Rishi Chhapolia

UW: Progression 1

September 28, 2018

Back From The Future

In his essay, ​Save the Robots: Cyber Profiling and Your So-Called Life​, Richard Ford

hypothesizes various facets of the future we’re heading into. He states, “The emergent genre of

‘law and cyberspace’ is exciting, largely because most of us believe that computer technologies

raise new and unprecedented issues and problems” (Ford 1573). One of the primary “new and

unprecedented issues” that he tackles is “the creation of ‘user profiles’ which predict the

consumer’s buying patterns based on her previous purchases” (1575). Ford seeks to demonstrate

the various benefits and drawbacks of this “profile”, which “morphs into a cyber doppelgänger -

a computer generated simulacrum of [our] consumer consciousness” (1575), to make readers

more aware of the future they’re heading into - how they could be affected by this technology.

He does this through different “narratives”, with each one focusing on a specific application and

role of the “cyber doppelgänger” in society. At first, Ford presents what is both “worrisome (and

thrilling) about computerized collection and distribution of consumer data” (1573), as a

precursor to constructing the “cyber doppelgänger” technology. He claims that it “isn’t all bad”,

while at the same time, warning that “we may need to worry” about what’s done with this

information (1574), balancing his argument. However, he ends the essay by ardently cautioning

his readers, “we need to choose our future now” (1583), urging them to “choose life” (1584) over

the “virtual world” (1583). This presents a state of cognitive dissonance because Ford’s initial

cautious yet excited outlook on the “cyber doppelgänger” seems to go against his final harsh

1
negativity towards it. Thus, there is a gap between what the readers expect at the start of the

essay - an objectively constructed analysis of the possibilities of data being used for “seemingly

benign purposes” (1574) - and what they ultimately receive from it by the end - an ominous

warning against the “grim, Prozac addled, Huxleyan future” (1583). Why does Ford present the

“cyber doppelgänger” neutrally at the start of his essay, but then end up critiquing it by the end?

Before examining how and why Ford chooses to end the essay, we must inspect how he employs

different techniques to get there from his initial case.

In his first "narrative", Ford addresses potentially problematic developments in data

collection, how “the value of proprietary control over information is way ahead of concrete plans

for it” (1574), before pacifying this opinion with the justification: “Scientists have stumbled onto

all sorts of technologies that improved day-to-day life while trying to build spacecraft or perfect

the art of warcraft: microwaves, global positioning systems, satellites, Tang instant breakfast

drink” (1574). Thus, Ford constructs a balanced argument regarding the technological

development towards the future by presenting the problems that new technologies can initially

face, and comparing it with how scientific and technological growth in the past has led to

innovation. He is cautious yet hopeful.

In his next "narrative", Ford discusses how corporations will be able to use the “cyber

doppelgänger” to make suggestions on what their consumers will like to purchase, employing a

rounded font with a serif typeface to suggest, “​I’m  likely  to  rely  more  and  more  heavily  on  the 

selections  of  the  cyber  doppelgänger  and  less  on  my own judgment” ​(1576). However, he then tells

his readers, “​Remember  it’s  all  voluntary,  I  don’t  have  to  accept  any  of  the  suggestions  offered  by 

my  cyber  doppelganger​” (1576). He addresses the readers’ fears of losing individual rights by

2
suggesting that they will still have control over how they choose to use the service, what they

choose to accept. His tone is explanatory yet reassuring, like high school seniors giving advice to

anxious freshmen on building their college application - to ensure that they take time to relax and

do what they love in the midst of everything else. His choice of font has a commanding yet

calming sense to it, which supports what he says.

After theorizing how the very nature of developing new technologies is a double-edged

sword, Ford applies it to the “cyber doppelgänger”. He introduces its possibilities while

presenting a hint of skepticism towards it. His tone seems to be objective, but he provokes

readers to think about how the technology ​could be used negatively, sparking their doubt against

it.

In a later “narrative”, Ford proceeds to discuss how the “cyber doppelgänger” has

increased control over his life as he gives into its decisions. He switches his font to one that is

extremely bulky and futuristic to present this lifestyle, ​“if  I breakup with my girl-friend (the 

system  will  monitor  my  calls  to  gather  such  information),  I  will  get  a  bottle  of 

Scotch  and  a  list  of  potential  dates  [selected  for  their  desirability  based  on  my 

subjective  preferences)”  ​(1578). The font he uses is reminiscent of text that’s printed out on

an actual computer terminal. This makes readers feel as though the computer has taken control

over Ford; that it’s not even his voice anymore, but the cyber doppelganger’s, which imitates

him. However, they can’t help but notice Ford’s voice dripping with sarcasm within the

parentheses he uses to exaggeratedly elaborate what the “cyber doppelgänger” actually does to

influence his lifestyle. These phenomena aren’t commonplace, but he presents them as so,

mocking the entire idea.

