Abstract
This chapter presents a critical theory of the common good and applies it to technology. For this purpose, the notions of theory, critique, and technology are examined in detail. Section 3.1 addresses two major questions concerning (scientific and philosophical) theories: how they relate to reality and how to interpret the meaning of their central concepts. The second section develops a critical theory of the common good. Its two basic ideas are: the nonlocality of the meaning of theoretical and value concepts and a conception of public interests based on a substantive, multidimensional account of democracy. Section 3.3 then defines the notion of technology and examines the implications of the critical theory of the common good for the case of technologies. The critique of technology is illustrated by a detailed analysis and assessment of the Dutch debate on a specific technology, the corona tracking app, during the first phase of the corona crisis in the spring and summer of 2020. In developing these ideas and arguments, I engage with the work of other critical theorists, in particular Andrew Feenberg, Jürgen Habermas, Herbert Marcuse and Michel Foucault.
La multitude qui ne se réduit pas à l’unité est confusion;
l’unité qui ne dépend pas de la multitude est tyrannie.
Blaise Pascal (Pensées)*
Und wir wissen schon, es rettet uns kein höheres Wesen,
uns bleibt nur dies: Schluß machen
mit der Herrschaft der Wenigen über die Vielen.
Werner Bräunig (Rummelplatz)**
*Plurality which does not submit itself to unity is confusion; unity which does not depend on plurality is tyranny
**And we already know that no higher being will save us, only one option is left: to put a stop to the rule of the few over the many
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See, e.g., the contributions to Ellmers and Hogh (2017).
- 2.
Acknowledging the significance of both meaning components makes it possible to avoid the opposition between universalism (as in the case of Habermas’ theory) and localism (advocated, for instance, by many proponents of science and technology studies).
- 3.
For a recent discussion of these contrasting interpretations, see Kuhne (2017).
- 4.
Annemarije Hagen (2019) rightly states that the current debate is not limited to the Frankfurt School anymore, but includes contributions by a broader group of authors (e.g., Étienne Balibar, Judith Butler, Maeve Cooke, Foucault and James Ingram). In the same spirit, Angela Roothaan (2016) adds the names of Jacques Derrida, Ivan Illich and Joan Tronto, and especially those of post-colonial thinkers like Emmanuel Eze, Frantz Fanon and Achille Mbembe.
- 5.
After all, many (higher) animals possess ways of communicating by means of (sometimes elaborate) languages of signs and sounds.
- 6.
However, rejecting the philosophical grounding of critique in a teleologically anticipated future should not make us blind for those areas where significant progress has occurred in the course of the past centuries (see Rosling, 2019, for important examples). These developments do foster our hopes and motivate our efforts to work for a better future, even if they cannot provide any guarantee that these efforts will be successful.
- 7.
This in contrast to what is suggested by the examples in the above quotation of Marcuse.
- 8.
For illustrations of the public interest (or lack of it) of a variety of aspects of science and technology, see Radder (2019, chap. 7).
- 9.
The last element was not explicitly included in my earlier publications on this subject. It is as important as the other elements: countries where this right is structurally violated by excluding, silencing, intimidating, imprisoning, poisoning or killing potential candidates for election cannot count as democracies.
- 10.
- 11.
See the non-sense (sometimes in the form of “bullshit,” that is, without any interest in its truth or falsity) that is nowadays being circulated through social media.
- 12.
Foucault (1982); Radder (1986, 2019, chap. 2). I have stressed (more strongly than Foucault seems to do) that “discipline” is a condition (rather than a general feature) of realizing a technology. Whether people see the power to discipline as productive rather than repressive (and therefore whether they will co-construct rather than resist the realization of the technology) is a contingent empirical fact, which cannot be settled by means of theoretical analysis.
- 13.
As Dreyfus and Rabinow (1982, p.106) explain: “Genealogy avoids the search for depth. Instead, it seeks the surfaces of events, small details, minor shifts, and subtle contours.”
- 14.
My position presented in the brief programmatic essay Wat is progressieve filosofie? (“What is progressive philosophy?”; see Radder, 1985) was clearly closer to a Foucaultian one.
