A Critique of Capitalism With Author, Professor, and Director, Bernd Stahl

Alexander McCaig (00:07):

Hello, everyone. And welcome back to TARTLE Cast. You're here with myself and Bernd Stahl. And I was explaining to Bernd, before the call, I really didn't even know that there was such a debate in the field of information systems that carries over into something called critical intention and critical theory that has such a grand social, economic, philosophical effect on how we actually choose to live as human beings interact and interact with technology.

Alexander McCaig (00:40):

And so, with that, Bernd, thank you very much for coming on here to talk about that on TARTLE Cast. I appreciate it.

Bernd Stahl (00:48):

Thank you for the invitation.

Alexander McCaig (00:51):

So, Bernd, can we talk a little bit about your book here? First of all, you've coined this as one of the first books in the field to subsequently define critical research, critical theory, and critical aspects of information systems. Can you tell me a little bit about that? And you spent a good body of time dealing with definitions itself to help round out the ideas so that it was more encompassing and not so much of as a finality of what is going on, but you understand that words have an evolution. Can you talk to me about that?

Bernd Stahl (01:28):

Yeah, sure. So, critical theory is quite well established in academia, but it may not be quite as well known outside of academia. It has different roots, so much of it comes from philosophy. So, there's a strong root in the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. There's also a lot of work that draws directly from Marx and Marxism. And, over the years, it's evolved and changed.

Bernd Stahl (01:56):

So, at the moment in Europe, certainly critical theory is very strongly associated with a particular body of work, which is often called the Frankfurt School. So, this is a bunch of scholars who came together in Frankfurt, the University of Frankfurt, prior to the Nazis taking power, and then they had to leave Germany. And then some of them came back after the war. So, they developed a strong discourse. And it's all about reflecting on how we live in our world, how we can make sure that the world we live in is one in which people can be emancipated, can live lives to the best of their abilities, to deliver to their potential. So, that's sort of the short idea behind it.

Alexander McCaig (02:35):

And so, you say emancipation here, okay? And we're analyzing systems, political systems, state systems, whatever it might be, technological systems. When people originally looked to information systems, they looked at it from a management and an economic standpoint. And when you think about that, it's that profit-driven approach, right? How do we efficiently create systems that help us afford more profits? But the thought was that through the good that was being created in an economic-financial sense for a corporation, that would then translate over to society as a whole for their good. But what we're seeing is that that's not actually occurring.

Alexander McCaig (03:14):

And you discussed emancipation. And I know that you had highlighted in Part 1 with Theory that when you have the idea of emancipating someone, which is different from empowering, that it requires an ethical intention. And that ethical intention could be a great attempt to emancipate these people but, at the same time, how do you know you're not actually doing harm?

Alexander McCaig (03:38):

So, can you talk a little bit about the transition from the management sense over to what's going on in the emancipation sense?

Bernd Stahl (03:49):

Yes. And so, you're, of course, right that, traditionally, in the economic sphere, the idea is that wealth creation is what you're aiming for, so companies are contributing to the greater good by making money. So, there's Friedman's well-known statement that it's the social responsibility of a company to make profits. And the logic behind that is if companies make profits then, of course, these profits will be distributed to shareholders, to employees, and therefore the world will be a better place. And I think a theory that is sort of the justification of capitalism. That's why we think markets are a good idea now. And there's a lot to be said in favor of that. I mean, we live currently, and certainly, in the Western societies at a level of wealth that we haven't known, that humanity hasn't known before. So, I think it has worked to some degree. But, at the same time, there are also limitations to this approach.

Bernd Stahl (04:43):

And we know that there are a lot of people who do not participate in this success. There are a lot of people who are not capable of being part of the economic system. And that's where then the question comes in, how do we ensure that this idea of emancipation, of being able to live your life according to your own design, is something that filters through to everybody? And that's what I would call the critical and the ethical intention.

Bernd Stahl (05:05):

So, the idea here is to move beyond this very theoretical outlook and look at specific cases and how the use of the world development and the use of information technology in organizations and in society, how that actually translates into social practice. And, therefore, the question of how critical theory and how this idea of emancipation can be realized comes in at the point where you move beyond the neoclassical economic outlook, into practical social realities, and try to understand how organizations actually work, how information systems in organizations change what happens, and how that can be modified in a way that's beneficial to the vast majority of humanity.

