Recursivity and contingency: To the question of governance in the digital era
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2022.311Abstract
The research focuses on the question of the governance strategy of an increasingly complex social system. The complication related to the contemporary socio-political situation, which requires the participation of various stakeholders with their knowledge in the process of decision-making. Digital technologies as an ambiguous context and mediators of public communication exacerbate this issue. The author conducts research at the intersection of epistemological and socio-political contexts and implements conceptual analysis of governability and recursivity, revealed, firstly, to the problem of governing an increasingly complex system and, secondly, the conditions for its resolution. The concept of contingency supplements the concept of recursivity. The article consistently reveals the problematic nature of the concepts of governability and recursivity, the dual use of recursivity in political sciences, the ambiguity of the relationship between recursivity and contingency. The analysis of concepts allows identifying the conditions for both the involvement of additional active participants with their knowledge in governance, and their use as passive carriers of information. The author clarifies this alternative through two models of the relation of contingency and recursivity, namely, the “victory” or “defeat” of the first. As an example of how the models work, the author uses a study of citizen participation in city governance through digital platforms. She concludes that the governance strategy, taking into account the model of “victory” of contingency, provides conditions for the recognition of new active participants in decision-making processes.
Keywords:
governability, recursivity, contingency, distributed cognition, digital technologies
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Литература
Agamben, G. (2009), What is the Contemporary? What is an apparatus, Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 39–54.
Lynch, W.T. (2020), Minority report: dissent and diversity in science, London and New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group.
Fricker, M. (2009), Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hutchins, E. (1995), Cognition in the Wild, Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
Guston, D.H. (2014), Understanding «anticipatory governance», Social Studies of Science, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 218–242.
Hofmann, J., Katzenbach, Ch. and Gollatz, K. (2017), Between coordination and regulation: Finding the governance in Internet governance, New Media and Society, vol. 19 (9), pp. 1406–1423.
Сморгунов, Л.В. (2019), Институционализация управляемости и проблема контроля в пространстве цифровых коммуникаций, Южно-российский журнал социальных наук, № 20 (3), c. 62–75.
Esmark, A (2019), Communicative governance at work: how choice architects nudge citizens towards health, wealth and happiness in the information age, Public Management Review, vol. 21, iss. 1, pp. 138–158.
Kooiman, J. (2008), Exploring the Concept of Governability, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, vol. 10, iss. 2, pp. 171–190.
Ceruzzi, P. (2013), The Historical Context, in: Ceruzzi, P., Price, S., Jewitt, C. and Brown, B. (eds), The Sage Handbook of Digital Technology Research, London: Sage, pp. 9–25.
Ragnedda, M. and Muschert, G.W. (eds) (2017), Theorizing Digital Divides. London and New York: Routledge.
Smorgunov, L. (2021), Governability and a technocratic approach to government as a platform: Critics using the Russian case, International Journal of Electronic Governance, vol. 13, iss. 1, pp. 4–20.
Томин, Л.В. (2019), Социально-экономические конфликты в рамах капитализма платформ, Конфликтология, № 14 (3), c. 33–43.
Масланов, Е.В. (2021), Вызовы цифровизации для техногенной цивилизации, Цифровой ученый: лаборатория философа, № 5 (1), c. 6–21.
Латур, Б. (2014), Пересборка социального. Введение в акторно-сетевую теорию, М.: Изд. дом Высш. шк. экономики.
Crozier, M. (2007), Recursive Governance: Contemporary Political Communication and Public Policy, Political Communication, vol. 24, iss. 1, pp. 1–18.
Mansbridge, J. (2019), Representation, legitimacy, and innovation, Journal of Chinese Governance, vol. 4, iss. 4, pp. 299–322.
Неверов, К.А. (2021), Интероперабельность как рекурсивный процесс: цифровая платформа Уругвая, Латинская Америка, № 4, c. 56–68.
Аршинов, В.И. и Свирский, Я.И. (2010), Рекурсивность постнеклассического субъекта, в: Проблема сборки субъектов в постнеклассической науке, М.: ИФ РАН, c. 64–85.
