Abstract
This article addresses the problematic perspectives of drone culture. In critiquing focus on the drone’s apparent ‘autonomy’, it argues that such devices function as part of a socio-technical network. They are relational parts of human–machine interaction that, in our changing geopolitical realities, have a powerful influence on politics, reputation and warfare. Drawing on Žižek’s conception of parallax, the article stresses the importance of culture and perception in forming the role of the drone in widening power asymmetries. It examines how perceptions of autonomy are evoked by drones, to claim that this misperception is a smokescreen that obscures the relational socio-technical realities of the drone. The article therefore argues that a more critical culture of the drone emerges by shifting the focus and perception from autonomy to anonymity. This allows us to engage more fully with the distributed agency and decision-making that define how drones are developed and deployed. Rather than focusing on the drone as a singular, fetishised, technical object, a relational approach to the drone assemblage is proposed that highlights the competing human interests that define and resist drones in global politics and culture.

Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
@GenAtomics_ASI (2020a) Seamless joint battlefield integration starts with MQ-9B – the strategic and tactical solution for the Indian Armed Forces. @adgpi @IndiaINF @IAF_MCC #India. Twitter 16 March 2020. https://twitter.com/GenAtomics_ASI/status/1239600325973233665
@GenAtomics_ASI (2020b) An effective strategy to support U.S. operations in the #grayzone requires having a smaller ground footprint. MQ-9 with airborne sensor and weapons capabilities allows for overwatch from a distance @usairforce https://bit.ly/3a8qvvO. Twitter 20 March 2020. https://twitter.com/GenAtomics_ASI/status/1241118091192471552
Andersen C (2014) Games of drones: the uneasy future of the soldier-hero in call of duty: black ops II. Surv Soc 12(3):360–376
Baudrillard J (1994) Simulacra and simulation. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor MI
Benjamin G (2016) The cyborg subject: reality, consciousness. Parallax, Palgrave, London
Birhane A, Cummins F (2019) Algorithmic injustices: towards a relational ethics. Black in AI (NeurIPS). Vancouver 9:1–4
Bloomberg R (2015) Dancing to a tune: the drone as political and historical assemblage. Cult Mach 16:1–24
Burkell J (2006) Anonymity in behavioural research: Not being unnamed, but being unknown. U Ottawa L Tech J 3:189
Campaign to Stop Killer Robots (2018) Campaign to Stop Killer Robots https://www.stopkillerrobots.org/. Accessed 14 Aug 2020
Chamayou G (2015) A theory of the drone. The New Press, New York NY, London
Chappelle W, McDonald K, Prince L, Goodman T, Ray-Sannerud B, Thompson W (2014) Symptoms of psychological distress and post-traumatic stress disorder in united states air force “drone” operators. Mil Med 179(8):63–70
Coley R, Lockwood D (2015) As above, so below: triangulating drone culture. Cult Mach 16:1–19
Crogan P (2016) War, mathematics, and simulation: Drones and (losing) control of battlespace. In: Harrigan P, Kirschenbaum M (eds) Zones of control: perspectives on wargaming. The MIT Press, Cambridge MA, pp 641–667
Crogan P (2017) Videogames, war and operational aesthetics. In: Bourke J (ed). War and art: a visual history of modern conflict. Reaktion Books London
Cunneen M, Mullins M, Murphy F, Shannon D, Furxhi I, Ryan C (2020) Autonomous vehicles and avoiding the trolley (dilemma): vehicle perception, classification, and the challenges of framing decision ethics. Cyber Syst 51(1):59–80
Deleuze G, Guattari F (2004a) Anti-Oedipus: capitalism and schizophrenia. Continuum, London
Deleuze G, Guattari F (2004b) A thousand plateaus: capitalism and schizophrenia. Continuum, London
Ficuciello F, Tamburrini G, Arezzo A, Villani L, Siciliano B (2019) Autonomy in surgical robots and its meaningful human control. Paladyn J Behav Robot 10(1):30–43
