Redeploying the UAV: Democratization, Privatization, and Commodification of the “Transhumanist” Drone Stare in the Consumer Market

Bradly Allen Knox

---

Abstract

Our contemporary understanding of unmanned aerial vehicles lacks critical analysis in how they are deployed in the consumer market. This project analyzes three drone websites that demonstrate a logical progression of what is termed as the consumer market assemblage (i.e., democratization, privatization, and commodification). Through these frames respectively, this manuscript teases out arguments for understanding drones as a transhumanist liminality: the space between operator and drone. As evidence shows, the liminal space between operator and drone incrementally decreases to the point of near-synonymy of human and drone. With this rearticulating of the consumer drone, society might better understand the current relational trajectory between humans and aerial technology.

Keywords: Transhumanism, liminality, UAV, drones, democratization, privatization, commodification

---

Essay

Introduction

Drones, or, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) have become the forefront of debate in our technological society. These aerial technologies have historical roots in Nikola Tesla’s 1898 first patented (no. 613,809) radio-signaled and remote-controlled boat.^[1]Public Broadcast Service, “Tesla: Inside the Lab” pbs.org/tesla/ins/lab_remotec.html (accessed November 14, 2017). Even through the twentieth century, drones were primarily attributed as “remote-controlled, kill-at- a-distance technologies.”^[2]Tyler Wall and Torin Monahan, “Surveillance and violence from afar: The politics of drones and liminal security-scapes,” Theoretical Criminology 15, no. 3. (2011): 239 – 254. Today, drones have complicated our hardened conceptualization of aerial technologies of war. For instance, the Center for a New American Security highlights a point of stasis between military drones and consumer drones that demonstrate an “unprecedented access to highly advanced technologies.”^[3]Center for New American Security, “What are drones? Technology Specifications and Capabilities,” drones.cnas.org/reports/what-are-drones/ (accessed November 14, 2017). Civilians have gained such access to drones that “Hobbyists registered over 181,000 drones since the Federal Aviation Administration opened a new registration system,”^[4]Jonathan Vanian, “Here’s How Many People Have Registered Their Drones,” (2016), fortune.com/2016/01/06/federal-drone-registration-system/ (accessed November 14, 2017). but also have created a conundrum: how does drone technology get redeployed from an instrument of war to a product of the consumer market, and, how do consumers situate themselves to fit these redeployments? As research suggests, consumers are increasingly traversing the arbitrary gap between themselves and drones and becoming closer to drone technology that has historically been unavailable to civilians. This question provides a springboard into a line of research queries: (1) in what ways are drones redeployed in the consumer market? (2) How do operators—persons controlling the drone—“redesign,” or, situate themselves in redeployed drone technology? (3) How does liminality function between operator and drone?

Redeploying the drone.

The transition of the drone from military to the civilian sphere is one marked by a completely “redeployed” process that I call the Consumer Market Assemblage (CMA). The CMA is defined as the amalgamation of three frames: democratization, privatization, and commodification—in this order. For example, I argue, the consumer drone has been redeployed to be democratized, or “accessible.” In stark contrast, earlier roots of drones (i.e., military drones) are exemplars of undemocratized technologies. After drone technology becomes “open source,” it then becomes privatized. I contend with the notion of privatization as a modality of the analogical “pioneer”: civilian drone pilots are privatizing airspace and experimenting with uncharted territory that Star Trek captures quite effectively: “going where no man has gone before.” Finally, the commodification of the drone is a phenomenon, where the drone is, (1) “accessible” and (2) is used for “pioneering” to (3) “capitalize” on discoveries. The CMA offers answers to how we see the drone get redeployed; however, what does this “redeployment” look like?

