CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 24Ethics and Social Impacts of AICritical Theory and PhilosophyDigital Media and Philosophy

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Guest Editors’ Introduction: New Challenges to the Enlightenment: How Twenty-First-Century Sociotechnological Systems Facilitate Organized Immaturity and How to Counteract It

Open access
Scherer, Andreas Georg, Neesham, Cristina, Schoeneborn, Dennis, Scholz, Markus·2023·Business Ethics Quarterly
DOI 10.1017/beq.2023.7
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Organized immaturity, the reduction of individual capacities for public use of reason constrained by sociotechnological systems, constitutes a significant pushback against the project of Enlightenment. Forms of immaturity have long been a concern for philosophers and social theorists, such as Kant, Arendt, Fromm, Marcuse, and Foucault. Recently, Zuboff’s concept of “surveillance capitalism” describes how advancements in digital technologies lead to new, increasingly sophisticated forms of organized immaturity in democratic societies. We discuss how sociotechnological systems initially designed to meet human needs can inhibit the multidimensional development of individuals as mature citizens. To counteract these trends, we suggest two mechanisms: disorganizing immaturity as a way to safeguard individuals’ and collectives’ negative freedoms (freedoms from), and organizing maturity as a way to strengthen positive freedoms (freedoms to). Finally, we provide an outlook on the five further articles that constitute the Business Ethics Quarterly Special Issue “Sociotechnological Conditions of Organized Immaturity in the Twenty-First Century.”

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/beq.2023.7

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In a digital society, establishing and maintaining Habermasian principles require specific, additional effort from the state, the media, businesses and ICT firms in particular, NGOs, and social movements working together as key role players in complex cross-sector governance networks.

    “In a digital society, establishing and maintaining these principles require specific, additional effort from the state, the media, businesses and ICT firms in particular, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and social movementsall working together as key role players in complex cross-sector governance networks (Cohen & Fung, 2021;Scherer et al., 2023).”

    From Organized Immaturity in a Post-Kantian Perspective: Toward a critical theory of surveillance capitalism (2023) · cites this paper as Scherer et al., 2023

