School of Philosophy, Renmin University of China
School of Marxism, Beijing University of Civil Engineering and Architecture

数字技术提升了政府和企业运行以及社会治理的效率,数字治理是信息通信科技发展和公共权力塑造的共同产物。面对日益复杂的流动社会,数字治理借助于新基础设施,呈现为一种综合的和智能的模式。当代智能革命加速了数字治理的布局,对于各领域的数字化转型兼具机遇和挑战。针对数字治理的当下表现及未来行动,本文提出一种有限的技术治理观念,主张约束计算理性以重构数字治理认知,平衡治理与反治理现象以调控数字治理行动,立足有限技治观念以引导数字治理方向。

Digital technology has improved the efficiency of government and business operations. However, there is still a dividebetween the cognition and action of digital governance, the tools and value commitments, which fundamentally affects ourunderstanding of the limits of digital governance and our implementing of a reasonable regulation. Therefore, thinking about how toreconstruct the cognition of digital governance and guide the action of digital governance has theoretical and practical significance.This paper is helpful to philosophy of technology and engineering philosophy to reconsiderate people’s reaction to digital society, andpropose a limited conception of digital governance.Firstly, computing rationality should be constrained in order to reconstruct the cognition of digital governance. Modern society isessentially the mobile society shaped by digital governance. Overemphasizing efficiency is easily to overlook the other complexsocial factors, and exacerbat the issues of fairness, trust and power and responsibility in digital governance. The cognitive roots of thisproblems lie in the expansion of computational rationality. Digital governance reinforces the belief in computational rationality,presupposing that expanded data collection will always increase knowledge. But in reality, algorithms and big data technologies arenot always compatible with social governance expectations, and cannot be adequately derived from the premise of rationality and thecondition of technical effectiveness. The key to constrai computational rationality lies in providing operational and proceduralprinciples.Secondly, the governance and anti-governance phenomena should be balanced in order to regulate digital governance actions. Thegoal of digital governance is to run society scientifically and improve the efficiency of social operation. However, digital governanceis excessive to some extent, which mainly stems from the information asymmetry between the administrators and the public, as wellas the lack of institutional design of technological governance. Actually, digital governance is not a top-down process, but also abottom-up process intervened by the public actor. Thus, digital technologies do not empower governance in all situations.Finally, the limited conception of technicd governance guide the direction of digital governance. The so-called limited conceptionof digital governance seeks to critically integrate-rather than to compromise between-technical instrumentalism and technicaldeterminism. The concept of limited technology governance will provide the following directions for current digital governanceactions. ① Strengthening the cooperation between digital experts and governance experts. ② Constraining the digital power of publicsector and private sector. ③ Making a distinguish between governance and manipulation. There is a limit to the application of digitalgovernance.It is true that digital governance has the potential risks of totalitarianism. The limited conception of digital governance holds a non-determinism on the relationship between digital governance and digital manipulation. Digitization has become the trend ofcontemporary governance. In the face of such a trend, we should reconstruct the current cognition of digital governance, balancedigital governance actions, and guide the direction of digital governance in mobile society.

国家社会科学基金重大项目“现代技术治理理论问题研究”(21&ZD064)

刘永谋, 谭泰成. 数字治理的认知重构与行动导向[J]. 工程研究——跨学科视野中的工程, 2023, 15(4): 280-289.

Liu Y M, Tan T C. Reconstructing the congition and reorienting the action of digital governance[J]. Journal of EngineeringStudies, 2023, 15(4): 280-289.