Transhumanism

1. Does technology shape society or does society shape technology? Are post-human
technologies liberating or enslaving? Such questions promise to radically transform our
understanding of humanity as we begin to transition from Homo sapiens, to what some have
described as ‘Homo Cyberneticus’ (Graham, 2003). In this essay I argue that however
seemly trivial or inconsequential, IoT enabled ingestible and implantable technologies have
led to a socio-political milieu deserving of imminent attention. I begin this essay by
explaining what IoT enabled ingestible and implantable technologies are and how they are
making their way into today’s increasingly digital and biotechnical society. Next, I explore
Actor-Network Theory (ANT) and how this is useful for unpacking the controversies
surrounding the political dimensions of IoT enabled ingestible and implantable technologies.
Thirdly, I discuss the inherently political nature of technology within the wider network. I then
discuss sociomateriality through concepts such as co-constitutive entanglement.
Respectively, I discuss the societal dimensions of technology in the quest for utopianism.
From this, in the form of a discussion, I demonstrate the wider implications of an entangled
cybernetic organism (cyborg) governed future. For the purposes of this essay, I define
‘überveillance’ as a 21st century omniscient form of surveillance that are not only “always
on” but “always with you”, because they are embedded within the human body (Michael and
Michael, 2008, p5). Furthermore, I define an ‘actor’ as an “association of heterogeneous
elements constituting a network’” (Law, 1992, as cited in Tatnall, 2009, p. Iix).
IoT enabled ingestible and implantable technologies:
Ingestible and implantable sensors may seem like something from a science fiction film,
but the reality is that such technologies have made their way into many facets of industry.
Together, when connected to the Internet, they make up ‘the Internet of Things’ - or what
some have recently descried as ‘the Internet of Everything’ (Evans, 2012) leading to a

2. ‘dataficiation of everything’ or ‘dataveillance’ society (Cecez-Kecmanovic et al, 2014). The
Fourth Industrial Revolution (Industry 4.0) is upon us and this is resulting in vast swathes
of intimate sensors making their way into workplace, giving rise to überveillance and new
forms of institutional control (Schwab, 2016). To illustrate, in Sweden, workers at
‘Epicenter’ are implanted with microchips to open doors, operate printers, clock in and out
– even purchase milkshakes with the wave of a hand. Parties are then held to celebrate
those willing to receive the implants (Brookes, 2017). According to The Future of Business
– Australia 2040 report, ‘most’ workers are predicted to have implantable technology within
the next 18 years (NBNCO, 2017). Current predictions also suggest that by 2020, smart
sensors and IoT devices will generate at least 507.5 zettabytes of data (Accenture, 2018).
Put very simply, in a world of Internet empowered sensors, “everything may reveal
everything” (Peppet, 2014, p120).
Actor-Network Theory:
Technological determinists such as Veblin (1990) believe that technology is the only
determinant of social change (i.e. surveillance and the nature of work), whereas social
shaping (social determinism) asserts that society regulates the design and usability of
technology (Wyatt, 2008). Determinism is problematic because it provides an insufficient
understanding as to how the economy, society and technology intersect (Graham, 2003).
Latour et al (1992) encapsulated why this is problematic through the notion of anti-
essentialism – the idea that there are distinct differences between humans and non-humans.
ANT - often described as the “sociology of translations” (Callon, 1986, p65), is useful for
unpacking technology because it demonstrates how fluid heterogeneous topoi become
performatively constituted through relational entity shifts (Mitew, 2014). This gives impetus
for renegotiating the parameters of sociability as well as what is classified as social and non-
social i.e. what makes technologies operate the way that they do (Law, 1987). ANT refuses

3. to accept social and technological determinism and thus puts forth a socio-technical
perspective where neither the social or technical are privileged (Latour, 1991). In essence, it
explains how actors – people, documents, knowledge and the social are all equal in
reassembling the social (Law, 1991). From this perspective, both outcomes and mediators
are able to mutually negotiate roles, attributes and competencies until a well-stabilised
network is formed (Latour, 1886). This helps provide the tools required to decipher
complexities within our ever-changing sociotechnical world. According to Law (1991), the
core focus of ANT is on the role of irreductionism and ontological relationality. This
demonstrates how the world is full of hybrid ‘things’ comprising of both human and non-
human elements (Latour, 1992). Consequently, the ANT model is useful in unpacking
technologies though analysing the situations where separating the social and non-social
might be difficult. In essence, ANT seeks to show that what seems to be inherently social is
partly technical and what seems to be technical is partly social (Tatnall & Gilding, 2005).
ANT and IoT Enabled Ingestible and Implantable Technologies:
One-way of exploring ANT is through the following four concepts: delegation, inscription,
translation and power. In this context, IoT can be seen as a “paradigm shift to ambient
connectivity permeating trivial artifacts, thus granting them agency visible to humans” (Mitew,
2014, p5). Delegation is well illustrated through the work of Nass (2012), who shows the
anthropomorphic impulse in human-computer interactions (i.e. human agency becomes
delegated onto computers). Once a particular role for humans is delegated onto a non-
human, the technology can be scripted to perform in a certain way. People therefore follow
the script in terms of their behavior. In return, technologies delegate scripted behavior back
into the social. Furthermore, given the complex nature of artifacts, things often become
delegated in ways that were not imagined by the designers or originators (Introna, 2007).
According to Callon (1991, p143), “inscription is the result of the translation of ones interest
into material form”. Most IoT enabled technologies become scripted with a multitude of post