Toth, E.L. (2020), Political public relations and underrepresented groups, in: Stromback, J. and Kiousis, S. (eds), Political Public Relations: Concepts, Principles, and Applications. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 329–348.
Lyotard, J.F. (1984),The Postmodern Condition. A Report of Knowledge, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Луман, Н. (2010), Общество общества. Дифференциация. Самоописания, М.: Логос, Гнозис.
Луман, Н. (1995), Что такое коммуникация? Социологический журнал, № 3, c. 114–124.
Jordan, T. (2015), Information Politics: Liberation and Exploitation in the Digital Society, London: Pluto Press.
Townes, M. (2010), Usage of Recursive in Political Science, Political Science & Politics, vol. 43 (2), pp. 259–261.
Хуэй, Ю. (2020), Рекурсивность и контингентность, М.: V-A-C Press.
Davies, H.C. (2018), Redefining Filter Bubbles as (Escapable) Socio-Technical Recursion, Sociological Research Online, vol. 23 (3), pp. 637–654.
Fuller, S. (2018), Post-Truth: Knowledge as a Power Game, London and New York: Anthem Press.
Пенроуз, Р. (2008), Новый ум короля, М.: ЛКИ.
Giddens, A. (1986), Constitution of Society: An Outline of the Theory of Structuration, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Тарасенко, В.В. и Личутин, А.В. (2012), Рекурсивное управление, Библиотека управления. 2012. URL: https://www.cfin.ru/management/strategy/change/recursive.shtml (дата обращения: 20.04.2021).
Deroy, X. and Clegg, S. (2015), Back in the USSR: Introducing Recursive Contingency Into Institutional Theory, Organization Studies, vol. 36 (1), pp. 73–90.
Шиповалова, Л.В.,Чернышева, Л.А. и Гизатуллина, Э.Г. (2021), Цифровые технологии управления в действии, или Об активности граждан вокруг платформы «Активный гражданин», Социология науки и технологий, № 12 (1), c. 71–87.
Collins, H.M. and Evans, R.J. (2002), The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience, Social Studies of Science, vol. 32 (2), pp. 235–296.
References
Agamben, G. (2009), What is the Contemporary? in: Hamacher, W. (ed.), What is an apparatus, transl. by Kishik, D. and Pedatella, S., Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 39–54.
Lynch, W.T. (2020), Minority report: dissent and diversity in science, London and New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group.
Fricker, M. (2007), Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hutchins, E. (1995), Cognition in the Wild, Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
Guston, D.H. (2014), Understanding ‘anticipatory governance’, Social Studies of Science, vol. 44 (2), pp. 218–242.
Hofmann, J., Katzenbach, Ch. and Gollatz, K. (2017), Between coordination and regulation: Finding the governance in Internet governance, New Media and Society, vol. 19 (9), pp. 1406–1423.
Smorgunov, L.V. (2019), Institutionalization of Governability and the Problem of Veillance in the Space of Digital Communication, South-Russian Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 20 (3), pp. 62–75. (In Russian)
Esmark, A. (2019), Communicative governance at work: how choice architects nudge citizens towards health, wealth and happiness in the information age, Public Management Review, vol. 21 (1), pp. 138–158.
Kooiman, J. (2008), Exploring the Concept of Governability, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, vol. 10 (2), pp. 171–190.
Ceruzzi, P. (2013), The Historical Context, in: Ceruzzi, P., Price, S., Jewitt, C. and Brown, B. (eds), The Sage Handbook of Digital Technology Research, London: Sage, pp. 9–25.
Ragnedda, M. and Muschert, G.W. (eds) (2017), Theorizing Digital Divides, London and New York: Routledge.