Alexander McCaig (05:47):

So, okay. All right. You realize that was a lot that you just said. So, unpacking that is a little-

Bernd Stahl (05:53):

Sure.

Alexander McCaig (05:53):

... substantial here. All right. So, let's take this just step-by-step for a second.

Alexander McCaig (06:00):

There is a lot of wealth that has been created. Yes. Now, that wealth is not distributed. And I'm not saying in a socialist sense where everybody needs to be paid the same, but the opportunity of the people that reside inside or outside that system is completely different. So, the ones that reside in it, that can actually garner those opportunities, can actually act as a part of that wealth creation. And this is an aspect of that, sort of that power paradigm. And I think that's the Foucauldian version that is being spoke of.

Alexander McCaig (06:36):

And we understand that positivism would say that, "Okay. In a logical sense, if all this money is being created, well then, good things are actually happening because the economy is growing, so the system actually works." But that's from the observed, defined view of the people that it's actually working for. So, don't you think information systems have to account for the individuals that sit outside of the system, that lack the opportunity to have discourse discussion over this subject, over the system itself, and how they can involve themselves with it, thus affording them some function of power within the information system to create opportunities for themselves? Is that what we're getting at?

Bernd Stahl (07:23):

Yeah, absolutely. I would fully agree with that. I guess the question is whether and how that can be achieved, right? So, there are the pessimists who say that, in the current socio-economic system that we live in, it's not going to happen. It's based on alienation, exploitation, and we'll always have people, by definition, by the logic of the system, that are simply outside. And if that's the position you take, then really the only solution will be to have a radical change. So, have a revolution and build things from scratch again.

Bernd Stahl (07:57):

There is a slightly less radical position, which says, "Well, we know that the world isn't perfect, and there's lots of things that can be improved, so let's think about how that can be done and use information systems." But they are only just one example in the much bigger socio-economic system to explore how we can bring more people in, how we can spread the wealth more broadly, how we can spread the power, the voice, to those people who are currently disenfranchised.

Bernd Stahl (08:26):

And, yeah. So, it's a bit of a fundamental position, whether you think that the current system can be moved in a direction that is more beneficial, or whether you think we need to start anew from scratch.

Alexander McCaig (08:41):

So then, then let me ask you then, in moving towards a direction that is beneficial, beneficial for who? And who's the one defining the benefit?

Alexander McCaig (08:49):

So, we've seen throughout history that states have decided that something is best. We've seen it with certain nationalistic places down in South America. We've seen it with dictators in North Korea. We've seen it in the '40s with Nazi culture. People will define things to say that this is best for you. Now, where is the inversion that you see where the individual, who is a part of this collective society, that actually drives the information system because technology and the systems itself require human interaction. Where is it where they have had the chance within their own dialogue to say, "This is what works best for me?"

Alexander McCaig (09:35):

And, I guess, are you saying that the difficulty is the fact that you have so many people, it becomes almost an impossible task to bring them all into that very democratized discussion to then define their own benchmarks for what's best? And then look at the collective rather than someone define what's best for the collective, just from a position of state power?

Bernd Stahl (09:56):

Yeah. Well, I think the general answer that modern societies would give to this is that democracy is the place where people can express their own views and define their own sphere of action. Now, of course, that's somewhat idealistic and we know that doesn't work for everybody, which is why I use the term emancipation as a place sort of that people can fill with their own view of what it means for them to be emancipated.

Bernd Stahl (10:24):

So, your view of emancipation is very likely very different from mine. So, what I think my potential is and how I want to live my life, it's not something that I could generalize. Therefore, I think the idea behind critical theory is to allow people to have the space in which they can flourish, in which they can fulfill their potential, without telling them what that is and how that's supposed to be done.

