd exhibitionist like Ben-
tham himself, actually wanted to become individual pictures in this collective
exhibition. Indeed, the struggle to be let alone is the story of industrial man.
As Georg Simmel, the turn-of-the-twentieth-century German sociologist and
scholar of secrecy, recognized, “the deepest problems of modern life derive
from the claim of the individual to preserve the autonomy and individuality
of his existence in the face of overwhelming social forces, of historical heri-
tage, of external culture, and of the technique of life.”10 Thus the great critics
of mass society—John Stuart Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville in the nine-
teenth and George Orwell, Franz Kafka and Michel Foucault in the twentieth
century—have all tried to shield individual liberty from the omniscient gaze
of the Inspection-House.
“Visibility,” Foucault warned, “is a trap.”11 Thus, from J. S. Mill’s solitary
free thinker in On Liberty to Joseph K in The Castle and The Trial to Win-
ston Smith in Nineteen Eighty-four, the hero of the mass industrial age for
22 ANDREW KEEN
these critics is the individual who tries to protect his invisibility, who takes
pleasure in his own opacity, who turns his back on the camera, who—in the
timeless words of Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis—just wants to be let
alone by the technologies of the mass industrial age.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as the new “ner vous system of the
planet”17—has been designed to transform us into exhibitionists, forever
on show in our networked crystal palaces. And, today, in an age of radically
transparent online communities like Twitter and Facebook, the social has
become, in Shirky’s words, the “default” setting on the Internet,18 transform-
ing digital technology from being a tool of second life into an increasingly
central part of real life.
But this is a version of real life that could have been choreographed by
Jeremy Bentham. As WikiLeaks founder and self-appointed transparency
tsar Julian Assange said, today’s Internet is “the greatest spying machine
the world has ever seen,”19 with Facebook, he added, being “the world’s most
comprehensive database about people, their relationships, their names,
their addresses, their locations, their communications with each other,
and their relatives, all sitting within the United States, all accessible to US
Intelligence.” 20
But it’s not just Facebook that is establishing this master database of the
human race. As Clay Shirky notes, popular21 geo-location ser vices such as
foursquare, Facebook places, Google Latitude, Plancast and the Hotlist,
which enable us to “effectively see through walls” and know the exact location
of all our friends, are making society more “legible,” thus allowing all of us to
be read, in good Inspection-House fashion, “like a book.”22 No wonder, then,
that Katie Rolphe, a New York University colleague of Shirky, has observed
that “Facebook is the novel we are all writing.”23
Social media is the confessional novel that we are not only all writing but
also collectively publishing for everyone else to read. We are all becoming
Wiki-leakers, less notorious but no less subversive versions of Julian As-
sange, of not only our own lives but other people’s now. The old mass indus-
trial celebrity culture has been so turned upside down by social networks
like Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter that celebrity has been democratized
24 ANDREW KEEN
own, praised as “a networked version of The Truman Show, where we are all
playing Truman,”36 is quite a public spectacle. Rather than The Truman
Show, however, this epidemic of oversharing, in its preoccupation with im-
mortality, could be subtitled The Living and the Dead.
once described as “the center of gravity on the Internet,” goes even further
than @quixotic in his historical analysis.
Doerr argues that “social” represents “the great third wave” of technologi-
cal innovation, following directly in the wake of the invention of the per-
sonal computer and the Internet.47 The advent of social, local, and mobile
technology now heralds what Doerr calls a “perfect storm” to disrupt tradi-
tional businesses.48 Such, indeed, is Doerr and his venture capitalist firm of
Kleiner Perkin’s confidence in this social revolution that, in October 2010, in
partnership with Facebook and Mark Pincus’s Zynga, Kleiner launched a
quarter-billion-dollar sFund dedicated to exclusively putting money into so-
cial businesses. While on Valentine’s Day 2011, the firm made what the Wall
Street Journal described as a “small” $38 million investment in Facebook,49
buying the Silicon Valley venture capitalists no more than an affectionately
symbolic 0.073% stake in the social media company.50 “We’re making a blue
ocean bet that social is just beginning,” Bing Gordon, another Kleiner part-
ner thus explains the firm’s thinking behind its sFund. “Usage habits will
change dramatically over the next 4–5 years.”51
Mark Zuckerberg, the beneficary of Kleiner’s generous Valentine’s Day
present, Time Magazine’s 2010 Person of the Year and the semi-fictionalized
“Accidental Billionaire” subject of David Fincher’s hit 2010 movie The Social
Network,52 agrees with Gordon that we are at the beginning of a social revo-
lution that will change not only the online user experience but also our entire
economy and society. Zuckerberg who, as the English novelist Zadie Smith
notes, “uses the word connect as believers use the word Jesus,”53 is the Jeremy
Bentham 2.0 of our digitally networked age, the social engineer who claims
to be “rewiring the world.”54 And, like Bentham too, the Facebook co-founder
and CEO is a “boy to the last” who lacks any experience or knowledge of hu-
man nature and who wants to build a digital Inspection-House in which
none of us are ever let alone again.