p between humans and machines? The naturalisation of a

p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; direction: ltr; line-height: 120%; text-align: left; }a:link { }

Artificial
Intelligence
and
National
Identity

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

the
naturalization
of
technology

in
the
making
of
Europe

Cecilia
Passanti

1

Robothood

the
redefinition
of
politics
boundaries

The
24th
of
October

2017
at

the
Future

Investment
Initiative,
event
that
connects
global
investors

to

innovators1,

Saudi

Arabia

has

granted

citizenship

to

a
female
robot.

Sophia,
juicy
lips
and
big
smiles,
is
a
companion
robot
and
she
need
humans
to
trust

her
because
she
want
to
help
them
living
a
better

life
(Arab

News,
2017).
No
matter
her
good
intentions,

the
polemic
didn’t
take
long
to
point
out
the
current
state

of
Saudi
woman’s
rights
underlining

that

Sophia
was
not
hiding
her
hairs
into
her
Hijab
and

her
shapes
into

her
Abaya

(Condomninas,

2017).

Is
she
subject

to
different
laws
than

other
Saudi’s
women?
What

this
event
tells
us
about

the
global
and
contemporary
power
relations

between
humans

and
machines?

The

naturalisation
of
a
machine,

complex
system
of
cables,
circuits

and
softwares
blurs
boundaries

between
artifacts

(technologie)

and
humans

(nature),
at
the
same
time
that
define
a
new
category

of
social
actors:

the

technological

artifacts.

Two
main
problematics

raise
from
this
new
configuration.

I
will
call
the
first
one
the
re-
definition
of
boundaries

between
human
and
non-human

(Latour,

1991)
and
between
politics
and
technology2.

The
redefinition
of
personhood
and
other
core
democracy
concepts
as
citizenship,
governance,
representation,
public
opinion
and
participation


in
an
historical

moment
in
which
human

identity

and
body
are
deeply
embedded
into
digital
and

technological

tools
interconnected
to
networks

and

infrastructures
(Larkin,
2013)

put
technology
at
the
heart
of
political
analysis.

Wester
development
of
large-scale
technologies,
within
the
collaboration

between
firms
and
governments,

1
http://futureinvestmentinitiative.com/en/home

2
Technologies

have

their

own
politics

as
Langdon

argued

(Langdon,

1986)
showing

how
they
embody
specific
form
of
authority
and
power.

Societal
and
cultural
context

are
modified
by
techno-
logical
implementation
as
for
example
the
introduction
of
digital

technology

in
elections
(Passanti,

2017)
or
the
design
of
a
new
the
city
plan.

have
reshaped

gouvernance

and
decision-making
in
new
political

configurations

il-
lustrated
by
the

concept

of
technopolitic
:

material

operation

that

don’t
look
like
political
but

that

organizes
market,

objects
in
society
and
social
order.

“Liberalism

is
a
form
of
gouvernement
that

disavows
itself,
seeking
to
organize
populations

and
territories

through
technological
domains
that
seem
far
removed
from
formal
political
institution”
(Larkin,

2013,
328).

The

centrality

of
technological

policies
and
founding
in
current
politics
need
a
systematic

questioning
for
a
better

understanding
of
contemporary
priorities.

In
the
Sophie
scenario
as
in
many
others,
technologies
and

the

firms
they

produce

them
enjoy
different
rights

than

humans

(as
we
see
in
the
global
free
trade

of
products
compared
to
the
global
flow
of
people).

Sophia’s
citizenship
is
a
national

declaration
of
political
and
economical
priorities:

technology
and
innovation
come
first.
This
lead
us
to
the
second
problematic


that

I
will
call
the
technology-human
hierarchization


and
that

concerns
public
policy
trend

to
put
forward
policy
intervention
through
technology
development
mediated

by
the
private

sector
instead

of
investing
directly
in
“human

projects”.

Which
kind
of
technological
imaginaries
and
desirables
futures
are
currently

leading
Europe?

IA
development
is
globally
leaded
by
international
economies
and
competition.
Today,

USA
high-tek
firms
are
leading
in
IA,
machine
learning
and
robotic.