Bernd Stahl (10:45):

And that's where individual liberty is important, which also now generally is accepted in democratic societies, that everybody should have the greatest amount of liberty, which is compatible with the same liberty of everybody else. I mean, that's sort of the principle of the democratic constitution. And how that then is realized is a completely different question. But I think the principle should be that everybody should be able to participate in these societal debates. And then, they should be able to benefit from the outcomes of those by having this space in which they can define what they think they want to do with their lives.

Alexander McCaig (11:19):

And so, within that space, don't you think that sometimes people who are in positions of power will, really trying to find with what intention they have, and that's typically to preserve their power or to preserve their capital, and you even see that in legal structures and policy, that I don't really... I want these people to be a part of the system itself, but I want the system to work specifically for me. And I know that when you have an intention of money, for instance, a capitalistic society... You had stated in your book that, "Capitalist work structures not only enslave and alienate laborers but also systematically take away their ability to develop and prosper."

Alexander McCaig (12:05):

So, I see a little bit of a dichotomy here. Capitalism wants to go one way with its evolution, right? But it needs the labor of human beings to drive that. But, on the other side, human beings are spending all their time facilitating this system to evolve, but they're lacking the evolution within themselves because the system is not designed to actually help them evolve to whatever their... And is this the German word... their zeal?

Alexander McCaig (12:28):

So, for them to get to that point of focus, that point of evolution, and even for the way Kant had described it is, you have to have the motivations that drive you to go do something. So, a capitalist motivation is, make more money. What happens in the reflexivity reflects... I don't know if I'm saying that right... where someone can take an introspective look on themself and their system to say that it is logically working well for capitalism, but it doesn't logically work well for human beings.

Alexander McCaig (13:00):

Have you seen any points historically, in the past, through your work, where we have examples where people have recognized something like that, and then taking the turn back to themselves to say we want to begin to evolve ourselves rather than a state or a management power?

Bernd Stahl (13:17):

All right. I think you can probably observe that in any hierarchical system at any time. And so, you have resistance to power wherever you go. And, that's maybe more the Foucauldian view of the world. So, wherever there is power that is exerted... And, of course, you're right. You have people who try to make other people do stuff according to their own design, and they're not particularly interested in what the consequences for those people who are at the receiving end would be.

Bernd Stahl (13:45):

So, you have power. Yes, power exists. Power structures exist. But wherever you have power, you also have resistance. People can try to evade it, can try to openly resist it. So, I don't think it's ever as linear or straightforward as it may look from the outside. And I observed this, certainly, in the organizations that I've been working in the past, and that includes universities, but it also includes the armed forces. It's never just a one-way street.

Bernd Stahl (14:12):

The other point where you brought in this... The capitalist system, I think, is while we are a part of the capitalist system, all of us individually, and we can't, or only under extreme costs, can extract ourselves from it. We're also not just that. We're always more, right? So, I realize that, even though as a professor in the university, I am part of the big machine, and I'm a small cog in it, that some partly runs on money, and I have to bring in money, and that there are incentive structures that make me do that. Yes, that's all there. But I'm also in the position that I can think about this. I can critically reflect on that, and I can say, "Yes, I like this," or, "I don't like this, and I want to change this," and I can draw boundaries around it.

Bernd Stahl (14:53):

So now, while I may be capitalistic in the way I work, I may not apply the same logic to my family, or to my friends, or to my football club, or whatever, right? So, I think we do live across various different social systems. And at moment, in Western societies, capitalism is very strong, and there does not seem to be an alternative to it. But we also need to see that that's a say, historical abnormality, or capitalism is a relatively recent invention. Societies in human history have typically looked differently. And they may, and I think probably will, look different again 200 years from now. So, I don't think we should accept that that's the only way to think about the world. And that's partly also where I think critical theory is interesting, in that it tries to open up different perspectives, different ways of thinking about it, and maybe thereby creating alternatives.

Alexander McCaig (15:42):

I think that's really... It's very sharp. And when you talk about reflexivity, that introspection about what I thought my system was working for me, or what I think is right, having that level of self-awareness... A company having self-awareness is one thing. A state having self-awareness and introspection is another. But then, trying to build self-awareness within individuals to have that, sort of, that internal look, that's a big challenge. And then, for that, that also requires that you take on the responsibility to say that I have choice in this world. And then, because I'm afforded that choice, I want to choose to be a part of the discourse. I want to choose to alter that system.

