Cadres de négociation d’intérêts divergents

L'ère numérique a apporté de nombreux changements dans tous les aspects de la vie quotidienne. À mesure que les gouvernements fédéraux, étatiques et locaux ont mis en œuvre des technologies pour faciliter leurs fonctions, ils se sont confrontés à de nouveaux défis en matière d'équilibre des priorités, parmi lesquelles figurent les notions de gouvernance efficace, de justice, d'équité, de libertés individuelles et de sécurité publique, pour n'en citer que quelques unes. Cette conciliation des intérêts est un processus de négociation permanent qui offre aux parties prenantes la possibilité de remédier aux inégalités sociales. 

‍

Ce billet passe en revue quatre théories et cadres qui offrent quelques lignes directrices sur la manière de mener ces négociations. L'une des approches consiste à effectuer une analyse coûts-avantages traditionnelle. Une autre permet de comprendre que ces négociations se déroulent au sein d'un système. Une autre approche déconstruit les systèmes de pouvoir imbriqués et socialement construits pour concevoir des solutions centrées sur les communautés historiquement marginalisées. Enfin, la quatrième approche explore la pratique d'une éthique de l'amour.

Cost Benefit Analysis

L'analyse coûts-avantages est un processus que les entreprises et les responsables politiques utilisent souvent pour analyser les décisions à prendre et celles à abandonner. Issue de la micro-économie classique, cette technique revient à additionner les potentiels apports attendus d'une situation ou d'une action, puis à soustraire les coûts totaux associés à cette action. Si cette opération donne un résultat positif, elle est généralement considérée comme efficace et est donc mise en place ; un résultat négatif incite le décideur à abandonner l'opération en question.

‍

Cost-benefit analysis is widely used and is today an important mechanism of government and management. However, and though it is straightforward on its face, this seemingly direct process leaves many questions unanswered, including, importantly, whose costs and benefits are represented and how are they being quantified. It also tends to favor incremental change over systemic change or more imaginative forms of imagining change. Below, I offer a few alternatives that can complement cost-benefit analysis as a means to understand and judge the kind of negotiations processes at play when thinking about policy and social change.

Systems Theory

La théorie des systèmes postule que les interactions entre des systèmes plus petits créent des systèmes complexes et plus vastes qui peuvent être compris dans toutes les disciplines. En tant qu'outil analytique, cette théorie permet aux praticiens du changement social d'examiner de manière holistique les conditions et les facteurs environnementaux, et ainsi de mieux comprendre pourquoi une organisation rencontre des difficultés ou ne fonctionne pas de manière effective vis-à-vis de l'ensemble de ses membres. 

‍

Le postulat sous-jacent de la théorie des systèmes est que le tout est supérieur à la somme de ses parties. Par conséquent, les systèmes plus petits sont censés impacter et être impactés par le plus vaste et le plus complexe système qu'ils forment. On pense en effet qu'un système complexe se dirige vers l'homéostasie, c'est-à-dire vers un état stable. Chaque fois qu'un nouveau facteur affecte le système, celui-ci est censé s'adapter pour se préserver et présente ainsi une forte capacité de renforcement et d'équilibrage. Toute caractéristique, tout comportement se développant dans le système complexe doit être le résultat de l'imbrication des relations entre les petits systèmes et non le fait d'un système agissant seul. Par conséquent, il est difficile de changer un tel système.

Systems theory is useful as a tool to describe the various circumstances that may be shaping a particular problem, but it is not always useful in identifying targeted solutions.

‍

How can systems-thinking be applied to social change?

‍

Systems consultant David Peter Stroh writes about the importance of aligning stakeholders’ immediate self-interests with their highest aspirations when applying systems thinking tools to tackle social issues. This ensures that the results of complex systems align with what the different stakeholders are really trying to accomplish. For example, the immediate self-interest might be whatever results from a particular policy and the highest aspirations might be the vision toward which that policy is aimed at. Stroh believes it is possible for stakeholders to balance their individual and their vision-driven interests.  Stroh presents a four-step process to create this necessary alignment: 1) understanding the payoffs to the existing system,  2) comparison between the payoffs and what would be necessary to bring about change, 3) making a trade-off between long-term and short-term interests, and 4) making an intentional prioritization of the interests necessary for change. 