In
the
first
place
Google
that
have
been
buying
the
most
cutting-edge

IA
firms
worldwide,
some
of
the
Europeans
and
who’s
investing
in
IA
to
push
forward
the
potential

use
of
the
database

on
humanity

making
this
knowledge
not
just
readable
but
also
thinkable
for
the
computer
(Cadwalladr,
2014).
If
North
America
is
defining
world
priority
in
termes

of
high-teck

possible
futures,

Europe

as
well
has
a
rich
and
often
unknown
IA
environment.

As
the
European
Commission
Andrus
Andsip’s
blog
shows,
Europe
“has
long
understood

the
importance

of
robotics
and
AI”
(Ansip,
2017).
What

this
importance

is
about?

2

State-of-the-technology

a
macro
and
micro
perspective

To
address
the
object
of
Artificial
Intelligence’s
public
policies
in
Europe
we
propose
to
look
at
two
sets
of
scientific
literature
for
a
double
research
purpose.

(A)
On
one
side
we
aim
to
investigate

the
role
of
this
specific
scientific
knowledge
and
practice

(IA
and
Robotics)
is
the
development
of
a
uniforme
narrative

about

a
desirable
future
that
produce
community

identity

for
scientists,

engineers,
fundrais-
ers,
founders
and
users
(citizens
of
this
imagined
community):

a
supranational
and

macro
perspective.

Academics

who’ve
been

discussing
the
role
of
the

constitution
of
science
and
technology
in
state
building
and
in
the
(re)production
of
social
political
order
belong
mainly
to
Science
Technology
and/in
Society
(STS).
This
discipline,
that

translate
technology
language
in
power
and
politics’
one
and
the
other

way
around

(Latour,

2004),
analyse

the

role
of
science
and

technology
within
the

society
who
produce
them.

Jasanoff
(Jasanoff,
2005,
2014)
have
analyzed
the
convergence
between
biology


as
a
body
of
debates
on
knowledge
(OGM,
steam
cell,
cloning,
artificial
reproduction
etc.)


and
politics,
as
the
state

policy
agenda.

Compering
policy
on
life
science
in
different
country

(Europe

and
USA)
she
shows
a
global
trend,

private

as
well
as
public,

in
promoting
biotechnology

and

calming

people’s
fears

about

their

risks.
She
identify

three

aspect

of
contemporary
Western

politics
:
democracy

theories
concepts
cannot

be
understood

without

taking
into
account
science
and
technology
politics;
life
politics
are
incorporated

in
the
“nation-building”
process
(who
are
we
as
a
nation?);

the
way
in
which
citizens
understand
public
knowledge
modify
the
nature
of
democracy.

In
this
context,

the
author

had
defined
the
term
of
co-production
(…)
We
see
how
central

is
scientific
knowledge
for
nations

and
national

identities.

In
another

work,
Jasanoff
analyse
the
role
of
sociotechnical
imaginaries
in
the
building
of
Africans
countries.

Sociotechnical
imaginaries
are

“collectively
held,
institutionally
stabilized,

and

publicly

performed

vi-
sions
of
desirable

futures,

animated

by
shared

understanding
of
forms
of
social
life
and
social
order
attainable
through,
and
supportive

of,
ad-
vances
in
science
and
technology”
(Jasanoff
and
Sang-Hyun,
2015,
4)

The
role
of
those
imaginaries
lead
contemporary
national

and
supranational
pol-
itics
today
even
more
than

yesterday.

The
intergovernmental
Big
Science
collabora-
tion
in
Europe

a
technoscientific
tendency
after
II
World
War
who
pushed
states
in
large-scale
technological
development
financed
by
groups
of
governments

has
been
explored
with
interesting

results.

This
process
established

since
1950
for
compete
on
global
level,
shows
how
technological
integration
on
policy
have
the
same
effect
than
political
integration
(Hallonsten,

2014)

While
the
role
of
other

sciences
and
technologies
in
the
development
of
the
na-
tional
imaginaries,
identity
and
unity
have
been
explored.

The
role
of
AI
and
robotics
knowledge
and
imaginaries
about
desirable
and
high-technological
futures
in
the
Eu-
ropean
Union
construction

is
still
unexplored.

