Political Behaviour/Sociology

F05(a) - Theorizing Tech, Capitalism, and Democracy / Théoriser la technologie, le capitalisme et la démocratie

Date: Jun 3 | Time: 03:30pm to 05:00pm | Location:

Chair/Président/Présidente : Michael Wigginton (Carleton University)

Techno-Social Vanguardism: The Role of the California Ideology and Algorithmic Subjectivities: Hasmet Uluorta (Trent), Lawrence Quill (San José State University)
Abstract: While there has been comparatively little interest in the concept of the vanguard or vanguardism, recent work in the subject has shed new light on what was regarded until recently as a discredited concept. This paper examines the role of a techno-social elite as a present-day vanguard. We do so by qualifying and developing Philip Gray’s (2020) contribution to understanding vanguardism as a specific form of epistemologically-privileged extremism. In contrast to some versions of vanguardism that see technological development (‘objective science’) as the driving force behind ‘history’, or others that draw upon class, nation, and/or race, we propose an analysis of a techno-social elite as a vanguard. Our contention is that twenty-first century vanguardism of this type betrays a cultural and economic (rather than political) vision of the future that is both capitalist, illiberal, and totalizing. Prioritizing both the “Californian Ideology” and the maker-individualism as a consequence of Web 2.0, the techno-vanguard realign capitalism as techno-capitalism. In so doing, techno-social vanguardism amplifies hyper-capitalism as a natural framework within which (consumer) choice is extended to satisfy ever-changing individual desires. More profoundly, the ubiquity of these technologies intensifies the fragmentation of identities and the receptiveness of individuals to this fragmentation at every turn. In this way techno-social vanguardism promises to transform individual, social, and political arrangements moving society away from inefficient (reactive) and corrupt (political) practices to a socially just, equitable, and apolitical order grounded in the appearance of individual free choice and self-selected identity formation.

Selfless? Algorithmic Subjectivities in the Age of Techno-Capitalism: Hasmet Uluorta (Trent University), Lawrence Quill (San José State University)
Abstract: In 1934, Antonio Gramsci coined the term ‘Americanism’ to describe the transition to industrial society--a change, he insisted, that went beyond factory gates to the altering of identities. Today a new ‘Americanism’ is taking shape, away from industrial to digital society, through the pervasive use of machine learning and big data. Much of the literature emphasizes how these technologies are imposed on individuals, how machines, such as Siri and ChatGPT, act in our place. However, there is little discussion on its impact on identity or subjectivity. When all we need is an algorithmic nudge to bring us to readiness, when our tools know what we want before we do, how do we know whether our choices are our own? Lacanians note that we are driven not only by our conscious decisions, but also our unconscious ones. Our choices do not answer the question ‘do I want this?’, but more profoundly ‘what does the big Other (e.g., capitalist market civilization) want of me?’. What happens, then, when our choices are increasingly triggered by pre-cognitive technologies? How is it possible to be a knowledgeable and engaged citizen in this transformative era? This research sets out to explore these questions to better understand the undeniable impact techno-capitalism and algorithms are having on subjectivities and consider these impacts with a near-future set to have humans outnumbered by agentic generative AIs acting with and in our place.

Democracy in a digital age: Defining the role of Al deliberative facilitation: Darielle Talarico, Phd (UBC)
Abstract: As we adapt to AI, little is known about how AI chatbots or conversational agents might affect democratic values and civic attitudes. This is a critical issue given that AI is widespread and chatbots are quickly taking on a series of evolving roles. This paper addresses one aspect of this problem by examining the use of AI to facilitate conversations designed to provide feedback to policymakers. While facilitation is a type of professional moderation that seeks to manage group civility to produce collective outcomes, AI facilitation is not clearly defined or categorized. In this paper, I assess human-led professional facilitation of deliberative public events, including Western and Indigenous styles best practices, to see how they might inform guidelines for AI facilitation. This research situates with deliberative democracy theory and the democratic use of minipublic events like Citizen Assemblies and discussion forums. Minipublics are relational and experiential, as participants must listen to and share reasoned or storied viewpoints. Empirical studies show that minipublic participants change in ways that differentiate them from those who do not participate. For instance, participants gain insights into the complexity of creating policies and laws. At minipublic events, deliberative facilitators are issue-neutral and respective of all views while intentionally nudging citizens toward public policy solutions or recommendations. Deliberative facilitation offers an ideal form of public engagement anchored in deliberative democratic values and civic engagement norms. I examine whether deliberative facilitation can be the benchmark for establishing guidelines for AI facilitation. Presently, AI bots are being used to manage, record, and analyze deliberative events and discussions (i.e., MIT’s DemocracyNext and Stanford University’s Democracy Lab). While standards for these undertakings are needed, I discuss the greater concern of how deliberative facilitation can be applied to AI conversational bots in support of democratic values.