The Sociopolitics of Automation:
A Novel Definition and Conceptualization

The dominant view of automation in political science conceptualizes it as primarily a technological phenomenon, and only secondarily as a political phenomenon. Put another way, the political aspects of automation (such as its effects on voter preferences) are seen as logically posterior to its technological aspects. I argue that the development of a richer understanding of the politics of automation requires flipping this conceptualization. Automation is not primarily a technological phenomenon; fundamentally, it is a political phenomenon. Automation as a concept has been—and is being—constructed primarily for political purposes. As such, it is intertwined at the most fundamental level with narratives meant to mobilize coalitions and sociopolitical action. The social construction of the concept of automation presents difficulties for the student of its politics. First, because defining automation is part of its politics, it is difficult to scope any inquiry into automation without prejudicing the findings. Second, social constructs do not need, and often intentionally lack, the kind of coherence required of analytical concepts and definitions. To address these issues, I propose two conceptualizations of automation. The first attempts to repair the technology-centric view of the phenomenon of automation in a way that is consistent with its social construction. This conceptualization should be of particular utility to those wanting to remain closer to the more popular use of the word automation. The second conceptualization, which I argue is of greater utility in studying the politics of automation, takes a wider view that encompasses the entire production process and the power relationships involved in modifying it. To illustrate the value of these conceptualizations with regard to real-world politics, the paper describes debates over the definition of automation from the term’s origin in the post-war United States. Drawing on historical documents and archives, I chronicle debates around this fundamental question from the courts of public opinion to the halls of Congress.