Pub Date : 2020-06-05DOI: 10.6094/BEHEMOTH.2020.13.1.1036
Helene Thaa
Much attention has been brought to the techno-futures of “Californian Ideology” (Barbrook/Cameron 2001) and the popular discourse of Silicon Valley. This paper explores techno-futures as collective orientations (Bohnsack 2010) of tech developers outside of tech world’s epicentre. Two group discussions among tech workers are used to identify their understanding of society, of technology’s role in it, and visions of the future. This analysis relates to two sociological approaches: the sociology of future imaginaries and utopias and the sociology of critique. These perspectives shed light on future imaginaries as interpretations of society and technology’s role in shaping it as well as normative judgements on capitalism and technology. The findings suggest that variations of the well-researched Silicon Valley technology discourse can be detected in the discussions. In contrast to a Solutionist Polis legitimising the Silicon Valley model of disruptive innovation (Nachtwey/Seidl 2017), the respondents demand democratic and social control of technological development. Yet, this is only associated with the sphere of the application of technologies, while the production of technologies is imagined as independent from the social and political sphere. The orientations thus indicate a technologized vision of the future, in which society has a reactive role vis-a-vis technological changes.
{"title":"Society, Technology and the Future in Tech Development","authors":"Helene Thaa","doi":"10.6094/BEHEMOTH.2020.13.1.1036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6094/BEHEMOTH.2020.13.1.1036","url":null,"abstract":"Much attention has been brought to the techno-futures of “Californian Ideology” (Barbrook/Cameron 2001) and the popular discourse of Silicon Valley. This paper explores techno-futures as collective orientations (Bohnsack 2010) of tech developers outside of tech world’s epicentre. Two group discussions among tech workers are used to identify their understanding of society, of technology’s role in it, and visions of the future. This analysis relates to two sociological approaches: the sociology of future imaginaries and utopias and the sociology of critique. These perspectives shed light on future imaginaries as interpretations of society and technology’s role in shaping it as well as normative judgements on capitalism and technology. The findings suggest that variations of the well-researched Silicon Valley technology discourse can be detected in the discussions. In contrast to a Solutionist Polis legitimising the Silicon Valley model of disruptive innovation (Nachtwey/Seidl 2017), the respondents demand democratic and social control of technological development. Yet, this is only associated with the sphere of the application of technologies, while the production of technologies is imagined as independent from the social and political sphere. The orientations thus indicate a technologized vision of the future, in which society has a reactive role vis-a-vis technological changes.","PeriodicalId":30203,"journal":{"name":"Behemoth a Journal on Civilisation","volume":"13 1","pages":"57-69"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41320451","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-05DOI: 10.6094/BEHEMOTH.2020.13.1.1037
Alexander Wentland
Electric vehicles were supposed to transform our daily mobility practices, urban landscapes and economies. Why has e-mobility not delivered the more radical technological future that many had hoped for, especially during its early phase? The concept of sociotechnical imaginaries allows us to address such questions symmetrically by looking at the co-production of continuity and change. Instead of evaluating high-tech visions, the imaginaries perspective explores how socially and materially embedded political collectives make sense of their past, present, and future. This paper examines the case of electric mobility in Germany since 2009 to show how seemingly disruptive technologies do not only challenge problematic systems in the present, but also serve to sustain them. It analyses how a potentially open mobility future is co-produced with an entrenched automotive present: through processes of depoliticization, the stabilization of forms of life along preconfigured trajectories, and the careful preservation of national self-perceptions.