Alexander McCaig (16:32):

And when it boils down for me, when I was reading your work, and the way we run TARTLE, our marketplace, is that we afford people that choice. We have given you a tool, an information system, and you can choose to be a part of it. There's no barrier to entry. And then from that, you can choose to emancipate yourself as much as you want with that tool. And then, through that choice, it's beneficial to both parties that begin to interact. But you, as a human being, or a company that wants to be a part of it, have to take on the responsibility. And that responsibility is saying, "I want something more for myself."

Alexander McCaig (17:08):

And if we can find that sort of zeal or evolutionary point where we look at our morals, we look at our ethics, and we can accept that we are all human beings, and we can focus on an end goal that we want to work better and understand better each other as a collective. Then, I think, in that sense, that's where we had stepped in with our marketplaces, that this information system is saying, how do we evolve as human beings when you have multiple different types of systems that all have different priorities, different incentive structures, different power structures? But we can come together on, not a hierarchical playing field, but a very horizontal one, where we look at it, it's like here's the element, human beings drive all systems. So, let's talk about the interaction, the sharing of truth from one individual, Party A, to Party B. And I know this is more of the Haberman approach, which is the ideal conversation is... Can you correct me on that? What's it called?

Bernd Stahl (18:08):

The ideal speech situation.

Alexander McCaig (18:10):

The ideal speech situation is that everybody is absolutely truthful. But what we've seen is that, in news corporations or states, is that they are defining the truth. They are saying that this is just what the truth is, and that we have to accept it. And then, even further beyond that, they like to make the stance that, because they're writing the definition, you have to believe it because they're the ones with all the information and the power within that spectrum, deciding for you what's best in your life.

Alexander McCaig (18:38):

So, that whole power, the power paradigm, is completely out of whack. So what we wanted to do was just level that out, accept the fact that everybody has different intentions, different ideals, right? And they all have different theories. But how do we come together to better understand each other at a very critical base of human understanding, so that we can actually evolve our systems and humans at the same time? That was generally our thought around that.

Bernd Stahl (19:05):

Yeah. I mean, so what you've just done is you've given a very nice justification of marketplaces, right? And thereby, the justification of capitalism. So, in an ideal world, that's how markets work. You have participants who have a balance of information. They can talk to each other. They can understand each other's preferences. They make exchanges that are mutual beneficence. And that's really the... That's why we think markets are justifiable and are justified.

Bernd Stahl (19:32):

You've also pointed out that that, in practice, rarely works, right? There is no markets that has the complete transparency where the market participants actually know all the relevant factors, and where they are able to exchange in a nonprejudicial way.

Bernd Stahl (19:48):

Now, the other side... So, the power part of it, that the ability to define what's true and thereby exert power... And that's a classical Foucauldian point, right? Truth equals power, and if you can define the truth which, traditionally, it used to be academia who defined what's true. And it's now that that power is contested, and remains contested. But if you have the power to say what's true, then you have not just the truth power, but you actually have all this political power. And you can see that play out in politics very prominently these days.

Bernd Stahl (20:24):

Now, to answer the question of how can we deal with that? How can we come to a point where there is a more equitable possibility for exchange which allows people to say what they want to say and be heard? Now, that's where this Habermasian idea of speech situation comes in. And he's been heavily criticized for that. So, there are lots of scholars who say that's, now, it just doesn't exist. It's wrong to assume that this could ever be the case because we know that people aren't equal, people have different ways of being able to communicate, not everybody is sincere and willing to communicate.

Bernd Stahl (20:57):

And the counterpoint that I would make, and I think Habermas might make, is that this is a condition of the possibility of communication. So, rather than say this is how people really are, we have to assume that they are willing to, and able to, say the truth, mean what they say, be authentic, even though we know, in fact, that that's not always the case and, often, it's not the case.