‍

Comme l'analyse coûts-avantages, l'approche des compromis semble simple à première vue ; il paraît facile pour les parties prenantes de choisir le changement plutôt que le maintien du statu quo. Cependant, des interrogations persistent : Quels sont les intérêts représentés ? À quel prix le changement est-il priorisé ? Que faire lorsque les intérêts ne sont pas alignés ? Et à quoi ressemble exactement le "changement" ? Ainsi l'approche des compromis est-elle complexe -et d'autant plus lorsque les décisions impactent directement les individus. 

‍

Systems thinking practitioner and scholar Deborah Frieze thinks, on the other hand, that it’s rather impossible to change big systems that are failing communities - they can only abandon them and start over or offer hospice to what’s dying. For her, it is important, however, for actors to take different roles, creating the new system while also supporting the old system as it dies - as no one benefits from a system that collapses all of a sudden. 

‍

Systems theory does not always explain the reasons behind a particular problem. Its application in various fields have shown how, at times, other traditional analyses within a field are better equipped to explain a particular problem. For example, within the field of psychology, systems theory can be applied to understand the various circumstances affecting an individual’s development or mental health (e.g. societal, cultural upbringing, policies). However, systems theory is not the best approach to deal with severe mental illness that may require medication or particular care. 

En marge : Une approche de justice conceptuelle

The reasons behind design justice can be appreciated through Costanza-Chock’s discussion of A.I. systems. Costanza-Chock quotes at length from and encourages implementing the Design Justice Network Principles, which she describes as having been first developed by a group of 30 designers, artists, technologists, and community organizers at the Allied Media Conference in 2015. The Design Justice Network Principles echo the calls of critical theories (Critical Race Theory, Feminist Theories, Environmental Justice, etc.) by centering those directly impacted by racism, recognizing each individual’s expertise in their own lived experience, working toward sustainable and non-exploitative solutions, and operating from a strengths-based rather than deficit-based perspective. 

‍

Within their discussion of A.I. systems, scholar and designer Sasha Costanza-Chock alerts us of the risk of reproducing systems that erase people at the margins of society. The author presents their experience as a non-binary, transgender, femme presenting person going through airport security as they are selected for additional inspection after the body scan detects “irregularities” with what the machine is trained to perceive as a body of a particular gender identity or sex assignment. The problem is that the machine is trained to think of gender and sex as binary categories that map perfectly onto each other and onto the bodies it is scanning. Costanza-Chock considers ways in which we can audit algorithms for biases such as this one. Costanza-Chock extends Joi Ito’s critique of capitalist profitability as the key driver of A.I. by including an analysis based on intersectionality and matrix of domination, concepts that were developed by legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw and sociologist Patricia Hill Collins, respectively. Costanza-Chock posits that algorithmic bias audits that are based on a single axis of identity (such as race or gender), instead of intersectional analyses, fall short in ensuring algorithmic fairness. She also notes the ways that A.I. relates to domination and resistance at the three levels of oppression within a matrix of domination: personal, community, and institutional. Furthermore, Costanza-Chock identifies Black feminist theorists’ emphasis on situated knowledge over universalist knowledge, that is that all ways of knowing and seeking knowledge emerge from our own standpoint rather than a false belief that all members of one category (e.g. women) have a monolithic experience. 

‍

En ce sens, l'avantage des théories critiques et de leur application est qu'elles se concentrent sur des connaissances et des expériences historiquement dévalorisées par le courant dominant.

‍

Feminist icon and cultural critic bell hooks proposes a path forward for a polarized society in need of healing: an ethic of love. This concept may appeal to those who perceive the current sociopolitical climate as highly divided and contentious. At least in the United States, a series of demonstrations and the January 6th, 2021, attack on the Capitol have highlighted the racial tensions that the country has yet to address openly. bell hooks writes that a love ethic includes letting go “of our obsession with power and domination” and making choices “based on a belief that honesty, openness, and personal integrity need to be expressed in public and private decisions.” bell hooks takes the personal to the political and back – a path familiar in discourses around the digital era. “Were a love ethic informing all public policy in cities and towns, individuals would come together and map out programs that would affect the good of everyone.” She posits that we need a new unified definition for love – one that considers love a verb rather than a noun – to overcome the personal and political challenges that result in a society that has historically defined relationships through gender stereotypes, domination, control, ego, and aggression. According to bell hooks, the solution to modern society’s problems does not lie in merely identifying a common objective, but in redefining the ways we relate to one another by centering affection, respect, recognition, commitment, trust, care, and open and honest communication. In a way, bell hooks calls for individual and collective healing.