4. human capabilities, giving them agency to intelligently make note of changes to its location
and state equipping it well to translate with a semantic interface into something
understandable to humans (Yan et al, 2008). To illustrate, algorithms have become inscribed
within implantable medical sensors to detect certain proteins that the body produces before it
rejects transplanted organs (Ford, 2013). One of the most important aspects of IoT enabled
implantable/ingestible technology is its capacity to actively adapt and engage to its
environment – this is known as the process of actuation (Mitew, 2014). Providing an entity
with a certain ‘thing-ness’ is a relational object-mediated entanglement within its particular
locus. IoT is therefore an active participant, a mediator, co-constructing its ever-changing
environment. When things become enfolded within the wider system, the network becomes a
part its very existence, whilst simultaneously being mapped by the metasystem in question.
To clarify, IoT embedded objects are expected to socialise and exchange data, forming an
intelligible conversation where human intervention is not necessary. According to Vazquez
and Lopezde-Ipina (2008), this is known as a ‘device coalition’. Respectively, the
intermediary is the ‘actant’ that follows the script in a predictable way and thus,
intermediators may become known as ‘’black boxes’. Placed with other socially active data
‘things’, even the most seemingly trivial thing can have a symbolically rich identity
accompanied by a theoretically limitless memory – likely within the ‘cloud’. Surveillance,
therefore, is bound by our compliance with the social order (Lyon, 1994).
Gallon and Latour (1981) demonstrated that both macro and micro actors successfully
‘translate’ other actors into a shared meaning. Delegation overlaps with translation because
the social and technical co-constitute each other (Latour, 1991). The sociology of translation
demonstrates the importance of displacement and transformation. This is constituted into
four ‘moments’ including problematisation, interressment, enrolment and mobilisation
(Callon, 1986). As such, ANT enables us identify the enrolment of actors as embodiments of
mobilisation. During which, the “identity of actors, the possibility of interaction and the

5. margins for maneuver are negotiated” (Callon, 1986, p 203). Furthermore, by applying ANT,
IoT can be viewed as the ‘network’ and all other ‘things’ can be defined as power. Power is
often exercised beyond the technologies intended use or context. IoT brings many vectors
together – including pervasive networks, the shrinking of devices, and the modification of the
physical spaces that we cohabit and co-occupy with ‘things’ (Bleecker, 2006). This network
has facilitated an unprecedented entanglement of social formations endowed with limitless
disciplinary power into spaces with all implied ontological uncertainty – the physical,
geospatial world. The more allies IoT has enrolled into an assemblage, the greater the entity
becomes (Latour, 1993). When it is not only ‘us’ but also ‘things’ that have the capacity to
upload, download, disseminate and produce meaningful ‘stuff’, a profound shift takes place in
how we co-occupy the physical world begins to change. However, ANT has been criticized
for being too descriptive as it assumes actors are solely interested in spreading networks and
their influence (Callon, 1999). Others have argued that whilst ANT focuses on technology, it
takes for granted discourse, language culture and images. I will now go on to discuss the
political dimensions of technology, based on these key principles of the ANT.
Political Dimensions: An age where “nothing is hidden”– (Sheridan, 2016, p10)
Winner (1980, p121) demonstrates how “technology is an inherently political phenomenon”
whereby technical systems are “deeply interwoven into the conditions of modern politics”.
However, many of the political facets of technology have remained largely unproblematised
(Introna, 2007). Bearing this in mind, whilst slightly dualistic, ANT provides an antidote to
naive technological determinism by deconstructing relationality and the inherently political
solidarities that exist within the wider network. Technology is widely accepted as an enabling
tool, artifact or system that humans use to achieve their objectives and outcomes. Tools are
viewed as quintessentially ‘neutral things’ that are distinctly different from us, i.e. merely
instruments for achieving goals (Graham, 2003). Correspondingly, the question that requires
attention is how society intends to use these tools, for what purposes and how might they

