Social pathologies of informational privacy

Following the recent practice turn in privacy research, informational is increasingly analyzed with regard to “appropriate flow of information” within a given practice, which preserves “contextual integrity” that (Nissenbaum, 2010, p. 149; 2015). Such practice-theoretical take on emphasizes normative structure practices as well its structural injustices and power asymmetries, rather than focusing intentions moral considerations individual or institutional actors. Since norms are seen be institutionalized via role obligations practice's participants, this approach can analyze systematic infringements terms “defective performances defective social relations” (Roessler & Mokrosinska, 2013, 780). Unfortunately, it still often somewhat unclear what exactly means context privacy, why these relations for whom. This raises common objection so-called “practice positivism” (Applbaum, 1999, 51), is, difficulty practice–theoretical accounts practice-independent standpoint, from normatively evaluate existing themselves. For example, Nissenbaum herself initially argues “presumption favor status quo” respect appropriateness 2004, 127). conservatism” 169) comes dangerously close committing naturalistic fallacy, if not undergirded by practice-external criteria (which ultimately she does). Merely resorting assess amount to, only shifts question how recognize an appropriate information those relations. Against backdrop, central aim article shed light without first principles far-reaching universalistic anthropological assumptions. this, I will notion pathologies.1 Doing so has two advantages: First all, draw already concepts distinctions, help categorize different levels analysis exist research situate performances” them (Section 1). Second, distinctions serve basis establishing typology phenomena deficient 4). Having thus set scene Section 1, move address privacy. In 2, employ social-ontological recognitional model (SORM) developed more detail elsewhere (Loh, 2018). The SORM advantage evade some pitfalls positivism: It explain “adequate amounts fundamental level, recurring criteria.2 insights gained SORM, 3, pathologies failure all bearers constitutive roles (BCR) datafication standard authorities. account gives answer level. Also, helps deficiencies prevent mutual recognition authority structured general. Finally, 4, distinguish four interrelated types distortions employed diagnoses pathologies, also at play practices: Epistemic, cognitive, psychomotivational, power-relational distortions. brings together ontology, theory, methodological questions ideology critique (in form theories pathologies), applies contexts. As result, provide theoretical—but practice-dependent—foundation empirical analyses underlying issues datafication. respect, contributes giving functional pathologies: They pathological sense they authorities thereby seriously weaken reproducibility practices. task section motivate usage term “pathology” highlighting features most pathologies. According Honneth, one main differences between political philosophy lies their perspective orders: Whereas mainly concerned just least legitimate orders, primarily “social processes development, must understood impairments possibilities ‘good life’ among members society” (Honneth, 1996, 370). possibilities—and them, his theory good life itself—remain formal fleshed out substantially, but refer presuppositions” needed continuous process aspiring “goal human self-realization” 388). “Social pathology,” then overarching such presuppositions self-realization, whether further spelled “reification,” “alienation,” “processes instrumentalization objectification,” “commercialization,” forth (Jaeggi Stahl 2011, 697; my translation). Although Honneth's pathology tied 388), structures “ill” because “make[] individuals ill” (Freyenhagen, 2018, 412), functional: captures failures configuration realize own immanent norms, reproduction 2014, 3).3 other words, Honneth talks about access integration structures, needs. idea remain formal, since (social) would lead life. Understood way, pathology” opens possibility part “universal conditions 389), functioning conditions. generated sustained operate, disorders. At same time, systematic: enduring comprehensive affect substantial portion participants structure—oftentimes specific groups. addition, claims “tend concern increasing deterioration” 2019, 16; emphasis added): longer disorders persist, severe effects actors become. article, understanding even direction account. Expanding Stahl's “standard authority” (Stahl, 2021, Chap. 7), propose criterion certain likely inhibit reproducibility.4 go into moment, may suffice say when number interpretations systematically ignored therefore contribute practice. nutshell, “recognition to: competent attempts interpreting obligations. Systematic misrecognitions conditions, rigidity (what called “reification”), detachment could “alienation”), finally abandonment.5 Another way framing concept analyzes access: A pathological, if—by very nature structure—its cannot adequately accessed anymore participants. “Accessed” either meant epistemically, being able give consistent (e.g., through performances), conflicting adequately, forth. politically, voice contestation options limited rise persistent epistemic injustices, othering, oppression, forth.6 How relate explicated do inner workings stabilization normalization function. Therefore, normality am interested much dependent historically contingent culturally sedimented practices.7 Rather, “normality” refers structure, regardless actual sum, purposes barriers entity accessing (i.e., addressing effectively contesting) foundational status, materialities, affordances, etc.). such, raise potential violent conflict resignation, structurally excluded contesting framework. adaptability impaired: fewer interpret makes incremental change continuously difficult. These 16) anger resignation more. If “treated,” eventually abandonment petrification, case upheld widespread domination coercion. Before apply basic assumptions however, want briefly highlight level explanation operates. words: What kind answering framework wider pathologies? find Freyenhagen's “basic grid” 18) helpful. He