{"title":"Warum elektrische Utopien festgefahren sind: Das Imaginary Automobilität als Grenze der Verkehrswende am Beispiel der Elektromobilität in Deutschland","authors":"Alexander Wentland","doi":"10.6094/BEHEMOTH.2020.13.1.1037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6094/BEHEMOTH.2020.13.1.1037","url":null,"abstract":"Electric vehicles were supposed to transform our daily mobility practices, urban landscapes and economies. Why has e-mobility not delivered the more radical technological future that many had hoped for, especially during its early phase? The concept of sociotechnical imaginaries allows us to address such questions symmetrically by looking at the co-production of continuity and change. Instead of evaluating high-tech visions, the imaginaries perspective explores how socially and materially embedded political collectives make sense of their past, present, and future. This paper examines the case of electric mobility in Germany since 2009 to show how seemingly disruptive technologies do not only challenge problematic systems in the present, but also serve to sustain them. It analyses how a potentially open mobility future is co-produced with an entrenched automotive present: through processes of depoliticization, the stabilization of forms of life along preconfigured trajectories, and the careful preservation of national self-perceptions.","PeriodicalId":30203,"journal":{"name":"Behemoth a Journal on Civilisation","volume":"13 1","pages":"70-82"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41870803","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-05DOI: 10.6094/BEHEMOTH.2020.13.1.1042
Yannick Allgeier
{"title":"Thomas Alkemeyer, Nikolaus Buschmann, Thomas Etzemüller (eds.): Gegenwartsdiagnosen – Kulturelle Formen gesellschaftlicher Selbstproblematisierungen in der Moderne","authors":"Yannick Allgeier","doi":"10.6094/BEHEMOTH.2020.13.1.1042","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6094/BEHEMOTH.2020.13.1.1042","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":30203,"journal":{"name":"Behemoth a Journal on Civilisation","volume":"13 1","pages":"138-141"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43643434","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-05DOI: 10.6094/BEHEMOTH.2020.13.1.1031
P. Frey, S. Schaupp
{"title":"Editorial: The Politics of Techno-Futures","authors":"P. Frey, S. Schaupp","doi":"10.6094/BEHEMOTH.2020.13.1.1031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6094/BEHEMOTH.2020.13.1.1031","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":30203,"journal":{"name":"Behemoth a Journal on Civilisation","volume":"13 1","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41974088","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-05DOI: 10.6094/BEHEMOTH.2020.13.1.1040
K. Block, Sascha Dickel
In the socio-theoretical discourse on digitisation there is, among others, a strong sceptical and explicitly critical perspective towards socio-technical developments. The focus of this scepticism is the autonomous subject as the normative guiding value of modern society, which seems to be at stake due to the progress of digitisation processes. Accordingly, there seems to be a broad consensus that these developments will be problematic. However, it is also a possibility that they may not be problematized in social practice. This is hardly taken into account by contemporary social theories. In our contribution we would therefore like to plead for a problematisation of this practical de-problematisation. The de-problematisation of human autonomy is not only a possible vision of the future, but, as an already present undoing of autonomy, an empirical object that calls for a theoretical exploration that is not limited to a mere diagnosis of a problem in need of correction. Instead of theoretically assuming that the acting subjects must be interested in their autonomy, our contribution discusses the practical deproblematisation as a real possibility of future dealings with digital technologies and, against this background, pleads for a theoretical problematisation of this de-problematisation, which takes into account the possibility of posthuman social orders.
{"title":"Jenseits der Autonomie: Die De/Problematisierung des Subjekts in Zeiten der Digitalisierung","authors":"K. Block, Sascha Dickel","doi":"10.6094/BEHEMOTH.2020.13.1.1040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6094/BEHEMOTH.2020.13.1.1040","url":null,"abstract":"In the socio-theoretical discourse on digitisation there is, among others, a strong sceptical and explicitly critical perspective towards socio-technical developments. The focus of this scepticism is the autonomous subject as the normative guiding value of modern society, which seems to be at stake due to the progress of digitisation processes. Accordingly, there seems to be a broad consensus that these developments will be problematic. However, it is also a possibility that they may not be problematized in social practice. This is hardly taken into account by contemporary social theories. In our contribution we would therefore like to plead for a problematisation of this practical de-problematisation. The de-problematisation of human autonomy is not only a possible vision of the future, but, as an already present undoing of autonomy, an empirical object that calls for a theoretical exploration that is not limited to a mere diagnosis of a problem in need of correction. Instead of theoretically assuming that the acting subjects must be interested in their autonomy, our contribution discusses the practical deproblematisation as a real possibility of future dealings with digital technologies and, against this background, pleads for a theoretical problematisation of this de-problematisation, which takes into account the possibility of posthuman social orders.","PeriodicalId":30203,"journal":{"name":"Behemoth a Journal on Civilisation","volume":"13 1","pages":"109-131"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44603647","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-05DOI: 10.6094/BEHEMOTH.2020.13.1.1041
R. Feustel
{"title":"Sammelrezension: Von einfachen Leuten und einer echten Linken","authors":"R. Feustel","doi":"10.6094/BEHEMOTH.2020.13.1.1041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6094/BEHEMOTH.2020.13.1.1041","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":30203,"journal":{"name":"Behemoth a Journal on Civilisation","volume":"13 1","pages":"132-137"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44339178","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-05DOI: 10.6094/BEHEMOTH.2020.13.1.1033
Philipp Staab, Dominik Piétron
In recent years, many governments have developed national strategies and investment programs to promote so-called artificial intelligence (AI). We read these programs as blueprints of specific techno-futures with a common goal: states reinvent themselves as initiators and managers of socio-technological change and are therefore developing more interventionist models in the context of industrial policy. In our text we analyse the specific modes of intervention and their normative backgrounds outlined in the AI initiatives of three countries – the United States, China and Germany. We observe convergence in a regulation model centred around what in political economy is called a Decentralized Development State which, however, is being developed within the framework of specific national path dependencies. We frame this as a functional connection between socio-technical visions of the future and attempts at political legitimation.
{"title":"Industriepolitik im Zeitalter künstlicher Intelligenz: Zur Renaissance interventionistischer Staatlichkeit","authors":"Philipp Staab, Dominik Piétron","doi":"10.6094/BEHEMOTH.2020.13.1.1033","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6094/BEHEMOTH.2020.13.1.1033","url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, many governments have developed national strategies and investment programs to promote so-called artificial intelligence (AI). We read these programs as blueprints of specific techno-futures with a common goal: states reinvent themselves as initiators and managers of socio-technological change and are therefore developing more interventionist models in the context of industrial policy. In our text we analyse the specific modes of intervention and their normative backgrounds outlined in the AI initiatives of three countries – the United States, China and Germany. We observe convergence in a regulation model centred around what in political economy is called a Decentralized Development State which, however, is being developed within the framework of specific national path dependencies. We frame this as a functional connection between socio-technical visions of the future and attempts at political legitimation.","PeriodicalId":30203,"journal":{"name":"Behemoth a Journal on Civilisation","volume":"13 1","pages":"23-34"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41695977","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-05DOI: 10.6094/BEHEMOTH.2020.13.1.1038
Alexandra Hausstein, A. Lösch
Clashes between visions of the future politicize the future of urgent societal transformations. In the political economy, visions and their promises become resources and their implementation turns into capacities that serve to increase value. Our paper argues that visions as political-economic means influence the transformation processes responding to grand challenges, guide them in certain directions, promote or even hinder them. To shed light on this correlation, we adopt the vision assessment approach of technology assessment (TA), and substantiate and suggest modifications of its analytical perspective to make it suitable for analysing interactions between multiple visions as formative elements in societal transformations on the one hand and as political-economic resources and capacities on the other. Our hypothesis is that the relationship between visions, political economies and transformation can only be examined by looking at power constellations that change through clashes and interactions of multiple and competing visionary practices.
{"title":"Clash of Visions: Analysing Practices of Politicizing the Future","authors":"Alexandra Hausstein, A. Lösch","doi":"10.6094/BEHEMOTH.2020.13.1.1038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6094/BEHEMOTH.2020.13.1.1038","url":null,"abstract":"Clashes between visions of the future politicize the future of urgent societal transformations. In the political economy, visions and their promises become resources and their implementation turns into capacities that serve to increase value. Our paper argues that visions as political-economic means influence the transformation processes responding to grand challenges, guide them in certain directions, promote or even hinder them. To shed light on this correlation, we adopt the vision assessment approach of technology assessment (TA), and substantiate and suggest modifications of its analytical perspective to make it suitable for analysing interactions between multiple visions as formative elements in societal transformations on the one hand and as political-economic resources and capacities on the other. Our hypothesis is that the relationship between visions, political economies and transformation can only be examined by looking at power constellations that change through clashes and interactions of multiple and competing visionary practices.","PeriodicalId":30203,"journal":{"name":"Behemoth a Journal on Civilisation","volume":"13 1","pages":"83-97"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44032010","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-05DOI: 10.6094/BEHEMOTH.2020.13.1.1032
Georg Jochum
Two key issues are currently dominating the discourse on the future: On the one hand, technological and especially digital transformation, on the other hand the socioecological transformation towards sustainable development, which takes into account ecological boundaries. Both topics are becoming increasingly linked, but there is no consensus on the direction of the upcoming socio-eco-technological transformation. As stated in the article, the controversies and the different concepts are influenced by the utopian traditions of modernity. In particular, the technical utopia ‘Nova Atlantis’ by Bacon, and the paradigmatic social utopia ‘Utopia’ by More are crucial. The hegemonic technology-oriented sustainability concepts are in the tradition of Bacon. Since they continue modern expansionism, they are inadequate to solve the ecological crisis. Approaches in the tradition of social utopia may be more likely to solve the crisis, as they include more comprehensive socio-eco-technical imaginaries of a sustainable future.