Future of Life Institute (2015) Autonomous Weapons: An Open Letter from AI and Robotics Researchers. https://futureoflife.org/open-letter-autonomous-weapons/. Accessed 14 Aug 2020
General Atomics (2020) About. General Atomics https://www.ga.com/about. Accessed 14 Aug 2020
Harris R, Evans R (2020) MoD put pressure on regulators to delay drone safety warnings, documents reveal. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/09/mod-regulators-drone-safety-warnings. Accessed 14 Aug 2020
Jablonowski M (2015) Drone it yourself! On the decentring of ‘drone stories’. Cult Mach 16:1–15
Lacan J (1977) The four fundamental concepts of psycho-analysis. The Hogarth Press, London
Lenoir T (2000) All but war is simulation: the military-entertainment complex. Configurations 8(3):289–335
Lichty P (2013) Drone: Camera, Weapon,Toy: The Aestheticization of Dark Technology. Furtherfield 30 March 2013 https://www.furtherfield.org/drone-camera-weapontoy-the-aestheticization-of-dark-technology-2/. Accessed 14 Aug 2020
Nissenbaum H (1999) The meaning of anonymity in an information age. Inform Soc 15(2):141–144
Marx G (1999) What’s in a name? Some reflections on the sociology of anonymity. Inform Soc 15(2):99–112
Mbembe A (2003) Necropolitics. Publ Cult 15(1):11–40
Noys B (2015) Drone metaphysics. Cult Mach 16:1–22
Packer J, Reeves J (2017) Taking people out: drones, media/weapons, and the coming humanectomy. In: Parks L, Kaplan C (eds) Life in the age of drones. Duke University Press, Durham NC, pp 261–281
Pfitzmann A, Köhntopp M (2001) Anonymity, Unobservability, and Pseudonymity: a Proposal for Terminology. In: Federrath H (ed) Designing privacy enhancing technologies lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 1–9
Piotrowska A (2017) 5000 feet is best’: drone warfare, targets and Paul Virilio’s ‘accident. In: Hellmich C, Purse L (eds) Disappearing war: interdisciplinary perspectives on cinema and erasure in the post 9/11 world. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp 34–55
Sameshima P (2007) Seeing red: a pedagogy of parallax: an epistolary bildungsroman on artful scholarly inquiry. Cambria, Youngstown NY
Sharkey A (2019) Autonomous weapons systems, killer robots and human dignity. Ethics Inf Technol 21(2):75–87
Shaw I, Akhter M (2012) The unbearable humanness of drone warfare in FATA. Pakistan Antipode 44(4):1490–1509
Singer P (2009) Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century. Penguin, New York, NY
Singler B (2020) “Blessed by the algorithm”: Theistic conceptions of artificial intelligence in online discourse. AI Society, 1–11
Stahl R (2013) What the drone saw: the cultural optics of the unmanned war. Aust J Int Aff 67(5):659–674
Stark L (2019) Facial recognition is the plutonium of AI. XRDS: crossroads. ACM Mag Stud 25(3):50–55
Suchman L (1994) Do categories have politics? Comput Supp Coop Work 2:177–190
Wallace KA (1999) Anonymity. Ethics Inform Technol 1(1):21–31
Thacker E (2014) Dark Media. In: Galloway A, Thacker E, Wark M (eds) Excommunication: three inquiries in media and mediation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago IL, pp 77–150
The Editorial Collective (1973) Toys Against the People. Sci People 5(1):8–10 (37-41)
Timms B (2008) The parallax of landscape: situating celaque national park, Honduras. In: Knudsen D, Metro-Roland M, Soper A, Greer C (eds) Landscape, tourism and meaning. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 95–108
Yehya N (2015) The drone: god’s eye, death machine, cultural puzzle. Cult Mach 16:1–3
Žižek S (2006) Interrogating the real. Bloomsbury, London
Žižek S (2007) The parallax view. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Žižek S (2012) Organs without bodies: on deleuze and consequences. Routledge, London
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Benjamin, G. Drone culture: perspectives on autonomy and anonymity. AI & Soc 37, 635–645 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-01042-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-01042-7