Smorgunov, L. (2021), Governability and a technocratic approach to government as a platform: Critics using the Russian case, International Journal of Electronic Governance, vol. 13 (1), pp. 4–20. (In Russian)
Tomin, L.V., (2019). Socio-Economic Conflicts within the Framework of Platform Capitalism, Konfliktologiia, vol. 14 (3), pp. 33–43. (In Russian)
Maslanov, Е.V. (2021), Digitalization Сhallenges for Technogenic Civilization, Tsifrovoi uchenyi: laboratoriia filosofa, vol. 5 (1), pp. 6–21. (In Russian)
Latour, B. (2014), Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor Network-Theory, Moscow: HSE Publishing House. (In Russian)
Crozier, M. (2007), Recursive Governance: Contemporary Political Communication and Public Policy, Political Communication, vol. 24 (1), pp. 1–18.
Mansbridge, J. (2019), Representation, legitimacy, and innovation, Journal of Chinese Governance, vol. 4 (4), pp. 299–322.
Neverov, K.A. (2021), Interoperability as a recursive process: Uruguay’s digital platform, Latinskaia Amerika, no. 4, pp. 56–68. (In Russian)
Arshinov, V.I. and Svirskiy, J.I. (2010), Recursiveness of a post-nonclassical subject, in: Problema sborki sub”ektov v postneklassicheskoi nauke, Moscow: IF RAS Publ., pp. 64–85. (In Russian)
Toth, E.L. (2020), Political public relations and underrepresented groups, in: Stromback, J. and Kiousis, S., (eds), Political Public Relations: Concepts, Principles, and Applications, 2nd ed., London and New York: Routledge, pp. 329–348.
Lyotard, J.F. (1984), The Postmodern Condition. A Report of Knowledge, transl. by Bennington, G. and Massumi, B., Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Luhmann, N. (2010), The Society of Society. Differentiation, Moscow: Logos Publ., Gnozis Publ. (In Russian)
Luhmann, N. (1995), What is communication? transl. by Ozirchenko, D. Sotsiologicheskiy Zhurnal, no. 3, pp. 114–124. (In Russian)
Jordan, T. (2015), Information Politics: Liberation and Exploitation in the Digital Society, London: Pluto Press.
Townes, M. (2010), Usage of Recursive in Political Science, Political Science & Politics, vol. 43 (2), pp. 259–261.
Hui, Y. (2020), Recursivity and Contingency, Moscow: V-A-C Press. (In Russian)
Davies, H.C. (2018), Redefining Filter Bubbles as (Escapable) Socio-Technical Recursion, Sociological Research Online, vol. 23 (3), pp. 637–654.
Fuller, S. (2018), Post-Truth: Knowledge as a Power Game, London and New York: Anthem Press.
Penrose, R. (2008), The Emperor’s New Mind, Moscow: Izdatel’stvo LKI Publ. (In Russian)
Giddens, A. (1984), Constitution of Society: An Outline of the Theory of Structuration, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Tarasenko, V.V. and Lichutin, А.V. (2012), Recursive Governance, in: Biblioteka upravleniia. Available at: https://www.cfin.ru/management/strategy/change/recursive.shtml (accessed: 20.08.2021). (In Russian)
Deroy, X. and Clegg, S. (2015), Back in the USSR: Introducing Recursive Contingency into Institutional Theory, Organization Studies, vol. 36 (1), pp. 73–90.
Shipovalova, L.V., Chernysheva, L.A. and Gizatullina, E.G. (2021), Digital Governance Technologies in Action or on the Activity of Citizens around the Platform ‘Active Citizen’, Sociology of Science and Technology, vol. 12 (1), pp. 71–87. (In Russian)
Collins, H.M. and Evans, R.J. (2002), The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience, Social Studies of Science, no. 32 (2), pp. 235–296.
Downloads
Published
2022-10-20
How to Cite
Shipovalova, L. V. (2022). Recursivity and contingency: To the question of governance in the digital era. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies, 38(3), 397–409. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2022.311
Issue
Section
Conflict studies
License
Articles of "Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies" are open access distributed under the terms of the License Agreement with Saint Petersburg State University, which permits to the authors unrestricted distribution and self-archiving free of charge.
