{"id":13073,"date":"2026-06-02T13:02:37","date_gmt":"2026-06-02T11:02:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.uni.lu\/c2dh-en\/?post_type=events&p=13073"},"modified":"2026-06-10T10:18:38","modified_gmt":"2026-06-10T08:18:38","slug":"histories-of-tracking","status":"publish","type":"events","link":"https:\/\/www.uni.lu\/c2dh-en\/events\/histories-of-tracking\/","title":{"rendered":"Histories of Tracking"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

\nInternational conference jointly organised by the C\u00b2DH – University of Luxembourg and Universit\u00e4t Siegen<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Surveillance has become ubiquitous in digital media environments and is now taken for granted. With every PayPal interaction, at the least more than 600 trackers eavesdrop on its transactional data (Schneier 2018). While there is no lack of critique on digital surveillance and its discontents, its ubiquity and naturalization itself require more explanation. Which historical and economical trajectories have led into the current escalation of digital tracking, tracing, monitoring, classification, intelligence service, and advertising? How can we discover and mobilize counter-points and narratives that explain digital surveillance otherwise? Do micro-level media, data, and sensor practices represent \u201cyet another mutation of capitalism,\u201d to quote from Gilles Deleuze\u2019s famous Postscript on the Societies of Control<\/em> (1990)?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tracking persons, emotions, objects, apparatuses, money, signs and data is a veritable environing technique. It is also one of the key business applications of platform and data economies, which provide for the infrastructures of state-side institutional surveillance and control. With our joint Luxembourg-Siegen conference on Histories of Tracking<\/em> we aim to track the trackers historiographically, technologically, and ecologically.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a seminal text, Phil Agre (2003 [1994]) has encouraged us to think about the difference between rather centralized regimes of (visual) surveillance and data-based institutional regimes of \u201ccapture.\u201d Agre has paved the way for a logistical theory of digital surveillance that investigates its micropolitics. While non-visual alphanumeric modes of capturing data do not feel like surveillance, they nonetheless establish an ever more mundane and affective mode of ubiquitous surveillance. What if we follow Agre\u2019s analysis of institutional \u201cgrammars of action\u201d that afford a whole spectrum of capturing, monitoring, sensing, and surveillant practices? Histories of tracking, we assume, are histories of the institutions, corporations, and agencies that create the tapestry of surveillance (Lauer 2017). That tapestry might seem all-encompassing and seamless by now, even if it contains loose threads, loopholes, and islands of encryption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Histories of tracking are co-operative histories that involve the consent, non-consent and dissent of digital media usage (Jones 2024). They are also business histories that rely on what Shoshana Zuboff (2019) has aptly called a \u201cbehavioral surplus\u201d of data. Last but not least, histories of tracking are histories of its public scrutiny and accountability, from opposing civil rights movements to the political and legal controversies that make the case for regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We thus invited dedicated contributions from Media and Cultural Studies, History, Science and Technology Studies, Surveillance Studies, Platform Studies, Code Studies, Socio-Informatics, Law, and Sociology that combine historiographic and empirical work with grounded theoretical approaches.<\/p>\n\n\n\n