دانلود مقاله از شهر هوشمند تا عدالت شهری در عصر دیجیتال
چکیده
مقدمه
مفهوم سازی نانسی فریزر از عدالت
راه حل های مثبت در مقابل آرام کننده های تحول آفرین برای بی عدالتی ها
عدالت در مطالعات انتقادی شهرهای هوشمند
توزیع مجدد
به رسمیت شناسی
نمایندگی
از شهر هوشمند تا شهر عادل در عصر دیجیتال
از راهبردهای مثبت به راهبردهای تحول آفرین
حفظ و بازیابی حاکمیت فناورانه
نتیجه گیری
منابع
Abstract
Introduction
Nancy Fraser’s conceptualization of justice
Affirmative versus transformative remedies for injustices
Justice in critical literature on smart cities
Redistribution
Recognition
Representation
From the smart to the just city in the digital age
From affirmative to transformative strategies
Retaining and regaining technological sovereignty
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
References
چکیده
شهر هوشمند نمادین ترین بیان معاصر از تلفیق شهرسازی و فناوری های دیجیتال است. محققان شهری انتقادی اکنون به طور فزاینده‌ای به احتمال زیاد بی‌عدالتی‌هایی را که با ابتکارات نوظهور شهر هوشمند ایجاد و تشدید می‌شوند برجسته می‌کنند و روشی را که این پروژه‌ها فضای شهری و سیاست شهری را به روش‌های ناعادلانه بازسازی می‌کنند، تشخیص می‌دهند. با وجود این، هنوز تحلیل جامع و سیستماتیکی از مفهوم عدالت در ادبیات شهر هوشمند صورت نگرفته است. برای پر کردن این شکاف و تقویت نقد شهر هوشمند، از رویکرد سه جانبه عدالت که توسط فیلسوف نانسی فریزر توسعه یافته است، استفاده می کنیم که بر توزیع مجدد، شناسایی و بازنمایی متمرکز است. ما از این چارچوب برای ترسیم مضامین کلیدی و شناسایی شکاف‌های موجود در انتقادات موجود از شهر هوشمند و تأکید بر اهمیت رویکردهای تحول‌آفرین به عدالت که تغییرات در حکمرانی را جدی می‌گیرند، استفاده می‌کنیم. در قالب‌بندی مجدد و بسط نقدهای موجود در مورد شهر هوشمند، ما استدلال می‌کنیم که بحث را از شهر هوشمند به‌عنوان آن دور کنیم. به جای جستجوی یک شهر هوشمند جایگزین، ما استدلال می کنیم که محققان منتقد باید بر روی سؤالات گسترده تر عدالت شهری در عصر دیجیتال تمرکز کنند.
توجه! این متن ترجمه ماشینی بوده و توسط مترجمین ای ترجمه، ترجمه نشده است.
Abstract
The smart city is the most emblematic contemporary expression of the fusion of urbanism and digital technologies. Critical urban scholars are now increasingly likely to highlight the injustices that are created and exacerbated by emerging smart city initiatives and to diagnose the way that these projects remake urban space and urban policy in unjust ways. Despite this, there has not yet been a comprehensive and systematic analysis of the concept of justice in the smart city literature. To fill this gap and strengthen the smart city critique, we draw on the tripartite approach to justice developed by philosopher Nancy Fraser, which is focused on redistribution, recognition, and representation. We use this framework to outline key themes and identify gaps in existing critiques of the smart city, and to emphasize the importance of transformational approaches to justice that take shifts in governance seriously. In reformulating and expanding the existing critiques of the smart city, we argue for shifting the discussion away from the smart city as such. Rather than searching for an alternative smart city, we argue that critical scholars should focus on broader questions of urban justice in a digital age.
Introduction
We live in an age where digitization, digital networks, big data, and internet-based infrastructures are ‘mediating and augmenting the production of space’ and in so doing, are ‘transforming socio-spatial relations’ (Ash, Kitchin, and Leszczynski 2018, 29). The smart city is an emblematic expression of these transformations where data, sensors, and algorithms are presented as technical solutions for urban problems. After initially being dominated by affirmative perspectives, since about 2014 an increasing number of critical views on the smart city have been published by geographers and urban scholars (amongst by now many others, see Cardullo and Kitchin 2019; Cugurullo 2018; Greenfield 2013; Hollands 2008, 2015; Kitchin 2016; Leszczynski 2016; Rose 2020; Söderström, Paasche, and Klauser 2014; Wiig and Wyly 2016), with some of the earliest and most cited critiques being published precisely in this journal (Hollands 2008; Söderström, Paasche, and Klauser 2014).
Most of these critiques directly or indirectly invoke questions of justice; however, they rarely define its meaning. Consequently, the meaning of justice in critical smart city debates remains elusive and theoretically underdeveloped. This is despite the fact that critical urban geographers have of course long engaged with concepts of social justice, from Lefebvre’s (2003 [1970]) call for the right to the city, further developed for example by Marcuse et al. (2009) and Brenner, Marcuse, and Mayer (2009), to questions of spatial justice (Soja 2010; Marcuse 2009; Fainstein 2009), to Harvey’s (1973) seminal work on justice and the city, to interventions like Fainstein (2010) which highlight the importance of participatory engagement to expand understandings of urban justice (for on overview on some of them with reference to the smart city see Kitchin, Cardullo, and Di Feliciantonio 2019; for an application of David Harvey's social justice theory on questions of the smart city see Vanolo 2019).
Conclusions
We are currently observing the increasing centrality of digital technologies in public discourse, proposed as responses to current social and political problems of the city. In this article, we presented a comprehensive definition and framework of justice to guide progressive efforts in assessing and reimagining smart city initiatives and argued for transformative remedies for injustice. Building on Fraser’s tripartite framework, we examined justice in critical smart city literature along economic, social, and political lines. We observed notable tensions, marked by a recognition on the one hand of the ways in which digital practices mediate and reinforce domination, dispossession, disenfranchisement, and social differentiation, and on the other, a desire to exploit the emancipatory potential of digital practices as sites of generative possibility for thinking, acting, and being otherwise. In assessing visions of alternative smart cities, we highlighted the need for transformational change, for instance, through technology sovereignty movements which provide collective ownership of data-intensive digital and algorithmic platforms and services.