(B)
On
the
other
side
this
research
aim
to
investigate

the
local
epistemic
machin-

ery,
the
cultural,

structural
and
production

contexts

of
the
practice
life
of
a
specific
knowledge
(Knorr-Cetina,
1999),
of
IA
and
Robotic
laboratories.

The
observation
of the
laboratory

“real
life”
(Latour,

1988)
and
daily
practice
as
a
boundaries

cultural
context,

subject
to
ethnographic

attentions
and
methods,
continues
works
begun
by
studies
of
contemporary
scientific
laboratories

in
the
late
1970
who
aims
to
investi-
gate
how
knowledge
is
produced
in
science(Latour

and
Woolgar,
1979;
Knorr-Cetina,

1981).
Strategies
and
policies
of
knowing
and
organizing
a
production

environment
based
on
knowledge
are
at
the
core
of
those
research:

how
IA
scientist
and
laborato-
ries
mobilize
actors
and
society
to
think
that

what
they
are
doing
is
the
an
important
project
that

will
change
the
world
as
we
know
it
today?

The
number
of
academics
who’ve
based
their
fieldworks
in
AI
and
robotics
devel-
opment
laboratories

are
not
that

many
and

as
well
as
the
researches
on
sociotech-
nical
imaginaries


they

belong
to
the
North

American

academy,

reproducing

the
global
order
of
invention

and

knowledge
production.

Even
if
those
laboratory

are
often
public
founded,
society
leave
scientist
and
technocrats
doing
their
job
between
the
laboratory

walls.

One
exemple
of
the
breaking
of
this
rule
is
Richardson’
work
(Richardson,

2015).
Based
at
the
robots
laboratories

at
the
Massachusetts
Institute
of
technology
(MIT),

the
author

analyze
“how
robotic
fiction
is
taken
into
the
lived
realities
of
robotic
practices
and
transferred
into
the
making
of
robots,
returning

back
into
those
fictions”
(Richardson,

2015,
3).
How
science-fiction
imaginaries
inform
real
invention

life,
they
are
taken

into
account
by
founders
as
well
as
by
inventors.

An-
other
exemple
is
Helmreich’s
fieldwork,
based
at
the
Santa

Fe
Institute
of
Artificial
Life,
the

study

of
“possibles
biological”
form
of
life
and
environment
that

doesn’t
exist
in
current
univers.

The
autour

analyze
how
the
invention
structure
of
the
brand
new
(completely
invented
biological
organism)

is
dependent
from
cultural

and
tra-
ditional

form
of
social
order
(Helmreich,
2000).
The
disciplines
engaged
in
defining
new
concepts
that

stand

between
physical
sciences
and
human

sciences
are
Cyborg
and
Computing

Anthropology

(Lee
Downey
et
al.,
1995),
disciplines
who
study
the
interactions
between
humans

and
technologies.

The
central

role
of
those
disciplines
in
the
understanding
of
contemporary
policy,
politics
and
power
in
neoliberal
capital-
isme
that

relie
on
the
establishment
of
technology
as
a
form
of
gouvernance
which
go
beyond
traditional
politics.

Which
kind
of
sociotechnical
imaginaires

are
operating
in
the
making
of
Europe?

3

IA

and
European
political
culture

robot
enhancement

for

human
development

Since
2013,
the

European

Community

has
invested

in
robotics

and
AI.
From

this
investment
is
born
SPARC,

The
Partnership
for
Robotic

in
Europe

in
which
“700
million
of
EU
funding
for
2014-20,
bolstered

by
an
extra

2.1
billion
of
investment
committed

by
the
industry”

(Ansip,
2017).
The
aim
of
this
civilian
robot
program
is
to
promote
AI
development
in
EU
and
“to
strengthen
Europe’s
position
in
the
global
robotics
market”(European
Commission,
2014).

The
international
competition

for
invention

and
productivity
is
at
the
core
of
the
project.

“is
the
EU’s
industrial

policy
effort
to
strengthen
Europe’s
position
in
the
global
robotics
market

(60
billion
a
year
by
2020).
This
initiative

is
ex-
pected
to
create
over
240,000
jobs
in
Europe,
and
increase
Europe’s
share
of
the
global
market
to
42%
(a
boost
of
4
billion
per
year).