6. impact social practices (Introna, 2000). In other words, technology exercises determinate and
dual possibilities. It is therefore worth questioning whether designers are ever fully in control
of the outcome of their scripts. The inability to scrutinize the silent and opaque nature of IoT
enabled technology in turn creates ample opportunity for ‘invisible’ micro-politics to become
inscripted within the technical infrastructure of every day life (Graham and Wood, 2003). It is
of course assumed by the consumer that these technologies were created with ostensibly
altruistic intentions in mind. Consequently, such debates provide impetus for investigating
what computer scientist’s describe as ‘sensor fusion’ – the near impossibility of de-identifying
data and how IoT enabled sensors are inherently prone to imperfections and irregularities
(O’Connell, 2017). Unlike company smart cards or smartphones, a person cannot easily
separate themselves from implantable technology.
A manager without objects – or as Law describes, “a naked ape with all the powers of a
naked ape”, is rendered to be fairly powerless (Law, 1997 p3). What was traditionally
considered the disempowered have now become empowered within the world of IoT
connected sensors in the hope of achieving unprecedented levels of ‘new power’ (Heimans
and Timms, 2018). IoT can now suddenly see, learn, anticipate, transmit and act (Peppet,
2014). What is even more alarming is that sensors are capable of transmitting data to
insurance providers, banks, health providers, employers and even corrupt organisations
including ‘Cambridge Analytica’. Thus, seemly ‘technical’ choices to have sensors placed
inside of us without the necessary scrutiny will indeed have an overwhelming impact on our
futures. According to Introna (2007), unless we understand the co-constitutive relationship
between the social and the technical, a vast array of ethno-political dilemmas will remain
unheeded. So, who owns the data that these sensors are set to produce? Are such
technologies, and the data they collect, protected? Do consumers know the legal
ramifications that such technologies could be used for – such as the court of law, insurance

7. provider denying a claim, an employer making a recruitment decision or a banks decision on
credit entitlement?
Calas and Smircich (1999, p663) evidence how ANT shares distinct similarities with
Foucault’s notions of power. They note that power relations are exercised through ‘actants’
who perform the available discourses and practices. Sheridan (2016) conceptualized this
through the notion of ‘the modern panopticon’. Within Zuboff’s (1989) ‘In the Age of the
Smart Machine’, she examines how disciplinary power has entered the workplace. Through
the ‘electronic information panopticon’, it has become easier for us to forget that we are
under constant observation because the watchtower has been deconstructed. In an
unconstitutional manner and with unprecedented transparency, the data IoT enabled
ingestible/implantable sensors produce is empowering managers to exercise new forms of
bureaucratic institutional control (Sheridan, 2016). We are however led to believe; that if one
has nothing to hide, then we have nothing to fear – a chilling echo of Big Brother. Scientific
management in the information economy has led to a rise in ‘electronic sweatshops’ whereby
the requirements of power and überveillance are exercised at the expense of employees
right to confidentiality or freedom (Hiley, 1987, p352). Those who rebel against the systems
are deemed defective and replaced by those who are less likely to cause fuss. This is a
reinforced as it becomes an embodied part of organisational life (Orlikowski, 2007). Whilst
this view is entirely dystopic, Orwellian, and whimsically justifiable, it is entirely legal and
allegedly used for the ‘protection of citizens’ (Sheridan, 2016). Nonetheless, it is reductionist
in the assumption that all technologies that could facilitate panoptic power are bad for us.
Rightfully, Bostrom (2002, p5) asserts, “without technology, our chances of avoiding
existential risks would therefore be nil”.
Pervasive tracking, logging and observation have given rise to many concerning implications
for public and private spaces. “Who knows what about whom” has become a continuous

8. renegotiation within the contextual spectrum of artifacts (Bleecker, 2014, p 10). Supposedly
innocuous information can result in unintended consequences (interpretive flexibility) that the
individual did not intend to share. What’s more is that despite the primary intention of using
an ingestible/ implantable sensor may very well be for health monitoring purposes, such data
could easily help assist with greater precision, ones premium entitlements. Respectively, IoT
may facilitate obnoxious forms of discrimination based on income, race, age, or gender. This
is particularly problematic because traditional anti-discrimination and privacy law is, in many
ways, ill equipped for de-identified or biometric data. This exposes consumers to a whole
suite of vulnerabilities. For example, in November 2013, over 100,000 IoT devices were
descripted and weaponised by a ‘ThingBot’ or ‘Bot-net’ (Paganini, 2014). These
vulnerabilities have led to discourse surrounding cyber-democracies. This is exemplified by
The Telegraph’s account of the TV series, ‘Homeland’, where a terrorist group was able to
use a serial number to wirelessly hack into the pacemaker of the Vice President (Knapton,
2014). The task ahead is therefore, as Latour (2002, p 258) proposed, to “reopen the tombs
in which automatisms have been heaped” and work towards “the reversibility of folding”.
Indeed, if “technology is society made durable”, we should make some of our values more
durable by explicably integrating these within the scripts of IoT enabled technologies (Latour,
1999, p103). Thus, delegating some ethical responsibility onto artifacts may be a good option
when security flaws and meaningful consumer consent pose very real threats.
Sociomateriality:
Having illustrated ANT and explored some of the controversies surrounding the political
dimensions of IoT enabled ingestible and implantable technologies; I will now move on to
address sociomateriality. This is important to discuss because it offers us different tools from
ANT by demonstrating the bi-directional relationship between social and material realms
(Tunçalp, 2016). Sociomateriality aims to produce a relational understanding of the world by

