Scholarlink

<p>The conception, development, and rollout of advanced digital technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI), have well-defined geographical origins. This prompts to ask whether the adoption of these technologies across the world does not tantamount to “coloniality” by a niche community of which developers are representative (coloniality is a concept coined by Anibal Quijano, pointing to a self-reinforcing asymmetric geographical distribution of wealth and power based on capital, race or other modern man-made factors). This paper lays out an analytical framework based on an interpretation of the concepts of colonialism and coloniality to demonstrate that the belief that governments mitigate the potential harms of advanced AI technologies through governmental legislation, on their own, is false. This is especially true when considering the potential implications of digitization from a Global South’s perspective. To support this claim, I use Ubuntu as an analytical lens. Ubuntu refers to a <i>way of life</i>, a set of moral values and practical codes that aims to inform beliefs, habits and cultural customs across the African continent. If Ubuntu reflects at least partially the ethical values of local African communities, any effect induced by technological advancement that undermines its principles points to coloniality. Ubuntu has its own very distinct characteristics and cannot aim to be representative of the Global South’s rich epistemological diversity. Yet, using Ubuntu as a case study is very helpful because its characteristics make it particularly vulnerable to technological distortion; it is thus easier to visualize in Ubuntu cultural erosion effects that may still be significant but less apparent in other cultural contexts. This paper does not suggest that digitization as such should be slowed down. It is indisputable that digital technologies also bring significant benefits to society. The purpose of this paper is not to evaluate the trade-off imposed by digital adoption, but rather to shed light on its costly implications, particularly from a decolonial perspective. Recognizing and acknowledging the existence of coloniality may be the first step toward defining effective decolonial strategies in the context of the global transformation triggered by the digital revolution.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Colonialism 4.0 and Coloniality 4.0

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月3日

查看全文
  • Mario Mariniello

摘要

The conception, development, and rollout of advanced digital technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI), have well-defined geographical origins. This prompts to ask whether the adoption of these technologies across the world does not tantamount to “coloniality” by a niche community of which developers are representative (coloniality is a concept coined by Anibal Quijano, pointing to a self-reinforcing asymmetric geographical distribution of wealth and power based on capital, race or other modern man-made factors). This paper lays out an analytical framework based on an interpretation of the concepts of colonialism and coloniality to demonstrate that the belief that governments mitigate the potential harms of advanced AI technologies through governmental legislation, on their own, is false. This is especially true when considering the potential implications of digitization from a Global South’s perspective. To support this claim, I use Ubuntu as an analytical lens. Ubuntu refers to a way of life, a set of moral values and practical codes that aims to inform beliefs, habits and cultural customs across the African continent. If Ubuntu reflects at least partially the ethical values of local African communities, any effect induced by technological advancement that undermines its principles points to coloniality. Ubuntu has its own very distinct characteristics and cannot aim to be representative of the Global South’s rich epistemological diversity. Yet, using Ubuntu as a case study is very helpful because its characteristics make it particularly vulnerable to technological distortion; it is thus easier to visualize in Ubuntu cultural erosion effects that may still be significant but less apparent in other cultural contexts. This paper does not suggest that digitization as such should be slowed down. It is indisputable that digital technologies also bring significant benefits to society. The purpose of this paper is not to evaluate the trade-off imposed by digital adoption, but rather to shed light on its costly implications, particularly from a decolonial perspective. Recognizing and acknowledging the existence of coloniality may be the first step toward defining effective decolonial strategies in the context of the global transformation triggered by the digital revolution.