Mapping (in)visibility and structural injustice in the digital space

Kebene Wodajo
{"title":"Mapping (in)visibility and structural injustice in the digital space","authors":"Kebene Wodajo","doi":"10.1016/j.jrt.2022.100024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This study aims to map digitally mediated injustice and to understand how judicial versus non-judicial bodies contextualize and translate such harm into human rights violations. This study surveys judicial and quasi-judicial cases and case reports by non-judicial bodies, mainly civil society organizations, international organizations, and media. It divides digitally mediated harms identified through the survey into three categories: direct, structural, and hybrid harm. It then examines how these three forms of harm are represented and articulated in judicial judgments and case reports. To differentiate between the three forms of digitally mediated harm, the study uses Iris Young's political philosophy of structural injustice and Johan Galtung's account of structural violence in peace studies. The focus of this study is understanding the forms of injustices that are present but rendered invisible because of how they are contextualized. Therefore, the epistemology of absence is applied as the theoretical approach, that is, interpretation of absence and invisibility. The epistemology of absence facilitates the identification of structural and intersectional injustices that are not articulated in the same way they are experienced in society. The assessment reveals four observations. (1) Structural injustice is rarely examined through a conventional adjudicatory process. (2) Harms of structural quality examined by courts are narrowly interpreted when translated into rights violations. (3) The right to privacy, often presented as a gateway right, addresses structural injustice only partially, as this right has a subject-centric narrow interpretation currently. (4) There are limitations to the mainstream way of seeing and representing risks and injustices in the digital space, and such a view yields metonymic reasoning when framing digitally produced harms. As a result, the conventional way of contextualization is blind to unconventional experiences of vulnerability, which renders structural and intersectional injustices experienced by marginalized communities invisible.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":73937,"journal":{"name":"Journal of responsible technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666659622000014/pdfft?md5=0bb5425cc8a78f997b74b74b07ee267e&pid=1-s2.0-S2666659622000014-main.pdf","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of responsible technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666659622000014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

This study aims to map digitally mediated injustice and to understand how judicial versus non-judicial bodies contextualize and translate such harm into human rights violations. This study surveys judicial and quasi-judicial cases and case reports by non-judicial bodies, mainly civil society organizations, international organizations, and media. It divides digitally mediated harms identified through the survey into three categories: direct, structural, and hybrid harm. It then examines how these three forms of harm are represented and articulated in judicial judgments and case reports. To differentiate between the three forms of digitally mediated harm, the study uses Iris Young's political philosophy of structural injustice and Johan Galtung's account of structural violence in peace studies. The focus of this study is understanding the forms of injustices that are present but rendered invisible because of how they are contextualized. Therefore, the epistemology of absence is applied as the theoretical approach, that is, interpretation of absence and invisibility. The epistemology of absence facilitates the identification of structural and intersectional injustices that are not articulated in the same way they are experienced in society. The assessment reveals four observations. (1) Structural injustice is rarely examined through a conventional adjudicatory process. (2) Harms of structural quality examined by courts are narrowly interpreted when translated into rights violations. (3) The right to privacy, often presented as a gateway right, addresses structural injustice only partially, as this right has a subject-centric narrow interpretation currently. (4) There are limitations to the mainstream way of seeing and representing risks and injustices in the digital space, and such a view yields metonymic reasoning when framing digitally produced harms. As a result, the conventional way of contextualization is blind to unconventional experiences of vulnerability, which renders structural and intersectional injustices experienced by marginalized communities invisible.

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
数字空间中可见性和结构性不公正的映射
本研究旨在描绘数字媒介的不公正现象,并了解司法机构与非司法机构如何将这种伤害置于背景下并将其转化为侵犯人权的行为。本研究调查了司法和准司法案件以及非司法机构(主要是民间社会组织、国际组织和媒体)的案件报告。它将通过调查确定的数字媒介危害分为三类:直接危害、结构性危害和混合危害。然后,它审查了这三种形式的伤害是如何在司法判决和案件报告中表现和阐述的。为了区分数字媒介伤害的三种形式,该研究使用了Iris Young关于结构性不公正的政治哲学和Johan Galtung关于和平研究中的结构性暴力的描述。本研究的重点是理解存在的,但由于它们如何被语境化而变得无形的不公正形式。因此,运用缺席认识论作为理论途径,即对缺席和不可见的解释。缺失的认识论有助于识别结构性和交叉性的不公正,这些不公正与他们在社会中经历的方式不同。该评估揭示了四个观察结果。(1)结构性不公正很少通过传统的裁决程序进行审查。(2)法院审查的结构质量危害在翻译为侵犯权利时被狭隘地解释。(3)隐私权通常被认为是一项门户权利,它只能部分地解决结构性不公正问题,因为这项权利目前有一个以主体为中心的狭隘解释。(4)在数字空间中观察和表现风险和不公正的主流方式存在局限性,这种观点在构建数字产生的危害时产生了转喻推理。因此,传统的语境化方式对非常规的脆弱性经验视而不见,这使得边缘化社区所经历的结构性和交叉性不公正变得不可见。
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
Journal of responsible technology
Journal of responsible technology Information Systems, Artificial Intelligence, Human-Computer Interaction
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
168 days
期刊最新文献
Start doing the right thing: Indicators for socially responsible start-ups and investors Virtual Social Labs – Requirements and Challenges for Effective Team Collaboration A call to action: Designing a more transparent online world for children and young people Embedding responsible innovation into R&D practices: A case study of socially assistive robot development
×
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