‘Quantify the Invisible’: notes toward a future of posture

Abstract

This paper contributes to the literature on the phenomenon termed mHealth through a critical examination of wearable posture-tracking technologies. The paper specifically reports on a qualitative document analysis of promotional materials for three devices, carried out with the aim of assessing their mode of operation, the logic underpinning their development and their purported benefits for users. Findings initially highlight how Lumo Lift and Lumo Back, made by the company Lumo Bodytech Inc., and Prana, made by Prana Tech LLC, are designed to enable haptic surveillance and discipline whereby the body is monitored and ‘reprimanded’ through the touch. These forms of interactive posture training are underpinned by scientific insight from fields such as biomechanics and by data science on consumer posture habits. In turn, the benefits for those engaging with commercial posture-tracking devices are said to include, unsurprisingly, better posture, but also a less tangible form of ‘optimised’ living. With these findings in mind, it is argued that the arrival of interactive posture technologies has two main implications. In one sense, whereas good posture has historically been imagined as a dividing line between ‘civilized’ humans and ‘uncivilized’ others, devices such as Lumo Lift make posture into a matter of posthuman optimisation: humans and non-humans are enfolded in the pursuit of self-betterment. In another sense, posture technologies are important in emboldening the wider mHealth phenomenon, privileging as they do the idea that commercial technologies are now allies and not foes when it comes to improving health.

Keywords:

• mHealth
• posture
• optimisation

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank the anonymous reviewers of this article and the editors of Critical Public Health for their very helpful comments during the review process.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. A reviewer makes an interesting point in regard to the epidemiological distinction between active surveillance (whereby health officials seek out health data) and passive surveillance (whereby data is supplied without deliberate outreach). Using the example of vaccinations, Childress (2015) illustrates how these forms of surveillance can implicate individuals/patients: ‘In active surveillance, healthcare providers actively follow those who are vaccinated by asking, at set intervals, direct, specific questions about any reactions … By contrast, in passive surveillance individuals may self-report at any time they believe they have a negative reaction to report, and then healthcare providers can follow up’ (p. 99). Surveillance with posture technologies is ‘passivised’ in the style described by Andrejevic and Burdon (2015): it is sensor-based and automatic, and so data collection requires little effort from users themselves. At the same time, however, it is interesting how this passivised form of surveillance parallels active surveillance in the epidemiological sense. Technologies like Lumo Lift act in much the same way as the active (human) health care providers in Childress (2015) vaccination example.

2. To urge upright positioning whilst at the same time imagining posture as customisable seems contradictory in nature. These two positions make sense together, however, if one considers that Lumo Bodytech is interested in informing consumers about the distinction between good and bad posture before giving them leeway to decide what their baseline good posture will be each day. For example, one entry to the Lumo blog lists steps in achieving good posture, beginning with the step of imagining one’s head being pulled upward by a string (see Lumo Bodytech Inc., 2014n). In this sense, whilst there is sure to be variance in how Lumo users calibrate their devices, and whilst Lumo is evidently open to this variance, the company still sets parameters on proper body positioning.