9. illustrating how things are co-constitutively entangled within everyday life (i.e. technology,
agency, society materiality and ethics) (Leonardi, 2013). There are many different ways of
explaining sociomateriality. Each conception provides a slightly different account; whether
that be through entanglement, imbrication, social shaping or co-constituting processes.
Above all, each provides a critique of modernist classifications between idealism,
materialism, subjectivism and objectivism (Law, 2002). Suchman (2007) demonstrates that
technology is a “mangling of human and material agencies” – a “creative sociomaterial
assemblage” (as cited in Orlikowski, 2007, p.1440). Thus, according to Orlikowski (2007, p
1437), “there is no social that is not also material, and no material that is not also social”.
Advanced by Barad (1998), sociomateriality is founded upon notions of agential realist
philosophy. This makes the clear distinction between actors and artifacts as entities that co-
influence one another. Sociomateriality thus assumes that people and technologies have
‘relational effects’, continually performed within a web of ‘agential intra-actions’ (Barad,
2007). Intra-actions are accepted as the “mutual constitution of entangled agencies” (Barad,
2007, p33). Respectively, they are performed and continually brought into existence through
relations (Latour, 2005). This is important because it demonstrates how technologies are
enacted and reenacted in practice. Furthermore, sociomateriality is built on the ‘agential
realist’ philosophy (Barad, 1998). This moves away from classifying actors as objects and
instead assumes that entities, people and technologies have determinant boundaries. This is
important because it demonstrates performativity through the ways in which humans,
technologies and their boundaries are enacted and reenacted in practice (Cecez-
Kecmanovic et al, 2014). Leonardi (2011) studied this account of ‘interweaving’ between
human and material agencies. Whilst being different, both produce outcomes only when they
are mutually interlocking. The assumption that artefacts, and human actors have inherent
properties is largely taken for granted within organisational literature. Both social and
material agencies differ with regards to purpose because they impact, mutually shape,

10. mediate each other and become entangled within social practices (Leonardi, 2011). In other
words, users are becoming configured by their technologies (Grint and Woolgar, 2013).
However, the sociomaterial approach has been criticised for being an example of “academic
jargon monoxide” (Sutton, 2010, p1). When Faulkner and Runde (2012, p52) detangled the
ontology of sociomateriality they found that many arguments of sociomateriality are
“unexceptional” and restricted to a range of cases. Furthermore, according to Tunçalp
(2016), the overlapping of the social and the material ensures that we are at higher risk of
addressing distinctly social or material issues within research. In addition, Tunçalp (2016,
p1076) mentions, “the degree of co-influence between the social and material aspects of
technology depends on its position in society and the resources of actors around its
materiality”. According to Mouzelis (1995, p145), actors “may unthinkingly enact social rules
embodied in a material practice (pragmatic duality) or contemplate social rules inherited in
social practice (pragmatic dualism)”. Rightfully, critics have questioned the applicability and
ontological usefulness of terminology such as sociomateriality and socio-technical systems.
This has led to discourses surrounding the methods of identifying sociomaterial
entanglement (Parmiggiani and Mikalsen, 2013). Crucially, we must acknowledge the
performative consequences of this co-constitution by ensuring the responsibility of all
associated actors (Cecez-Kecmanovic et al, 2014). Deleteriously, researchers are still likely
to privilege human actors within the literature. Authors tend to use similar methods for
examining IS phenomena from an interpretivist perspective (Haraway, 1991). Furthermore,
whilst our experiences may very well be sociomaterial entanglements with emergent
consequences, an insufficient level of literature have examined how new technologies such
as IoT enabled ingestible/ implantable technology become entangled when they first enter
new contexts. Ignoring the past and future possibilities downgrades the legitimacy of the data
generated. Seldom however have scholars sufficiently engaged with the cyborg metaphor,
despite its great applicability in demonstrating the sociomaterial entanglement and the way

