• Minna Vigren
  • Harley Bergroth


Proactive self-tracking is a proliferating digital media practice that involves gathering data about the body and the self outside a clinical healthcare setting. Various studies have noted that self-tracking technologies affect people’s everyday modes of thought and action and stick to their lifeworlds because these technologies seek to promote “improved” modes of behaviour. We investigate how the specific devices and interfaces involved in self-tracking attract and prescribe rhythmicity into everyday lives and elaborate on how human bodies and technical systems of self-tracking interact rhythmically. We draw from new materialist ontology, combining it with Henri Lefebvre’s method of rhythmanalysis and his notion of dressage. We employ a collaborative autoethnographical approach and engage with both of our personal fieldwork experiences in living with self-tracking devices. We argue that rhythmicity and dressage are fruitful analytical tools to use in understanding human–technology attachments as well as a variety of everyday struggles inherent in self-tracking practices.



Ajana, B. (2017). Digital health and the biopolitics of the quantified self. Digital Health, 3, 1–18. Search in Google Scholar

Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Duke University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Breault, R. A. (2016). Emerging issues in duoethnography. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 29(6), 777–794. 10.1080/09518398.2016.1162866 Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Cann, C., & DeMeulenaere, E. (2010). Forged in the crucibles of difference: Building discordant communities. Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban Education, 7(1), 41–53. Search in Google Scholar

Chang, H., Hernandez, K.-A. C., & Ngunjiri, F. W. (2012). Collaborative autoethnography. Left Coast Press. Search in Google Scholar

Cifor, M., & Garcia, P. (2019). Inscribing gender: A duoethnographic examination of gendered values and practices in fitness tracker design. Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Scholar Space, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 2132–2141. Search in Google Scholar

Clark, M. I., & Thorpe, H. (2020). Towards diffractive ways of knowing women’s moving bodies: A Baradian experiment with the fitbit–motherhood entanglement. Sociology of Sport Journal, 37(1), 12–26. Search in Google Scholar

Coia, L., & Taylor, M. (2009). Co/autoethnography: Exploring our teaching selves collaboratively. In L. Fitzgerald, M. Heston, & D. Tidwell (Eds.), Research methods for the self-study of practice (Vol. 9) (pp. 3–16). Springer. Search in Google Scholar

Deleuze, G. (1992). Postscript on the societies of control. October, 59, 3–7. Search in Google Scholar

Edensor, T. (2012). Introduction: Thinking about rhythm and space. In T. Edensor (Ed.), Geographies of rhythm: Nature, place, mobilities and bodies (pp. 1–18). Routledge. Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, and personal reflexivity. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.) (pp. 733–768). Sage. Search in Google Scholar

Fotopoulou, A., & O’Riordan, K. (2017). Training to self-care: Fitness tracking, biopedagogy and the healthy consumer. Health Sociology Review, 26(1), 54–68. Search in Google Scholar

Foucault, M. (2015). Politics, philosophy, culture: Interviews and other writings 1977–1984. Routledge. Search in Google Scholar

Jones, P., & Warren, S. (2016). Time, rhythm and the creative economy. Transactions of the institute of British geographers, 41(3), 286–296. Search in Google Scholar

Kristensen, D., & Ruckenstein, M. (2018). Co-evolving with self-tracking technologies. New Media & Society, 20(10), 3624–3640. Search in Google Scholar

Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In W. Bijker, & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology-building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 225–259). MIT Press. Search in Google Scholar

Lazar, A., Koehler, C., Tanenbaum, J., & Nguyen, D. H. (2015). Why we use and abandon smart devices. Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing, 635–646. Search in Google Scholar

Lefebvre, H. (2004). Rhythmanalysis: Space, time and everyday life (G. Moore, Trans.). Continuum. (Original work published 1992). Search in Google Scholar

Lefebvre, H., & Régulier, C. (2004). Attempt at the rhythmanalysis of Mediterranean cities. In H. Lefebvre, Rhythmanalysis: Space, time and everyday life (G. Moore, Trans.) (pp. 87–100). (Original work published 1992). Continuum. Search in Google Scholar

Lomborg, S., Thylstrup, N. B., & Schwartz, J. (2018). The temporal flows of self-tracking: Checking in, moving on, staying hooked. New Media and Society, 20(12), 4590–4607. Search in Google Scholar

Lund, D. E., & Nabavi, M. (2008). A duo-ethnographic conversation on social justice activism: Exploring issues of identity, racism, and activism with young people. Multicultural Education, 15(4), 27–32. Search in Google Scholar

Lupton, D. (2013). Understanding the human machine. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 32(4), 25–30. Search in Google Scholar

Lupton, D. (2016a). Digital companion species and eating data: Implications for theorising digital data-human assemblages. Big Data & Society, 3(1), 1–5. Search in Google Scholar

Lupton, D. (2016b). The quantified self: A sociology of self-tracking. Polity Press. Search in Google Scholar

Maturo, A., & Moretti, V. (2018). Digital health and the gamification of life: How apps can promote a positive medicalization. Emerald Publishing. Search in Google Scholar

Nafus, D., & Sherman, J. (2014). This one does not go up to 11: The quantified self movement as an alternative big data practice. International Journal of Communication, 8, 1785–1794. Search in Google Scholar

Norris, J., & Sawyer, R. (2012). Toward a dialogic method. In J. Norris, R. Sawyer, & D. Lund (Eds.), Duoethnography: Dialogic methods for social, health, and educational research (pp. 9–40). Left Coast Press. Search in Google Scholar

Pantzar, M., & Ruckenstein, M. (2017). Living the metrics: Self-tracking and situated objectivity. Digital Health, 3, 1–10. Search in Google Scholar

Pantzar, M., Ruckenstein, M., & Mustonen, V. (2018). Social rhythms of the heart. Health Sociology Review, 26(1), 22–37. Search in Google Scholar

Parviainen, J. (2016). Quantified bodies in the checking loop: Analyzing the choreographies of biomonitoring and generating big data. Human Technology, 12(1), 56–73. Search in Google Scholar

Reigeluth, T. (2014). Why data is not enough: Digital traces as control of self and self-control. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 243–354. Search in Google Scholar

Salmela, T., Valtonen, A., & Lupton, D. (2019). The affective circle of harassment and enchantment: Reflections on the LURA Ring as an intimate research device. Qualitative Inquiry, 25(3), 260–270. Search in Google Scholar

Sanders, R. (2017). Self-tracking in the digital era: Biopower, patriarchy and the new biometric body projects. Body & Society, 23(1), 36–63.×16660366 Search in Google Scholar

Schüll, N. D. (2016a). Data for life: Wearable technology and the design of self-care. BioSocieties, 11, 317–333. Search in Google Scholar

Schüll, N. D. (2016b). Sensor technology and the time-series self. Continent, 5(1), 24–29. Search in Google Scholar

Sharon, T., & Zandbergen, D. (2016). From data fetishism to quantifying selves: self-tracking practices and the other values of data. New Media & Society, 19(11), 1695–1709. Search in Google Scholar

The SELF Institute