Bernd Stahl (21:19):

But the point here is that if you start from the assumption that people could do that, if they so chose. And then, what you can do is you can then take them seriously, take them by their word. And then, you can query what they say. Now, we don't assume everybody always says the truth, but we do assume that we can ask them, how do you think? Why do you think that's true? Do you actually mean this? Do you actually personally benefit from something in a way that you don't tell us about? Are you authentic in your plans? So that, to me, is the point of Habermasian claims. You can query those claims. And then, when you're at the point where you can query this, then you come to the discourse, which will hopefully lead to some sort of understanding, even if the understanding is only we disagree. But if we can get the consensus that there is no consensus, then that's already a good starting point.

Bernd Stahl (22:07):

To some degree, I think that that's actually baked into us as human beings. We look at others and we assume that we can talk to them, that they are capable of talking to us. We may be wrong. So, it's fallible. But if we don't have that assumption, then we're sort of lost and we're in a free-for-all anarchy, and we can't control anything in our lives.

Alexander McCaig (22:29):

That's then, it's smart and we... In our system design, we carried that assumption over, that people are willing to share. They just need a tool, a platform, and the proper incentives to do so. And you can re-query these people over and over and over.

Alexander McCaig (22:44):

So, when I was reading the material, yes, there's one subset, which is the power aspect from the Foucauldian side, right? But then, the Haberman side was one that really did resonate because it made a lot of sense. It's saying I do look at human beings and think that we can achieve this really, again, essentially, this high watermark for what it means to be good in having conversations and having an understanding of one another. And that understanding may be the fact that I have an opinion. I disagree, but we're okay to disagree with ourselves.

Alexander McCaig (23:21):

And I think that's where we will end up going in the future. And I think that information systems will help drive that understanding. And as the world becomes more flat and more people become connected, and they adopt tools like the one we've created on the TARTLE marketplace, it will afford them to query each other and understand and create economic empowerment, and then begin to emancipate themselves with understanding and knowledge after that fact.

Alexander McCaig (23:47):

And I just feel that, fundamentally... And this is my personal view... that responsibility and self-awareness are a lot of those key drivers that drive those systems. And my hope is that going forward into the future, when we use information systems, we don't use them for state control. For instance, if you look at China, China wants to watch everybody all the time. They want every single piece of data so that system can then profile you, control you, and then essentially manage your life.

Alexander McCaig (24:22):

And then, at that time, when something like that happens, it takes the responsibility off of the individual. And then, the state then determines what your choices are. So, much like a religion, you would just look to this higher figure to tell you what you need to do, and your world becomes very black and white. And then learning goes away. When someone else is in control, telling you what to believe and what to know, there's nothing else for you to test. So, I think that actually hinders human evolution.

Alexander McCaig (24:46):

So, if we can afford information systems to help drive people's choice, self-awareness, reflexivity, right? And responsibility, that will actually help them evolve. And then, because of their own evolution, will help then evolve our current information systems to a better state that are truly more beneficial for the human being as an individual, and then, secondly, as the collective.

Bernd Stahl (25:12):

Yeah. Well, I guess that's the hope. I mean, coming back to Habermas' position, he was very... I guess he still is very critical of markets. Now, he would say that this idea of communicative action... So, this is where those discourses, the free discourses, between equals take place, are actually very different from what happens in markets. And partly because markets are actually there to avoid us having to have those discourses. So, if I go onto an electronic marketplace, if I go to eBay, I don't need to know who's behind it. I don't need to care whether they are nice to their children or whether they're democratic or not. I have none of those queries. I just want to know what I get, for which price, when it's going to be there, and that's it. So, it's sort of the opposite of discursive action.

Bernd Stahl (26:00):

Npw, that doesn't mean that technology couldn't be used for such purposes, and it has been used. And there are lots of examples where people try to do this and try to help people to achieve their potential. But that's certainly not necessarily the case for information systems. And that's not just true for things like the Chinese social credit scoring, but it's also true for a lot of the capitalist systems in the West.

Bernd Stahl (26:22):

So, the concept of surveillance capitalism was coined to point to this, to the fact that the big internet, the big Western internet providers, so the Googles and Microsofts and IBMs and Apples, and you name them, that they actually have strong incentives to keep us from reflecting. So, they structure our work. They extract data from us in order to make us do something that they benefit from. And, typically, that means buying something that we may or may not need, right?