11. this performs in the real world (Cecez-Kecmanovic et al, 2014). Such metaphors help to form
our expectations and normalise choices by providing a symbolic context where the material
practices of technological design and implementation are addressed (Graham, 2003). We
are therefore reminded that technologies are much more than technical sensors within the
body with potentially alienating or disenchanting processes, but fully embraced within our
daily actions and practices (Graham, 2003).
Societal Dimensions: “A Life Spent In Cyberspace” (Kapor, 1993, p 10)
A growing trend within the literature has demonstrated how the ‘virtual elite’ (new Marxists)
are responsible for the growth of posthuman technologies and it’s subsequent ramifications
i.e. Virtual war, social fragmentation, anomie, alienation and a widening digital divide (Kroker
and Kroker, 2001). Placing technologies within the bodies of the workforce, thus serves as a
sedative against our moral and political instabilities, which in turn could cause de-skilling or
render human intervention unnecessary within the workforce. A society where potentially
anyone can be a threat is one that needs constant policing to ensure that those risks can be
effectively addressed; hopefully before they start to pile up a body count. Theoretically, this
should result in next wave of ‘citizen-based democracy’. Unfortunately, as we now see with
ISIS and growing numbers of white supremacists, the same tools can become enormously
destructive (Heimans and Timms, 2018). By a means of indoctrination, a population
ensnared within the panoptic modalities derived from a sea of ubiquitous sensors soon
becomes submissive and accepts the ascendance of panoptic organisations as token. This is
well evidenced through the work of Mitchell’s (1991) ‘Colonising Egypt’ where entire villages
were built by the government as a means of exercising power throughout all levels of society.
The capability, for the first time in our human existence, to “inscribe, track and recombine
chunks of space-time relations as they wander through”, is resulting in profound changes to
the way in which we project ourselves within the physical world (Bleecker, 2014, p 9). The

12. result is a de-centering of humans with significant implications for our sociability, agency and
identity (Mitew, 2014).
Buoyed by technological optimism, the ‘transhumanist movement’ has begun to enlighten the
possibility of a post-human future. Transhumanism suggests, “going beyond the existing
capabilities of being human being” (Hewitt, 2014). Bostrom (1999) views this as evolving into
‘benevolent demi-gods’. Consequently, amalgamating technology with human biology to
prolong human lifespan is set to noticeably shift our perceptions about our ‘deathist’ culture
(Istvan, 2017). The three core components of transhumanist ideals include super longevity,
super-intelligence and super-wellbeing (Transhumanistparty.org, 2018). Given that the
modern workplace has become much more diverse, notions of ‘trans-spirituality’ deserves
further attention (Hughes, 2007). Around 85% of the worlds population believes in life after
death, and much of that population are happy with the notion of death (Istvan, 2017).
Predominantly Muslims and Christians see overcoming death through science as potentially
blasphemous. Given that organisations like ‘Epicenter’ have become ‘participation farms’,
where a small lumber of big platforms have fenced, and harvest for their own benefit, the
activities of many, a real dilemma arises between ethics and religion (Hiemans and Timms,
2018). We should therefore expect human enhancement technologies to increase notions of
‘trans-spirituality’ (Hughes, 2007). By contrast, a number of critics have begun to polarize
perspectives by arguing that such technologies are ‘disturbing humanity’, giving rise to
accounts of ‘technoconservatives’ displaying ‘technopanic’ forms of resistance and in turn
‘anti-progress’ (Thierier, 2016).
Discussion: Frankenstein’s and Cyborgs: The Wider Implications of an Entangled
Cyborg Governed Future

13. What does a trajectory of human engagement with ingestible and implantable technologies
look like? Super longevity, super intelligence, super wellbeing or even the possibility of
human extinction? At the very highest level, these questions have become increasingly
mediated by technical decisions. Given the exponential growth of implantable and ingestible
technologies, it is undeniable that we are ‘becoming our data’ in unprecedented ways that
promise to provide new opportunities for research to take place. Identifying the combinations
of social and material entanglement will further illustrate how our existence is becoming
much more cyborg, as we begin to leave traces or ‘data exhausts’ behind us (Mayer-
Schönberger and Cukier, 2013). Subsequently, researchers should centre focus on the
cyborg, instead of the social and the material. Coherent with the concerns of Sherry Turkle at
TED2012; we only know about technologies now, but not where it is going. As we propel
humanity towards the abolition of human uniqueness, debates have arisen over whether it
will take us to “places we don’t want to go?” (Lillie, 2012). Whilst Hieddegger (1889-1976)
could not have foreseen the complexities of the in world we now find our selves increasingly
entangled within, he expressed similar concerns to Turkle, in his assertion that technologies
could bring about the ‘darkening of the world’ (Joronen, 2012). Whilst the ability to purchase
smoothies at the swipe of a hand might seem an attractive modification; there are far too
many unanswered questions. How might our behaviours and conception of our physical
space alter when the Internet pervades, not only on our laptops, but inside us? What about
the other cohabitants empowered to become part of the wider network? (Bleeker, 2008).
Importantly, do we want to live in a world governed by algorithms that prescribe the
outcomes of our searches, dictate who is eligible for mortgage, how our insurance premiums
are decided, what advertisements we view, what health procedures we are offered? Might
self-constitution rebound in a political arena and so forth? Such escalating questions will help
identify whose interests will guide humanity into the next century.

