Glass Ceilings.

In contemporary culture clothing has been commonly subject to the aestheticization of wealth; labels, styles and materials perform double duty as potential objet d’art as well as status symbol. Sitting alongside cars, smart devices that we perpetually have on-hand have become high-dollar evolutions of the feature phone. While older ‘dumb phones’ may have had a gradient of quality (looks, call quality, battery life), newer phones can have a number of different data connections, sensors, and proprietary software. Not only that, but brand cachet is such that even over-the-top protective cases still have cutouts for the logo to shine through. This transition is not just the mobilization or augmentation of the “digital divide” (though it certainly is that in many respects), but presses this divide further into public performance.

This performativity gets more interesting in the case of wearable computing that seems to be on the crest of entering public space, and how unevenly those devices will be distributed. As other have pointed out, this more broad (though again, not complete) spread of smartphone owners across the spectrum of socio-economic status is strongly aided by carrier subsidies that allow for the point-of-purchase cost to be comparatively minimal. Google Glass, the convenient icon for this new wave of wearable computing, has no such subsidy on it as of yet (with the hefty caveat that this is early on in the device’s life). This barrier of availability and viability is perhaps the most salient, but certainly not the only one.

Media representation so far has been unilateral in ethnocultural identity, to say the absolute least. This has been most bluntly observed by the ever-growing Tumblr of White Men Wearing Google Glass (whose potential thesis of uncoolness I’ll get back to). On this level, there is no examples of non-White/cis/male individuals using this device (which itself may already have been a byproduct of the first concern of cost). The sort of Silicon Valley early-adopter culture that would put up several thousand dollars for a wearable computer sight-unseen is not prevalent outside of certain fields and regions. When there are no examples of people who aren’t in that rigid taxonomy utilizing devices, that sends a certain sort of limiting cultural message. One article notes the minutiae of this problem of current access, and speaks more to the larger cultural circumstances around “White Men Wearing Google Glass” that are a systemic problem.

Even beyond this personal relationship with the idea of something like Glass, is the interpersonal dynamics of engaging with someone who “has” when one “has not”; signifiers of stratification become that much more persistent and that much more glaringly quantifiable. The style and branding of clothing can speak to certain levels of status, but being stared in the face by a clearly identifiable object with a well-known retail tag can create distance from those who do not have such access. Users of Glass so far have spoken of it social precariousness — in part due to the unfamiliarity to others (or oneself) of these not-glasses with a camera attached to someone’s face that listen to everything — but also due to the unreciprocated split of attention they have between anyone they engage with and their new heads-up display. There is suddenly a potential need to develop new social etiquette and expectations around mobile computing that seem like they will only germinate and develop around those used to dealing with these technologies.

It’s incredibly difficult to think of a future in which some form of wearable computer or HUD isn’t more common, but as Luke W notes, we’re maybe just not there yet. To return to part of what feels like the thought behind White Men, I’ve yet to see a picture of Glass that doesn’t look at least a little tacky. The aesthetic is not necessarily congruous with other signifiers of contemporary style. With the lenses attached, they most resemble 90s single-lens sunglasses, at this point largely relegated to certain rappers or other such tastemakers.

As uneven as the transition may have initially been into any sort of mobile device (feature phone or smart device or tablet), each has been previously more focused upon remote contact and communication. Devices like Glass explicitly focus on the here-and-now; it’s no longer someone talking to their friend but someone utilizing the tech to record the environment — that includes those in the environment. This differences makes for an odd social background which must be navigated.