The rationality of the digital governmentality

Barry, Laurence

doi:10.1080/14797585.2020.1714878

Cited by 23 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Today, the digital city (Mossberger, Tolbert, & Franko, 2013) relies on "the open data urban system [that] demands open innovation models and people-driven innovation models to turn capabilities offered by data and technologies to services and solutions" (Komninos et al, 2013, p. 24). The routinely adoption of digital technologies for addressing social problems constitutes a normalisation of previous eccentric practices; and supports the emergence of digital governmentality (Burchell, Gordon, & Miller, 1991;Dean, 1999;Rajagopal, 2014), whose predictive analytics are used as a new technology for measuring population dynamics; and whose constant incitation to action works as a strategy for impulses and desires control (Barry, 2019).…”

Section: With the Help Of Critical Geographymentioning

confidence: 93%

Digital Social Innovation and Urban Space: A Critical Geography Agenda

Certomà

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Digital Social Innovation (DSI) is a new concept referring to social innovation initiatives that leverage digital technologies potentiality to co-create solutions to a wide range of social needs. These initiatives generally take place in urban contexts. However, in the existing literature, scarce attention is devoted to the spatial dimensions and the social, cultural or political space-related effects of DSI practices. This article suggests that a critical geography perspective can address these gaps. After a review of existing relevant contributes, the article elaborates a research agenda for a critical geography of DSI. This articulates along four research lines, including the emergence of DSI networks, the (re)production of DSI processes and socio-cultural urban space, the representations of DSI practices and the power relationships these mobilise.

show abstract

Section: With the Help Of Critical Geographymentioning

confidence: 93%

Digital Social Innovation and Urban Space: A Critical Geography Agenda

Certomà

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this sense, the sociality of opting out discussed earlier was no longer about a collective and participatory performance of disengagement from the digital, but instead, the digital became a means of disengaging from the 'reality' of Covid-19 and lockdown solitude, where the digital represented 'quality time' with society. Within this configuration, the previously discussed relationship between intimate publics and the online, public performances of private acts of digital disengagement became less about the propagation of socio-digital normativities and more about the enforcement of digital governmentality (Badouard et al 2016;Barry 2019): people had to re-engage (for example, rejoin social media) or remain digital to remain social, informed and disciplined citizens, where opt-out truly was not a legal, medical and social option. During lockdown periods, especially in the first months of the pandemic, making communal videos together (e.g., sing-a-longs posted on social media), joining group video calls, and other collective technopractices of everyday life became the only way to be together, the only way to experience sociality.…”

Section: From Failed Solitude To Enforced Solitudementioning

confidence: 99%

Paradoxes of Digital Disengagement: In Search of the Opt-Out Button

Kuntsman

Miyake

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Life is increasingly governed and mediated through digital and smart technologies, platforms, big data and algorithms. However, the reasons, practices and impact of how the digital is used by different institutions are often deeply linked to social oppression and injustice. Similarly, the ability to resist these digital impositions is based on inequality and privilege. Challenging the ways in which we are increasingly dependent on the digital, this book raises a set of provocative and urgent questions: in a world of compulsory digitality is there an opt out button? Where, when, how, why and to whom is it available? Answering these questions has become even more relevant since the COVID-19 pandemic. In response, the book puts forward the concept of ‘digital disengagement’ which is explored across six key areas of digitisation: health; citizenship; education; consumer culture; labour; and the environment. Part I examines the difficulty of opting out of compulsory digitality in a world where most things are digital by default. From health apps, algorithmic decision-making to learning analytics, opting out comes with a set of troubling consequences. Part II turns to several examples of disconnection and disengagement. The chapters reveal how phenomena like digital detoxes, time-management apps and online ‘green’ spaces are co-opted by the very digital systems one is trying to resist. The book critiques issues relating to digital surveillance, algorithmic discrimination and biased tech, corporatisation and monetisation of data, exploitative digital labour, digitalised self-discipline and destruction of the environment. As an interdisciplinary piece of work, the book will be useful to any scholar and activist in Digital, Internet and Social Media Studies; Digital Sociology and Social Policy; Digital Health; Media, Popular and Communication Studies; Consumer culture; and Environment Studies.

show abstract

“…The governing technologies of digital India will collect the data from its users and store it in their repository. Further, the digital technologies use algorithms to examine and codify consumers’ behaviour and predict their preferences (Barry, 2019; Dent, 2020). Especially in the ‘age of surveillance capitalism’ (Zuboff, 2019) driven by neo-liberal policies, the digital governance leads to Jeremy Bentham’s ‘panopticonism’, which entails the surveillance against the targeted individuals either by the state or big tech companies.…”

Section: Dissent Against Digital (India) Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Especially in the ‘age of surveillance capitalism’ (Zuboff, 2019) driven by neo-liberal policies, the digital governance leads to Jeremy Bentham’s ‘panopticonism’, which entails the surveillance against the targeted individuals either by the state or big tech companies. Thus, individual liberty and privacy are threatened by the creation of ‘data doubles’ that would lead to homogenisation by preventing individuation (Barry, 2019, p. 375).…”

Section: Dissent Against Digital (India) Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Minimum Government and Maximum Governance: Empowering the Impoverished Through Digital India Campaign

Ashok

2022

Indian Journal of Public Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s call for ‘minimum government and maximum governance’ aims at addressing India’s complexity of governance. The poor and marginalised sections are invisible in governance. In overcoming this lacuna, Digital India (with its nine pillars) endeavours for digital empowerment in creating a knowledgeable society where people’s participation in policy formulation and governance of the welfare are given primacy. The minimalist role of governance is to increase people’s engagement in building new India, and Atmanirbhar Bharat (self-reliant India) reflects Mahatma Gandhi’s sarvodaya and Deendayal Upadhyaya’s philosophy of antyodaya (the rise of the last person).

show abstract

The rationality of the digital governmentality

Cited by 23 publications

References 43 publications

Digital Social Innovation and Urban Space: A Critical Geography Agenda

Digital Social Innovation and Urban Space: A Critical Geography Agenda

Paradoxes of Digital Disengagement: In Search of the Opt-Out Button

Minimum Government and Maximum Governance: Empowering the Impoverished Through Digital India Campaign

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About