{"title":"数字行为技术、脆弱性和正义:迈向综合方法","authors":"Lisa Herzog, P. Kellmeyer, V. Wild","doi":"10.1080/00346764.2021.1943755","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The paper introduces the notion of ‘digital behavioral technologies’ and discusses them from the perspectives of vulnerability and justice, thereby integrating perspectives from bioethics or public health ethics and political philosophy. Digital behavioral technologies have seen a massive uptake in recent years, but the market for them is hardly regulated. We argue that understanding the impact of digital behavioral technologies requires understanding individuals not as abstract, atomized agents, but rather to take their embeddedness into social structures into account. This also allows extending the focus to groups, relationships and whole societies, which are often structurally unjust. This perspective provides a corrective to an overly individualistic consideration of digital behavioral technologies, which may suggest itself because of their focus on individual bodies. We point out some implications of this integrated approach with regard to the regulation of digital behavioral technologies. We conclude by describing some implications both for those who work on digital behavioral technologies and for those who work on questions of vulnerability and justice.","PeriodicalId":46636,"journal":{"name":"REVIEW OF SOCIAL ECONOMY","volume":"80 1","pages":"7 - 28"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00346764.2021.1943755","citationCount":"12","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Digital behavioral technology, vulnerability and justice: towards an integrated approach\",\"authors\":\"Lisa Herzog, P. Kellmeyer, V. Wild\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00346764.2021.1943755\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The paper introduces the notion of ‘digital behavioral technologies’ and discusses them from the perspectives of vulnerability and justice, thereby integrating perspectives from bioethics or public health ethics and political philosophy. Digital behavioral technologies have seen a massive uptake in recent years, but the market for them is hardly regulated. We argue that understanding the impact of digital behavioral technologies requires understanding individuals not as abstract, atomized agents, but rather to take their embeddedness into social structures into account. This also allows extending the focus to groups, relationships and whole societies, which are often structurally unjust. This perspective provides a corrective to an overly individualistic consideration of digital behavioral technologies, which may suggest itself because of their focus on individual bodies. We point out some implications of this integrated approach with regard to the regulation of digital behavioral technologies. We conclude by describing some implications both for those who work on digital behavioral technologies and for those who work on questions of vulnerability and justice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46636,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"REVIEW OF SOCIAL ECONOMY\",\"volume\":\"80 1\",\"pages\":\"7 - 28\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00346764.2021.1943755\",\"citationCount\":\"12\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"REVIEW OF SOCIAL ECONOMY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00346764.2021.1943755\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"REVIEW OF SOCIAL ECONOMY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00346764.2021.1943755","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Digital behavioral technology, vulnerability and justice: towards an integrated approach
ABSTRACT The paper introduces the notion of ‘digital behavioral technologies’ and discusses them from the perspectives of vulnerability and justice, thereby integrating perspectives from bioethics or public health ethics and political philosophy. Digital behavioral technologies have seen a massive uptake in recent years, but the market for them is hardly regulated. We argue that understanding the impact of digital behavioral technologies requires understanding individuals not as abstract, atomized agents, but rather to take their embeddedness into social structures into account. This also allows extending the focus to groups, relationships and whole societies, which are often structurally unjust. This perspective provides a corrective to an overly individualistic consideration of digital behavioral technologies, which may suggest itself because of their focus on individual bodies. We point out some implications of this integrated approach with regard to the regulation of digital behavioral technologies. We conclude by describing some implications both for those who work on digital behavioral technologies and for those who work on questions of vulnerability and justice.
期刊介绍:
For over sixty-five years, the Review of Social Economy has published high-quality peer-reviewed work on the many relationships between social values and economics. The field of social economics discusses how the economy and social justice relate, and what this implies for economic theory and policy. Papers published range from conceptual work on aligning economic institutions and policies with given ethical principles, to theoretical representations of individual behaviour that allow for both self-interested and "pro-social" motives, and to original empirical work on persistent social issues such as poverty, inequality, and discrimination.