How to analyze the frames and metaphors that hide power in AI

A guide to interrogating rhetorical power in sociotechnical systems

Overview

We make a problem through frames, narratives, and rhetorical power. The frames we select — ”fraud,” “empowerment,” etc. — make certain elements of a narrative salient, and hide or downplay others. Frames aren’t neutral — indeed, they’re often intentionally created and marketed. This is why they’re extremely powerful. Ya know how we say “climate change” rather than “global warming?” That was a strategic choice. In tacitly adopting a frame, we’re aligning ourselves with a set of interests, values, and politics, often without knowing it.

Frames and narratives are especially powerful tools amidst technological change and uncertainty -- when our expectations aren’t anchored to a predetermined future. It’s in these moments -- e.g. the rise of ‘AI -- wherein, according to Beckert and Bronk in Uncertain Futures, “some stabilisation of expectations is required for investment to be made in new products or processes.” “If innovative ideas are to corner the resources needed to make them a reality,” they continue, “they require promissory stories that help coordinate investment.” In short, our sociotechnical future is shaped by market, political, and rhetorical power to offer the stability -- and, in turn, close off plausible futures -- required for investment.