Shoshana Zuboff is an American social psychologist and business scholar, long associated with Harvard Business School, whose work traces how information technology reshapes work, power, and social life. Her early book on the computerization of the workplace argued that digital systems could either "automate" — deskilling and controlling workers — or "informate," opening new capacities for judgment and participation. That distinction established a lasting theme in her thought: technology is never neutral, and its political meaning depends on how authority and knowledge are distributed.
Zuboff is best known for developing the concept of "surveillance capitalism," the subject of her later, widely discussed book. She argues that certain large technology firms discovered that the traces people leave online constitute a raw material that can be extracted, analyzed, and turned into predictions about future behavior, which are then sold in what she calls behavioral futures markets. In her account this is not simply a business model but a novel logic of accumulation that claims private human experience as free input, concentrates knowledge and power in a few unaccountable firms, and ultimately seeks to shape and modify behavior at scale.
The political core of her critique is that this dynamic erodes individual self-determination and democratic self-governance. Zuboff frames data extraction as a problem of power rather than privacy narrowly conceived, warning of an "instrumentarian" power that manages populations through prediction and nudging while bypassing consent and public debate. She calls for democratic countervailing institutions — law, regulation, and collective action — to reassert the primacy of citizens over markets, a stance that resonates with reform-minded liberalism's insistence that unchecked concentrated economic power must be politically constrained.
Her arguments have influenced policymakers, privacy advocates, and scholars, and have helped move debates about big technology firms from questions of consumer choice toward questions of political economy and rights. Critics contend that her framing can overstate the coherence and novelty of surveillance capitalism, treat corporate intent too monolithically, or underweight the agency of users and states. Even so, her vocabulary has become a common reference point for thinking about the politics of data.