The
European
Commission
will
invest
700
million
and
euRobotics
2.1
billion”(European
Commission,
2014)

Enhance
European
productivity
in
robot
for
making
the
community
“not
merely
a
consumer
of
robots”
(European

Commission,
2014),
will
create
jobs,
and
Robotics
for
enables
companies
to
continue
manufacturing
in
Europe,
where
they
might
otherwise
move
operations

to
lower-cost
countries.

This
rhetorics
are
political
and
define
the
position
of
Europe
in
the
external

in-
ternational
context
and
contest
but
also
in
the
internal

on
underlining
social
concern
as
the
lack
of
jobs,
the
externalization
of
industry

etc.

The
aim
of
this

research
is
to
inscribe
the
actual
laboratory

and
found
raising
practice
of
scientists,

engineers
engaged
in
AI
and
Robotics
in
the
global
competition

for
invention
and
productivity.
This
will
allow
to
understand
which
desirable
future

europeans
investors
as
well
as
inventors
are
designing
at
the
same
time
that

we
understand
the
political
priority

of
the
community.

Does
Artificial
Intelligence
will
help
human

being
to
live
a
better
life?
What

is
their
real
impact

in
business,
economy
and
in
society
(Dirican,

2015;
Makridakis,

2017)?
This
project
aims
to
answer
this
question.

A
fist
hypothesis

argue
that

the
international
competition

for
the
future

design
of
societies
is
a
supranational
power
competition

and
technological
performance
that
is
not
necessarily
motivated

by
real
effects
economic
and
social
development.

I
will
try
to
reduce
technology
to
his
“performative

dimension”
(Jasanoff
and
Kim,
2013)
to
analyze
the
real
effects
of
sociotechnical
imaginaries
and
their
real
effects
on
the
society
in
which
they
are
produced.

I
will
disaggregate

the
international
reference
of
European

technocrats
and
from
the

politicians

discours

and

practice

on
technology,

AI,
and
Robot

development.

How
Europe

inscribe
herself
in
this

global
competition

scenario?

Which
high-tek
strategy

she’s
development?
Which
R&D
and
university

policies
are
implemented?
How
does
narratives

are
part
of
a
naturalized
and
normalized
contemporary
political
narrative?
Which
kind
of
government
the
aim
to
promote?

How
liberalism
and
new
form
of
post-industrial
government
find
their
way
in
European

Founding

mobilizing
the
narrative

of
development,

international
competition

and
the
creation

of
jobs?

3.1

Research
design

EU

futures
design

This
research
aims
is
to
focus
on
the”leaving
practice
of
technosciences”
(Richardson,

2015,
1)
implemented
in
three
European
IA
and
robotic
laboratories

situated

in
three
different
country
(England,

France,
Italy)3
to
understand
the
community
imaginaries
and
practice
on
high-technology.

The
research
design
illustrated
below
goes
from
the
general
to
the
particular

how
does
international
policies,
legislation
and
founding
inform
practice

laboratory

life?


for
after
coming
back

how
laboratory

practice,
invention

and

IA
production

shape

national

and

supranational
policies,

political
design
and
imaginaries?

First
year

We
shall
explore
first,
the
history
of
IA
in
Europe,
the
legislations
and
law
implemen-
tation

and
the
community

development
programs.

A
cartography
of
leading
firms,
organisations

and
universities
engaged
in
AI
research
for
a
better

understand
of
the
European

IA
ecosystem.

Which

specific
field
ans
sector
of
robotics

are
privileged
(health,

industry,

softwares,
customer
relationship

management,
mass
production,
training

etc.)

by
the
Community

and
why?
To
which
sector
they
correspond?

How
the
private

and
public
sector
articulate
one
to
each
other

in
the
developing
of
IA?
Which

political

and

technological

imageries
brought
to
this
development?

Which
public
interest

reside
in
this

development?

How
this

development
is
supposed

to
revolution

the
European

Community?

How
does
European

imagine
its
selfs
facing
international
imaginary
of
power?

