Ethics of Socially Disruptive Technologies

@article{nokey,

title = {Is digital sovereignty normatively desirable?},

author = {Matthias Braun and Patrik Hummel},

url = {https://www.esdit.nl/is-digital-sovereignty-normatively-desirable/},

doi = {doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2024.2332624},

issn = {1369-118X},

year  = {2024},

date = {2024-04-23},

urldate = {2024-04-23},

journal = {Information, Communication & Society},

pages = {1-14},

abstract = {Sovereignty is a frequently used term when it comes to analyzing and shaping digital processes and transformations. For example, digital sovereignty has become a central concept in European politics in recent years. In this article, we argue that references to digital sovereignty have largely operated with an implausibly one-dimensional, overly simplified notion of sovereignty in general and its application to the digital in particular. We explore the question of what talking about sovereignty in the context of data and digital spaces can comprise. As a basis for this exploration, we distinguish three aspects of the concept of sovereignty: (1) sovereignty as absolute power, (2) sovereignty as embodied power, and (3) sovereignty as institutional power. We argue that, at least in the European debate on digital sovereignty, two of these aspects pertaining to the intricate relation between sovereign and addressee(s) of claims to sovereignty are consistently overlooked. Once understood as encompassing the three aspects distinguished above, digital sovereignty could be part of a normative framework that is normatively oriented towards vulnerability and freedom, that remains open and sensitive to tensions and ambivalences, and that continuously takes these as starting points for new approaches to governance and regulation of digital practices.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {Breaking the Mold: Normative Hybridity as the Key to Contemporary “Non-Western” Political Theorizing},

author = {Elena Ziliotti},

url = {https://www.esdit.nl/breaking-the-mold-normative-hybridity-as-the-key-to-contemporary-non-western-political-theorizing/},

doi = {10.1017/S0003055424000194},

issn = {0003-0554},

year  = {2024},

date = {2024-04-15},

journal = {American Political Science Review},

pages = {1-14},

abstract = {What normative compass can appropriately ground a theory for contemporary “non-Western” societies? This question has become urgent amid the pressure to decolonize political science and academia. The hybridity of numerous contemporary non-Western societies means that political theorists cannot refuse to engage with either Western-originated or premodern Indigenous concepts and ways of thinking that bear on the local public culture. However, these normative strands alone are unsuitable for grounding a contemporary theory. This methodological dilemma can be overcome if theorists adopt normative hybridity as a methodological stance. Normative hybridity suggests that hybridity is not only a feature of the theorist’s context of reference but should also be their modus operandi. Normative hybridity already underpins relevant works in contemporary Confucian political theory. Drawing from these works, I illustrate three methods to apply normative hybridity to theory building. This novel methodological approach uniquely addresses current political theory discussions and influences non-Western policymaking.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}