Redeploying the UAV is, in essence, “opening up technology to a wider range of interests and concerns” in such a way that critical analysis could “lead to [the drone’s] redesign for greater compatibility with the human and natural limits on technical action.”^[5]Andrew Feenberg, “Critical Theory of Technology: An Overview,” Tailoring Biotechnologies 1, no. 1 (2005): 47—64. Contemporary efforts to make drones “compatible with humans” is seen in the following example: in 2013, a video uploaded to YouTube titled “Da Moose” initiated a “fair chase” movement, stating drones “upend American hunting culture and harm wildlife, giving some hunters an advantage over others and making it far too easy to kill game.”^[6]Jimmy Tobias, “Fair Chase and the Fight Against Drones,” (2016), PSMAG.com psmag.com/environment/fair-chase-and-the-fight-against-drones (accessed November 14, 2017). First, this seems to beg the question of a democratizing technology: the drone is redeployed as more “accessible” so that the hunter can gain unfair hunting advantages. Next, privatization, as the video demonstrates, allow the the hunters who have drones to lay personal claim on the game. Finally, consumer drones also exhibit a commodified utility that becomes an “essential” part of hunting game to capitalize on the rewards. Arguably, drones are redeployed differently in every industry—such as the case of search: drones “increasingly [come] to the forefront of humanitarian technology innovation.”^[7]SWARM (“Search with Aerial RC Multi-Rotor”), “Volunteer Search & Rescue Network,” sardrones.org/ (accessed November 14, 2017); Aid and International Development Forum, “Drone Technology … Continue reading Between these exemplarily positive and negative frames of understanding of how the drone is redesigned, there is an additional important theme that surfaces: transhumanism.

Redesigning the self.

Consider the following hypothetical: you are lost in the mountains. Search and rescue (SAR) drones can be conceptualized as a utilitarian apparatus that is not only indicative of the CMA, but they also can be internalized as an extension to human perception (i.e., transhumanism). Who is flying the drone? Are they a SAR expert? These questions beg for a transhumanist understanding because the consumer drone has been situated in a variety of industries and piloted by individuals with varying motives/^[8]Jeff Desjardins, “Here’s how commercial drones grew out of the battlefield,” Last modified December 15, 2016. businessinsider.com/a-history-of-commercial-drones-2016-12 (accessed November 14, … Continue reading While the CMA demonstrates how drones are redesigned, I argue, transhumanism is the “redesigning of the self” into the drone. Analogically, Ferrando posits that transhumanism can be traced back to slavery where the bodies of slaves demonstrate transhumanist properties (i.e., a technologie of power as an extension of the slave owners), and moreover, are managed as “assets” that can be improved, sold, or bought.^[9]Francesca Ferrando, “Posthumanism, Transhumanism, Antihumanism, Metahumanism, and New Materialisms: Differences and Relations,” Existenz 8, no. 2 (2013): 26-32. Albeit slavery and drones are vastly different constructs, the salience gleaned from this analogy is understanding the arbitrary space between drone and operator.