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 86

  1. Alacovska, A., Booth, P., & Fieseler, C. 2023. A pharmacological perspective on technology-induced organised immaturity: The caregiving role of the arts. Business Ethics Quarterly, 33(3): 565-95.
  2. Arendt, H. 1958/1998. The human condition. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  3. Arendt, H. 1959/1968. What is freedom? In H. Arendt, Between past and future: Eight exercises in political thought: 143-171. New York: Viking Press.
  4. Aristotle, 2011. Aristotle's Nicomachean ethics (R. C. Bartlett & S. D. Collins, Eds. & Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  5. Bennett, W. L., & Livingston, S. (Eds.). 2020. The disinformation age: Politics, technology, and disruptive communication in the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press.
  6. Berlin, I. 1969. Two concepts of liberty. In I. Berlin (Ed.), Four essays on liberty: 118-72. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  7. Bohnet, I. 2016. What works: Gender equality by design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni- versity Press.
  8. Bostrom, N. 2014. Superintelligence: Paths, dangers, strategies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  9. Bradshaw, S., & Howard, P. N. 2018. Challenging truth and trust: A global inventory of organized social media manipulation. Working paper no. 2018.1, Project on Com- putational Propaganda, University of Oxford.
  10. Broussard, M. 2018. Artificial unintelligence: How computers misunderstand the world. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  11. Brünker, F., Deitelhoff, F., & Mirbabaie, M. 2019. Collective identity formation on Insta- gram: Investigating the social movement Fridays for Future. arXiv:1912.05123. · arXiv
  12. Buhmann, A., & Fieseler, C. 2021. Deep learning meets deep democracy: Deliberative governance and responsible innovation in artificial intelligence. Business Ethics Quarterly, 33(1): 146-79.
  13. Carmi, E., Yates, S. J., Lockley, E., & Pawluczuk, A. 2020. Data citizenship: Rethinking data literacy in the age of disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation. Internet Policy Review, 9(2): 1-22.
  14. Castelló, I., & Lopez-Berzosa, D. 2021. Affects in online stakeholder engagement: A dissensus perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly, 33(1): 180-215.
  15. Cederström, C., & Spicer, A. 2015. The wellness syndrome. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
  16. Chambers, S. 2003. Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6: 307-26.
  17. Cholbi, M. 2017. Paternalism and our rational powers. Mind, 126(501): 123-53.
  18. Clegg, S. R. (Ed.). 1990. Organization theory and class analysis: New approaches and new issues. Berlin: DeGruyter.
  19. Clegg, S. R., & Higgins, W. 1990. Against the current: Organizational sociology and socialism. In S. R. Clegg (Ed.), Organization theory and class analysis: New approaches and new issues: 449-80. Berlin: DeGruyter.
  20. Crouch, C. 2004. Post-democracy. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
  21. de Jonquières, G. 2017. The world turned upside down: The decline of the rules-based international system and the rise of authoritarian nationalism. International Politics, 54(5): 552-60.
  22. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. 1983. Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Minneap- olis: University of Minnesota Press.
  23. De Matas, J. 2017. Making the nation great again: Trumpism, Euro-skepticism and the surge of populist nationalism. Journal of Comparative Politics, 10(2): 19-36.
  24. de Tocqueville, A. 1840/1945. Democracy in America. Vol. 2, The social influence of democracy. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
  25. Dupré, L. 2004. The Enlightenment and the intellectual foundations of modern culture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  26. Dusek, Val (Ed.). 1993. Philosophy of technology: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
  27. Eatwell, R., & Goodwin, M. 2018. National populism: The revolt against liberal democracy. London: Penguin Books.
  28. Emery, F. 2016. Characteristics of socio-technical systems. In E. Trist, H. Murray, & B. Trist (Eds.), The social engagement of social science, a Tavistock anthology: 157-86. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
  29. Etchanchu, H., de Bakker, F., & Delmestri, G. 2021. Social movement organizations' agency for sustainable organizing. In S. Teerikangas, T. Onkila, K. Koistinen, & M. Mäkelä (Eds.), Research handbook of sustainability agency: 194-210. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
  30. Eubanks, V. 2018. Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. New York: St. Martin's Press.
  31. Fleischacker, S. 2013. What is enlightenment? London: Routledge.
  32. Floridi, L., & Chiriatti, M. (2020). GPT-3: Its nature, scope, limits, and consequences. Minds and Machines, 30(4): 681-94.
  33. Foucault, M. 1982. The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4): 777-95.
  34. Fuchs, C. 2005. The internet as a self-organizing socio-technological system. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 12(3): 37-81.
  35. Fuchs, C. 2008. Internet and society: Social theory in the information age. New York: Routledge.
