Legitimacy and space in the use of technologies for environmental and social governance: The cases of human trafficking and COVID-19 contact tracing

IF 2.4 2区 社会学 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
T. Porter, H. Rani
{"title":"Legitimacy and space in the use of technologies for environmental and social governance: The cases of human trafficking and COVID-19 contact tracing","authors":"T. Porter, H. Rani","doi":"10.1177/23996544231184053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article develops the concept of legitimacy to analyze the capacity of technologies such as phone apps to mobilize collective commitments to shared environmental and social outcomes by constituting new governance spaces. This concept of governance spaces highlights the variable configurations of technologies and their interactions with humans, and helps avoid the tendency to see technologies as passive relays that transmit power originating elsewhere, or, in contrast, to overstate the almost magical autonomous capacities of technology. The concept of legitimacy is valuable for evaluating the degree to which technologies are effective and deserving of support. The article draws on Mark Suchman’s distinction between pragmatic, moral and cognitive legitimacy, which correspond in turn to interests, ethical values, and facts. In contrast to more conventional state-centered conceptions of legitimacy, these aspects of legitimacy can be applied to governance spaces constituted by technologies. The article then examines and compares the cases of technologies for countering human trafficking and COVID-19 digital contact tracing apps. In both cases all three aspects of legitimacy are present, important, and interconnected. An examination of a recent report issued by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Tech Against Trafficking coalition on 305 anti-trafficking tools shows the role of ethics and facts in their legitimacy, but also the degree to which the tools are skewed towards interests other than those at risk of being trafficked. Acceptance and evaluations of digital contract tracing apps are similarly shaped by the interactions between interests, ethical values, and facts, including evidence about their effectiveness. The legitimacy of COVID-19 digital contact tracing apps involves a wider presence of a public interest in health while the risks associated with power inequalities are greater with anti-trafficking technologies, highlighting the importance of variability in the legitimacy of governance spaces constituted by technologies.","PeriodicalId":48108,"journal":{"name":"Environment and Planning C-Politics and Space","volume":"54 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environment and Planning C-Politics and Space","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23996544231184053","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article develops the concept of legitimacy to analyze the capacity of technologies such as phone apps to mobilize collective commitments to shared environmental and social outcomes by constituting new governance spaces. This concept of governance spaces highlights the variable configurations of technologies and their interactions with humans, and helps avoid the tendency to see technologies as passive relays that transmit power originating elsewhere, or, in contrast, to overstate the almost magical autonomous capacities of technology. The concept of legitimacy is valuable for evaluating the degree to which technologies are effective and deserving of support. The article draws on Mark Suchman’s distinction between pragmatic, moral and cognitive legitimacy, which correspond in turn to interests, ethical values, and facts. In contrast to more conventional state-centered conceptions of legitimacy, these aspects of legitimacy can be applied to governance spaces constituted by technologies. The article then examines and compares the cases of technologies for countering human trafficking and COVID-19 digital contact tracing apps. In both cases all three aspects of legitimacy are present, important, and interconnected. An examination of a recent report issued by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Tech Against Trafficking coalition on 305 anti-trafficking tools shows the role of ethics and facts in their legitimacy, but also the degree to which the tools are skewed towards interests other than those at risk of being trafficked. Acceptance and evaluations of digital contract tracing apps are similarly shaped by the interactions between interests, ethical values, and facts, including evidence about their effectiveness. The legitimacy of COVID-19 digital contact tracing apps involves a wider presence of a public interest in health while the risks associated with power inequalities are greater with anti-trafficking technologies, highlighting the importance of variability in the legitimacy of governance spaces constituted by technologies.
将技术用于环境和社会治理的合法性和空间:人口贩运案例和COVID-19接触者追踪
本文发展了合法性的概念,以分析手机应用程序等技术通过构建新的治理空间来动员集体承诺共享环境和社会成果的能力。这种治理空间的概念强调了技术的可变配置及其与人类的相互作用,并有助于避免将技术视为传输源自其他地方的力量的被动继电器的倾向,或者相反,夸大了技术几乎神奇的自主能力。合法性的概念对于评估技术的有效性和值得支持的程度是有价值的。本文借鉴了Mark Suchman对实用合法性、道德合法性和认知合法性的区分,它们依次对应于利益、伦理价值和事实。与传统的以国家为中心的合法性概念不同,这些合法性概念可以应用于由技术构成的治理空间。然后,本文审查并比较了打击人口贩运技术和COVID-19数字接触者追踪应用程序的案例。在这两种情况下,合法性的所有三个方面都是存在的,重要的,相互关联的。欧洲安全与合作组织(Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe)和打击人口贩运技术联盟(Tech Against Trafficking coalition)最近发布的一份关于305种打击人口贩运工具的报告显示了道德和事实在其合法性方面的作用,但也显示了这些工具在多大程度上倾向于其他利益,而不是那些有被贩运风险的人。对数字合同跟踪应用程序的接受和评估同样受到利益、道德价值观和事实(包括有关其有效性的证据)之间的相互作用的影响。COVID-19数字接触者追踪应用程序的合法性涉及公共卫生利益的广泛存在,而反贩运技术与权力不平等相关的风险更大,突出了技术构成的治理空间合法性的可变性的重要性。
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
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
7.40%
发文量
78
×
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