- 15.
Such a genuine openness requires that realizing relevant alternative technologies has not been blocked by private, financial interests, for instance through strongly constraining patents (see Radder, 2019, pp.113–117 and pp.180–182).
- 16.
See also the criticism of this “dual nature” interpretation in Vaesen (2011).
- 17.
Put differently, especially a critical theory of technology needs to emphasize that the specialists of modern technical disciplines are, or should be, “heterogeneous engineers,” in the sense described in Law (1987).
- 18.
Yet, my theory of technology does entail some differences concerning Feenberg’s specification of what he calls the “moments” of primary and secondary instrumentalization. In Radder (2008, pp.64–66), I have developed this point by brief comments on the moments of decontextualization, autonomization and systematization. The discussion in this chapter continues, and hopefully clarifies, the issues of our earlier exchange (for Feenberg’s response, see his 2008, pp.120–121).
- 19.
More generally, underlying this argument is a view of technologies as separate artifacts that are supplied for sale on a free market. This view fully misses the point of the comprehensive socio-political value-ladenness of technical codes.
- 20.
For instance, De Volkskrant, one of the major Dutch newspapers, carried many news reports and opinion pieces on this subject. For brief reports on similar initiatives in other countries, see Stupp (2020) and Perry (2020); for an extended, critical analysis of transnational issues in developing competing apps, see Krige and Leonelli (2021).
- 21.
For an account of several other aspects of the Dutch debate on the corona tracking app, see Siffels (2021).
- 22.
As explained in Radder (2019, pp.46–53), for other purposes system and environment may be defined in (much) broader ways, depending on the kind of analysis and assessment we aim to make.
- 23.
For reasons of space, I have to leave out several other relevant aspects. For instance, the distance between any two “close by” smartphones needs to be measured accurately; the smartphones beyond the critical distance must be ignored; the time of staying within the critical distance needs to be recorded and all interactions lasting shorter than a certain minimum time (e.g., 10–15 minutes) have to be disregarded. Some more detail about these issues can be found in Stupp (2020) and Perry (2020); for a very detailed discussion, see Van Straten (2020).
- 24.
In an interview dated May 30, a spokesperson of the Ministry of VWS stated that “a very accurate estimate of distances – about which strong doubts exist – is not necessary” (Wassens, 2020). But of course it is necessary. If the distance is taken too large, the number of false positives will strongly rise. If too small, there will be an increase of false negatives.
- 25.
In terms of Krige and Leonelli (2021), an adequate implementation of the technology requires it to be embedded in an appropriate, broader healthcare policy.
- 26.
A complication is that exceptions need to be made. For instance, people working in healthcare institutions (including doctors, nurses, technicians, cleaners, etc.) have a big chance of being permanent members of the critical group. This leads to the question of how to limit the size of this subgroup. Putting all its members in an almost permanent quarantine could entail the collapse of the entire healthcare system.
- 27.
As explained, for practical reasons the above account has been restricted to the period before the actual launch of the corona notification app. Nonetheless, the concrete uses of the app have amply confirmed the results of this account. See the Factsheet CoronaMelder (Rijksoverheid, 2021). For instance, up to January 24, 2021, a mere 25.8% of the Dutch population had downloaded the app; only 12.5% of the positively tested virus carriers had registered this fact on their phones; and the average number of false positives even amounted to 90.5%.
- 28.
In addition, of course, to the longer-term search for a working and safe vaccine.
- 29.
As a consequence of the crisis, governments are now suddenly “forced” to support air companies with huge amounts of tax money for the purpose of “saving employment.” The real problem, however, is that they have, for decades, willfully discarded opportunities for a more gradual and therefore less consequential limitation of air traffic by systematically ignoring sustained criticism of its clear drawbacks (and by privileging it instead with special tax advantages and regulating policies).
- 30.
For many disturbing examples, especially of the impacts on underprivileged social groups, see O’Neil (2016).
- 31.