Transhumanist critique of drones offers prospects in understanding agency, where agency seems transparent. For example, a slew of news articles prefaces the need for a transhumanist critique. A variety of sources report drones as “agents” of their own crash—absolving the operator from agency—to name a few: “GoPro makes cutbacks after drone crashes;”^[10]Leo Kelion, “GoPro makes cutbacks after drone crashes.” November 30, 2016 bbc.com/news/technology-38161918 (accessed November 28, 2017).“Drone CRASHES into Boeing 737 passenger jet coming into land;”^[11]Claudia Cuskelly, “Drone CRASHES into Boeing 737 passenger jet coming into land,” January 6, 2017, express.co.uk/travel/articles/751165/drone-boeing-737-plane-crash-mozambique (accessed November … Continue reading “Terror in Manhattan as a drone smashes through the WINDOW of a 66-year-old woman’s high-rise apartment;”^[12]Kaileen Gaul, “Terror in Manhattan as a drone smashes through the WINDOW of a 66-year-old woman’s high-rise apartment,” February 26, 2017, … Continue reading “Watch: Drone crashes into Space Needle during New Year’s Eve fireworks setup;”^[13]Jessica Lee, “Watch: Drone crashes into Space Needle during New Year’s Eve fireworks setup.” January 11, 2017, … Continue reading “F.A.A. Opens Inquiry After Baby Hurt in Drone Crash;”^[14]Daniel Victor, (2015). “F.A.A. Opens Inquiry After Baby Hurt in Drone Crash.” September 23, 2015, nytimes.com/2015/09/23/business/drone-crash-injures-baby-highlighting-faa-concerns.html (accessed … Continue reading “Know this drone? It crash-landed in Bend driveway;”^[15]KTVZ. (2016). “Know this drone? It crash-landed in Bend driveway.” News Channel 21. Available at ktvz.com/news/know-this-drone-it-crash-landed-in-bend-driveway/111155142 and finally, even “12 drone disasters that show why the FAA hates drones,”^[16]Connor Forrest, (2015). “12 drone disasters that show why the FAA hates drones,” March 20, 2015, techrepublic.com/article/12-drone-disasters-that-show-why-the-faa-hates-drones/ (accessed November … Continue reading wherein, an aggregated list of “Drone this” or “Drone that” absolves the operator from both “the limitations of human corporeality… [as well as]… our confinement to the planet earth.”^[17]Christopher Coenen, (2014). “Transhumanism in Emerging Technoscience as a Challenge for the Humanities and Technology Assessment” Teorija in Praska, (2014): 51; Susan Schneider, (2009). “Future … Continue reading In popular culture, transhumanism is demonstrated in the film Good Kill (2015) starring Ethan Hawke as Air Force Major Thomas Egan, a former pilot charged with the remote-controlled operation of military unmanned aerial vehicles. According to a review in the New York Times, “Good Kill is really a contemporary horror movie about humans seduced and hypnotized by machines into surrendering their souls: ‘Invasion of the Body Snatchers’ for techies” that disregards “arguments for and against drone warfare [and, yet,] still makes a persuasive case that our blind infatuation with all-powerful technology is stripping us of our humanity.”^[18]Stephen Holden, “Review: ‘Good Kill’ Stars Ethan Hawke Fighting Enemies Half a World Away” May 14, 2015, … Continue reading Packed into this example is evidence of transhumanism.

Combining CMA and transhumanism.

Thus far, I have explicated the process of two phenomena: (1) the redeployment of the drone in the consumer market (i.e., democratization, privatization, and commodification). And, (2) the redesign of the self to fit the drone. The analysis section of this paper attempts to demonstrate how the drone is redeployed from each of the frames in the CMA, as well as, attempt to tease out occurrences of transhumanism from each frame to capture the ways operators are divested of agency and incorporated into the drone. As the data demonstrates, there is evidence suggesting that as one progresses through the CMA, the liminal space between operator and drone becomes smaller. Be that as it may, how does the CMA and transhumanism interpolate into the other? In other words, what is the connection? I contend with the argument that there is subtle phenomenon between democratization, privatization, and commodification and transhumanism respectively. For example, as analysis shows, the democratization of the drone suggests that the operator must “redesign” themselves and become “intimate” with the technology. This paper serves as an extension to Wall and Monahan’s (2011) conceptualization of drones as an “agent of death” to a cultural product of consumption by the thousands of people who invest themselves in drone technology to further comprehend: “what do [consumers] make of what they ‘absorb,’ receive, and pay for? What do they do with it?”^[19]de Certeau, Michel, The Practice of Everyday Life

The interpolation of CMA and transhumanism is evident in examples such as James Bridle’s Dronestagram (2012—2015) that highlights democratization or “getting intimate with” drone technology as an artist is with their brush (see also Bloobox’s version of the Dronestagram).^[20]James Bridle, “Dronestagram,” dronestagram.tumblr.com/ (accessed November 14, 2017); Bloobox, “dronestagram,” dronestagr.am/ (accessed November 14, 2017). Moreover, in Avatar (2009), where, character Jake Sully’s consciousness is transferred into an empty biological vessel is defined as a type of “bimorphic” drone. This recontextualization is indicative to the relationship between operator and technological drone inasmuch as Sully becomes intimate with the biological vessel he commands. The outer body experience that undertones parts of the movie is transhumanist by the direct link between Sully’s body and the body of the native. Regardless of how we conceptualize the drone (i.e., bimorphism in film, or an application for the military’s bidding), we ought to note the salience of the shift from war to recreation—death to art. By taking a critical approach, this paper contends with the prospect that drones as “cultural products [can] no longer [be seen] merely as data on the basis of which statistical tabulations of their circulation can be drawn up… but also as parts of the repertory with which users carry out operations of their own.”^[21]de Certeau, Michel, The Practice of Everyday Life. To put alternatively, the drone has become a tapestry of mass-produced information and technological parts that are appropriated in numerous ways that challenge the unilateral “only military” function, because, as critical theory of technology scholar Andrew Feenberg states, “Technology is a two-sided phenomenon: on the one hand the operator, on the other the object.”^[22]Feenberg, Andrew. “Critical Theory of Technology: An Overview,” 47—64.

