What Judgment Forgets: Affective Heteronomy and the Asymmetry of Answerability in Digital Capitalism

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper reflects on a topic of considerable relevance and importance, both philosophically and sociologically.

The description of the subject, the construction of the argumentative structure, and the definition of its key concepts are effective.

The references to the scientific literature are pertinent, and the scholarly tone is reinforced by the comparison with the contribution of a classic author like Theodor Adorno. This, moreover, makes the essay's theoretical-critical focus clear.

The only criticism I would make is also a suggestion for improving this compelling essay. The importance of the concept of "agency" in it clashes with the fact that the authoritative studies on aging conducted by critical realists, both in philosophy (Roy Bhaskar) and in social theory (Margaret Archer and others), have not been taken into consideration.

While I don't consider this addition indispensable (mine is merely a suggestion, leaving it to the author's discretion), since the essay already works well and fits within the critical social theory approach, I nevertheless believe that the absence of a reference to these scholars (a reference that could be merely didactic and incidental, without entering into a detailed comparison with them, which could be the subject of a separate essay) constitutes a potential weakness of the essay.

For example:
Archer, Margaret. 1995. Realist Social Theory: the Morphogenetic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Archer, Margaret. 2000. Being Human. The Problem of Agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

For a general introduction to Critical Realism:
Centre for Critical Realism. 1998. Margaret Archer, Roy Bhaskar, Andrew Collier, Tony Lawson, and Alan Norrie (Edited by). Critical Realism. Essential Readings. London and New York: Routledge.

Author Response

Please see the attached point-by-point response to Reviewer 1.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author(s),

I found this text relevant, as it addresses a timely topic concerning the relation between the subject/user and the conditions of so-called digital capitalism. However, I would suggest several improvements to the text:

• This text begins with the statement, “Questions of freedom and responsibility have often travelled along separate paths.” However, isn’t the relationship between freedom and responsibility one of the central questions of Western philosophy, at least since Kant’s practical philosophy? It is also a defining theme in twentieth-century thought, for example in Sartre’s existentialism and Arendt’s political philosophy. I therefore suggest reformulating this statement in order to clarify its scope and intended meaning.
• Furthermore, the text states: “/…/ Critical theory has long resisted attempts to treat freedom as an abstract property possessed independently of the forms of life within which persons are situated.” I suggest that this aspect should be explained in greater detail and integrated more explicitly into the overall argument of the article. For instance, this point could be linked to the first suggested improvement, particularly because the text later engages with Kant. The relationship between Kant and Adorno is crucial here and was already explored in Dialectic of Enlightenment, where Adorno and Horkheimer discuss forms of domination and cultural industry through, among other things, their engagement with Kantian ideas.
• When discussing surveillance capitalism, I suggest adding additional sources, such as Couldry and Mejias’s work:
  https://www.sup.org/books/sociology/costs-connection

Furthermore, the text does not sufficiently engage with key philosophical contributions to the discussion of digital society and digital capitalism, particularly Deleuze’s influential text:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/778828 and discuss it with the works of Foucault, Brown, Chun.

In this section, I would also suggest considering the work of Jonathan Beller, especially the paper: “Arbitrage on Life, Difference of the Flesh: Racialization and Colonial Gender Formation as Algorithmic Innovation.” The Body in the Field of Tension Between Biopolitics and Necropolitics, Filozofski vestnik, ISSN 0353-4510, Volume 44, Number 2, 2023, pp. 95–129.
https://ojs.zrc-sazu.si/filozofski-vestnik/article/view/13579.

Since affect is one of the key concepts of the article, I miss engagement with some of the foundational literature in this field, particularly Massumi, Brian. “The Autonomy of Affect.” Cultural Critique, no. 31 (1995): 83–109. https://doi.org/10.2307/1354446. I suggest incorporating this work and explicitly explaining how the proposed concept of affective heteronomy differs from Massumi’s understanding of affect. Furthermore, the relation between affect and ideology should be developed more clearly, particularly in sections discussing manipulation and coercion.

Furthermore, the text refers to neoliberal reason but does not engage with the important work of Wendy Hui Kyong Chun in this context, particularly: Chun, Wendy Hui Kyong. Programmed Visions: Software and Memory. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2011.

The article should incorporate the suggested literature not merely as additional references, but by actively engaging with the concepts developed in this literature and integrating them meaningfully into the theoretical argument.

Furthermore, the article would benefit from a stronger overall structure. In several places, key terms and concepts are introduced only in the middle of the text rather than being established at the beginning. The introduction should therefore include a clearer section on the theoretical framework and methodology, where the main concepts and analytical categories are introduced and contextualised. These concepts should then be consistently developed throughout the article, including affect and the Addendum, the society of discipline, the society of control (which is currently largely absent), the algorithmic society, answerability in relation to moral judgment, and neoliberal reason.

Moreover, the introduction and methodology section should clearly present the central thesis and argument of the article. Indeed, the article could potentially begin with a formulation of the central argument, for example, quoting: “Throughout this article, two movements have been traced. One concerns the increasingly systematic organisation, under digital capitalism, of the conditions through which significance, urgency, and preference are experienced. The other concerns the multiplication of practices through which subjects are called upon to answer for their conduct. Considered separately, neither development is unprecedented. What distinguishes the present situation lies in their convergence.”

To encapsulate, the structure of the article requires further refinement. The main theoretical reference point needs to be elaborated more clearly: is Adorno the central theoretical framework? If so, how is this tradition positioned in relation to affect theory, particularly Massumi’s approach (at the moment, not even mentioned in relation to contemporary theoretical stances of digital capitalism?) and your proposed central concept?

Morever, the article would benefit from a more explicit discussion of these theoretical genealogies and their relationship.

Finally, the conclusion requires further development. The final argument appears somewhat paradoxical: after the article has presented its theoretical intervention and conceptual proposal, the authors conclude that “The contradiction identified here cannot be abolished. Critique cannot dissolve it.” In this manner,  I suggest further elaborating this section and using the conclusion as an opportunity to clarify the significance of the concept of affective heteronomy, while making more direct references to the theoretical sources developed throughout the article.

Overall, I argue, that the article addresses an important and timely topic, and the proposed concept has significant potential. But it needs to:

• Strengthen the theoretical framework and consequently, methodological aspect, thus clarifying the conceptual genealogy, and improving the structure would substantially enhance the contribution of the article,
• At least add the mentioned references.

Author Response

Please see the attached point-by-point response to Reviewer 2.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a strong and clear article on a fascinating contemporary problem of affective heteronomy. My only criticism is that, unless the house style of Philosophies is otherwise, your reference to book titles should be italicized or underlined both in the body of the text and in the bibliography. I like your wide sense of reference to Stiegler, Adorno, et. al. with regard to your object of focus. Well done. The argument is clear to me and easy to follow.

Author Response

Please see the attached point-by-point response to Reviewer 3.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

You have addressed all of my comments and suggestions. I would also like to emphasize that the topic is highly relevant and timely, and that the revised version is well-written, clear, and significantly improved.

Kind regards.