Unfortunately, the article carries the misleading heading Nothing (or something) to hide. This way of phrasing wrongly suggests that, concerning privacy, the “natural” state is one of complete openness, and that anything less is socially, or even morally, blameworthy. This view, which can frequently be found in popular debates on digital technologies, ignores the unforeseeable but undesirable interventions by all kinds of different parties, which will, or may, result from a lack of privacy. As social beings, most people like to share (at least some of) their experiences and information. At the same time, many do not want to be forced to do so. Therefore, an appropriate account of privacy should address what people wish, and do not wish, to share, with whom, through which media, and for how long.
References
Breitenstein, P. H. (2017). Genealogie als kritische Theorie: Methodologische Überlegungen zur Gesellschaftskritik bei Foucault. In S. Ellmers & P. Hogh (Eds.), Warum Kritik? Begründungsformen kritischer Theorien (pp. 258–280). Velbrück Wissenschaft.
Brown, M. B. (2009). Science in democracy: Expertise, institutions, and representation. MIT Press.
Cartwright, N. (1983). How the laws of physics lie. Clarendon Press.
Doppelt, G. (2006). Democracy and technology. In T. J. Veak (Ed.), Democratizing technology: Andrew Feenberg’s critical theory of technology (pp. 85–100). State University of New York Press.
Dreyfus, H. L., & Rabinow, P. (1982). Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Ellmers, S., & Hogh, P. (Eds.). (2017). Warum Kritik? Begründungsformen kritischer Theorien. Velbrück Wissenschaft.
Feenberg, A. (1995). Alternative modernity: The technical turn in philosophy and social theory. University of California Press.
Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning technology. Routledge.
Feenberg, A. (2006). Reply to critics. In T. J. Veak (Ed.), Democratizing technology: Andrew Feenberg’s critical theory of technology (pp. 175–210). State University of New York Press.
Feenberg, A. (2008). Comments. Social Epistemology, 22(1), 119–124.
Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. In H. L. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow (Eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (2nd ed., pp. 208–226). University of Chicago Press.
Foucault, M. (1984). What is enlightenment? In P. Rabinow (Ed.), The Foucault reader (pp. 32–50). Pantheon Books.
Freyenhagen, F. (2017). ‘Aber was das Unmenschliche ist, das wissen wir sehr genau’: Zur Normativitätsproblematik bei Adorno. In S. Ellmers & P. Hogh (Eds.), Warum Kritik? Begründungsformen kritischer Theorien (pp. 229–257). Velbrück Wissenschaft.
Gabriëls, R. (2019). Eine differenzierte Einbettung der kommunikativen Macht: Über die Rezeption von Habermas in den Niederländen. In L. Corchia, S. Müller-Doohm, & W. Outhwaite (Eds.), Habermas global: Wirkungsgeschichte eines Werks (pp. 492–519). Suhrkamp.
Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and human interests. Heinemann.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action (Vol. 2). Polity Press.
Habermas, J. (1998). Three normative models of democracy. In J. Habermas (Ed.), The inclusion of the other: Studies in political theory (pp. 239–252).
Hagen, A. (2019). How to engage in practices of critique? From a universal conception of the good life to the contestation of universals. Krisis: Journal for Contemporary Philosophy, 2019(1), 2–14. Accessible at https://krisis.eu/how-to-engage-in-practices-of-critique-from-a-universal-conception-of-the-good-life-to-the-contestation-of-universals/
Krige, J., & Leonelli, S. (2021). Mobilizing the transnational history of knowledge flows: COVID-19 and the politics of research at the borders. History and Technology, 37(1), 125–146.
Kuhne, F. (2017). Moral im ‘Kapital’? Hat Marx’ Kritik der politischen Ökonomie normative Grundlagen? In S. Ellmers & P. Hogh (Eds.), Warum Kritik? Begründungsformen kritischer Theorien (pp. 190–209). Velbrück Wissenschaft.
Kunneman, H. (1996). Van theemutscultuur naar walkman-ego: Contouren van postmoderne individualiteit. Boom.
Law, J. (1987). Technology and heterogeneous engineering: The case of Portuguese expansion. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems (pp. 111–134). MIT Press.
Marcuse, H. (1968[1964]). One dimensional man. Sphere Books.
Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology: The path between engineering and philosophy. University of Chicago Press.
Mladenović, B. (2007). ‘Muckraking in history’: The role of history of science in Kuhn’s philosophy. Perspectives on Science, 15(3), 261–294.
Morgan, M. S., & Morrison, M. (Eds.). (1999). Models as mediators: Perspectives on the natural and social sciences. Cambridge University Press.
Mouter, N., Kessels, R., De Wit, A., Rotteveel, A., Lambooij, M., & Collewet, M. (2020). Grote verdeeldheid over wenselijkheid van de corona-app. Economisch Statistische Berichten, 105(4788), 394–397.
Muller, C., et al. (2020). Inzake: COVID-19 tracking- en tracingapp en gezondheidsapp. Accessible at https://tinyurl.com/uasrb3h; for an English translation, see https://tinyurl.com/urj2tor
O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Penguin Books.
Perry, S. (2020). Coronavirus app has changed the way the Isle of Wight sees itself. The Guardian (May 9). Accessible at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/09/coronavirus-app-has-changed-the-way-the-isle-of-wight-sees-itself
Radder, H. (1985). Wat is progressieve filosofie? Krisis, nr.18, 101–106.
Radder, H. (1986). Experiment, technology and the intrinsic connection between knowledge and power. Social Studies of Science, 16(4), 663–683.
Radder, H. (1996). In and about the world: Philosophical studies of science and technology. State University of New York Press.
Radder, H. (2006). The world observed/The world conceived. University of Pittsburgh Press.
Radder, H. (2008). Critical philosophy of technology: The basic issues. Social Epistemology, 22(1), 51–70.
Radder, H. (2019). From commodification to the common good: Reconstructing science, technology, and society. University of Pittsburgh Press.
Radder, H. (2021). Which science, which democracy, and which freedom? In P. Hartl & Á. T. Tuboly (Eds.), Science, freedom, democracy (pp. 113–134). Routledge.
Rijksoverheid. (2021). Factsheet CoronaMelder. Accessible at https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/coronavirus-app/resultaten-praktijktest-en-uitvoeringstoets-coronamelder. Accessed February 4, 2021.
Roothaan, A. C. M. (2016). Ethics, critical theory, and postcolonial criticism of development. In M. Masaeli (Ed.), Globality, uneven development, and ethics of duty (pp. 47–65). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Rosling, H. (2019). Factfulness: Ten reasons we’re wrong about the world – And why things are better than you think. Flatiron Books.
Siffels, L. E. (2021). Beyond privacy vs. health: A justification analysis of the contact-tracing apps debate in the Netherlands. Ethics and Information Technology, 23(supplement issue 1), 99-103. Accessible at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-020-09555-x
Stupp, C. (2020). Coronavirus tracking apps raise questions about Bluetooth security. Wall Street Journal (April 30). Accessible at https://www.wsj.com/articles/coronavirus-tracking-apps-raise-questions-about-bluetooth-security-11588239000
Vaesen, K. (2011). The functional bias of the dual nature of technical artefacts program. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 42(1), 190–197.
Van Straten, E. (2020). Risico’s Corona tracking app. Accessible at https://www.security.nl/posting/652884/Risico%27s+Corona+tracking+app
Verhagen, L. (2020). Corona-app is er, maar wat moeten we met de kritiek? De Volkskrant (August 18).
Verhagen, L., & Van Gestel, M. (2020). (N)iets te verbergen. De Volkskrant (May 23).
Wassens, R. (2020). Ministerie test ‘notificatie-app’ regionaal. NRC (May 30–31).
Weber, M. (1949[1904]). ‘Objectivity’ in social science and social policy. In M. Weber, The methodology of the social sciences, translated and edited by E.A. Shils and H.A. Finch (pp. 49–112). Free Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Radder, H. (2022). The Critical Theory of the Common Good, Technology, and the Corona Tracking App. In: Cressman, D. (eds) The Necessity of Critique. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, vol 41. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07877-4_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07877-4_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-07876-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-07877-4
eBook Packages: Literature, Cultural and Media StudiesLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)