The Digital Cage. A Sociological Analysis of Algorithmic Bureaucracy as a Total System
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.23756/sp.v13i2.1702Keywords:
Sociology, Algorithmic Governance, Modular Control, Digital Divide, DehumanizationAbstract
This paper conducts a critical sociological analysis of digital bureaucracy, interrogating the dominant narrative that posits it as an efficient and democratic solution to the problems of traditional bureaucracy. Through a synthesis of classical theory (Weber, Foucault) and contemporary critique (Deleuze, Benasayag, Han, Eubanks), this paper argues that the “digital cage” tends to embody a form of power that is often more totalizing and potentially more insidious than the Weberian “iron cage”, especially in its current applications. The analysis unfolds along three interconnected lines of inquiry: 1) the eclipse of the human mediator and the consequent elimination of discretionary power and negotiation; 2) the transition from a disciplinary-panoptic model of control to a pervasive system of modular control, embedded within the very code of digital platforms; 3) the illusion of universal access, which masks the creation of new and deeper forms of social inequality and exclusion. The paper concludes that the digital cage, by combining the total visibility of the subject with the total opacity of the power mechanism, and by requiring the user’s active complicity, achieves a more sophisticated and resilient form of control, with profound implications for the future of citizenship and democracy.
Downloads
References
Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L., Loewenstein, G. (2015). “Privacy and human behavior in the age of information”. Science, 347(6221), 509-514.
Aneesh, A. (2006). Virtual Migration: The Programming of Globalization, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Benasayag, M., Schmit, G. (2016). Cerveau augmenté, homme diminué, Paris: La Découverte.
Bovens, M., Zouridis, S. (2002). “From Street-level to System-level Bureaucracies: How Information and Communication Technology Is Transforming Administrative Discretion and Constitutional Control”. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 174-184.
Cobbe, J. (2020). “Administrative law and the machines of government: judicial review of automated public-sector decision-making in the UK”. Legal Studies, 40(4), pp. 618-635.
Cortázar, J. (1962). Historias de cronopios y de famas; trad. it. Storie di cronopios e di famas, Torino: Einaudi, 2005.
Danaher, J. (2016). “The Threat of Algocracy: Reality, Resistance and Accommodation”., 29(3), pp. 245-268.
Deleuze, G. (1990). Post-scriptum sur les sociétés de contrôle, in Pourparlers 1972-1990, Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit, pp. 240-247; Eng. trans. by M. Joughin (1992), “Postscript on the Societies of Control”. October, 59, 3-7.
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., Tinkler, J. (2006). Digital Era Governance: IT Corporations, the State, and E-Government, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor, New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Foucault, M. (1975). Surveiller et punir: Naissance de la prison, Paris: Gallimard.
Han, B.-C. (2014). Psychopolitik: Neoliberalismus und die neuen Machttechniken, Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer Verlag.
House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee (2017). Universal Credit: The six week wait, London: The Stationery Office.
Lessig, L. (1999). Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, New York: Basic Books.
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Nouwens, M., Liccardi, I., Veale, M., Karger, D., Kagal, L. (2020). “Dark patterns after the GDPR: Scraping consent pop-ups and demonstrating their influence”, in Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York: ACM.
Pagano, U. (2007). L’uomo senz’ombra. Elementi di sociologia dell'inautentico, Milano: Franco Angeli.
Pasquale, F. (2015). The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Patrick, R. (2022). For Whose Benefit? The Everyday Realities of Welfare Reform (Revised and expanded 2nd ed., first edition published in 2017), Bristol: Policy Press.
Solove, D. J. (2013). “Introduction: Privacy self-management and the consent dilemma”. Harvard Law Review, 126(7), pp. 1880-1903.
Veale, M., Edwards, L. (2018). “Clarity, surprises, and further questions in the Article 29 Working Party draft guidance on automated decision-making and profiling”. Computer Law & Security Review, 34(2), pp. 398-404.
Weber, M. (1922). Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Yeung, K. (2018), “Algorithmic Regulation: A Critical Interrogation”. Regulation & Governance, 12(4), pp. 505-523.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. The journal is committed to real and immediate open access for academic work. All of the journal articles are free to access immediately from the date of publication. There are no charge for readers to download articles and reviews for their own scholarly use. Benefits of open access for authors, include:
- Free access for all users worldwide
- Increased visibility and readership
- Rapid publication
- No spatial constraints
- Authors can share their research papers on their personal web-pages (i.e. ResearchGate, etc.)
Copyright and Licensing Terms
SCIENCE & PHILOSOPHY publishes open access articles under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) License. The Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY) allows users to copy, distribute and transmit an article, adapt the article and make commercial use of the article. The CC BY license permits commercial and non-commercial re-use of an open-access article, as long as the author is properly attributed. Copyright on any research article published by SCIENCE & PHILOSOPHY is retained by the author(s). Authors grant SCIENCE & PHILOSOPHY a license to publish the article and identify itself as the original publisher. Authors also grant any third party the right to use the article freely as long as its original authors, citation details and publisher are identified.
For further information visit: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/. The following logo will appear in any paper that will be published from the volume number 31/2016 onwards:
