Theorizing Blockchain
Actor-Network Theory, Multiplicity, Risk, and Blockchain. Once again digging into my thesis in bite-size chunks.
Because implementation of computer code, implications of interfaces, and user interaction are all aspects integral to the functioning of the system in different ways, it is particularly important to examine blockchain technology in a way that does not assume either technology or human input is the determining factor for analysis. Actor-Network Theory (ANT) offers a contemporary theoretical framework to study technological developments that takes a balanced approach between technological determinist and social constructivist approaches to sociology (Elbanna 2011). Many of the characteristics of blockchain technology seem to lead to a mutual shaping effect from both the technology itself as well as user interaction, so this balance is something that will be useful for both theoretical and analytical purposes.
I intend to argue that there exist a number of different realities that can be enacted, and are currently playing out, throughout the blockchain area — these are finite, but difficult to enumerate. This enactment is taking place in at least a number of ways — through development and launching of new coins, tokens, and/or blockchains using an ICO model enabled by the Ethereum blockchain, through the influx of interested corporate money, through the discussion of the crypto space in online communities, and through the media portrayal of the area. I also intend to take up the call from Srnicek and Williams (2016) to think in a long term, utopian way, while also considering the material reality of the present. This also implies that the future is not inevitable or predetermined, but that a number of possibilities are available through conscious, long-term design. If we want to achieve great things, we must be able to imagine great things, and attempt to link the here and now in an incremental way with the utopian vision.
Finally, I question the ethics of work and the logic of allowing all efficiencies from the marketplace or automation of work to flow to the business owners or capitalist class, as opposed to the workers, or soon to be, non-workers. Building on Marx’s early technological writings in Grundrisse, and using the neo-Marxist works, in particular, Platform Capitalism (Srnicek 2017) and Inventing the Future (Srnicek and Williams 2016), and observing general economic and employment trends, I argue that this effect is likely to be accelerated and exacerbated by the widespread adoption of blockchain, and will need to be addressed in a rethinking of how people derive their basic needs, using something like a Universal Basic Income. However this will depend on the outcomes of many rapidly evolving areas before even that decision is likely to be forced on the political class. I will consider each of these areas in turn.
Actor-Network Theory
Actor-Network Theory (ANT) is largely founded upon the work of Bruno Latour, Michel Callon, and John Law, all of whom provide different theoretical perspectives relevant to a social analysis of blockchain. ANT aims to trace the associations of both human and non-human objects into networks of association in which each object or thing is both an actor and itself a product of a network (hence “actor-network”), usually referred to as an “actant” and described in relation to other actants within networks. I intend to use ANT as social theory, slightly divorced from its originators’ intent, which was strongly prescriptive as to how researchers should go about conducting ANT research in methodological terms. My methodological approach does not neatly follow earlier prescriptions on ANT methodology, but nonetheless provides an important social theoretical framework to examine the findings. While there is some disagreement as to whether ANT theory can really be separated from its methodology, there are many that treat ANT as social theory or philosophy capable of standing on its own. Graham Harmon (2016) presents the social theoretical aspects of ANT as a coherent set of philosophical propositions, independent of the methods used to test or demonstrate them. I contend that there is a lot of value to considering impacts of technological and non-human participants within a technology that is geographically distributed and propagated over a network. At the same time, I also attempt to outline a preliminary list of potential actants within the space.
The most logical place to start to explore the application of ANT to blockchain technologies is to briefly explain some basics on Bitcoin, blockchain, and cryptocurrencies. The technology that underlies Bitcoin itself is called blockchain, which is essentially a publicly maintained online and distributed ledger that tracks the existence of all Bitcoins (or other digital assets depending on the blockchain application) ever created, as well as both where they have been, and where they are currently. The ledger is distributed peer to peer through the Bitcoin core application, it exists throughout the network of the internet, and is a decentralized ledger through the actions of the application. Given that the ledger is both public and distributed, it makes transactions more visible in certain ways — basic data on transactions is available to anyone as it is open and peer to peer based. However, each transaction on the blockchain is not necessarily easily identifiable and traceable back to individual users, as it is considered a pseudonymous technology. Users of Bitcoin are not required to provide any identifiable information in order to interact with the blockchain or Bitcoin technology, though some more user-friendly wallet services and currency exchanges require some personal information depending on location and applicable legislation in their area. Generally, the information is required for anti-money laundering purposes (often referred to as Know Your Customer Anti Money-Laundering, or KYC/AML for short), and is particularly evident with currency exchanges that accept traditional government backed money for Bitcoin purchases (Simser 2015; Stokes 2013).
In showing how ANT is useful for studying relationships and developments that involve both humans and technology, Bruno Latour (2005) suggests a redefinition of sociology “not as the ‘science of the social’, but as the tracing of associations. In this meaning of the adjective, social does not designate a thing among other things… but a type of connection between things that are not themselves social” (5). This redefinition allows a greater number of actants to be examined in relation to their effect on issues under study. The consideration of non-human actants and their importance to defining associations and playing roles in social phenomena is one of the central aspects of ANT, and precisely the key concept that makes it useful for the study of blockchain technology (Elbanna 2011, Hird 2012, Van Loon 2002, Wood 2001).
