• Harley Bergroth


This article investigates everyday self-tracking as a practice of self-related knowledge production. Self-tracking activities are commonly narrated and imagined as productive of self-related knowledge and insight into one’s life and bodily functions. However, by drawing from qualitative interviews with Finnish self-trackers, the article argues that in practice self-tracking also appears as prescriptive of uncertainty. The article shows how everyday self-tracking systems actively produce their functionality as systems of knowledge production in practice, as selves are extended in time and potentialized via the measurement-related affordances of self-tracking technologies. Thus, self-tracking often prescribes and animates repetitive behaviour of keeping track; of attaining experiences of self-knowledge and control which nevertheless remain elusive and flow away. The paper engages with Bernard Stiegler’s discussions on temporal flux and cinematic time in order to theorize self-tracking as a practice in and through which the self is produced and lived as perpetually ‘unfolding’.


  • Adams, V., M. Murphy, and A. Clarke. 2009. Anticipation: Technoscience, life, affect, temporality. Subjectivity 28: 246–65. doi: 10.1057/sub.2009.18 [Crossref][Google Scholar]
  • Ajana, B. 2017. Digital health and the biopolitics of the quantified self. Digital Health 3, no. 2017: 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  • Beer, D. 2016. Metric power. London: Palgrave Macmillan. [Crossref][Google Scholar]
  • Bennett, J. 2005. The agency of assemblages and the North American blackout. Public Culture 17, no. 3: 445–66. doi: 10.1215/08992363-17-3-445 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  • Bode, M., and D. Kristensen. 2015. The digital doppelgänger within: A study on self-tracking and the quantified self movement. In Assembling consumption: Researching actors, networks and markets, ed. R. Canniford and D. Bajde, 119–35. Oxon: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  • Coleman, R. 2010. Dieting temporalities: Interaction, agency and the measure of online weight watching. Time & Society 19, no. 2: 265–85. doi: 10.1177/0961463X10368918 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  • Day, S., and C. Lury. 2016. Biosensing: Tracking persons. In Quantified: Biosensing technologies in everyday life, ed. D. Nafus, 43–66. Cambridge: MIT Press. [Crossref][Google Scholar]
  • Deleuze, G. 1995. Postscript on control societies. In Negotiations, 1972–90. New York: Columbia University Press. [Google Scholar]
  • Dumit, J. 2012. Drugs for life: How pharmaceutical companies define our health. Durham & London: Duke University Press. [Crossref][Google Scholar]
  • Fiore-Gartland, B., and G. Neff. 2015. Communication, mediation, and the expectations of data: Data valences across health and wellness communities. International Journal of Communication 9, no. 2015: 1466–84. [Google Scholar]
  • Fotopoulou, A., and K. O’Riordan. 2017. Training to self-care: Fitness tracking, biopedagogy and the healthy consumer. Health Sociology Review 26, no. 1: 54–68. doi: 10.1080/14461242.2016.1184582 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  • Introna, L. 2016. Algorithms, governance and governmentality: On governing academic writing. Science, Technology & Human Values 41, no. 1: 17–49. doi: 10.1177/0162243915587360 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  • Kristensen, D., and M. Ruckenstein. 2018. Co-evolving with self-tracking technologies. New Media & Society 20, no. 10: 3624–40. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  • Latour, B. 1992. Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. Teoksessa: Shaping technology-building society: Studies in sociotechnical change, toim. W. Bijker and J. Law, 225–59. Cambridge: MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
  • Law, J. 2004. After method: Mess in social science research. London: Routledge. [Crossref][Google Scholar]
  • Law, J., and V. Singleton. 2013. ANT and politics: Working in and on the world. Qualitative Sociology 36, no. 4: 485–502. doi: 10.1007/s11133-013-9263-7 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  • Lupton, D. 2013. Understanding the human machine. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 32, no. 4: 25–30. doi: 10.1109/MTS.2013.2286431 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  • Lupton, D. 2015. Quantified sex: A critical analysis of sexual and reproductive self-tracking using apps. Culture, Health & Sexuality 17, no. 4: 440–53. doi: 10.1080/13691058.2014.920528 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  • Lupton, D. 2016. The quantified self: A sociology of self-tracking. Cambridge: Polity Press. [Google Scholar]
  • Marcus, G.E., and E. Saka. 2006. Assemblage. Theory, Culture & Society 23, no. 2–3: 101–106. doi: 10.1177/0263276406062573 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  • Marshall, B.L., and S. Katz. 2016. How old am I? Digital Culture & Society 2, no. 1: 145–52. doi: 10.14361/dcs-2016-0110 [Crossref][Google Scholar]
  • Nafus, D., and J. Sherman. 2014. This one does not go up to 11: The quantified self as an alternative big data practice. International Journal of Communication 8: 1785–94. [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  • Nowotny, H. 1994. Time: The modern and postmodern experience. Cambridge: Polity Press. [Google Scholar]
  • Pantzar, M., and M. Ruckenstein. 2017. Living the metrics: Self-tracking and situated objectivity. Digital Health 3: 1–10. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  • Pantzar, M., M. Ruckenstein, and V. Mustonen. 2017. Social rhythms of the heart. Health Sociology Review 26, no. 1: 22–37. doi: 10.1080/14461242.2016.1184580 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  • Pink, S., and V. Fors. 2017. Being in a mediated world: Self-tracking and the mind-body-environment. Cultural Geographies 24, no. 3: 375–88. doi: 10.1177/1474474016684127 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  • Roberts, B. 2006. Cinema as mnemotechnics: Bernard Stiegler and the “industrialization of memory”. Angelaki 11, no. 1: 55–63. doi: 10.1080/09697250600797864 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  • Ruckenstein, M. 2014. Visualized and interacted life: Personal analytics and engagements with data doubles. Societies 4, no. 1: 68–84. doi: 10.3390/soc4010068 [Crossref][Google Scholar]
  • Schüll, N.D. 2016a. Data for life: Wearable technology and the design of self-care. BioSocieties 1, no. 3: 317–33. doi: 10.1057/biosoc.2015.47 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  • Schüll, N.D. 2016b. Sensor technology and the time-series self. Continent 5: 24–9. [Google Scholar]
  • Sharon, T. 2017. Self-tracking for health and the quantified self: Re-articulating autonomy, solidarity and authenticity in the age of personalized healthcare. Philosophy & Technology 30, no. 1: 93–121. doi: 10.1007/s13347-016-0215-5 [Crossref][Google Scholar]
  • Sharon, T., and D. Zandbergen. 2017. From data fetishism to quantifying selves: Self-tracking practices and the other values of data. New Media & Society 19, no. 11: 1695–709. doi: 10.1177/1461444816636090 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®][Google Scholar]
  • Sherman, J. 2016. Data in the age of digital reproduction: Reading the quantified self through Walter Benjamin. In Quantified: Biosensing technologies in everyday life, ed. D. Nafus, 27–42. Cambridge: MIT Press. [Crossref][Google Scholar]
  • Stiegler, B. 2011. Technics and time 3. Cinematic time and the question of malaise. Stanford: Stanford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  • Stiegler, B. 2012. New industrial temporal objects. In Frontiers of human-centered computing, online communities and virtual environments, ed. R. Earnshaw, R. Guedj, A. Van Dam, and J. Vince, 445–60. London: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  • Till, C. 2014. Exercise as labour: Quantified self and the transformation of exercise into labour. Societies 4, no. 3: 446–62. doi: 10.3390/soc4030446 [Crossref][Google Scholar]
The SELF Institute