  36. Galloway, S. 2017. The four: The hidden DNA of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google. London: Bantam Press.
  37. Gigerenzer, G. 2022. How to remain smart in a smart world. London: Penguin.
  38. Gorton, W. A. 2016. Manipulating citizens: How political campaigns' use of behavioral social science harms democracy. New Political Science, 38(1): 61-80.
  39. Habermas, J. 1962/1989. The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  40. Habermas, J. 1970. Technology and science as "ideology." In J. Habermas (Ed.), Toward a rational society: Student protest, science, and politics: 81-122. Boston: Beacon Press.
  41. Habermas, J. 1998/2001. The postnational constellation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  42. Habermas, J. 2022. Reflections and hypotheses on a further structural transformation of the political public sphere. Theory, Culture, and Society, 39(4): 145-171.
  43. Hansen, P. G. 2015. Nudge and libertarian paternalism: Does the hand fit the glove? European Journal of Risk Regulation, 1(1): 155-74.
  44. Harcourt, B. E. 2015. Exposed: Desire and disobedience in the digital age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  45. Harracá, M., Castelló, I., & Gawer, A. 2023. How digital platforms organize immaturity: A sociosymbolic framework of platform power. Business Ethics Quarterly, 33(3): 440-72.
  46. Hedström, P., & Ylikoski, P. 2010. Causal mechanisms in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 36: 49-76.
  47. Hilferding, R. 1910/1981. Finance capital: A study of the latest phase of capitalist devel- opment. New York: Routledge.
  48. Holt, R., & Wiedner, R. 2023. Technology, maturity, and craft: Making vinyl records in the digital age. Business Ethics Quarterly, 33(3): 532-64.
  49. Kamishima, Y., Gremmen, B., & Akizawa, H. 2018. Can merging a capability approach with effectual processes help us define a permissible action range for AI robotics entre- preneurship? Philosophy of Management, 17(1): 97-113.
  50. Khanna, T. 2018. When technology gets ahead of society. Harvard Business Review, 96(4): 86-95.
  51. Kitchens, B., Johnson, S. L., & Gray, P. 2020. Understanding echo chambers and filter bubbles: The impact of social media on diversification and partisan shifts in news consumption. MIS Quarterly, 44(4): 1619-49.
  52. Knight, E., & Tsoukas, H. 2019. When fiction trumps truth: What "post-truth" and "alter- native facts" mean for management studies. Organization Studies, 40(2): 183-97.
  53. Lindebaum, D., den Hond, F., Greenwood, M., Chamberlain, J. A., & Andersson, L. 2022. Freedom, work and organizations in the 21st century: Freedom for whom and for whose purpose? Human Relations, 75(10): 1853-74.
  54. Lundgaard, D., & Etter, M. 2022. Everyday talk on Twitter: Informal deliberation about (ir-) responsible business conduct in social media arenas. Business and Society. DOI: 10.1177/00076503221139838. · DOI
  55. Marcuse, H. 1964/1991. One-dimensional man: Studies in the ideology of advanced indus- trial society (2nd ed.). Boston: Beacon Press.
  56. Matten, D., & Crane, A. 2005. Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30(1): 166-79.
  57. McCoy, J., Rahman, T., & Somer, M. 2018. Polarization and the global crisis of democracy: Common patterns, dynamics, and pernicious consequences for democratic polities. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(1): 16-42.
  58. Mejias, U. A., & Couldry, N. 2019. Datafication. Internet Policy Review, 8(4): 1-10.
  59. Mill, J. S. 1859/1989. On liberty. In Colini, S. (Ed.), John Stuart Mill: On liberty and other writings: 1-116. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  60. Mumford, E. 1981. Participative systems design: Structure and method. System Objectives and Solutions, 1(1): 5-19.
  61. Napoli, P. M. 2019. Social media and the public interest: Media regulation in the disinfor- mation age. New York: Columbia University Press.
  62. O'Connor, C., & Weatherall, J. O. 2019. The misinformation age: How false beliefs spread. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  63. Pal, R., & Crowcroft, J. 2019. Privacy trading in the surveillance capitalism age viewpoints on "privacy-preserving" societal value creation. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Com- munication Review, 49(3): 26-31.
  64. Pek, S., Mena, S., & Lyons, B. 2022. The role of deliberation mini-publics in improving deliberative capacity of multi-stakeholder interaction. Business Ethics Quarterly, 33(1): 102-45.
  65. Picard, R. G. 2016. Isolated and particularised: The state of contemporary media and communications policy research. Javnost-The Public, 23(2): 135-52.
  66. Picard, R. G., & Pickard, V. 2017. Essential principles for contemporary media and communications policymaking: A report. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford.
  67. Pinker, S. (2018). Enlightenment now: The case for reason, science, humanism, and pro- gress. London: Penguin Books.
  68. Rawls, J. 1993. Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
  69. Richards, N. M. 2013. The dangers of surveillance. Harvard Law Review, 126: 1934-65.
  70. Ruehle, R. C. 2023. The moral permissibility of digital nudging in the workplace: Recon- ciling justification and legitimation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 33(3): 502-31.