Second
and
third
year

3
Temporarily
chosen

laboratories:

Rethinking
Robots

(UK)

http://www.rethinkrobotics.
com/;
SoftBank

Robotics
(FR)https://www.ald.softbankrobotics.com/en;
COgnitive

Develop-
ment
for
Friendly

RObots

and
Regabilitation
(CODEFROR)
(ITA)

Home


research

The

historical

cartography
of
IA
in
Europe

will
inform
the
choice
of
the

IA
lab-
oratory

where
the
fieldwork
will
be
based.

Which

epistemic

culture

organize

AI
knowledge
in
Europe
(Knorr-Cetina,
1999)?
Which
theories
are
leading
the
sector?
How
laboratory

life
menage
to
get
EU
founding?

How
does
IA
is
shaping
the
local
environment
where
the
firms
is
operating?

How
does
it
is
shaping

societies?

How
European
robotic
and
AI
inscribe
themselves
and
identify
nationally

them
selves
in
opposition
to
other

nations,

USA
in
particular?
In
which
ways
the
concept
of
per-
sonhood
in
Europe
is
shaped
by
technosciences
and
the
development
of
humanoids?
Which
beliefs
and
imaginaries
are
produced?

We

will
see
how
European

identity

is
defined
by

technological

and

industrial
development
in
comparaison

with

international
technology

powers.
Supranational
knowledge
shape
national

technological
culture
always
comparing
with
“an
outside”:
the
international
competition

for
the

best
and
more
advanced

technology.

Finally,
this
research
will
discuss
how
human

define
humanness
in
relationship

to
machines,
how
experts
and
profane
relation
is
defined
in
AI
field
and
how
genders
are
organized
focusing
on
philosophy
of
science
and
technology
approaches.

The
frontiers
between
technology
and
politics,
which
have
always
been
porous,
need
to
be
discussed
for
a
better
understanding
of
the
imaginary
work
who’s
leading
the
global
decision
making.

4

Statement
of
fit

Professors
personal
advices
are
rares
and
when
they
come
they
don’t
go
unnoticed.
More
than

one
of
them
have
pointed
me
to
the
EUI
Phd.

The
number
of
year
of
en-
gagement
and
the
grants
that

Institute
is
offering
make
of
it
one
of
the
most
wanted
in
Europe.

The
radical
revolution

to
a
political
science’s
student
life
that

this
Phd
represents

is
unique:

it
allow
to
take

a
brake

from
the

incertitude

and
the
lack
of
legitimacy
that

he.she
is
living
since
he.she
has
chosen
to
write
scientific
texts
about
society.

EUI
seems
to
provide
a
community
and
cultural

frame
in
which
one
could
easily
pass
from
the

student
status

to

the

research

one
with

activities

that

intro-
duce
to
the
university

epistemic
machinery.

My
research

focus
on
anthropology

of
technology,
build
in
the
French
university

and
implemented
on
an
African
fieldwork
(Kenya)
led
me
to
the
desire
to
go
back
in
my
home
country

(Italy)

for
turning

the
attention
on
my
“community

politics”:

the
devices
of
production

of
the
European
union
identity

thorough

technology
and
rhetoric

of
possibles
futures.

Today

insti-
tution

legitimacy
and
politics
(re)production,
strictly
based
on
expertise,
knowledge
and
public
founding
on
science
and

technology.

How
does
Europe

is
designing
its
future
and
identity

within
the
international
competition?

References

Andrus

Ansip.

Making

the

most

of

robotics

and

artificial

in-

telligence

in

Europe,

November

2017.

URL

https://ec.

europa.eu/commission/commissioners/2014-2019/ansip/blog/

making-most-robotics-and-artificial-intelligence-europe_en.

Arab

News.

Robot

Sophia
speaks
at

Saudi
Arabia’s

Future

Investment

Initiative,
October

2017.
URL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMrX08PxUNY.

Carole

Cadwalladr.

Are

the

robots

about

to

rise?

Google’s

new

director

of

engineering

thinks

so.
.
.
,

2014.

URL

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/22/

robots-google-ray-kurzweil-terminator-singularity-artificial-intelligence.

Baptiste

Condomninas.

L’Arabie

saoudite

accorde

la

citoyennet´e

a`

un

robot.

RFI,

Moyen-Orient,

October

2017.

URL

http://www.rfi.fr/moyen-orient/

20171028-arabie-saoudite-intelligence-artificielle-robot-sophia-nationalite-citoye

Cu¨neyt

Dirican.