14. Conclusion:
On reflection, this essay has argued that Internet of Things (IoT) enabled ingestible and
implantable technologies has a multitude of socio-political considerations worthy of imminent
attention. I began by exploring what IoT enabled ingestible and implantable technologies are
and how they are making their way into the information society. Next, I explored the role of
Actor-Network Theory (ANT) and how this is useful for unpacking the controversies
surrounding the political dimensions of IoT enabled ingestible and implantable technologies.
Whilst I addressed the significance of delegation, inscription, translation and power,
alarmingly, there is still a multitude of unanswered questions. Are designers ever in complete
control over how their scripts perform? This seems unlikely. Accordingly, I addressed how
micro-politics often become inscripted within the technical infrastructure of every day life. It
should however be stressed that not all power is repressive; it can also be liberating. I then
illustrated through notions of sociomateriality how things become co-constitutively entangled
within every day life. I then illustrated some of the societal considerations including examples
of ISIS, the transhumanist and trans-spirituality movements, and whether the rise of
‘participation farms’ could lead to further technological unemployment. This led me to
demonstrate how there is abundant room for further progress in determining what a world of
entangled cyborgs would look like and whether or not it will take us to “places we don’t want
to go” (Lillie, 2012). Nevertheless, the future remains uncertain. Marx (1997) demonstrated
why technology is a dangerous concept. I concur that he is justified in this assertion,
particularly given the wider question remains unanswered: what is technology?

15. Reference List:
Accenture (2018). Accenture technology vision 2018 – Tech trends Report [Online].
Accenture, UK. Available at: https://www.accenture.com/t20180307T084947Z__w__/id-
en/_acnmedia/PDF-73/Accenture-Technology-Vision-2018-Report-FINAL-ID-flat.pdf
[Accessed 23 April 2018].
Barad, K. (1998). Getting real: Technoscientific practices and the materialization of
reality. Differences: A journal of feminist cultural studies, 10(2), 87-91.
Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement
of matter and meaning. 2nd edn. Duke University Press.
Bix, A. S. (2000). Inventing ourselves out of jobs? America's debate over technological
unemployment, 1929-1981. New Edn. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bleecker, J. (2006). A Manifesto for Networked Objects—Cohabiting with Pigeons,
Arphids and Aibos in the Internet of Things [Online]. Creative Commons. Available at:
http://nearfuturelaboratory.com/files/WhyThingsMatter.pdf [Accessed 28 March 2018].
Bostrom, N. (2002). Existential risks: analyzing human extinction scenarios and related
hazards. Journal of Evolution and Technology, 1-30.
Bostrom, N (1999). The Transhumanist FAQ (Online). Available at:
http://www.transhumanist.org [Accessed 25 Aril 2018].
Brookes, J (2017). Swedish workers are implanted with microchips to replace cash cards
and ID Passes [Online]. Available at:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sweden-workers-microchip-implant-
cash-card-id-pass-replace-employee-hand-epicenter-rice-grain-size-a7670551.html
[Accessed 17th April 2018].
Calas, M. B., & Smircich, L. (1999). Past postmodernism? Reflections and tentative
directions. Academy of management review, 24(4), 649-672.

16. Callon, M. (1999). Actor-network theory—the market test. The Sociological Review, 47(1)
181-195.
Callon, M., & Latour, B. (1981). Unscrewing the big Leviathan: how actors macro-
structure reality and how sociologists help them to do so. Advances in social theory and
methodology: Toward an integration of micro-and macro-sociologies. 277-303.
Callon, M. (1986) “Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: The Domestication of
the Scallops and the Fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay.” In Law, J. (ed.) Power, Action &
Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., Galliers, R. D., Henfridsson, O., Newell, S., & Vidgen, R. (2014).
The sociomateriality of information systems: current status, future directions. Mis
Quarterly, 38(3), 809-830.
Evans, D. (2012). The Internet of Everything: How more relevant and valuable
connections will change the world. Cisco IBSG. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.lehigh.edu/~inengrit/dropbox/eac1113/Cisco_Internet-of-Everything.pdf
[Accessed 28 March 2018].
Faulkner, P & Runde, J. (2010). The social, the material, and the ontology of non-
material technological objects. Documento de trabajo [Online]. Available at:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/003b/e307e113faefcd74db9347cee6d4d3751a12.pdf
[Accessed 12 April 2018].
Faulkner, P & Runde, J. (2012). On sociomateriality. Materiality and organizing: Social
interaction in a technological world, 49-66.
Ferrando, F. (2013). Posthumanism, transhumanism, antihumanism, metahumanism,
and new materialisms. Existenz, 8(2), 26-32.
Ford, J (2013). Transplant rejection sensor paves the way for body integrated electronics.
[Online] Available at: https://www.theengineer.co.uk/issues/june-2013-online/transplant-
rejection-sensor-paves-way-for-body-integrated-electronics/ [Accessed 15th April 2018].