Methodology

This paper addresses the themes of democratization, privatization, and commodification to build conceptualizations of transhumanism. I conduct a textual analysis close reading on three websites that represent drone technology. First, an open source forum is analyzed on DIYdrones, “the leading community for personal UAVs” to determine a recurring theme in democratization of drones and how members become “intimate” with their drones. Second, I analyze the DJI website as well as auxiliary pages such the DJI forum and SkyPixel and how they demonstrate privatization in the drone redesign as well as exhibit transhumanism and extend the operator to uncharted territory. Third, Skycatch, a startup connecting drone owners to financial opportunities, is analyzed to further nuance the new drone as commodified as not only a means for gaining economic capital but also extending the human and capability. I situate these textual readings in a critical analysis that synthesizes the consumer market assemblage (i.e., democratization, privatization, and commodification) with transhumanism to give credence to the “transitional human” that Bostrom (2005a) states as “someone who by virtue of their technology usage, cultural values, and lifestyle constitutes an evolutionary link to the coming era of posthumanity.”^[23]Bostrom, Nick. “A history of transhumanist thought.” Journal of Evolution and Technology. (2005a). 14. Retrieved from nickbostrom.com/papers/history.pdf

The Democratization of Drones on DIYdrones

The democratization of drones is the first process in the CMA model I proposed. In this section, I investigate the ways DIYdrones demonstrates a democratized redeployment of the consumer drone. This is seen from the multiple accounts of drone technology being “opened” up to the community. Additionally, with the “open source” drone technology, the operator becomes “close” with drone technology scholars’ call “hedonizing technologies.”^[24]Rachel Maines, Hedonizing Technologies: Paths to Pleasure in Hobbies and Leisure, (Baltimore, MA: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009); Joshua Tanenbaum, Amanda Williams, Audrey Desjardins, and … Continue reading For example, technologies (in this case, drones), that incentivizes pleasure of a product as opposed to its inherent significance is referred to as a hedonizing technology that “moves beyond a simple discussion that emphasizes recent democratization.”^[25]Rachel Maines, Hedonizing Technologies: Paths to Pleasure in Hobbies and Leisure; Tanenbaum et al., “Democratizing Technology: Pleasure, Utility and Expressiveness in DIY and Maker Practice,” … Continue reading

In Rachel Hall’s (2015) The Transparent Traveler she forwards a “flattening” phenomenon.^[26]Rachel Hall, The Transparent Traveler, (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2015). Although this flattening is in regard to the bodies of passengers being displayed as flattened biometric images, I contend, drones exhibit the same flattening. Arguably, while the body is flattened in Hall’s research, we can also say the technology is also more “democratized” (i.e., the technology must be deployed in some manner to accommodate the redesign of the self). For instance, biometric technology is not an inherent “accessible” system without the body. Similarly, drones are not “accessible” without the operator.

Redeploying the “democratized” drone.