The

Impacts

of
Robotics,

Artificial
Intelligence
On
Business
and

Economics.
Procedia


Social
and
Behavioral
Sciences,
195:564–573,
2015.

European

Commission.

EU
launches

world’s
largest

civilian
robotics

programme.

240,000

new

jobs

expected.,

June

2014.

URL

http://europa.eu/rapid/

press-release_IP-14-619_en.htm.

Olof
Hallonsten.

The

Politics

of
European

Collaboration

in
Big
Science.

In
The

Global
Politics

of
Science
and
Technology

Vol.
2,
Global
Power
Shift,
pages
31–

46.
Springer-Verlag,
Berlin,
Heidelberg,
2014.

Stefan
Helmreich.
Silicon
Second
Nature:

Culturing
Artificial
Life
in
a
Digital
World,
Updated
With
a
New
Preface.

University
of
California
Press,
Berkeley
Los
Angeles London,
updated

edition
edition,
2000.

Sheila
Jasanoff.

Design
on
Nature:

Science
and

Democracy

in
Europe

and

United

States.

Princeton

University
Press,
Princeton

and
Oxford,
2005.

Sheila
Jasanoff.

Biotechnology

and

Empire:
The
Global
Power

of
Seeds
and

Sci-
ence.
In
The
Global
Politics
of
Science
and
Technology

Vol.
1.
Springer,
Berlin,
Heidelberg,
2014.

Sheila
Jasanoff
and
Sang-Hyun
Kim.
Sociotechnical
Imaginaries
and
National
Energy

Policies.
Science
as
Culture,
22(2):189–196,
2013.

Sheila
Jasanoff
and

Kim

Sang-Hyun.

Dreamscapes

of
Modernity.

Sociotechnical
Imaginaires

and
the
Fabrication
of
Power.

University

of
Chicago
Press,
London,
Chicago,
2015.

Karin
Knorr-Cetina.
The
Manufacture

of
Knowledge.
Pergamon
Press,
Oxford,
New

York,
1981.

Karin
Knorr-Cetina.
Epistemic

Cultures.

Harvard

University

Press,
Harvard,

1999.

URL
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674258945.

Winner
Langdon.

Do
artifact

have
politics?

In
The
Wale
and
the
Reactor.

A
Search
of
Limits
in
an
Age
of
High
Technology.
University
of
Chicago
Press,
Chicago
and
London,
1986.

Brian
Larkin.

The
Politics
and
Poetics
of
Infrastructure.
Annual
Review
of
Anthro-
pology,
42:327–343,
2013.

URL
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.

1146/annurev-anthro-092412-155522.

Bruno

Latour.

Science
in
Action.

How
to
Follow
Scientists

and
Engineers

through

Society.
Harvard

University
Press,
1988.

Bruno

Latour.

We

Have

Never

Been

Modern.

La

D´ecouverte,

Paris,

1991.

URL

https://monoskop.org/images/e/e4/Latour_Bruno_We_Have_
Never_Been_Modern.pdf.

Bruno
Latour.

Politics

of
Nature.

How
to
Bring
the
Sciences
into
Democracy.

Har-
vard
University
Press,
Harvard,

2004.

Bruno
Latour

and
Steve
Woolgar.

Laboratory

Life:

The
Construction
of
Scientific

Facts.

Princeton

University
Press,
1979.
Google-Books-ID:
XTcjm0flPdYC.

Gary
Lee
Downey,
Joseph

Dumit,

and
Sarah
Williams.
Cyborg
Anthropology.

An-
thropologies

of
the

Body,

10(2):264–269,
1995.
URL

http://www.jstor.org/
stable/656336?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents.

Spyros
Makridakis.

The
forthcoming

Artificial
Intelligence
(AI)
revolution:

Its
im-
pact
on
society
and
firms.
Futures,

90:46–60,
2017.

Cecilia
Passanti.

Machines
en
Politique:

Le
rˆole
des
Technologies

lectorales
dans
les

lections
de
2017
au
Kenya,
October

2017.

Kathleen

Richardson.

An
Anthropology
of
Robots
and
AI.
Annihilation

Anxiety
and

Machines.

Routledge,

2015.