The European GDPR faces several limitations: this regulation struggles to keep pace with the constant evolution of technology; it hampers European entrepreneurial growth (Europe has Good Rules, China and the U.S. have Big Tech); it hinders European defense efforts, as the digital space has become the fifth domain of warfare. Beyond the European case, this chapter does not aim to weigh the (marvelous) promises and dangers of the digital age. Rather, it explores the risk of a convergence between the totalitarian potential of digitalization and a society composed of desymbolized individuals. It approaches the totalitarian threat in the sense given by Hannah Arendt, wherein the distinction between fact and fiction, between truth and falsehood, collapses. Digital systems may foster a soft totalitarianism, that frees us not only from the burden of making such differentiations, but also from the ontological principle of the impossible itself. Three elements shape the dark scenario described here. First, digital integration responds to a deep need for a unified social narrative. Second, the growing power of algorithms could come to fulfill the role traditionally occupied by authority. Third, and most crucially, rising individual irresponsibility and an increasingly externalized supersocial risk reinforcing one another.

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

Desymbolization and Totalitarianism in the Era of Digital Outsourcing

  • Pierre Beckouche

摘要

The European GDPR faces several limitations: this regulation struggles to keep pace with the constant evolution of technology; it hampers European entrepreneurial growth (Europe has Good Rules, China and the U.S. have Big Tech); it hinders European defense efforts, as the digital space has become the fifth domain of warfare. Beyond the European case, this chapter does not aim to weigh the (marvelous) promises and dangers of the digital age. Rather, it explores the risk of a convergence between the totalitarian potential of digitalization and a society composed of desymbolized individuals. It approaches the totalitarian threat in the sense given by Hannah Arendt, wherein the distinction between fact and fiction, between truth and falsehood, collapses. Digital systems may foster a soft totalitarianism, that frees us not only from the burden of making such differentiations, but also from the ontological principle of the impossible itself. Three elements shape the dark scenario described here. First, digital integration responds to a deep need for a unified social narrative. Second, the growing power of algorithms could come to fulfill the role traditionally occupied by authority. Third, and most crucially, rising individual irresponsibility and an increasingly externalized supersocial risk reinforcing one another.