{"title":"(Techno-)Utopias and the Question of Natural Boundaries","authors":"Georg Jochum","doi":"10.6094/BEHEMOTH.2020.13.1.1032","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6094/BEHEMOTH.2020.13.1.1032","url":null,"abstract":"Two key issues are currently dominating the discourse on the future: On the one hand, technological and especially digital transformation, on the other hand the socioecological transformation towards sustainable development, which takes into account ecological boundaries. Both topics are becoming increasingly linked, but there is no consensus on the direction of the upcoming socio-eco-technological transformation. As stated in the article, the controversies and the different concepts are influenced by the utopian traditions of modernity. In particular, the technical utopia ‘Nova Atlantis’ by Bacon, and the paradigmatic social utopia ‘Utopia’ by More are crucial. The hegemonic technology-oriented sustainability concepts are in the tradition of Bacon. Since they continue modern expansionism, they are inadequate to solve the ecological crisis. Approaches in the tradition of social utopia may be more likely to solve the crisis, as they include more comprehensive socio-eco-technical imaginaries of a sustainable future.","PeriodicalId":30203,"journal":{"name":"Behemoth a Journal on Civilisation","volume":"13 1","pages":"7-22"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42714587","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-05DOI: 10.6094/BEHEMOTH.2020.13.1.1034
Jacqueline Kalbermatter, Oliver Nachtwey, Johannes Truffer
This article discusses to what extent the legitimation of the economic actions of pioneering actors in the Swiss digital economy is oriented towards solutionism. In a first step, we propose an analytical framing of solutionism that focuses on the actor’s perspective and its negotiations within the context of nation-state. In a second step, we ask about the empirical manifestations of solutionism in Switzerland based on semi-structured expert interviews. Using the example of two large companies in the mobility sector, we argue that a Swiss adaptation of solutionism can be identified, which differs according to whether the company is state-affiliated or an international firm. On the basis of the analysis of their corporate structure, entrepreneurial strategies and normative orientations, we show that the traditional stateaffiliated company represents a solutionism oriented towards the nationstate and that the transnational enterprise, on the other hand, is oriented towards a globally intended solutionism, which, however, relativizes its peculiar anti-regulationism in the context of the Swiss economy.
{"title":"Der digitalkapitalistische Geist in der Schweiz: Muster normativer Orientierungen in einem Traditionsunternehmen und einem transnationalen Digitalunternehmen","authors":"Jacqueline Kalbermatter, Oliver Nachtwey, Johannes Truffer","doi":"10.6094/BEHEMOTH.2020.13.1.1034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6094/BEHEMOTH.2020.13.1.1034","url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses to what extent the legitimation of the economic actions of pioneering actors in the Swiss digital economy is oriented towards solutionism. In a first step, we propose an analytical framing of solutionism that focuses on the actor’s perspective and its negotiations within the context of nation-state. In a second step, we ask about the empirical manifestations of solutionism in Switzerland based on semi-structured expert interviews. Using the example of two large companies in the mobility sector, we argue that a Swiss adaptation of solutionism can be identified, which differs according to whether the company is state-affiliated or an international firm. On the basis of the analysis of their corporate structure, entrepreneurial strategies and normative orientations, we show that the traditional stateaffiliated company represents a solutionism oriented towards the nationstate and that the transnational enterprise, on the other hand, is oriented towards a globally intended solutionism, which, however, relativizes its peculiar anti-regulationism in the context of the Swiss economy.","PeriodicalId":30203,"journal":{"name":"Behemoth a Journal on Civilisation","volume":"13 1","pages":"35-46"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42039595","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：