Sound Research WIKINDX
Sound Research WIKINDX |
|
 |
|
Penttilä, A., & Mertanen, M. (2025). Reconsidering Alterity of Ihde’s Garden: A Conceptual Critique. Human Studies. Added by: alexb44 (5/16/26, 7:36 AM) Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard (5/16/26, 8:17 AM) |
 |
| Resource type: Journal Article Language: en: English Published DOI: 10.1007/s10746-024-09779-6 BibTeX citation key: Penttila2025 Email resource to friend View all bibliographic details  |
Categories: AI/Machine Learning Keywords: Alterity, Artificial Intelligence, Postphenomenology Creators: Mertanen, Penttilä Collection: Human Studies |
Views: 5/80
|
| Abstract |
|
"Don Ihde’s postphenomenological theory of technological relations has proven its value for understanding the role material artifacts play in our lives. However influential it may be, some of his key concepts have remained ambiguous. In this paper, we analyze and critically evaluate how Ihde describes one of these concepts, namely, alterity relation (Alterity). Alterity describes how technologies appear to subjects as humanlike others, or, as Ihde calls them, quasi-others. We identify and discuss three key problems with Ihde’s account of Alterity, namely, objectness, focality, and continuum. We argue that an overarching issue is prevalent in his account of Alterity: a subtle and possibly unintended emphasis on the subject’s role in constituting technological otherness. This emphasis runs counter to the interrelational ontological foundations of postphenomenology. Moreover, it hinders postphenomenological research from fully addressing the ethical and moral dimensions of its framework. By clarifying these problems, we aim to provide a fruitful groundwork for further reconsiderations of the framework’s key concepts and for the improvement of postphenomenological investigations concerning the nature of artifacts: our multifaceted engagements with, in and through them."
Added by: alexb44 Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard |
| Quotes |
|
pp. 574–575
Discussing the issue of hidden subject bias (HSB). The authors present this as a problem in Ihde's account of Alterity. However, anthropocentric as we are, HSB cannot be escaped from. "The issue lies in the use of ‘object’ within the context of interrelational ontology – for it is not an ontological but an epistemological concept. It implies dependence on a subject who constitutes or objectifies a particular thing. [. . .] HSB prevents understanding Alterity from the perspective of the significant ontological stance of artifacts themselves."
Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard
(5/16/26, 8:07 AM)
|