17. Gheradi, S (2012). How to Conduct a Practice-Based Study: Problems and Methods,
Cheltenham. 2nd edn. UK: Edward Elgar.
Graham, E. L. (2003). Frankensteins and Cyborgs: Visions of the global future in an age
of technology. Studies in Christian ethics, 16(1), 29-43.
Graham, S., & Wood, D. (2003). Digitizing Surveillance: Categorization, Space,
Inequality. Critical Social Policy, 23(2), 227-248.
Grint, K., & Woolgar, S. (2013). The machine at work: Technology, work and
organization. John Wiley & Sons.
Haraway, D. J. (1991). A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-
Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century. In Bell, D and Kennedy M, B, (Eds). The Cyber
Cultures Reader, New York: Routledge, 290-350
Heimans, J,. & Timms, H (2018) New Power: How it’s changing the 22st century – and
why you need to know. New Edn. New York: Doubleday
Hewitt, J (2014). An interview with Zoltan Istvan, leader of the Transhumanist Party and
2016 presidential contender [Online]. Available at:
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/192385-an-interview-with-zoltan-istvan-leader-of-
the-transhumanist-party-and-2016-presidential-contender [Accessed 14 April 2018].
Hiley, D. R. (1987). Power and values in corporate life. Journal of business Ethics, 6(5),
343-353.
Hughes, J. (2007). The compatibility of religious and transhumanist views of
metaphysics, suffering, virtue and transcendence in an enhanced future. Director, 860,
297-2376.
Introna, L. D. (2007). Maintaining the reversibility of foldings: Making the ethics (politics)
of information technology visible. Ethics and Information Technology, 9(1), 11-25.
Introna, L. D. (2009). Ethics and the speaking of things. Theory, Culture & Society, 26(4),
25-46.

18. Introna, L. D., & Nissenbaum, H. (2000). Shaping the Web: Why the politics of search
engines matters. The information society, 16(3), 169-185.
Istvan, Z. (2017). Can Transhumanism Overcome a Deathist Culture? [Online]. Available
at: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/zoltan-istvan/can-transhumanism-
overcom_b_7433108.html [Accessed 14 April 2018].
Jobs, O (2018). Nudge theory, gamification and e-assessments: the future of employee
wellbeing technology? Available at:[ https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/nudge-theory-
gamification-e-assessments-future-employee-wellbeing-technology/ [Accessed 13 March
2018].
Kluitenberg, E.(2006). The network of waves: Living and acting in a hybrid space.
Open, 11(6), 6-16.
Knapton, S (2014). Terrorists could hack pacemakers like in Homeland, say security
experts. [Online]. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-
news/11212777/Terrorists-could-hack-pacemakers-like-in-Homeland-say-security-
experts.html [Accessed 21 April 2018].
Kroker and Kroker. (2001). Code Warriors. In Bell,D and Kennedy B, M (Eds), The
Cybercultures Reader. London: Routledge.
Latour, B. (1991). Technology is Society Made Durable. In Law, J (Eds). A Sociology of
Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination. London: Routledge. 45-260.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. New
Edn. New York: Oxford University Press.
Latour, B., Mauguin, P. and Teil, G. (1992). A Note on Socio-Technical Graphs. Social
Studies of Science, 22(1), 33-57.
Latour,(1999). Pandora’s Hope Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge: Mass.

19. Latour, B., & Venn, C. (2002). Morality and Technology. Theory, culture & society, 19(5-
6) 247-260.
Law J (1997). The manager and his powers. Centre for Science Studies Lancaster
University. [Online]. Available at: http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/resources/sociology-
online-papers/papers/law-manager-and-his-powers.pdf [Accessed 20 April 2018].
Law, J. (1987). Technology and heterogeneous engineering: The case of Portuguese
expansion. The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the
sociology and history of technology, 01-134.
Law, J. (1990). Introduction: monsters, machines and sociotechnical relations. The
Sociological Review, 38(1), 1-23.
Leonardi, P. M. (2011). When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: Affordance,
constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS quarterly, 32(1),
147-167.
Leonardi, P. M., Nardi, B. A., & Kallinikos, J (2012). Materiality and organizing: Social
interaction in a technological world. 1st edn. Oxford: University Press on Demand.
Leonardi, P. M. (2013). Theoretical foundations for the study of
sociomateriality. Information and organization, 23(2), 59-76.
Lillie, B. (2012). Places we don’t want to go: Sherry Turkle at TED2012 [Online].
Available at: https://blog.ted.com/places-we-dont-want-to-go-sherry-turkle-at-ted2012/
[Accessed 22nd April 2018].
Lyon, D. (1994) The Electronic Eye: The Rise of Surveillance Society. 1st edn.
Minneapolis: University of Minnestota Press.
Mayer-Schönberger, V and Cukier, K (2013) Big data: A revolution that will transform
how we live, work, and think. 1st edn, New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
.

