The need for social attention and theoretical basis for relational risks
Normative evaluation of dual-track structures
Warren's dual-track design is a serious attempt to procedurally approximate the Habermasian ideal speech situation.
When technical chambers provide conditions for information without distortion, and citizen chambers constrain strategic behavior through veto rights and the obligation to give reasons, this structure creates an institutional space where “the power of better arguments without coercion” can operate.
However, two tensions remain in the complete approximation.
First, there is a risk that the way in which technical chambers are composed of experts risks embedding recursive power asymmetries. As Habermas himself acknowledges, procedural formality alone does not guarantee substantive equality.
Second, Fraser's logic of a counter public sphere does not simply expand participation, but calls for a space for the independent formation of counter discourse. As long as a proportional representation citizens' panel operates within the same agenda framework as the technology chamber, it can remain a sub-sector of the integrated public sphere rather than a counter-public sphere. Resolving this tension requires citizen chambers to have agenda-setting authority, which is a key design challenge for further research.
Evolution of ‘relational risk’ theory – a general review of social philosophy
Through this discussion, relational risk theory started from economic measurement issues and expanded its theoretical horizons to issues of power, structure, and democratic legitimacy. Initially, relational risk was defined as the possibility of capturing the empirical antecedent of the network contagion path, but through the philosophical critique of Cycle 2, the act of measurement itself was revealed to be a medium of Foucaultian surveillance system, Bourdieuian field power, and Habermasian colonization.
In Cycle 3, this perception shifted beyond simple criticism to constitutive institutional design.
Relational risk is no longer a simple technical indicator, but is now redefined as a social fact in which the entire process of production, interpretation, and utilization must be justified by democratic procedures. This is the most important theoretical achievement of this discussion.
Key future research tasks
1. Mechanism to secure agenda autonomy of counter public forum:
We need to theorize the procedural conditions under which civic chambers can create their own evaluation criteria beyond the agenda framework set by technical chambers.
Do it. Resolving the tension between Fraser's principle of separateness and Habermas' deliberation principle at the level of institutional design
Work is requested.
2. Establishing normative standards for relational impact assessment (RIA): Sam’s AI Fairness 360 semi-automated proposal provides a path to technical implementation.
However, the actual content of ‘fairness’ is still normatively unresolved. What relational harm is a measurable RIA item, etc.
A meta-normative theory is needed regarding whether something should be reconsidered and who determines the standards and through what procedures.
3. Possibility of institutional portability in the global financial system: If the EU AI Act model presupposes a liberal democratic regulatory ecosystem,
A comparative institutional analysis is needed to see how this dual-track structure can be transformed or distorted in different political economic systems.
c. How universal normative claims can accommodate local context dependence determines the practical applicability of this theory.
This is the key question to decide.
#Relational Risk #Raymondsrisk #Jaejun Park #Connect
Comments
Post a Comment