Bernd Stahl (26:52):

So, I think the potential for giving people freedom or reducing their freedom is there in any type of technology, across different types of political systems, even though it may look very different in different systems.

Alexander McCaig (27:08):

That's funny because I was looking at... You use the term panopticon. Am I saying that correctly?

Bernd Stahl (27:17):

Yeah.

Alexander McCaig (27:17):

Where it was describing a jail or a penitentiary setting, where everything is being watched all the time. And they thought that through this watching actually then helped the prisoner in there. If they received the feedback of the observation, it actually helped them get to a point where they could find themselves outside of the prison. Am I defining that properly?

Bernd Stahl (27:48):

But it was meant to be... When it came up, it was meant to help prisoners to rehabilitate themselves, to understand-

Alexander McCaig (27:54):

Right.

Bernd Stahl (27:56):

... So, it was meant as a humane form of a penal institution when it was invented in the 18th century, yeah.

Alexander McCaig (28:04):

And so... And this is how I'm going to transition back to what you just said then. So, when I think of the panopticon, I currently now look at our world, government, big tech, military, industrial complexes. They have a critical intention of observation for control so that they can maintain their own evolution and power. And that affords the state all of the power. And then, I had to ask the question then, well, what if the individual is allowed the choice of emancipation rather than the state? Or the person running the panopticon saying that this person is, in fact, emancipated? And then, through those empowerment tools, which would be certain types of technology, would afford them their own right to privacy and evolution that they can define through the discourse of themselves.

Alexander McCaig (29:00):

It's like, rather than the person running the prison looking at the prisoners, the prisoners have the discussion amongst themselves with their own intentions, using that tool of observation for their own feedback to say, "Guess what? This is our discourse. This is our feeling. This is how we want to evolve. We want our right to privacy, and I choose to share when I want to do so."

Alexander McCaig (29:22):

And I think there's an interesting function here of a respect for a human being's free will. And if there's not free will in an individual's decision-making or an interaction with a system, then information systems will always lack the natural evolutionary step that they have to take. They're always going to be at a place of controlling other people, rather than truly helping them evolve, because there's a lack of respect for the free will of the human beings that drive those systems.

Alexander McCaig (29:56):

What is your thought on that?

Bernd Stahl (29:58):

So, starting with the concept of a panopticon, while this was originally conceived as an attempt to have a humane penal system, the way it's perceived these days in academic discourse is very different. It is seen as a mechanism of control. So, it's a concept that Foucault has picked up from Bentham, and looked at how this exertion of power comes into practice in real-life institutions.

Bernd Stahl (30:27):

So, when people talk about the panopticon these days, it's not in any way a positive term. It's generally seen as something very problematic. And a lot of the technologies we see can be compared to such a panopticon. So, there are data collection on each and every one of us, certainly different in different countries. It depends on data protection legislation, your local culture, and so on. But anybody using the internet knows that there is information collected on them. They typically don't know by whom, and they don't know what it's used for. And that has a normalizing effect, so we made not type in certain things in a Google search because we know Google collects those things and will be able to pick them up three years from now. Or we may just ignore that and do so at our peril.

Bernd Stahl (31:16):

Now, the outcome of that, partly because we don't really understand because the systems are now so complex that any individual will find it very difficult to follow the data trail that they lead, the outcomes of that are undetermined. So, it's not clear to me whether it's a particular activity, which I undertake on the net or where data about me exists will be used for particular purposes, which may be beneficial to me, or they may not. It's very difficult to assess that. And therefore, the consequences for individual freedom and autonomy are often problematic.

Bernd Stahl (31:51):

Because we feel we are being observed, we may self-sensor. There's this concept of the chilling effect, so we may not say something because we think we may be observed, even though that may not be the case at all, right? So, it has social consequences that are not necessarily linked to real interventions by those systems or by power holders. And it's not just the state. It's also... It's a much more complicated assemblage of actors. So, it's the big internet companies. It is states, but it's also smaller companies. This may spill over into interpersonal relationships. So, it's a very complex mix where data and information systems play a crucial role, but a crucial role that is not clearly determined.

Bernd Stahl (32:35):

So, you're not... It's very difficult to say you use this system and it has these consequences. Typically, that doesn't work. So, that also comes back to this concept of resistance. Now, somebody may try to push me to do something. I may resist this, and maybe it would be the exact opposite. So, it's not predictable, but it does have consequences.

Alexander McCaig (32:53):

So then, to mitigate those consequences or the idea of what that consequence might be, it would behoove the people that create these systems, even big tech companies, to offer a great amount of transparency into how all of the processes work. We all understand you're trying to make money to survive, but showing transparency into the system so people know, when they do a mouse click or type something in, exactly what's going to happen, actually having a knowingness about what happens when they interact with those systems. And I think that the transparency, then, would be one of those key drivers that would decrease those risks in using specific systems, right? And I know that you had spoken about something where power and truth can't be divided. The truth requires, absolutely logically requires, full transparency. For good or bad, whatever it might be, you'd have to see at all.

Alexander McCaig (33:58):

And then it doesn't become a function of coercion, but really an educational thing through the interaction of using these information systems for doing your critical research. And I think transparency for these larger firms is a moral or ethical approach. And I do like the definitions for ethics and morality, that the German tradition uses, was ethics is based on the idea of duty, right? Ethics and morality can be understood as the theory and practice of good action, respectively. And three, ethics is based on rationality.

Alexander McCaig (34:32):

So, if I think about that in the German sense of how we should design our businesses and information systems, is that if somebody is going to be using something online where that power spectrum can be used against them, it actually looks like a black box, are ethics-driven by rationality and wanting to understand and evolve would then say that we have to respect the free will, we cannot be coercive, we have to be transparent. And in doing so, we can help fix the power paradigm where the select few have that power, and it can be transitioned back to individuals through their own free will, allowing them to then interact, and then emancipate themselves.

Bernd Stahl (35:09):

Ideally, I think that will be the case, yes. I think, in practice, it's turned out that the transparency requirement doesn't work particularly well because even you can hide yourself being fully transparent, right? Because of the complexity of the system, because of the complexity of data flows, it's very difficult, even for experts to know what's happening behind the scenes. Even if they have the source code, even if they have access to the system, that doesn't really help.

Bernd Stahl (35:38):

So, I think why transparency is important, and I think that... I mean, if you look at the [Conch 00:35:45] proposal, for example, that came out of the European Commission for Regulation on AI, there is a requirement for what they call high-risk artificial intelligence systems to have a ex-ante assessment, so they look at likely consequences, and those have to be published. So, that's an example of that sort of transparency, which all the AI providers, including the big internet companies, would have to comply with.

Bernd Stahl (36:09):

And I think that's a good idea. I fully agree with that. But I think it's very unlikely that any end-user or consumer will ever look at that register of ex-ante assessments because we simply don't have the capacity, we don't have the knowledge, we can't understand it. So, I think the transparency is only part in a much larger value chain that would allow the translation back into individual liberties. So, that's where things like a civil society organization might come in, who have experts who can actually assess the transparency claims and say, "Yes, this works," or, "It doesn't work and we can't see what you're using with this data."

Bernd Stahl (36:43):

It also, I think, has a lot to do with individual protections, things like consumer protections. So, when I go to shop and buy a piece of meat or a toy, I assume that it's not poison, it's not going to kill my children, right? So, we have sort of a baseline assumption that what we are given through marketplaces have undergone a certain level of quality control. And I think a similar logic should be applied to information systems as well. So, if I use a system, I should have a baseline assumption that certain types of data will not be collected, will not be misused, and it doesn't require me to consent or opt in. This should just be the norm. And I think that's an important role that I think only the state can play. This is not something that an individual can play. This is not something you can leave to the individual consumer. That requires regulation.

Bernd Stahl (37:31):

So, I think many different things have to play together. This is an ecosystem that includes technology, that includes regulation, that includes civil society actors. And only together will they come to a place where we can benefit from information systems rather than be disadvantaged by them.

Alexander McCaig (37:50):

So then, as we look to the future... And to be respectful of your time here on this call... We need to look to unification as human beings, unification of collectives, unification of nations, and unification of information systems. That will be the platform if we have that sort of evolutionary focus that would actually solve a lot of these kinds of underlying issues that we've currently found? Is a unity the answer for that?

Bernd Stahl (38:26):

Unity in what way?

Alexander McCaig (38:29):

Well, unity in mind, unity in understanding of others, unity in saying that I can disagree, unity in the fact that we are in a closed system being on this planet. That's what I'm talking about with unity. Unity in saying that systems really shouldn't be separate. They need to interlink much like a forest does, right? From the different mushroom species and fungi, all the way up to the subalpine firs. There's great differences in characteristics, but in order for them to work efficiently for the benefit of their longevity and life requires a unifying approach of many of their systems which are mutually exclusive, but also interdependent of one another.

Bernd Stahl (39:10):

Yeah. So, rather than unity, I would probably use the term ecosystem as sort of a representation of the fact that there are many different players who interlink, who are dependent, who co-evolve, who learn from each other, who compete, and who all need to understand that this is a way to describe our reality, namely that we are humans who are living in a society, living in a national environment. We are mortal. We know that everybody else is mortal. We have needs. We have desires. We are not the only ones on this planet. So, this sort of awareness of the system that we find ourselves in, of the fragility of the ecosystem, is certainly important.

Bernd Stahl (39:49):

And then, the use of this concept of ecosystem and application to information system, I think can also be very fruitful, and powerful, and help us understand how the system can, and should, and might be developed, evolve, and be used. Yeah.

Alexander McCaig (40:03):

No, I think that's absolutely amazing. Well, Bernd, you wrote your very comprehensive book on Information Systems, Critical Perspectives. I didn't know anything like this existed. I sincerely appreciate the learning curve you gave me reading the material, and I've truly enjoyed this conversation.

Alexander McCaig (40:27):

And to close it out, I would like to ask, is there any message you would want to leave for the listeners in 222 countries that listen to this show? To the Fortune 500 executives that listen to this? Lay people? Whoever it might be, is there something you want to leave them with to afford them their own reflective thoughts?

Bernd Stahl (40:50):

That's a tall order. I think my closing statement would be that, when working with information systems, when developing them, when deploying them, when making them available, one always needs to be aware of the fact that it's never just technology, but technology is always socio-technical. It's always human beings working with, and on, technology. And we need to keep in mind that these human beings are there and that we don't forget their needs, their requirements, and their importance.

Alexander McCaig (41:20):

That's really not a bad job with a tall order, my friend. So-

Bernd Stahl (41:25):

Thank you.

Alexander McCaig (41:27):

... In short, if individuals wanted to go find out more about Information Systems, Critical Research, Critical Research Theory, the Frankfurt School, Faucaultian ideas, Haberman ideas, where would they go to do something like that, or even find out more about yourself?

Bernd Stahl (41:47):

So, there is actually quite a lot of material. In these days, you go on the internet, right? If you're interested in me, you can Google me, you'll find me. The discourse around critical theory and information systems is... Why it's a very academic one. So, your Fortune 500 CEOs, unless they read academic papers, may find it very difficult to assess them.

Bernd Stahl (42:12):

But you find this also in trade publications and things like the communication of the ACM. These are certainly thoughts that are not completely confined to academia. But, to some degree, it's really a question of reflecting on yourself. Where do you stand in life? Which is something that not just academia requires. This is something that living the good life requires. Whether you have a religion or whether you see yourself as a person in the public interest, these are questions you have to ask yourself. And providing answers is something that academics do in a particular and structured way. But similar answers can probably be found elsewhere as well.

Alexander McCaig (42:50):

Wow. All right. That's incredible. Well, thank you very much, Bernd, for coming on. I really appreciate the time and I'm sure everyone else will.

Bernd Stahl (42:59):

Thank you very much, Alex.

Speaker 3 (43:09):

Thank you for listening to TARTLE Cast, with your hosts, Alexander McCaig and Jason Rigby, where humanity steps into the future and source data defines the path. The path.

Speaker 3 (43:24):

What's your data worth?