For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
576
views
55
references
 Top references
cited by
1
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    2
    shares
      421
      similar
       All similar

      If you have found this article useful and you think it is important that researchers across the world have access, please consider donating, to ensure that this valuable collection remains Open Access.

      Prometheus is published by Pluto Journals, an Open Access publisher. This means that everyone has free and unlimited access to the full-text of all articles from our international collection of social science journals. Furthermore Pluto Journals authors don’t pay article processing charges (APCs).

      scite_

      Prometheus

      Volume 38, Issue 1
       
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      More work for Roomba? Domestic robots, housework and the production of privacy

      research-article
      Author(s):
      Publication date Pub:
      Journal: Prometheus
      Publisher: Pluto Journals
      Bookmark

            Abstract

            Housework is hard work. Keeping our homes clean, tidy and comfortable takes effort and every moment we spend on housework (that we would prefer to avoid) means we have less time to devote to our private lives. Over the past two decades, numerous companies have created robots designed to relieve their owners of housework. Having robots take care of housework for us, it seems, would enable us to focus our energy at home on private pursuits we find valuable, such as spending quality time with our loved ones, recreation, and relaxation. Although this line of reasoning helps explain why domestic robots are in high demand, this article will contest its validity throughout. By drawing from historical accounts of older, ostensibly labour-saving domestic technologies, it will argue that we should expect domestic robots to alter the nature of housework rather than reduce the need for it. Overall, it will argue that domestic robots change what needs to be done for their owners to enjoy their private lives.

            Content

            Author and article information

            Journal
            Journal ID (doi): 10.13169/prometheus.38.1.0098
            Title: Prometheus
            Abbreviated Title: PROM
            Publisher: Pluto Journals
            ISSN (Electronic): 1470-1030
            Publication date Pub: 01 June 2022
            Publication date Collection: 2022
            Volume: 38
            Issue: 1
            Electronic Location Identifier: prometheus.38.1.0098
            Author notes

            Accepting Editor: Tristan de Wildt

            Article
            DOI: 10.13169/prometheus.38.1.0098
            SO-VID: 4ff48ee4-f0b8-444f-b8b7-e59305847f6b
            Copyright ©
            License:

            All content is freely available without charge to users or their institutions. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission of the publisher or the author. Articles published in the journal are distributed under a http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

            History
            Page count
            Pages: 15
            Categories
            Subject: Research papers

            ScienceOpen disciplines: Computer science,Arts,Social & Behavioral Sciences,Law,History,Economics

            References

            1. (2004) ‘Appliances and their impact: the ownership of domestic technology and time spent on household work’, British Journal of Sociology, 55, 3, pp.401–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2004.00026.x

            2. (2010) (tr. ) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, Routledge, Milton Park.

            3. (1977) The Household Economy: Its Shape, Origins, and Future, Beacon Press, Boston.

            4. (2019) ‘“Thank you, Siri”: politeness and intelligent digital assistants’, Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems, Cancún, Mexico, 15–17 August.

            5. (2010) ‘People can be so fake: a new dimension to privacy and technology scholarship’, Penn State Law Review, 114, 3, pp.8, 09–55. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1458637

            6. (2011) ‘Robots and privacy’ in (eds) Robot Ethics, MIT Press, Cambridge MA, pp.187–203.

            7. (2019) ‘They welcomed a robot into their family, now they are mourning its death’, The Verge, available at https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/19/18682780/jibo-death-server-update-social-robot-mourning (accessed March 2022).

            8. (2020) ‘Death of a robot: social media reactions and language usage when a robot stops operating’, Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction, Cambridge, 23–26 March, pp.589–97. https://doi.org/10.1145/3319502.3374794.

            9. (2019) ‘What do home robots want? The ambivalent power of cuteness in robotic relationships’, Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 26, 2. [Cross Ref].

            10. Council of Europe (1950) European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 4 November, available at https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3b04.html (accessed August 2021).

            11. (1985) More Work for Mother: The Ironies of Household Technology from the Open Hearth to the Microwave, Basic Books, New York.

            12. (2021) Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence, Yale University Press, New Haven.

            13. (2018) Anatomy of an AI System: The Amazon Echo as an Anatomical Map of Human Labor, AI Now Institute and Share Laboratory, available at https://anatomyof.ai (accessed March 2022).

            14. (2012) ‘Extending legal protection to social robots: the effects of anthropomorphism, empathy, and violent behavior towards robotic objects’, Social Science Research Network, available at https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2044797 (accessed March 2022).

            15. (2020) Data Feminism, MIT Press, Cambridge MA.

            16. (2021) ‘Service robots for affective labor: a sociology of labor perspective’, AI & Society, April, available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01208-x (accessed March 2022).

            17. (2010) (tr. ) The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Penguin, Harmondsworth.

            18. (2016) ‘iRobot says 20 percent of the world’s vacuums are now robots’, Techcrunch.com, available at https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/07/irobot-says-20-percent-of-the-worlds-vacuums-are-now-robots/ (accessed August 2021).

            19. (2012) Revolution at Point Zero: Housework, Reproduction, and Feminist Struggle, PM Press, Oakland CA.

            20. (2008) ‘The product ecology: understanding social product use and supporting design culture’, International Journal of Design, 2, 1, pp.11–20.

            21. (2006) ‘Service robots in the domestic environment: a study of the Roomba Vacuum in the home’ in Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART Conference on Human–Robot Interaction (HRI ‘06), March, Salt Lake City UT, pp.258–65. DOI:https://doi-org.tudelft.idm.oclc.org/10.1145/1121241.1121286.