3
 Ford then says, “​Scared? Don’t be. Again, no one will be forced to accept these 

services  -  they’re  voluntary.​” Ford’s tone becomes aggressive here, exemplified by the

italicization of his words. It’s like a mantra that mocks the readers passive-aggressively, almost

bullying them by referencing the identical line that earlier reassured the readers of individual

choice.

After having previously highlighted how the “cyber doppelgänger” ​could ​be used

negatively in the future, Ford’s escalation of circumstances in this “narrative”, supported by

changes in the font and tone, serves to actually drive us further into this future, where it seems

that the possibility of humans being under the dominion of their computer overlords is not too far

away. He does so to almost ask us, “How do you like it now?” while having the ulterior motive

of critiquing the increased control that the “cyber doppelgänger” seems to be gaining, with his

exaggerated image of the future and his parentheses-sandwiched sarcasm.

Ford continues to escalate the circumstances for a few more "narratives” by

hypothesizing how artificial intelligence will take over the government, and how computer

profiling will be able to shape human desires and psyches. But just when it seems as if he’s about

to finally head into a world under ​“an Orwellian totalitarian regime complete with non stop

surveillance and ruthless suppression of dissent” (1583), he breaks his pattern of indirect

critique to return to a rounded, human font, and end his essay with a direct critique of the future,

claiming that if we end up “​in a world run by machines, it will most likely be because we

made a lot of little choices along the way and by the time we got there it didn’t seem so

bad​” (1583). Ford makes a conscious decision to end with a strong call for action to his readers,

urging them to ​“choose [their] future. Choose life” (1584), after having built an increasingly

4
desolate picture of the future. His urgent tone is supplemented by the simple font, which has a

sense of ordinary “human-ness” to it - Ford’s original voice has returned.

Ford constructs a multi-faceted image of the future through multiple "narratives "over the

course of the essay, using a characteristic font and tone to build a different voice for each

specific one. He embraces this interesting stylistic technique to craft different experiential

"narratives" within the essay; to not only make readers aware of the “cyber doppelgänger”

technology, but to make them live through its frightening level of potential power and control,

and understand it better on a human, emotional level. His choice to end negatively represents his

stance on the “cyber doppelgänger”, and his attempt to make his readers understand this stance.

Instead of clinically pointing out the pros and cons of the circumstances, Ford chooses to actually

take readers along for a vivid ride through his thought process and imagination in order to see the

situation from his perspective. His concluding note, then, is almost as if he stops the

metaphorical journey and brings the readers back from the future, to implore them to fight

against what they just saw. ​This claim is significant because it allows us to understand how

writers can use different techniques to allow us to look at things from their perspective. In this

specific case, by guiding us through their thought process, elaborating every detail, to not just

present a message, but to truly convince us that their intended message is valid.

5
Works Cited

1. Ford, Richard T. “Save the Robots: Cyber Profiling and Your So-Called Life.” ​Stanford

Law Review,​ vol. 52, no. 5, Stanford Law School, 2000, pp. 1573-1584.

Word Count:​ ​1445

Letter of Reflection

The entire focus of my essay changed substantially from the formal to the final draft. I

was initially focusing on how Ford discussed “the future” in his essay, because that’s what I

believed the essay to be about. But after some feedback, I realized that this was very vague, and I

then started to focus specifically on how Ford developed the idea of the “cyber doppelgänger”.

As I did so, I realized my argument became more complex, mature and most of all, more clear.

There was a clear train of thought from each claim to the next, and my entire argument

developed and unfolded in a way that was much easier to understand, both as a reader and a

writer.

Moreover, my final claim was that Ford used the font and tone switches throughout his

essay as a tool to engage his readers and capture their attention. Even though this claim was true,

it didn’t feel complex or mature enough. As I shifted my attention to how Ford addressed the

“cyber doppelgänger” in his essay, my final claim developed along with the rest of my essay. By

reading the essay again and constantly questioning myself ono what I actually derived from the

reading experience, I developed the claim that Ford used his different “narratives” to create an

experiential reading experience.

6
 Finally, after I’d developed my argument to where I was happy with it, it was about 500

words over the word limit. I parsed through my essay several times, not knowing what to

remove, because everything felt essential to what I was trying to say. The middle third of my

essay, however, felt like it was enhancing the first third, yet repeating it. So I deleted the entire

chunk on a whim, to see how the essay would read. Fortunately, apart from a few structural

discrepancies, the entire essay felt much tighter and focused - much more to the point. So in

conclusion, I’m glad that I revised the essay as much as I did, because it ultimately yielded a

stronger product.