  71. Schade, F. 2023. Dark sides of data transparency: Organized immaturity after GDPR? Business Ethics Quarterly, 33(3): 473-501.
  72. Scherer, A. G., & Neesham, C. 2021. New challenges to Enlightenment: Why socio- technological conditions lead to organized immaturity and what to do about it. SSNR working paper. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3753612.
  73. Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. 2007. Toward a political conception of corporate social responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(4): 1096-1120.
  74. Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. 2011. The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4): 899-931.
  75. Scherer, A. G., & Voegtlin, C. 2020. Corporate governance for responsible innovation: Approaches to corporate governance and their implications for sustainable develop- ment. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(2): 182-208.
  76. Scherer, A. G., & Voegtlin, C. In press. MNCs as responsible political actors in global business: Challenges and implications for human resource management. In T. P. Lyon (Ed.), Corporate political responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  77. Schwoon, B., Schoeneborn, D., & Scherer, A. G. 2022. Enacting a grand challenge for business and society: Theorizing issue maturation in the media-based public dis- course on COVID-19 in three national contexts. Business and Society. DOI: 10.1177/00076503221110486. · DOI
  78. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. 2008. Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  79. Trittin-Ulbrich, H., Scherer, A. G., Munro, I., & Whelan, G. 2021. Exploring the dark and unexpected sides of digitalization: Toward a critical agenda. Organization, 28(1): 8-25.
  80. Urry, J. 1990. Disorganized capitalism and social class. In S. R. Clegg (Ed.), Organization theory and class analysis: New approaches and new issues: 261-74. Berlin: DeGruyter.
  81. Varian, H. R. 2010. Computer mediated transactions. American Economic Review, 100(2): 1-10.
  82. Varian, H. R. 2014. Beyond big data. Business Economics, 49(1): 27-31.
  83. West, S. M. 2019. Data capitalism: Redefining the logics of surveillance and privacy. Business and Society, 58(1): 20-41.
  84. Whelan, G. 2021. Megacorporation: The infinite times of Alphabet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  85. A G S (andreas.scherer@uzh.ch, corresponding author) is a chaired professor of business administration at the University of Zurich, Switzerland. He does research in business ethics, CSR, international management, and organization theory. He has published more than twenty books, monographs, and special issues. In addition, his work has been published in research outlets like the Academy of Management Review, Adminis- trative Science Quarterly, Business Ethics Quarterly, the Journal of Management Studies, Organization Science, and Organization Studies. C N is an associate professor in business ethics and corporate social respon- sibility at Newcastle University, UK. Her research focuses on the role of technology in ecological society, sustainability theories of human organization, theories of value for sustainable business models, and philosophical methods for management and organization research. Her work has been published in journals including Business and Society, the Journal of Business Ethics, Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal, and Financial Accountability and Management.
  86. D S is a professor of communication, organization, and CSR at Copen- hagen Business School, Denmark, and a visiting professor of organization studies at Leu- phana University of Lüneburg. Germany. His research is focused on the constitutive role of communication for phenomena of organization, organizing, and organizationality. His work has been published in the Academy of Management Review, Business and Society, Human Relations, the Journal of Management Studies, Management Communication Quarterly, and Organization Studies, among other journals.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Scherer, A. G., Neesham, C., Schoeneborn, D., & Scholz, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • Leuphana University of Lüneburg (DE)
  • Technische Universität Dresden (DE)
ORCID
Venue
Business Ethics Quarterly
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2023-07
Volume
33
Issue
3
Pages
409-439
ISSN
  • 1052-150X (ISSN-L)
  • 2153-3326
DOI
10.1017/beq.2023.7
OpenAlex
W4385233785
Cited by
24
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 4
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Business Ethics Quarterly (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • CBS Research Portal (Copenhagen Business School) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Multilingual Matters (Channel View Publications) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Critical Theory and Philosophy
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Digital Media and Philosophy
Keywords
Enlightenment, surveillance capitalism, negative freedom, positive freedom, digital technologies, Immanuel Kant, Hannah Arendt, Michel Foucault, Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review