The dialectics of digitalisation: A critique of the modernistic imperative for the development of digital technology

IF 3 3区 管理学 Q1 ECONOMICS Futures Pub Date : 2024-07-06 DOI:10.1016/j.futures.2024.103428
Rikard Lindell
{"title":"The dialectics of digitalisation: A critique of the modernistic imperative for the development of digital technology","authors":"Rikard Lindell","doi":"10.1016/j.futures.2024.103428","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This text discusses today’s digital transformation through the lens of Horkheimer and Adornos’ study of the enlightenment. Policy and public discourse around digitalisation embrace and adhere to the narrow tenets enlightenment thinking; the idea that rationality, individual freedom, and a society free from superstition are necessary and attainable goals. The costs of what has come to be called ‘Modernity’ are many. Through the application of rationality to all spheres of life, married with disruptive technological advancement, humanity has diminished its’ imagination – its ability to seek new directions. To paraphrase Horkheimer and Adorno, Modernism fights against nature, of which we are a part, and thus, paradoxically, sets us in a fight against ourselves. Environmental degradation, the price of progress, being just one example of this – deadening work, consumerism and severed social connections being amongst others. In this framing, digitalisation itself comes to be understood itself as akin to a force of nature – one that we can do little about, other than adjust and adapt or be swept away. But this by no means a foregone conclusion, there is light at the end of the optical fibre. Albeit that recent technical developments around artificial intelligence appears to be pushing policy makers into hasty decisions, the pace of the technical development is not as fast as we believe, and in comparison with the Reformation – we have time. If we can restrain ourselves from the resist, adapt or die responses promoted in popular discourse in face of the shock of large language models and rising threat of automation, then we create room to consider economic, social, and ecological alignment and accord, in the decision making and design of future interactive artefacts and digital services. The article argues that through postdigital aesthetics, technology makers can embrace materiality and the inherent qualities of digital technology to formulate a critique of existing trajectories in digital transformation, with consequences for a more sustainable future.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48239,"journal":{"name":"Futures","volume":"162 ","pages":"Article 103428"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328724001113/pdfft?md5=22d0700c3cbd09a78860cfb1f739c5a3&pid=1-s2.0-S0016328724001113-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Futures","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328724001113","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This text discusses today’s digital transformation through the lens of Horkheimer and Adornos’ study of the enlightenment. Policy and public discourse around digitalisation embrace and adhere to the narrow tenets enlightenment thinking; the idea that rationality, individual freedom, and a society free from superstition are necessary and attainable goals. The costs of what has come to be called ‘Modernity’ are many. Through the application of rationality to all spheres of life, married with disruptive technological advancement, humanity has diminished its’ imagination – its ability to seek new directions. To paraphrase Horkheimer and Adorno, Modernism fights against nature, of which we are a part, and thus, paradoxically, sets us in a fight against ourselves. Environmental degradation, the price of progress, being just one example of this – deadening work, consumerism and severed social connections being amongst others. In this framing, digitalisation itself comes to be understood itself as akin to a force of nature – one that we can do little about, other than adjust and adapt or be swept away. But this by no means a foregone conclusion, there is light at the end of the optical fibre. Albeit that recent technical developments around artificial intelligence appears to be pushing policy makers into hasty decisions, the pace of the technical development is not as fast as we believe, and in comparison with the Reformation – we have time. If we can restrain ourselves from the resist, adapt or die responses promoted in popular discourse in face of the shock of large language models and rising threat of automation, then we create room to consider economic, social, and ecological alignment and accord, in the decision making and design of future interactive artefacts and digital services. The article argues that through postdigital aesthetics, technology makers can embrace materiality and the inherent qualities of digital technology to formulate a critique of existing trajectories in digital transformation, with consequences for a more sustainable future.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
数字化的辩证法:对现代主义数字技术发展必要性的批判
本文通过霍克海默和阿多诺斯对启蒙运动的研究来讨论当今的数字化转型。围绕数字化的政策和公共讨论接受并坚持启蒙思想的狭隘信条,即理性、个人自由和摆脱迷信的社会是必要且可实现的目标。所谓 "现代性 "的代价是多方面的。通过将理性应用于生活的各个领域,再加上颠覆性的技术进步,人类削弱了自己的想象力--寻求新方向的能力。套用霍克海默和阿多诺的说法,现代主义是与大自然作斗争,而我们是大自然的一部分,因此,自相矛盾的是,现代主义使我们陷入了与自身作斗争的境地。进步的代价--环境恶化只是其中一个例子,其他例子还包括工作死气沉沉、消费主义和社会关系割裂。在这种框架下,数字化本身被理解为一种类似于自然的力量--我们对此无能为力,只能进行调整和适应,否则就会被卷走。但这绝不是一个必然的结论,光纤的尽头还有曙光。尽管最近围绕人工智能的技术发展似乎正在迫使决策者做出仓促的决定,但技术发展的速度并不像我们认为的那么快,与宗教改革相比,我们还有时间。面对大型语言模型的冲击和不断上升的自动化威胁,如果我们能克制自己,不采取流行言论中提倡的抵制、适应或死亡的应对方式,那么我们就能在未来互动艺术品和数字服务的决策和设计中,为考虑经济、社会和生态的协调与和谐创造空间。文章认为,通过后数字美学,技术制造者可以拥抱物质性和数字技术的固有特质,对现有的数字转型轨迹进行批判,从而实现更可持续的未来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Futures
Futures Multiple-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
10.00%
发文量
124
期刊介绍: Futures is an international, refereed, multidisciplinary journal concerned with medium and long-term futures of cultures and societies, science and technology, economics and politics, environment and the planet and individuals and humanity. Covering methods and practices of futures studies, the journal seeks to examine possible and alternative futures of all human endeavours. Futures seeks to promote divergent and pluralistic visions, ideas and opinions about the future. The editors do not necessarily agree with the views expressed in the pages of Futures
期刊最新文献
Theorizing ‘the future’ in higher education: A framework for studying affective futurity Editorial Board Tell me an (un)fortunate story: Advancing storytelling methods in energy futures research Feminist urban futures: Envisioning the future of Ukrainian cities through the lens of the displaced community in Valencia (Spain) Envisioning Inclusive Futures: Organizational Alternatives Beyond the Business Case Approach in the Spectrum of Utopia and Dystopia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1