            22. (2018) ‘Robotization and the domestic sphere’, New Media & Society, 20, 8, pp.2673–90, https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817729366.

            23. (1997) ‘Humankind as a system: private and public agency at the origins of modern liberalism’ in (eds) Public and Private in Thought and Practice: Perspectives on a Grand Dichotomy, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp.204–37.

            24. (2019) Ghost Work: How to Stop Silicon Valley from Building a New Global Underclass, Mariner Books, Boston.

            25. (2016) ‘The little robot that could . . . Maybe: Jibo is as good as social robots get. But is that good enough?’, IEEE Spectrum, 53, 1, pp.58–62. Doi:[Cross Ref].

            26. (1979) ‘Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure’, American Journal of Sociology, 85, 3, pp.551–75. https://doi.org/10.1086/227049.

            27. (1983) The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling, University of California Press, Berkeley.

            28. (1992) Privacy, Intimacy, and Isolation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

            29. International Federation of Robotics (2019) ‘Executive summary world robotics 2019: service robots’, available at https://ifr.org/downloads/press2018/Executive_Summary_WR_Service_Robots_2019.pdf (accessed April 2021).

            30. Jibo (2014) ‘Jibo, the world’s first social robot for the home’, available at https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/jibo-the-world-s-first-social-robot-for-the-home#/ (accessed October 2021).

            31. (2021) ‘“Alexa, who am I?”: voice assistants and hermeneutic lemniscate as the technologically mediated sense-making’, Human Studies, 44, pp.233–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-021-09572-9.

            32. (1997) ‘Home: the promise and predicament of private life at the end of the twentieth century’ in (eds) Public and Private in Thought and Practice: Perspectives on a Grand Dichotomy, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp.204–37.

            33. (1987) The Creation of Patriarch, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

            34. (1972) The Stepford Wives, Corsair, London.

            35. (1991) Toward a Feminist Theory of the State, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.

            36. (2020) ‘More than meets the eye? Robotisation and normativity in the Dutch construction industry’, Proceedings of the Second RILEM International Conference on Concrete and Digital Fabrication, July, pp.839–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49916-7_82.

            37. (2020) Humans and Robots: Ethics, Agency, and Anthropomorphism, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham MD.

            38. (2014) ‘The effects of design choices on human–robot interactions in children and adults’ in (ed.) Robots that Talk and Listen: Technology and Social Impact, De Gruyter, Berlin.

            39. (2020) Governing Affects: Neoliberalism, Neo-Bureaucracies and Service Work, Routledge, Milton Park.

            40. (1998) ‘Public and private spheres in France’ in , A History of Private Life, vol. 5: Riddles of Identity in Modern Times, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.

            41. (2004) (tr. ) The Value of Privacy, Polity Press, Cambridge.

            42. (2009) ‘The inherent dangers of unidirectional emotional bonds between humans and social robots’ in (eds) Robot Ethics, MIT Press, Cambridge MA, pp.205–23.

            43. (2017) The Fourth Industrial Revolution, Penguin, Harmondsworth.

            44. (2016) ‘Should we welcome robot teachers?’, Ethics and Information Technology, 18, 4, pp.283–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-016-9387-z.

            45. (2010) ‘The crying shame of robot nannies: an ethical appraisal’, Interaction Studies: Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems, 11, 2, pp.161–90. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.11.2.01sha.

            46. (2009) Understanding Privacy, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.

            47. (2017) ‘Jibo review’, PC Mag, available at https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/jibo (accessed October 2021).

            48. (1982) Never Done: A History of American Housework, Holt Paperbacks, New York.

            49. (2007) ‘“My Roomba is Rambo”: intimate home appliances’ in (eds) UbiComp 2007, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp.145–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74853-3_9.

            50. (2011) Alone Together: Why we Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other, Basic Books, New York.

            51. (2017) ‘A nascent robotics culture: new complicities for companionship’ in (eds) Machine Ethics and Robot Ethics, Routledge, Milton Park, pp.107–16. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003074991-12.

            52. (2006) ‘Relational artifacts with children and elders: the complexities of cybercompanionship’, Connection Science, 18, 4, pp.347–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540090600868912

            53. (2017) ‘Jibo is a cute home robot, but it’s not as smart as Alexa’, Mashable, available at https://mashable.com/article/jibo-review (accessed October 2021).

            54. (2020) ‘At home with Alexa: a tale of two conversational agents’ in (eds) Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Text, Speech, and Dialogue, Brno, 8–11 September, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp.495–503.

            55. (2017) ‘Review: Jibo social robot’, Wired, available at https://www.wired.com/2017/11/review-jibo-social-robot/ (accessed October 2021).

            56. (2019) ‘My Jibo is dying and it is breaking my heart’, Wired, available at https://www.wired.com/story/jibo-is-dying-eulogy/ (accessed October 2021).

            57. (1974) ‘Time spent in housework’, Scientific American, 231, 5, pp.116–21, available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/24950221 (accessed August 2021).

            58. (2019a) ‘A paradigm shift for robot ethics: from HRI to human–robot–system interaction (HRSI)’, Medicolegal and Bioethics, 9, pp.11–21. https://doi.org/10.2147/MB.S160348.

            59. (2014) ‘Lessons learned from robotic vacuum cleaners entering the home ecosystem’, Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 62, 3, pp.376–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2013.09.014.

            60. (1890) ‘The right to privacy’, Harvard Law Review, 4, 5, pp.193–220.

            61. (1968) Privacy and Freedom, Ig Publishing, New York.

            62. (2018) ‘“Alexa, are you my mom?” The role of artificial intelligence in child development’, Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 21, 8, pp.471–2. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2018.29120.bkw.

            Comments

            Comment on this article