Paper long abstract:

The move towards personalized healthcare that is being promoted as a panacea to public health challenges is often perceived by critics as contributing to an erosion of solidarity. Powerful warnings are sounded about the extent to which increased "personalization", "participation" and "activation" mask a devolution of responsibilities onto the shoulders of citizens, and will lead to new forms of fragmented individualism. In this context self-tracking for health, the use of wearable sensors and mobile applications to collect and monitor personal biometric data, is perceived as an exemplary "counter-solidarizing" practice, that encourages individuals to take on a pro-active, responsible attitude towards their health.

Adopting a practice-based approach, in which community and solidarity are taken to be the result of practices, rather than pre-existing them, can help orient our attention to new enactments of solidarity in unexpected places. Indeed, if self-tracking can seem highly individualistic and narcissistic, for many practitioners a crucial aspect of self-tracking is the opportunity to share their data with others, online in patient groups or offline at "Quantified Self" meet-ups. And while self-benefit is surely an important incentive for sharing, an undeniable dimension is also a willingness to assist others with similar health experiences, often at a cost.

This paper explores some of the limits and possibilities of these new enactments of solidarity. Is the move from "n=me" to "n=we" elitist and segregating nonetheless, or does it allow for increased inclusion? And can it be harnessed for contributing to clinically useful information beyond the limits of the community of practitioners?