Metric Power.
In his book “Metric Power” (2016), David Beer defines metric power as a “concept that intends to focus on the relation between measurement, circulation and possibility” (p. 171). He further explains that the analysis of this relationship clarifies the contribution of metrics to the social and numerical “governance of individuals and population” (p. 171). It also helps one understand the role of metrics in regard to power, dynamics and structure.
In order to understand the relation between measurement, circulation and possibility, Beer divides metric power into several themes. To start with, Beer explains that the concept of metric power is based on creating and maintaining limits. It is a form of control that restricts opinions, choices, and movements. It places a measure on imagination and locks down potential, confining individuals to what is within its set limits. It draws the borders on what is convenient and excludes what is not. This is the first impact of metric power on individuality.
Metric power is also based on its sense of visibility and invisibility. This characteristic allows metric power to translate supremacy and value however it desires. Metric power could manipulate the translation of power onto practices, objects or behaviors either by allowing them to be seen or by hiding them. As such, it could add value and empower human practices, objects and behaviors or devalue and disempower them, taking control over yet another function of individuality.
Metric power also operates through order and category. It contributes to the projection and translation of ordering processes and categorization of people into the social world. Thus, metric power places people in categories that they may not necessarily choose to be a part of. These categories could dictate the path of these individuals’ lives and place their lives “within patterns of judgement” (Beer, 2016, p. 174).
Metric power sets desired outcomes. Measurements are thus used to try to reach the pre-set outcomes. This impacts current decision making processes, in which people alter their formulae to meet the pre-set outcomes. This is a way to “bring the future into the present” (Beer, 2016, p. 170). Metric power creates an imagined future for individuals to attempt to reach. It influences the decisions and choices they make by ensuring that they are working towards the desired outcome. Moreover, metric power controls personal productivity and efficiency by “enabling us to self-improve in our work, being more productive, but also to be productive and efficient in our leisure and entertainment time” (Beer, 2016, p. 175).This is regarded as “entrepreneur of the self” (p.175).
Since metric power is used to shape and define what is valued, it promotes itself as a valuable concept. This self-reinforcement allows metric power to spread and intensify, while portraying metrics and metracization as worthwhile and desirable, and that “more things should be measured this way” (Beer, 2016, p. 176). Thus metric power spreads its own innate values and sets an understanding for what matters and counts, which in turn are adopted by individuals. Thus alongside to decisions and choices, metric power also governs individuals’ values.
Metric power is additionally used to authenticate, justify or legitimize. It can be used to define what is legitimate and genuine by giving them a mark of authenticity. As such metric power is used to authenticate people, actions, systems and practices. Since numbers are associated with objectivity, metric power can also justify decisions. Decisions are highly influenced by numerical calculations since “metric power can be used to mark out what is allowed” (Beer, 2016, p. 177).
In short, when metric power meets human agency, it takes part in shaping perceptions, influencing decisions and limiting thoughtfulness.
A perfect example of Beer’s depiction of metric power and its impact on individuals is criminal anthropology, explained as offender profiling based on the link between the nature of a crime and the offender’s physical appearance.
According to criminologist Cesare Lombroso, one is born a criminal. His theory of “anthropological criminology” explains that criminals are an evolutionary throwback who can be identified because they are physically devolved. Characteristics of naturally born criminals include large jaws, forward projection of jaw, low sloping foreheads, high cheekbones, flattened or upturned or hawk-like noses, handle-shaped ears, large chins, fleshy lips, hard shifty eyes, scanty beard or baldness, insensitivity to pain and long arms.
Lombroso’s theory of reducing humans into measurements and calculations resulted in depicting them as potential criminals. Had it not been for the metrics and numbers, the appearance of these people would not have differentiated them from others. This perfectly explains metric power. Based on measurements of their features, these individuals were categorized into groups, subjected to perceptions and judgements, bound to an imagined future, and disempowered and devalued. This indicates that “there is a process on which human agency and human discretion may be slowly but noticeably usurped by the decisive outcomes of metrics” (Beer, 2016, p. 177).
References: Beer, D. (2016). Metric power. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
