'What is digital humanism? A conceptual analysis and an argument for a more critical and political digital (post)humanism' by Mark Coeckelbergh in (2024) 17 Journal of Responsible Technology offers a critical, posthumanist, and political version of 'digital humanism'.
In this paper I take up the role of a critical friend of digital humanism and further unpack and analyse its concept and vision. I present my summary and analysis of what digital humanism is currently about and can be about in the form of 6 components. Then I offer some potential objections and challenges in order to bring out some of the less highlighted aspects in the current visions, to stimulate further discussion about controversial issues related to digital humanism such as specific views of human-technology relations and anthropocentrism, and to argue for a more critical, more posthumanist, and more political version of digital humanism.
Let me first note that digital humanism should not be confused with digital humanities, which refers to the application of digital technologies to the study of humanities. While the latter can be part of digital humanist practice, or can be done in a way that aligns with digital humanism's aims, one needs to distinguish between a specific range of methods of research and its impact on the humanities (digital humanities) and an intellectual concept and (potentially) political movement that seeks to transform technological practices and societal institutions (digital humanism). Here I focus on the latter.
In order to define and clarify the concept of digital humanism, I propose to distinguish between at least 6 components:
The first component is about the image of the human in the digital age. Digital humanists see in the current technological age a tendency to see and treat humans as machines. They assert that this is not the case and defend the human, or at least humanistic definitions of the human, against what they see as the computerization and digitalization of the human.
What has been called a ‘negative anthropology’ (Coeckelbergh, 2019b, 365) has a long history going back to at least Descartes: modern humanist thinkers see humans as non-machines. The human is thus defined in opposition to machines (hence a negative anthropological definition). Today and more broadly, the human is defined in opposition to digital technologies. For example, it is said that humans are not robots, not artificial intelligence(s), and so on, and that they should not be treated as such.
The second component is the idea that humans should keep control over digital technology. It is argued that they lost this control, or may lose this control soon, when digital technologies take over tasks from humans through automation. Again, the human has to be defended, this time as the one who should be in control of technology.
A typical discussion in this area concerns AI, which is often seen as out of control, or at least at serious risk of getting out of control. To bring AI under human control is then seen as a crucial digital humanist goal.
The third component is that digital technology should be aligned with human goals and values. In this sense, a human-centric ethics is called for. More specifically, the (arguably stronger or more radical) view is that human(istic) values should be implemented in the development of the technology, at an early stage. Instead of waiting for digital tech to be implemented and then merely regulate afterwards in response to its effects, the idea is that we should already intervene in the development process: digital technologies should be designed in a way that aligns them with human(istic) values and principles such as human dignity, democracy, inclusivity, fairness, accountability, human rights, and so on.
This idea is not new – consider for instance concepts such as value-sensitive design (Friedman et al., 2017) and responsible innovation (Owen et al., 2013) – but is now defended under the banner of digital humanism with an explicit normative message: we need to make sure that technology is linked to humanistic values, that we do not destroy these values in the name of digital technological progress and innovation, but instead promote them in and through digital technologies.
The fourth component is about interdisciplinarity and education. In order to safeguard the human(istic) and bring about these changes, but also to move towards a more holistic understanding of humanity's problems, it is important that technical and scientific experts work together with humanities and social sciences scholars and vice versa. Education should also be changed in this direction, for example via curricula that bring technology ethics to developers, engineers, and (data) scientists.
In addition it is also important to educate humanities people about new and emerging digital technologies. Often they are unaware of the deeper influence digital technologies have on our societies and indeed on our thinking. More generally, education about digital technologies is important for anyone living in and through the current digital transformation. Yet for humanists, the reason for giving everyone a basic education in digital technologies is not so much an economic one, as is for instance emphasized in EU policy (e.g., European Commission, 2020); the point is not just to give people knowledge and skills to find a job but to contribute to their formation and development as humans, which should not be one-sided.
The fifth component is about community. Classical humanism in the Renaissance and the Enlightenment flourished because of the communication and community that linked thinkers, writers, and artists. This also often led to friendships and political action. While there is currently less emphasis on this community component, at least in their definitions and visions, digital humanists also actively engage in community building in order to achieve the goals of the other components. And just as in the old days of humanism, technologies and media play a key role in this. Like Renaissance and Enlightenment thinkers, who used the printing press and the novel as tools of communication and community building, digital humanists use the new digital technologies such as digital social media not only for their research and writing but also for building a local and global community of digital humanists. They also still write (open) letters and manifestos, this time remediated by digital technologies such as e-mail and Twitter (now X).
Finally, digital humanism has a clear political component, which emphasizes the systemic aspects and calls for more or less radical political reforms to bring about the other components. For example, the Vienna Manifesto on Digital Humanism starts with the Tim Berners-Lee quote ‘The system is failing’ and calls for action including regulation (Werthner et al., 2022, xi). And as mentioned, Fuchs questions the capitalist system. Digital humanism is thus already political. Digital humanists also defend a specific form of societal and political organization: democracy. For example, the first principle of the Vienna Manifesto reads: Digital technologies should be designed to promote democracy and inclusion.
This political dimension should not surprise us, since digital technologies, like all technologies, are already political themselves: they are not only used for political purposes, but also have political consequences and take shape within specific political and social constellations. For example, AI can be seen as political (Coeckelbergh, 2022). Any movement that seeks to change technology, therefore, is by definition a political movement. But in addition to this deeper political aspect, digital humanists also have these explicit political aims, which opens up the possibility of engagement with not only tech policy also wider political and societal issues.