To foster understanding about accessing drones, consider the “about” page on DIYdrones. This page lists the ground rules of being a member of this online drone community as: simple, cheap, safe, participatory, and civil. These rules facilitate how content (drones) gets presented. First, in the case of simplicity, “The aim of this [community] is to create new amateur UAV platforms… While we’re at it, we’ll make amateur UAV development easier for everyone.”^[27]DIYdrones, “The Leading Community for Personal UAVs,” diydrones.com/ Second, the notion that “cheaper is better” aims the “democratizing bar” much lower and more affordable for members to pursue building drones in the most effective and cost-efficient way. Third, safety is placed at the forefront of community operations by following “the current interpretation of the FAA guidelines on small UAVs.”^[28]Ibid. Fourth, we see a “sharing is caring” phenomenon where members are encouraged to open source their schema of drone; this democratized redesigning of the drone is nonexistent between opposing nations and their respective military drone technology. Fifth, and finally, DIYdrones is upholds a “civil” society of drone enthusiasts. In sum, these community rules redeploy the UAV as: (1) a much simpler aerial system to understand, (2) a cost-efficient technology, (3) bound by regulation to ensure public safety, (4) a mass disseminated technology that redistributes access, and, (5) a point of convergence for a civil society to form: the democratized drone does not occupy the same space (e.g., between nations as more “powerful” or “secretive”) but rather at the conjuncture of an equal and equitable civil community charged as “a site of peers helping each other.”^[29]Ibid. Given the democratized drone, it is now imperative to segue into understanding how the operator gets redesigned.

Redesigning the self to fit the democratized drone.

Do-it-yourself (DIY) technologies have positioned the operator as a powerful stakeholder in the technological process. In relation to drone technology, the DIYdrones website offers a platform where members can get “intimate” with drones. As discussed above, drones have been redesigned in multiples ways. However, a plethora of forum threads posted by members are calling upon the community to chime in with suggestions to improve specifications (specs) of drones. One poster comments about integrating an algorithm for an automated drone “eye” – calling for the democratizing of “drone videography for casual users.” Analogically, in February 2017, Elon Musk spoke at the World Government Summit in Dubai commenting on the merging between the biological (human) and the digital (machine). This captures the essence of democratization and transhumanism: the efforts in which operators become “one with” their redeployed drone. This becoming “one with” is the intimate phase of understanding the drone.

Becoming “one with” a drone, I argue, is the “redesigning the self” (i.e., transhumanism). The DIYdrones community offers a vein of understanding how the self gets ascribed onto the drone. Packer and Reeves (2013) posit an “anthropophobic logic that [leads] to the development of UAVs that require less and less human oversight,” in which doubly contrasts and supports for a resituated analysis that argues for reintroducing the human touch with personal UAVs^[30]Jeremy Packer and Joshua Reeves, “Romancing the Drone: Military Desire and Anthropophobia from SAGE to Swarm,” Canadian Journal of Communication 38, (2013): 309 – 331. For instance, many users on DIYdrones share their source coding of integrated drone systems enhancing: flight controls, power sustainability, and aesthetics to name a few. This demonstrates the reintegration of human and aerial technology, as well as, exhibits the need to construct an opposition to the anthropophobic drone, but the re-romancing of the drone with human touch, which I shall temporarily call: the anthropophile drone.

Internalizing the drone as an anthropophile technology is part of the ever-growing need to critique technological advancements as they interface with humanity. An op-ed in the New York Times states, “We are the first generation that can truly decide who we want to be as a species. We can add new senses and additional organs to extend our bodies; capacity to experience the world. We can, in effect, redesign ourselves.”^[31]Neil Harbisson, “Humans Should Challenge Technology by Becoming a Cyborg,” December 5, 2016. … Continue reading Constant redesigning of the self surfaces when we further deconstruct the discourse on DIYdrones. For instance, this community forum is teeming with members troubleshooting drone technology and “getting intimate” in a variety of ways. Although, when intimacy with the drone fails, the drone becomes a harbinger for redeployment for further democratization and “access” to all other users. This troubleshooting phenomenon is an important concept because it fosters recognition between democratization and transhumanism as a constant negotiation between the ever-changing redeploying drone and the redesigning of the self.

In this section, the drone is “flattened” and presented as a schematic for civilian scrutiny. In essence, the drone is redeployed as a technological scaffolding that accommodates a vast variety of interpretations. The operator undergoes a “redesign” process if redeploying the UAV as “democratized” is a failed attempt. Thus, the operator negotiates their becoming “intimate” with drones in close juxtaposition to their “accessibility.” This understanding advances us into the second part of analysis: privatization.

Privatization of the Drone with DJI

The Latin phrase, “Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos,” is an antiquated reference to old property law that translates to “whoever’s is the soil, it is theirs all the way to Heaven and all the way to Hell.” To conceptualize the privatized drone in such a way puts into perspective the variety of domains an operator may occupy. In this section, I contend with multiple interpretations of “airspace” to provide an all-encompassing understanding of privatized drones. Recall that in the prior section, I introduced the drone as an object for public scrutiny. The democratization of drones begs for operator intimacy of its function. However, given that the operator has successfully democratized the drone, the next step, is to privatize said drone. Evidence of extreme privatization can be seen from Jansen’s Orvillecopter. Dutch artist Bart Jansen retrofitted his deceased feline companion to a drone. While macabre in nature, the overarching significance is how the consumerist society redeploys drones as a privatized entity. In the case of Orville, personal touch privatizes the drone in a specific way.

Redeploying the “privatized” drone.

Moving beyond flying carcasses, the next website I analyze here is DJI. The website pitches the slogan, “the future of possible,” wherein lies a dozen of forum posts of the stunning beauties of the world: valleys, lakes, mountains, and more serene environments; all of which, was not a concern with previous knowledge of drones (as militant).^[32]DJI, “The Future of Possible,” dji.com/ (accessed November 28, 2017).The drone is now a means of appreciation that awards its respective owner the praise of the amazing artistic shot. An underlying argument I forward here is the privatization of air space with command-able technologies that allows us to make sense of a redeployed drone from new heights of human tenability. The DJI about section reports, “[they] give… creators the tools they need to bring their ideas to life… Our platforms empower them to capture images that were once out of reach.”^[33]Ibid. The once “out of reach” comment is obsolete as drones have extended human perception up a mountain or over a cliff—the envisioned becomes a reality. In other words, the operator becomes the drone by “reaching” to once forbidden or untenable heights and, in doing so, demarcating a personal niche in the air and exceeding beyond human claim stakes on ground level.

Linked to DJI’s website, SkyPixel is a competitive platform that accepts submissions of photography and videography. The “Club” webpage states the “SkyPixel Club only accepts aerial creations. Non-aerial creations will be removed from the club.”^[34]Skypixel, “Connecting Creativity,” skypixel.com/ (accessed November 28, 2017). Acting like a conduit where the redeployed drone is the only acceptable view, SkyPixel is indicative of privatization determined by sets of “aerial only” rules that garner operator participation for competitively submitting the best of aerial shots to privatize their “reach” and discover a unique angle. Additional SkyPixel platforms exist (see also SkyPixel+) and drive the assertion that the detachment of the operator from the ground is the normativity of aerial viewing; the claim to ownership of cubic airspace demonstrates that “intention at the point of production is not always matched by intention at the point of consumption.”^[35]Banet-Weiser, Sarah, The Politics of Ambivalence in a Brand Culture, (New York: New York University Press, 2013).

Redesigning the self to fit the privatized drone.

As seen from the Orville case above, operators are now ascribing “characters” to their drones. This is not to say drones have to take on “character”-like traits to be privatized but to say that privatization occurs in a variety of ways. As far as transhumanist undertones are concerned, the operator becomes even more synonymous with the drone (i.e., closing the liminal space between operator and drone). With DJI, we see two types of redesigning the self: the consumer and the professional.