Bitcoin and other alternative currencies are not stored in the same way as traditional currency. They are digital by their technological affordance and design, and are represented by recording location and movement of amounts of currency or objects on the blockchain. Each movement on the blockchain depends on the distributed aspect of the blockchain and utilizes distributed computational power to record and verify each transaction on the chain. Each block on the blockchain refers to the previous block, which also efficiently explains its name. This characteristic and method of recording also provides a high degree of security to the entire blockchain, as forging or stealing Bitcoin or any other blockchain-secured asset would require rewriting the entire chain, which is distributed to users throughout the world. In short, it would be very difficult to achieve such a feat, and fool the entire distributed blockchain into believing that your address rightfully owned the Bitcoin or cryptocurrency that you were trying to forge or steal. This characteristic is also one of the reasons that the applications of blockchain for uses far beyond currency exchange are being seriously looked at and implemented in any number of areas.
Due to the open source attribute of the blockchain code, ANT is an exceptionally useful theoretical and analytical tool. Understanding that code changes can have drastic effects on functionality and purpose of a platform, this is something that needs to be given consideration in terms of the shaping of conversations around the technology. The ability to look at a technology and programming code within a theoretical framework that allows for proportionate theoretical weight to be put on non-human actants and their influence within a network is a strong advantage when exploring technology that is continuously being adapted and applied to different situations due to its open source character.
The concept of the stability / instability of networks is also important here, given the attributes of open source code (Elbanna 2011, Hird, 2012, Wood 2001). In closed source formats, developers make changes, updates, or patches to code, which is accounted for in ANT because the theory assumes that “…the social and the technical are in constant dialogue and negotiation, and regards the settlement of each negotiation as an empirical matter” (Elbanna 2011:135). This negotiation is made even more pronounced in the case of open-source software that allows the source code to be adapted to any number of different applications, and the notion of a continually changing network is a reality. In the case of open-source software, the instability of code is even more significant. This is not to say that the code itself is unstable, but rather that there are many more opportunities for it to be changed, adapted, or applied to other situations and circumstances by anyone with access to the code and expertise to edit or input new code than traditional closed source code software. The additional instability introduced by the characteristics of open-source code provide the possibility for much further adaptation and mutual influence of social factors and technology.
Another characteristic of the blockchain, which is evident in its primary application of Bitcoin, is its ability to act anywhere necessary from being a networked digital technology and the difficulty in restricting its use through borders. It is truly a global currency that is beholden to no geographic location. In this also lies a great deal of power, given that it allows it to be an actant wherever necessary — from supporting a cause that has been deemed unsupportable by typical means through pressure as seen with historical restrictions of payment to Wikileaks by major financial institutions, to donations to a political party that may not subscribe to mainstream views, to providing funds to a rebel group in order to overthrow oppressive regimes, to supporting terrorist activities, to circumventing international sanctions. This leaves morality and judgement to the user in their application of the technology, and is resistant to censorship by particular governments or border securities because it is currently outside of their control. This same characteristic also tends to remove certain economic and locational barriers to investment in ideas or concepts being built as a type of crowdfunding investment through the development and explosion of Initial Coin Offerings, or ICO’s.
Responding to Surveillance: Multiplicity, Enactment, Conversations, and Risk Theory
Do conversations around surveillance, privacy and anonymity play a role in the adoption of alternative currencies or adaptations of blockchain as the technology is emerging? This question is perhaps answered best by looking at the number of different blockchain applications that have emerged in the space and have gained considerable traction based specifically on particular characteristics such as privacy of transactions or user anonymity, amongst a host of other considerations. It is also conceptually useful to consider chain forks as a form of community influenced evolution in specific blockchains.
While it may become obvious later, various ideological aspects are likely to feed into social enactment within the blockchain space, and the quasi-liberalism embodied in hacker culture tends to have a focus on privacy and personal liberty arguments (Coleman 2013). This is an important aspect to be aware of, as recent research studying the use of privacy arguments has shown that the push for deregulation as well as a focus on privacy arguments in fact reinforces an institutional ability to surveil populations through secret collaboration of government and tech firms (Rider 2017). Given that encryption is often, but not always, built into blockchain technology, I lean toward Rider’s assumption that “if there is any case in which privacy is likely to play a major role in securing rights, encryption appears to be that case” (2017: 5)
The concept of multiplicity was introduced to me through Mol’s The Body Multiple (2002). In engaging with the concept and relating it back to areas in which I had previously worked in government, I also came across work by Law and Singleton on multiplicity and policy, and their concept of ontological politics (Law and Singleton 2014). The concept of using multiplicity to inform policy is antithetical to the concept of policy, since policy is concerned with universal translation based on a single set of ideas or understanding of reality, and multiplicity involves the acknowledgement and understanding that there can be multiple, complex relations between different realities based on experience and enactment. At the same time, making certain breaks in policy for reasons of anomaly or personal situations already takes the concept of multiplicity into practice, albeit in a minor way. In their discussion of foot-and-mouth disease in Britain, Law and Singleton discuss the changes in policy direction as the emergency of the breakout was happening, particularly the discussion, resistance, and pressure to change the policy solution, even as the current policy direction could have been taking effect (2014). For this reason, the concept of multiplicity and ANT also relates closely to the evaluation of different enacted realities in terms of their perceived effectiveness or lack thereof, as well as their potential risks. This very closely mirrors ideas that have been brought up in another theoretical stream: risk theory.
In a sociological understanding, risk perception and understanding is closely linked to human agency and the ability of individuals to make informed decisions regarding future actions. This is relevant to the study of privacy and anonymity in blockchain applications precisely for the reasons that some actions that users may take while using such technology could expose them to risk depending on their activities, and users may choose to interact with the technology in different ways or for different uses as a result of this awareness. In this way, individual understanding of risk can have a shaping effect on human behavior, and could shape particular uses of blockchain technology in ways that mediate an individual’s risk based on their level of comfort with both the system and the risks associated with their activities, especially when combined with Joh’s concept of privacy protests (Joh 2013). Risk society theory also holds ties to ANT and multiplicity in helpful ways. First, risk society involves the evaluation of potential risks, and not what is immediately occurring in reality. This changes behavior from reacting to immediate realities to behaving based on potential outcomes or realities, very similar to the concept of multiplicity in ANT, as well as the concept of prefigurative politics. Though risks are evaluated and action is taken with the risk in mind, this risk may or may not be fully actualized in reality, though it has still created an effect by existing as a “virtual object” that was avoided (Van Loon 2002:60–1). Secondly, both risks and actants gain power through association. This conceptualization frames risk as another potential actant to examine within this framework, both on their own and as they associate with other actants within the network.
As we combine aspects of multiplicity, prefigurative politics, and risk theory with concepts of ideology and technology, we can build an effective, yet complicated theoretical framework to examine social aspects of blockchain. Using this framework, it becomes clearer that blockchain projects can be evaluated on their technical merits and achievements alone, but are also becoming important aspects of future design and in some cases, working to absorb or transcend certain aspects of the market and the state as well. Law and Singleton again bring important perspective here when they say “in ANT realities are done along with representations. And then the crucial point is: since there are lots of practices there are also multiple realities.” (Law and Singleton, 2014: 286).
References from this section:
Coleman, E. Gabriella. 2013. Coding Freedom: The Ethics and Aesthetics of Hacking. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Elbanna, Amany. 2011. “The Theoretical and Analytical Inclusion of Actor Network Theory and its Implications on ICT Research.” Pp. 130–42 in Actor-Network Theory and Technology Innovation: Advancements and New Concepts, edited by Arthur Tatnall. Hershey PA: Information Science Reference.
Harmon, Graham. 2016. Immaterialism: Objects and Social Theory. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Hassan, Samer, and Primavera De Filippi. 2017. “The Expansion of Algorithmic Governance: From Code is Law, to Law is Code.” Field Actions Science Reports: The journal of field actions 17: 88–90.
Hird, Myra. 2012. Sociology of Science: A Critical Canadian Introduction. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.
Joh, Elizabeth. 2013. “Privacy Protests: Surveillance Evasion and Fourth Amendment Suspicion.” Arizona Law Review 55(4):997–1029.
Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press Inc.
Law, John and Vicky Singleton. 2014. “ANT, multiplicity and policy.” Critical Policy Studies 8(4): 379–96.
Mol, Annemarie. 2002. the body multiple: ontology in medical practice. London, UK: Duke University Press.
Rider, Karina. 2017. “The privacy paradox: how market privacy facilitates government surveillance. Information, Communication & Society 21(10): 1–17.
Simser, Jeffrey 2015. “Bitcoin and Modern Alchemy — In Code We Trust.” Journal of Financial Crime 22(2):156–69. DOI 10.1108/JFC-11–2013–0067
Srnicek, Nick and Alex Williams. 2016. Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work. Brooklyn, NY: Verso.
Srnicek, Nick. 2017. Platform Capitalism. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Stokes, Robert. 2013. “Anti-Money Laundering Regulation and Emerging Payment Technologies.” Banking and Financial Services Policy Report. 32(5):1–10.
Van Loon, Joost. 2002. Risk and Technological Culture: Towards a sociology of virulence. New York, NY: Routledge.
Wood, David. 2001. Actor-Network Theory and its Potential for the Study of Policy Change: A literature survey and briefing paper.
My thesis, of which this is a snippet, is available for free in full at: https://qspace.library.queensu.ca/handle/1974/24924
