Democratic self-government and the algocratic shortcut: the democratic harms in algorithmic governance of society

IF 4.9 3区社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE

Contemporary Political Theory Pub Date : 2023-10-13 DOI:10.1057/s41296-023-00656-y

Nardine Alnemr

{"title":"Democratic self-government and the algocratic shortcut: the democratic harms in algorithmic governance of society","authors":"Nardine Alnemr","doi":"10.1057/s41296-023-00656-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Algorithms are used to calculate and govern varying aspects of public life for efficient use of the vast data available about citizens. Assuming that algorithms are neutral and efficient in data-based decision making, algorithms are used in areas such as criminal justice and welfare. This has ramifications on the ideal of democratic self-government as algorithmic decisions are made without democratic deliberation, scrutiny or justification. In the book Democracy without Shortcuts , Cristina Lafont argued against “shortcutting” democratic self-government. Lafont’s critique of shortcuts turns to problematise taken-for-granted practices in democracies that bypass citizen inclusion and equality in authoring decisions governing public life. In this article, I extend Lafont’s argument to another shortcut: the algocratic shortcut. The democratic harms attributable to the algocratic shortcut include diminishing the role of voice in politics and reducing opportunities for civic engagement. In this article, I define the algocratic shortcut and discuss the democratic harms of this shortcut, its relation to other shortcuts to democracy and the limitations of using shortcuts to remedy algocratic harms. Finally, I reflect on remedy through “aspirational deliberation”.","PeriodicalId":51775,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Political Theory","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Political Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41296-023-00656-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Algorithms are used to calculate and govern varying aspects of public life for efficient use of the vast data available about citizens. Assuming that algorithms are neutral and efficient in data-based decision making, algorithms are used in areas such as criminal justice and welfare. This has ramifications on the ideal of democratic self-government as algorithmic decisions are made without democratic deliberation, scrutiny or justification. In the book Democracy without Shortcuts , Cristina Lafont argued against “shortcutting” democratic self-government. Lafont’s critique of shortcuts turns to problematise taken-for-granted practices in democracies that bypass citizen inclusion and equality in authoring decisions governing public life. In this article, I extend Lafont’s argument to another shortcut: the algocratic shortcut. The democratic harms attributable to the algocratic shortcut include diminishing the role of voice in politics and reducing opportunities for civic engagement. In this article, I define the algocratic shortcut and discuss the democratic harms of this shortcut, its relation to other shortcuts to democracy and the limitations of using shortcuts to remedy algocratic harms. Finally, I reflect on remedy through “aspirational deliberation”.

查看原文本刊更多论文

民主自治与算法捷径:社会算法治理中的民主危害

算法用于计算和管理公共生活的各个方面，以便有效地利用有关公民的大量可用数据。假设算法在基于数据的决策中是中立和有效的，算法被用于刑事司法和福利等领域。这对民主自治的理想产生了影响，因为算法的决定是在没有民主审议、审查或理由的情况下做出的。在《没有捷径的民主》一书中，克里斯蒂娜·拉丰反对“走捷径”的民主自治。拉丰对捷径的批判转向了对民主国家中被视为理所当然的做法的问题化，这些做法在制定管理公共生活的决策时绕过了公民的包容和平等。在本文中，我将拉丰的论点扩展到另一种捷径:算法捷径。官僚捷径对民主的危害包括削弱政治话语权和减少公民参与的机会。在本文中，我定义了算法捷径，并讨论了这条捷径的民主危害，它与其他民主捷径的关系，以及使用捷径来补救算法危害的局限性。最后，我通过“有抱负的思考”来反思补救措施。

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分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Contemporary Political Theory POLITICAL SCIENCE-

CiteScore

3.30

自引率

5.60%

发文量

期刊介绍： Founded in the UK in 2002, Contemporary Political Theory has quickly established itself in the top rank of peer-reviewed journals in political theory and philosophy. Under new editorship in 2010, the journal is now based in both the USA and UK and reaches out to authors and readers in Europe, Asia and Oceania. It will continue, through a rigorous peer-review process, to seek out the very best work from the wide array of interests that constitute ‘contemporary political theory’: from post-structuralist thought to analytical philosophy, from feminist theory to international relations theory, from philosophies of the social sciences to the cultural construction of political theory itself. The editors welcome submissions from disciplines outside philosophy and political science, including but certainly not limited to: geography and anthropology, women’s studies and gender studies, cultural studies and economics, literary theory and film studies. Contemporary Political Theory publishes a challenging and eclectic mix of articles that contribute both to rethinking what political theory is and does, and to promoting lively engagements with contemporary global politics.