Instituting the Common(s) in the Digital Age: Between Politics and Technology

Since the 1990’s, multiple social movements and intellectual works have invested the notions of “commons” in the plural and/or the “common” in the singular to formulate their aspirations and ideas, as well as to describe old and new practices breaking with today’s dominant economic models, or even aiming to surpass the capitalist mode of production. The political and scientific discourses referring to the common(s) are immensely diverse and sometimes contradictory. Throughout this dissertation, I approach them through four main research questions, two of which are descriptive (question 1 and 3) while the two others are normative (question 2 and 4): 1) What are the different theories of the common(s)? 2) How should we conceive and institute the common(s)? 3) How do the different theories of the common(s) understand the relation between politics and technology? 4) How should we understand and institute the relation between politics and technology? My research aim is twofold. On the one hand, it is to present and critically discuss the different theories of the common(s), while shedding a singular light on them by focusing especially on their understanding of the relation between politics and technology and the way it echoes older debates in critical theory. On the other hand, it is to develop a personal normative position that builds on the philosophies of Andrew Feenberg, Cornelius Castoriadis, Pierre Dardot and Christian Laval. Questioning theories of the common(s) through the prism of their understanding of the relation between politics and technology appears particularly relevant in that many of these theories assign a decisive and positive historical role to digital technologies such as personal computers, the internet, or 3-D printers. A particular conception of the relation between politics and technology can be defined as a position taken within (at least one among) three interrelated debates: (A) Techno-determinism vs. Constructivism, (B) Technocracy vs. Epistemic democracy, (C) Techno-philia vs. Technophobia. I consider all three debates, but my main focus is on debate (A). The dissertation is structured around a conceptual distinction between the industrial age (1780-1975) and the digital age, so as to analyse some of the main lines of restructuration of capitalism since 1975, discuss how they are analysed by theories of the common(s) and outline the continuities and discontinuities between these theories and older critical theories. Chapter 1 discusses various theories of technology – that are primarily engaged in debate (A) – and the ways they relate to the question of autonomy in the industrial age. Chapter 2 analyses some of the main lines of restructuration of capitalism in the digital age and its relation to previous critical discourses and social struggles. It also presents the rise of the commons discourse and how it responds to the digital age. Chapter 3 critically discusses the different theories of the common(s) and classify them in three main groups: liberal theories of the commons, theories of the common(s) as a mode of production, the theory of the common as a political principle.

Ludovic Bonduel. Instituting the Common(s) in the Digital Age: Between Politics and Technology. Political science. Luiss Guido Carli, Rome, 2023. English. ⟨NNT : ⟩ - lien externe. ⟨tel-04271466⟩ - lien externe