Two separate pages on DJI’s homepage differentiate between the consumer and the professional. For the consumer, you can “capture your world like never before,” whereas, high-end drones are labeled for “professionals in filmmaking, agriculture, conservation, search and rescue, energy infrastructure, and more trust DJI to bring new perspectives to their work and help them accomplish feats safer, faster, and with greater efficiency than ever before” (DJI About). Haraway’s (1984) Cyborg Manifesto theorizes that the body politic is a “cyborg” that is also undifferentiated between public and private spheres. In other words, there is a “blurring” of boundaries between the operator and the drones that further situates transhumanism as a prospect to be gleaned from drone operation, and, “because technologies are socially constructed, they can be reconstructed as well. … The technology itself can be changed by those using it.”^[36]Mohrman, A.M. and E.E. Lawler III (1984), “A Review of Theory and Research.” in F.W. McFarlan (Ed.) The Information Systems Research Challenge, Boston MA: Harvard Business School Press, … Continue reading

The DJI forum, for instance, shows the self is being redesigned to fit the privatized drone: taking ownership of the drone’s capability as one of their own. In this stage of the process there is more integration of humanity and technology. This integration is seen from the personal touches to the drone itself or its utilization that enhances the human experience as transhumanist. Canadian philosopher and public intellectual Marshall McLuhan states we are approaching “the final phase of the extensions of man—the technological simulation of consciousness.”^[37]Marshall McLuhan, Understanding media: The extensions of man (New York, NY: Signet Books, 1964).

Skycatch and the Commodification of the Drone

The final frame in the CMA, commodification, tightens the space between operator and drone more so to the point of near synonymy. To put differently, the argument I have been building has noted the arbitrary (“shrinking”) liminal space between user and UAV. In this section, the website Skycatch is analyzed to understand how the drone has been redeployed and ascribed as “commodified,” and, to what extent, users are “redesigning” themselves that differs from previous frames: democratization and privatization.

Redeploying the “commodified” drone.

The drone as a commodified technology is redeployed into a milieu of “usefulness.” Where, the other two frames offers insight about how drones are redeployed as more “accessible” and used to “privatize” areas of interest, commodification turns the drone into a transhumanist “asset.” For instance, Skycatch offers short webinar videos under their “Learn” tab depicting construction workers using drones to capture aerial images of their work site. These aerial images are processed by computers and rendered into 3D models that are shared with the construction team across many devices. The drone is represented—no longer a single entity—but one that is interconnected (i.e., an “asset”) that penetrates utility beyond the drone.

This interconnectivity of drones is arguably another redeployment of commodification. Skycatch offers, as one of their services, to connect the drone to other devices: mobile, computers, etc. Mark Andrejevic and Mark Burdon (2014) conceptualized the sensor society as one in which we are always “connected” and “always on” through our mobile devices.^[38]Mark Andrejevic and Mark Burdon, “Defining the Sensor Society.” Television & News Media, (2014): 1—18. In other words, they posit, data about our location, mobile activities, et cetera, are constantly being fed into technological sensing. Arguably, the data that comprises our humanity becomes part and parcel to the sensor society. By way of comparison, Skycatch drones embody an omniscient relay of information that grants the operator a commodified sense of the MQ-1 Predator “Gorgon Stare.”^[39]Tyler Wall and Torin Monahan, “Surveillance and violence from afar: The politics of drones and liminal security-scapes,” Theoretical Criminology 15, no. 3 (2011): 239—254.

Redesigning the self to fit the commodified drone.

About six minutes into the webinar titled Getting Started with Drones in Construction, Skycatch pitches the slogan “Go beyond flying—get into the information.” Interestingly, this quote opens a space for discussion that the drone is no longer an association for flying but rather giving the user, and inadvertently, the drone, agency “to get into the information.” In essence, Skycatch has superimposed drones upon prior human roles—the drone becomes an advanced human. In the case of one of their webinar videos, drones are demonstrated as a way of “filling in for the superintendent” that allows the superintendent to step outside human capability. Take the following short transcription of one of the webinar videos:

“…So instead of having a superintendent that’s going out into the field; for one hour out, one hour identify, one hour back—we’re able to capture that with the drone, communicate it across the entire team, and then address the issues. So, we just saved three hours for an individual issue…”

Skycatch webinar: “Time savings with Skycatch.”^[40]Skycatch, “Drone Image Processing Platform,” skycatch.com/ (accessed November 28, 2017).

