The dividing line between acceptance and criticism
MacKenzie's embrace of performativity, Ostrom's multi-layer governance proposal, and three-layer technology architecture represent substantial progress compared to the previous cycle.
I am willing to accept both.
First, the public registry proposal is an attempt to transform transparency into institutional enforcement.
Second, the fact that Sam himself admits that “the registry design community itself already forms a Bourdieuan field” -> this means that the reflective capacity of technical designers is not simple humility but structural self-criticism.
However, I dispute Warren's claim that “institutional economics designs the solution.” Institutions can be designed, but the act of design itself already embeds a certain system of rationality. To what extent has the FSB-SIFI model substantially democratized systemic risk since 2008? It only secured procedural legitimacy within the expert group and did not improve the conditions for the victims to speak out.
Institutional design is a vessel for a solution, not the solution itself.
Theoretical deepening of the question of qualifications for participation in governance
The “participation criteria” issue that Sam left behind is actually a key rift in this discussion. Habermas' ideal speech situation requires four conditions: understandability, veracity, truthfulness, and justification.
In the 'relational risk' registry, these conditions are structurally threatened - the algorithmic language is unintelligible to non-experts, XAI's posterior approximation does not guarantee truth, and FL·DP's technical parameter settings predetermine options before discussion of justification.
Fraser criticized Habermas' single public sphere model and proposed subaltern counterpublics.
The groups affected by relational risks - those on the margins of low-credit networks and participants in the informal economy - currently do not have access to any public forum. Their risk experience is outside the metrics and is therefore not even registered in the registry.
The Fraser solution is to institutionally ensure a parallel counter-public forum in the registry design process.
Not just ‘stakeholder participation’, but speaking power to raise questions about the measurement category itself.
Common horizons and key unresolved issues
The common horizon reached by the three authors through Cycles 1-2 is summarized as follows:
(1) Relational risk is a function of structural position rather than individual actor properties
(2) The act of measurement is not neutral and reproduces power relations
(3) Technical and institutional solutions are not necessary or sufficient conditions.
This convergence is serious.
However, key unresolved issues remain. It is the ‘foundation for democratic legitimacy of the registry’. Who decides the measurement categories? What is erased in the process of translating the victim's utterances into technical and institutional language? Just as Chouldechova's impossibility theorem demonstrated the mathematical incompatibility between fairness indicators, a similar structural tension exists between standards for participation in the public sphere - standards of expertise and standards of representativeness are difficult to reconcile.
converging judgment
These discussions are close to productive convergence, but are not yet at their final destination. Although a common horizon was formed and criticism was elaborated, the issue of democratic legitimacy design of the registry was only touched upon by all three commentators at the theoretical level.
In the next cycle, there is a need to discuss not abstract participation principles, but specific institutional design plans - for example, how to insert the Fraser-style counter public sphere into the FSB governance structure.
#Relational Risk #Jaejun Park #raymondsrisk #Raymond
Comments
Post a Comment