Conclusion: The Intersections and Imbrications of Metric Power

Abstract

Espeland and Stevens (2008 : 411) have acknowledged that in 'a world saturated with numbers, it is easy to take the work of quantifi cation for granted'. We certainly should resist such a temptation. Th e world is indeed saturated by metrics, but it would be a mistake to overlook their power simply because of their familiarity. Espeland and Stevens' argument is that we need sociological insights that think about the back-ground work, knowledge, and expertise that are required to make these metrics so powerful. We need, in short, to think of these metrics in soci-ological terms. Th is book argues that we should in fact see metrics as being central to the ordering, division, and construction of the social world today. We are governed, managed, and corralled by metrics; they act upon us and through us. We should see this in its long historical con-text (see Chap. 2), but the role and presence of metrics have undoubtedly escalated in recent years. We might even conclude that we have moved from the threat of intermittent measures acting upon us—in the form of 'special measures'—to forms of power that act through our constant exposure to those metrics. Special measures have become ordinary (see Beer 2015c). Metric power is a concept that is intended to focus attention on the relations between measurement, circulation, and possibility in order to 170 D. Beer extend our understanding of the linkages between metrics and power. As Wendy Espeland (1997 : 1120) has argued, 'power, self-interest, and informal knowledge will always mediate the use of number'. We might have to revisit Espeland's statement in light of automated circulatory systems and the potential usurping of informal knowledge by complex anticipatory knowing, but nevertheless her point certainly pertains today. It is only by understanding how measurements circulate into the world, shaping what is possible and what is seen to be possible, that we might understand the power dynamics of metrics. It is also in these relations that we might unpick the power dynamics behind the so-called big data. It is important to see metric power in context. Th at is to say that it is important to see it as part of broader historical and political forces. If we take a step back though, and perhaps resist some of the more epochal (Savage 2009) tendencies that are tempting when using a term like metric power, Foucault (2002b : 284) once said that for him 'power is what needs to be explained, rather than being something that off ers an explanation'. Th e problem was that the question of power, he pointed out, is something that is diffi cult to deal with. It is the thing that requires analytical attention and with which we need to 'grapple'. In this book I've tried to work towards some explanation of power as it operates through metrics and to grapple with the questions this presents. Writing around 25 years ago, Nicholas Rose (1991 : 673) noted that 'numbers have an unmistakable power in modern political culture' and that even the 'most casual reader of newspapers or viewer of television is embraced within the rituals of expectation, speculation, and prognostication that sur-round the public pronouncement of politically salient numbers'. It is the unmistakable power to which Rose refers here that we still need to con-tinue to grapple with, particularly as the newspapers and television, to which he refers, have been appended with mobile devices, social media, GPS, Wi-Fi, and the many opportunities that these types of media bring to capture and disseminate metrics and metric-based thinking—in our labour, our consumption, our social relations, and our movements. Th is power associated with numbers has changed, and so we must grapple with it again. Beyond this, given the current context, we must redouble our eff orts. Th e analytical gaze associated with metrics is something to which we will need to pay extra attention. Porter has warned that it is