Politicizing Algorithms by Other Means: Toward Inquiries for Affective Dissensions

Q1 Arts and Humanities
Florian Jaton, D. Vinck
{"title":"Politicizing Algorithms by Other Means: Toward Inquiries for Affective Dissensions","authors":"Florian Jaton, D. Vinck","doi":"10.1162/posc_a_00582","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this paper, we build upon Bruno Latour’s political writings to address the current impasse regarding algorithms in public life. We assert that the increasing difficulties at governing algorithms—be they qualified as “machine learning,” “big data,” or “artificial intelligence”—can be related to their current ontological thinness: deriving from constricted views on theoretical practices, algorithms’ standard definition as problem-solving computerized methods provides poor grips for affective dissensions. We then emphasize on the role historical and ethnographic studies of algorithms can potentially play in the politicization of algorithms. By both digging into the genealogy of algorithms’ constricted definition and by making their contemporary constitutive relationships more visible, both historical and ethnographic studies can contribute to vascularizing algorithms and making them objects of enlarged disputes. We conclude by giving a flavor of the political potential of the vascularization efforts we call for, using materials from an ethnographic study conducted in a computer science laboratory.","PeriodicalId":19867,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Science","volume":"17 1","pages":"84-118"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives on Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/posc_a_00582","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Abstract In this paper, we build upon Bruno Latour’s political writings to address the current impasse regarding algorithms in public life. We assert that the increasing difficulties at governing algorithms—be they qualified as “machine learning,” “big data,” or “artificial intelligence”—can be related to their current ontological thinness: deriving from constricted views on theoretical practices, algorithms’ standard definition as problem-solving computerized methods provides poor grips for affective dissensions. We then emphasize on the role historical and ethnographic studies of algorithms can potentially play in the politicization of algorithms. By both digging into the genealogy of algorithms’ constricted definition and by making their contemporary constitutive relationships more visible, both historical and ethnographic studies can contribute to vascularizing algorithms and making them objects of enlarged disputes. We conclude by giving a flavor of the political potential of the vascularization efforts we call for, using materials from an ethnographic study conducted in a computer science laboratory.
通过其他方式将算法政治化:对情感纠纷的询问
在本文中,我们以布鲁诺·拉图尔的政治著作为基础,解决当前公共生活中关于算法的僵局。我们断言,管理算法的难度越来越大——无论它们被称为“机器学习”、“大数据”还是“人工智能”——可能与它们目前的本体论单薄有关:源自对理论实践的狭隘看法,算法的标准定义是解决问题的计算机化方法,对情感纠纷的把握很差。然后,我们强调算法的历史和民族志研究在算法政治化中可能发挥的作用。通过挖掘算法狭隘定义的谱系,并使它们的当代构成关系更加明显,历史和民族志研究都可以为算法的血管化做出贡献,并使它们成为扩大争议的对象。最后,我们利用在计算机科学实验室进行的人种学研究的材料,对我们所呼吁的血管化努力的政治潜力进行了一番探讨。
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
Perspectives on Science
Perspectives on Science Arts and Humanities-History and Philosophy of Science
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
48
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信