The self is indicatively redesigned from the transcript above demonstrating the synthesis of human and technology. While there is a faint line between a transhumanist and posthumanist critique of the commodified drone, I remain strict on the prospect that transhumanism is prevalent. First, drones are not argued to subsume human qualities and operate solely by their own accord. Second, I argue that the commodified drone exhibits transhumanist qualities (rather than posthumanist) because the discourse describing the drone is not one of replacing “bodies” entirely, but rather imbuing what the body could not previously do and giving the operator heightened sense of “sensory modalities.”^[41]Nick Bostrom, “Transhumanist values,” nickbostrom.com/tra/values.html; Nick Bostrom, “Transhumanist values.” in Ethical Issues for the 21st Century, ed. Frederick Adams. (2005b).

The imbuing of bodies with increased perception is similar to what Feenberg called “technical action.” He continues with the analogy: our daily lives are spent within the confines of our vehicle traveling down the freeway that shapes the experience we, as drives, face while we drive. As far as Skycatch is concerned, drones can be thought of as the vehicle traveling down the freeway insofar as our experiences are shaped by the drone itself. Seemingly, this holds merit for continued research from a variety of research camps and methodological approaches.

Conclusion: Transhumanist Liminality

The contemporary assimilation of drones offers a variety of pathways researchers can take to understanding how the drone is redeployed. Historically, drones were ascribed as military apparatus for mass surveillance, war, and security. Regardless of its utilization, drones were not open to the public. Despite the military air of drones, this paper has given credence to the idea that drones are redeployed in three ways: as democratized, privatized, and commodified technologies, and, more importantly, in the hands of civilians.

The first stage of the CMA I proposed, democratization, I argued that drones have beenDJI redeployed as more “accessible.” By analyzing DIYdrones, drone enthusiasts and other forum members exchanged ideas to open the drone to understand it. In so doing, the operator is engaging into an intimacy of the drone that supports the need for a rearticulating of what Packer and Reeves called the anthropophobic drone. Instead, I offer the notion of the anthropophile drone: the re-insertion of the human into the drone from a transhumanist perspective.

Once the drone is democratized, and, made accessible to all modes of efficiency, the UAV is redeployed as privatized. The privatization of the drone is seen from a variety of personalized photography and videography from users on the DJI forum. An interesting pattern that surfaces upholds the operator as an agent of stunning aerial images. Moreover, I argued privatization is not just the redeployment of the drone for personal endeavors but the redesigning of the self to turn the drone into what the operator wants—such is the case of Orville.

Once the drone is democratized and privatized, the final stage to consider is commodification. As drones increasingly become privatized, I argue, there is evidence of synonymy between operator and drone.

One of the most important aspect of this paper was to highlight the eroding “distinction between experts and laypeople.”^[42]Wiebe Bijker, “Democratization of Technology, Who are the Experts?,” angelfire.com/la/esst/bijker.html (accessed November 14, 2017). Experts in drone avionics, such as AvioniCS or the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) are no longer sole proprietors of drone technology. The consumer market has redeployed the transhumanist drone – regardless of who is at the helm—expert or not. The analysis introduced in this manuscript can offer a critical lens of understanding how technologies are redeployed, and moreover, how the consumer redesigns themselves to fit the redeployment. For instance, another tech giant, GoPro, uses the slogan: “Be a Hero.” This slogan suggests transhumanist critique of consumers decreasing the liminal space between themselves and the action cameras that makes them the hero. It is through the consumer market assemblage that we can piece together redeployed technologies, and, more importantly, establish more encompassing claims on humans and technology to determine just as to where our perceptions are going.

---

---

Biography

Bradly Allen Knox holds a Master’s of Arts in Communication from the University of Memphis and a Bachelor’s in Communication and Linguistics from University of Washington in Seattle. His research interests involve theoretical approaches to technology as well as quantitative and statistical analyses of socially-occuring phenomenon. Since the completion of his Master’s, he has been teaching himself advanced statistical methods to prepare himself for a Ph.D. in statistics. During this hiatus from Academe, he works as a security contractor for Amazon’s corporate headquarters in Seattle where he helps manage Amazon’s access control on a global scale.

© 2017 Bradly Allen Knox, used by permission

---

Technoculture Volume 7 (2017)