Digital Humanism

This chapter introduces the goals of the book Digital Humanism: A Philosophy for 21st Century Digital Society. It outlines the book’s chapter structure and discusses societal development as the context that requires Radical Digital Humanism today. The chapter argues that we need to ask the following questions: Why is Humanist philosophy important in the contemporary digital age? How can Humanism help us to critically understand how digital technologies shape society and humanity? What kind of Humanism do we need to make sense of digitalisation in society? The book Digital Humanism: A Philosophy for 21st Century Digital Society contributes to the renewal of Humanist philosophy in the digital age.

This chapter focuses on the question: What is Humanism? The chapter discusses definitions of Humanism. It synthesises such definitions in order to provide a philosophical understanding of Humanism. This understanding has epistemological, ontological and axiological dimensions. The chapter points out that Humanism is transcultural. Common objections to Humanism are discussed by engaging with the works of the historian Yuval Noah Harari. Based on the general understanding of Humanism, the approach of Radical Humanism is introduced. Radical Humanism is a particular form of Humanism. Its epistemological, ontological and axiological aspects are outlined. The chapter discusses four examples approaches of Radical Humanism (Karl Marx, Erich Fromm, Wang Ruoshui, David Harvey).

This chapter deals with the question: What is Digital Humanism? It argues that Digital Humanism is a philosophy suited for the analysis of the digital age that has specific epistemological, ontological and axiological dimensions. It also introduces a specific version of Digital Humanism, namely Radical Digital Humanism. It argues that we need to advance the co-operation of all Humanisms in order to circumvent the rise of new fascisms in the digital age. The chapter also discusses and responds to objections to Digital Humanism.

This chapter reflects on calls for and processes of the de-colonisation of academia and the study of media, communication and the digital. It asks: what does it mean to de-colonise academia and the study of media, communication and the digital? How can academia be transformed in progressive ways? This essay takes a Radical Humanist and Political Economy perspective on de-colonisation, which means that it is interested in how capitalism, power and material aspects of academia such as resources, money, infrastructures, time, space, working conditions and social relations of production shape the possibilities and realities of research and teaching. This essay stresses the importance of defining (neo-)colonialism as foundation of debates about de-colonisation and engages with theoretical foundations and definitions of (neo-)colonisation. It identifies how material forces and political economy shape and negatively impede on the university and academic knowledge production. It provides perspectives for concrete steps that can and should be taken for overcoming the capitalist and colonised university and creating the public interest and commons-oriented university and academic system.

This essay asks: How can we understand and theorise the impacts of robots and Artificial Intelligence (AI) on everyday life based on Radical Humanism? How can Lefebvre's ideas be used to reveal the ideological character of contemporary accounts of the impacts of robots and AI on society? It engages with rather unknown works of the Radical Humanist Henri Lefebvre on the sociology and philosophy of technology such as Vers le cybernanthrope (Towards the Cybernanthrope). Foundations of a Lefebvrian, dialectical, Radical Humanist approach to the sociology and philosophy of technology are presented. This essay introduces Lefebvre's notion of the cybernanthrope and sets it in relation to robots and AI in contemporary society. Based on Lefebvre's critique of the cybernanthrope, this chapter develops foundations of the ideology critique of robots and AI in digital capitalism. It discusses examples of technological deterministic and social constructivist thought in the context of robotics, AI, and cyborgs and argues for an alternative, Lefebvrian, dialectical approach. This essay situates Humanism in the context of computing, AI and robotics. The chapter advances a Lefebvrian Radical Humanism by engaging in analyses of AI and robots in Post-humanism, Transhumanism, techno-deterministic approaches, social construction of technology approaches, techno-optimism, techno-pessimism, acceleratonism, the mass unemployment hypothesis and Spike Jonze's movie Her. This chapter shows that the major lesson we can learn from the Radical Humanist sociology of technology and Henri Lefebvre's works on technology is that Radical Humanism helps creating and sustaining technologies for the many, not the few. This insight remains of high relevance in the age of digital capitalism, smart robots and AI.

This chapters asks: What do the Artificial Intelligence (AI) strategies of the EU, the United States under Donald Trump and China look like? It conducts a critical policy discourse analysis from a Radical Humanist Perspective. It analyses what kind of ideologies we can find in the AI strategies of the European Union, the United States under Donald Trump and China.

The analysis shows that AI and robotics are situated in a digital technology race that is indicative of an international political-economic race for the accumulation of political-economic power.

This chapter is a reflection on the digital mediation of death and dying in the COVID-19 pandemic from a critical political economy perspective. It asks: What is the role of the communication of death and dying in capitalist society? How has communication with dying loved ones changed in the COVID-19 pandemic? What roles have digital technologies and capitalism played in this context?

Building on foundational theoretical insights into the role of death and dying in capitalism, this essay presents some empirical studies of death and dying in society and the COVID-19 pandemic and interprets their findings from a Communication Studies perspective.

In capitalist societies, death and dying are taboo topics and are hidden, invisible and institutionalised. The COVID-19 pandemic had contradictory effects on the role of death in society. It is a human, cultural and societal universal that humans want to die in company with loved ones. The presented empirical studies confirm the insights of the philosophers Kwasi Wiredu and Jürgen Habermas that humans are fundamentally social and communicative beings from the cradle to the grave. The wish to die in a social manner derives from humans' social and communicative nature. In capitalism, the reality of dying diverges from the ideal of dying. Capitalism hides, individualises, makes invisible and institutionalises death and dying.

The analysed studies confirm the insights of the philosophers Kwasi Wiredu and Jürgen Habermas that humans are fundamentally social and communicative beings from the cradle to the grave. Building and going beyond the works of the political theorist and philosopher Achille Mbembe and the philosopher and sociologist Erich Fromm, the essay introduces the notion of capitalist necropower. It is shown how the COVID-19 pandemic in many cases destroyed the social and communicative nature of human beings and how capitalist necropower created unnecessary surplus deaths and formed the context of the digital mediation of communication with dying loved ones in the pandemic.