Which Subject for the Digital?: A Critique of Digitalization’s Roots in (Neuro)Psychologization

Jan De Vos

doi:10.32739/etkilesim.2018.2.26

Which Subject for the Digital?: A Critique of Digitalization’s Roots in (Neuro)Psychologization

Abstract

This paper will not be about understanding digital culture or digital (inter) subjectivity with the help of (neuro)psychology. Rather, it will look critically into how (neuro)psychological models are used precisely in modelling our avatars and smart environments, today’s placeholders of (inter)subjectivity. So instead of “Your brain on digital: How digitalization is shaping our brains”, I choose for another approach informed by critical theory and psychoanalytic critique: “How neuropsychological models shape digitality”. Hence, if anything, the digitalization of (inter)subjectivity rather than be assessed with (neuro) psychology should be connected to the psychologization and neurologization of (inter)subjectivity. From here the key question becomes, if current (neuro) psychological models allow for a technology with limited emancipatory potential (in which datafication equals the capitalist exploitation of intersubjectivity), would then a different psychology open up to something different? Hence, would the following be a viable question: which subject for the digital?

Keywords

References

Aboujaoude, E. (2011). Virtually You: The Dangerous Powers of the E-Personality.New York: WW Norton & Company.
Althusser, L. (2006). “Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (notes towardsan investigation)”. S. Aradhana and G. Akhil (eds.). The Anthropology of the State: A Reader. (86-111).
Arendt, H. (1958). The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
BAW. (2018). Brain Awareness Week (BAW). http://dana.org/BAW/.
Berry, D. M. and Beer, D. (2014). “Interview with David Berry on Digital Power and
Critical Theory”. Theory, Culture & Society. http://www.theoryculturesociety.org/interview-with-david-berry-on-digital-power-and-critical-theory/.1 May 2014.
Berry, D. M. and Galloway, A. R. (2016). “A Network is a Network is a Network: Reflections on the Computational and the Societies of Control”. Theory,Culture & Society. 33(4). 151-172.
Cadwalladr, C. (2018). “The Cambridge Analytica Files. ‘I made Steve Bannon’s psychological warfare tool’: meet the data war whistleblower”. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/data-war-whistleblower-christopher-wylie-faceook-nix-bannon-trump.

Carr, N. (2010). The Shallows: How the Internet is Changing the Way We Think, Read and Remember. New York: Norton.
Cover, R. (2015). Digital Identities: Creating and Communicating The Online Self. San Diego: Academic Press.
Davies, W. (2017). “How are we now? Real-time mood-monitoring as valuation”.Journal of Cultural Economy. 10(1). 34-48. doi:10.1080/17530350.2016.1258000.
De Vos, J. (2012). Psychologisation in Times of Globalisation. London: Routledge.
___________ (2013). Psychologization and the Subject of Late Modernity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
___________ (2015). “Deneurologizing Education? From Psychologisation to Neurologisation and Back”. Studies in Philosophy and Education. 34(3). 279-295. doi:10.1007/s11217-014-9440-5.
___________ (2016a). “The Death and the Resurrection of (Psy)critique. The Case of Neuroeducation”. Foundations of Science. 21(1). 129-145.
___________ (2016b). The Metamorphoses of the Brain. Neurologization and Its Discontents. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
___________ (2016c). “What is Critique in the Era of the Neurosciences?”. J. De Vos and E. Pluth (eds.) Neuroscience and Critique. Exploring the Limits of the Neurological Turn. (22-40). London: Routledge.
___________ (2017). “The Neuroturn in Education: Between the Scylla of Psychologization and the Charybdis of Digitalization?”. M. Vandenbroeck (Ed.) Constructions of Neuroscience in Early Childhood Education. London: Routledge.
Hansen, M. B. N. (2004). New Philosophy for New Media. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Jensen, F. E., and Nutt, A. E. (2014). The Teenage Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Survival Guide to Raising Adolescents and Young Adults. New York: Harper Collins. Kosinski, M. (May, 2018). Mypersonality Project. https://sites.google.com/michalkosinski.com/mypersonality.
Lacan, J. (1987 [1964]). Seminario XI. Los Cuatro Conceptos Fundamentales. Buenos Aires: Paidós.
___________(2001). Ecrits: A selection. London: Tavistock.
Larson, C. (2011). “Mark Zuckerberg Speaks at BYU”. Deseret News. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/print/700121651/Mark-Zuckerberg-speaks-atBYU-calls-Facebook-as-much-psychology-and-sociology-as-it-is-technology.html.
Massumi, B. (2002). Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation. Durham: Duke University Press Books.
Pfaller, R. (2017). Interpassivity. The Aesthetics of Delegated Enjoyment. Edinburgh: University Press.
Rouvroy, A. (2018). “À mon sens, Zuckerberg est dépassé”. L’echo. https://www.lecho.be/opinions/general/antoinette-rouvroy-a-mon-sens-zuckerberg-est-depasse/9995228.html.
Soros, G. (2018). “Remarks delivered at the World Economic Forum”. https://www.georgesoros.com/2018/01/25/remarks-delivered-at-the-world-economic-forum/. Spreeuwenberg, R. (2017). “Does emotive computing belong in the classroom?” .
EdSurge. https://www.edsurge.com/news/2017-01-04-does-emotive-computing-belong-in-the-classroom. Stephens-Davidowitz, S. (2017). Everybody Lies: Big Data, New Data, and What the Internet Can Tell Us About Who We Really Are. New York: HarperCollins.
Stiegler, B. (2012). “Die Aufklärung in the Age of Philosophical Engineering”. Computational Culture. 2. http://computationalculture.net/comment/die-aufklarung-in-the-age-of-philosophical-engineering.
___________ (2014). “Les big data, c’est la fin de la pensée”. http://www.ventscontraires.net/article.cfm/13444_bernard_stiegler__les_big_data_c_est_la_fin_de_la_pensee_.html.
Stillwell, D. J. and Kosinski, M. (2004). “myPersonality Project: Example of Successful Utilization of Online Social Networks for Large-Scale Social Research”. American Psychologist. 59(2). 93-104.
Thrift, N. and French, S. (2002). The Automatic Production of Space. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 27(3). 309-335.
Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. New York: Simon and Schuster
Ulanoff, L. (2017). “Sean Parker made billions off of Facebook. Today he basically called it evil”. Mashable. https://mashable.com/2017/11/09/sean-parker-slams-facebook/#gVnUWCGJ1mqc.
Williamson, B. (2017). “Psychological surveillance and psycho-informatics in the classroom”. Code Acts in Education. https://codeactsineducation.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/psycho-surveillance-classroom/.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Communication and Media Studies

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Jan De Vos This is me

Publication Date

October 1, 2018

Submission Date

August 1, 2018

Acceptance Date

-

Published in Issue

Year 2018 Number: 2

DOI

https://doi.org/10.32739/etkilesim.2018.2.26

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA84XW64RK

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

De Vos, J. (2018). Which Subject for the Digital?: A Critique of Digitalization’s Roots in (Neuro)Psychologization. Etkileşim, 2, 20-34. https://doi.org/10.32739/etkilesim.2018.2.26

AMA

1.De Vos J. Which Subject for the Digital?: A Critique of Digitalization’s Roots in (Neuro)Psychologization. Etkileşim. 2018;(2):20-34. doi:10.32739/etkilesim.2018.2.26

Chicago

De Vos, Jan. 2018. “Which Subject for the Digital?: A Critique of Digitalization’s Roots in (Neuro)Psychologization”. Etkileşim, nos. 2: 20-34. https://doi.org/10.32739/etkilesim.2018.2.26.

EndNote

De Vos J (October 1, 2018) Which Subject for the Digital?: A Critique of Digitalization’s Roots in (Neuro)Psychologization. Etkileşim 2 20–34.

IEEE

[1]J. De Vos, “Which Subject for the Digital?: A Critique of Digitalization’s Roots in (Neuro)Psychologization”, Etkileşim, no. 2, pp. 20–34, Oct. 2018, doi: 10.32739/etkilesim.2018.2.26.

ISNAD

De Vos, Jan. “Which Subject for the Digital?: A Critique of Digitalization’s Roots in (Neuro)Psychologization”. Etkileşim. 2 (October 1, 2018): 20-34. https://doi.org/10.32739/etkilesim.2018.2.26.

JAMA

1.De Vos J. Which Subject for the Digital?: A Critique of Digitalization’s Roots in (Neuro)Psychologization. Etkileşim. 2018;:20–34.

MLA

De Vos, Jan. “Which Subject for the Digital?: A Critique of Digitalization’s Roots in (Neuro)Psychologization”. Etkileşim, no. 2, Oct. 2018, pp. 20-34, doi:10.32739/etkilesim.2018.2.26.

Vancouver

1.Jan De Vos. Which Subject for the Digital?: A Critique of Digitalization’s Roots in (Neuro)Psychologization. Etkileşim. 2018 Oct. 1;(2):20-34. doi:10.32739/etkilesim.2018.2.26