20. Mitchell, T. (1991). Colonising Egypt: With a new preface. 1st edn. London: University of
California Press.
Mitew, T. (2014). FCJ-168 Do objects dream of an internet of things?. The Fibreculture
Journal [Online]. Available at: http://fibreculturejournal.org/wp-content/pdfs/FCJ-
168Teodor%20Mitew.pdf [Accessed 12 March 2018].
Mouzelis, N. (1995) Sociological Theory: What Went Wrong? 1st Edn. New York:
Routledge.
Musli, E. (2013). Bad Credit? Start Tweeting. [Online]. Available at:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324883604578396852612756398
[Accessed 17th April 2018].
Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to
computers. Journal of social issues, 56(1), 81-103.
NBNCO.com (2017). Implantable tech: Is the future under your skin? [Online]. Available
at: https://www.nbnco.com.au/blog/entertainment/implantable-tech-is-the-future-under-
your-skin.html [Accessed 14 April 2018].
O’Connell, M (2017). To be a machine: Adventures Among Cyborgs, Utopians, Hackers,
and the Futurists Solving the Modest Problem of Death. 1st Edition. New York: Penguin
Random House.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at
work. Organization studies, 28(9), 1435-1448.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2009). The sociomateriality of organisational life: considering
technology in management research. Cambridge journal of economics, 34(1), 125-141.
Orlikowski, Wanda J. and Scott, Susan V. (2008) The entanglement of technology and
work in organizations. LSE Working paper series, 168. Information Systems and
Innovation Group, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.

21. Parmiggiani, E., & Mikalsen, M. (2013). The facets of sociomateriality: A systematic
mapping of emerging concepts and definitions. In Scandinavian Conference on
Information Systems, 87-103.
Paganini, P (2014). IoT – Discovered first Internet of Things cyberattack on large-scale.
[Online]. Available at: https://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/21397/cyber-crime/iot-
cyberattack-large-scale.html [Accessed 17th April 2018].
Peppet, S. R. (2014). Regulating the Internet of things: First steps toward managing
discrimination, privacy, security and consent. Texas Law Review, 87-167.
Pickering, A. (2010). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. 1st Edn.
London: University of Chicago Press.
Pilsch, A. (2017). Transhumanism: Evolutionary Futurism and the Human Technologies
of Utopia. 1st Edn. London: University of Minnesota Press.
Sheridan, C. (2016). Foucault, Power and the Modern Panopticon. Unpublished Senior
Thesis: Trinity College, Connecticut.
Shin, D. (2014). A socio-technical framework for Internet-of-Things design: A human-
centered design for the Internet of Things. Telematics and Informatics, 31(4), 519-531.
Schwab, K (2016). The Fourth Industrial Revolution: what it means, how to respond.
[Online]. Available at: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-fourth-industrial-
revolution-what-it-means-and-how-to-respond/ [Accessed 28th April 2018].
Sutton, B. (2010). Sociomateriality: More Academic Jargon Monoxide. 11th October 2010.
Bob Sutton’s Web Blog. [Online] Available at:
http://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/10/sociomateriality-more-academic-
jargon-monoxide.Html [Accessed 07 May 2018].
Tatnall, A. (2009). Information systems, technology adoption and innovation
translation. International Journal of Actor-Network Theory and Technological Innovation,
1(1), 59-74.

22. Tatnall, A., & Gilding, A. (2005). Actor-Network Theory in Information Systems Research.
[Online]. Available at:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.10.1265&rep=rep1&type=pdf
[Accessed 20 April 2018].
Thierer, A. (2016). Permissionless innovation: The continuing case for comprehensive
technological freedom. 1st edn. US: Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
Transhumanistparty.org (2018) Transhumanist Party Principles. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.transhumanistparty.org.uk/ [Accessed 23rd April 2018].
Tunçalp, D. (2016). Questioning the ontology of sociomateriality: a critical realist
perspective. Management Decision, 54(5), 1073-1087.
Veblen (1990) The Place of Science in Modern Civilisation and Other Essays. 1st Edn.
New Brunswick, New Jersey, and London, UK: Transaction Publishers.
Wyatt, S. (2008). Technological determinism is dead; long live technological
determinism. The handbook of science and technology studies, 3(1), 165-180.
Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109(1) 121-136.
L. Yan, Y. Zhang, L. T. Yang, and H. Ning (2008). The Internet of Things: From RFID to
the Next-Generation Pervasive Networked Systems. 1st edn. USA: CRC Press.
Yirka, B (2013). Team Develops tooth embedded sensor for oral activity recognition.
[Online]. Available at: https://phys.org/news/2013-09-team-tooth-embedded-sensor-
oral.html[Accessed 17th April 2018].
Zuboff, S. (1989). In the age of the smart machine. The future of work and power. New
York: Basic Books.