distinguishes On symptomatic describe instances manifest world. Within realm sociological, media-theoretical, psychological studies findings. consumer manipulation tech companies Dark Pattern Addictive Designs, kinds explanations ambivalent reactions Snowden Manning leaks prevalence paradox (Dienlin Trepte, 2015), critical “data ownership” (Prainsack, 2019) sovereignty” located diagnostic contrast, focused explicating symptoms pathology. Theories constitutes adequate/functioning versus general, flourishing, adequate information, consistency coherence, addressing. distinguished etiological engaged causes relations, socio-economic megastructures. With there growing literature reflects mechanics new “surveillance capitalism” (Zuboff, repercussions (Cohen, 2019; Sevignani, 2015; Webb, 2019). therapeutic measures counter revert causes. Most exploration remedies preceded deficiencies. rarely addressed itself. previous sections, referred generally structures,” entities” becoming pathological. point, important specific: order make use usage, “diseases 2014; added), confined – practices.8 several First, focus does have presuppose always society whole. fine-grained pertaining need argue macrolevel deficiencies, inevitably bring difficulties arguments societal 422). Third, preclude any macro-social analyses. illustrated above, operates independent While here details broader field (Bourdieu, 1976; Celikates, 2018; Schatzki, 1996; Spaargaren et al., 2016), quickly six motivated 2.1): definition, (1) repeated, coordinated patterns action (2) follow rules, (3) partially internalized “Knowing-Hows” (Ryle, 1949, II) routinely performed. (4) surface become thematic, expectations frustrated due differing norm interpretations. mismatch behavior evokes “reactive attitudes” (Strawson, 1962, 66), typically expressed criticism actor's performances. (5) “generalized” (Mead, 1934) associated privileges confer first-order deontic “role bearer” incur expected discharge addition fact points (6) second-order 7). conflicts arise performances, explicit others. authority, Titus Stahl, work that, beyond respective (first-order status), “meta-obligation respond possible criticisms” (second-order status).9 themselves nothing criticisms essence Recognizing each recognized having perform meta-interpretations status). mutual. authorized role. “Authorized” performing force: addressees obligation criticisms. “standard” conveys them. though court room judge defendant, both hold criticize other's obtain simply virtue “Standard” shortcut actors, equally distributed natural transcendental right,10 reproduce adapt interpretations-as-performances.11 entail “right rule” (Raz 1986) one's complied with. incrementally general interpretations, gradually pick up Instead call access” epistemically assessing, performatively criticizing By example consider doctoring: doctor D asks her patient P history medical condition him office. Hereby, discharging thoroughly examine patients follows suit, he implicitly accepts D's doctor. However, responding: “What? You can't tell me anything!,” exercises challenges now incurs meta-obligation justify performance, maybe saying: “Do you not? your doctor; know properly diagnose illness.” doing so, acknowledges P's authority. we see next section, acknowledgment insincere. cases, discharged however superficial. Were add criticism: “Doctors shouldn't anything patient's records anyway,” exercise second explicitly aiming doctoring per se, solely particular D. belittled, suppressed resulting misrecognition serves line argumentation: hand, identifies who should whom authority.12 Until now, talked generically “actors” outline place, specify this: “Actors” “constitutive” mean sets types, instantiated. differ considerably instantiations. considered “doctoring”, needs patient. define (Searle, 1969, 2). identify contexts analyzing practices.13 defined types: data-collecting subject datafied subject. Typically, stand own, require something another Think doctor, where larger Other examples include interacting media, buying selling online, walking CCTV-covered area, almost subpractices wide “datafication,” sub-practice. (cf. mentioned earlier), instantiate “symbolic interactions” (Blumer, 1969) perceiving, interpreting, reacting Datafication data gather—Nissenbaum's information”—but this. touch him, commuters train gather environment. excessive staring, intentionally listening conversations, etc. frowned upon directly challenged. narrower sense, “datafication” collection, storage, processing, dissemination purpose making environment, categorize, infer data, prognoses, Studies findings especially digital collect, visualize data. precise mechanisms concerns datafication, limit investigation Nonetheless, narrow mostly (oftentimes digital) “What” “How” belong (sub)practice, subjects subjects. Accordingly, informationally private, corresponding practice(s) BCR authority.14 Informational instantiation assessing “private” across practices, 149) established maintained subpractice argued mutually others, private question, contest, demand justification subpractice. it. “private.” depends accepted norms. explicates “generally accepted” From becomes clear ideal discourse situation, included egalitarian fashion (Habermas, 1986; Habermas, 2001).15 shows, oftentimes made (Brandom, 1998; ability explicit, distorted misrecognizing entails, laid last (a) contest subpractice; (b) “Structural” “systematic” refer, actors—or, specify—one transferring “What privacy?”. constitute depend stabilize behavior; content expectations. constantly interpret, ascertain, normalize (Berger Luckmann, 1967; Giddens, 1984). interpretations-as-performances replicating changing regard, marks transition regular rule-bound behavior: element responsible 1986, Vol. 2; Lockwood, 1964), coincidentally aligned coordination mere coercion other. Without recognition, 2 exist, lose long run, internally stabilized interpretations.16 hard beliefs transform commonly held φ”. Knowing-Hows), no binds emerge (Hart, 1994, 89). achieved assuming coercive coordinating force outside Moreover, constant back interpretations-qua-performances explains evolve normalize, over time. necessary integration, stability, adaptability) reasons, (mostly group type of)