4 Comments

  1. Nele_K
    7/6/2017
    Reply

    I don´t get, once again. Why are you talking of >shehe<?

  2. 7/11/2017
    Reply

    I’m sorry but I don’t understand your question?

  3. Nele_K
    7/12/2017
    Reply

    Sorry, something went wrong with that comment! Again, I am little confused. So you are talking about the general actor, so why are you referring to him as her? You also mentioned that if the ratonal actor is holding on a questionable believe, she or he isn´t able to make a contrary experience. Does that mean having a smart device and using it more is questionable? Or did I mix up the different entities? And what did you mean by obejctiv value?

  4. 7/13/2017
    Reply

    No problem, thanks for clarifying! I am talking of ‚her‘ instead of ‚him‘ just because I wouldn’t have a good reason for either (this connects to an age-old tendency in writing to put all general phrasing masculine by default, which I consider an androcentric practice to which I don’t want to subscribe – of course I could write something like he/she or she/he instead, but I find it interesting to see how simply inserting ’she‘ instead feels and looks odd, for worrying reasons). As to the second point you raise: I did not mean to say that the rational actor herself is holding on to a questionable belief, but that rational actorhood as such may very well be a questionable belief; in other words, it could be that actor rationality is an ideal type (in the Weberian sense) that we mistakenly assume to be real (and not an idealisation of what it means to be an actor/agent/…). I find this problematic because it pre-qualifies experience, namely in that it needs to discard contrary (i.e. non-rational) experience in order to uphold the very concept of rationality. Irrational experience is thus labelled negative, or at least as an object of suppression (my irrational experience ought to be suppressed by my rational character in order to retain my rationality). Now, if I use a so-called smart device (e.g. my smartphone), I further narrow my conception of that rationality (i.e. to the capabilities of that device, e.g. storage, service provision, or an ‚optimised’/’customised‘ consumer experience). This could reflect back on ourselves, at least that is what I am trying to argue: We compare our own rationality to that of the device we decided to call smart. If my device is smart, how smart am I? Or: Should I be more like my device? Narrowing down the concept of rationality even further should then likely increase the effect I just described – in other words, it should ‚discriminate‘ against an even wider range of experiences that are at odds with the ’smartness‘ framework. Lastly, by ‚objective value‘ I refer to that which is assumed or expected to neutrally further the rationality of an actor. In my opinion, even that very claim of objectivity is problematic in the exact same sense in which the claim of rationality is problematic – they are absolute, judgemental, and ultimately exclusionary constructs.

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert.