Zusammenfassungen

Gesa Lindemann
Human dignity as a structural feature of functional differentiation – a precondition for modern responsibilization

This article offers a new sociological understanding of human dignity as a structural feature of modern functionally differentiated society. Durkheim and Luhmann build their analyses of dignity on the notion that functional differentiation and individualization are interconnected. At the same time, both assume implicitly that only living human beings can be bearers of dignity. The philosophical discussion around dignity does not take this for granted, however. Fichte responded to Kant's analysis of dignity by treating as an open question who can be identified as a bearer of dignity and by what criterion. If it is to take this seriously, sociological analysis must combine the theory of functional differentiation with an analysis of the borders of the social world. This paper follows this insight by presenting a new approach to human dignity that provides a systematic sociological answer to the question of how the borders of the social world are connected with the structure of social differentiation. In conclusion, I explore the implications for the concept of responsibility: how can bearers of human dignity be held responsible in a functionally differentiated society?

Harald A. Mieg
Social reflection, testing performed role-conformant and role-discrepant responsibility, and the unity of responsibility: a social psychological perspective

This paper contributes to the study of responsibility as a social fact (Durkheim), combining research from social psychology, philosophy, and sociology. The pivotal concept is social reflection that serves to better understand how responsibility is performed in different social situations. The paper presents an experiment, providing evidence for, inter alia, the central complexity hypothesis: Under a complex perspective (implying increased social reflection) more responsibility is performed than under a less complex perspective (implying less social reflection). The paper concludes with considerations on the principle and unity of responsibility.

Sascha Dickel
Post-Technokratie. Prekäre Verantwortung in digitalen Kontexten

Der Beitrag widmet sich einer Wissenssoziologie der Technokratie. Zunächst wird dafür die Architektur der technokratischen Semantik skizziert und in ihrer Funktionalität als De- Individualisierung von Verantwortung dechiffriert. Drei sozialstrukturelle Momente – ubiquitäre Technisierung, infrastrukturelle Zentralisierung und scharf asymmetrische Inklusionsordnungen – werden dabei als Nährboden der Technokratiesemantik herausgearbeitet. Es zeigt sich, dass Technokratie als Semantik in Zeiten digitaler Medien nicht mehr bruchlos funktioniert: Dystopien einer neuen Technokratie auf Basis ubiquitärer Technisierung im Kontext digitaler Medien stehen Utopien einer digitalen Emanzipation gegenüber, die sich auf Potentiale infrastruktureller Dezentralisierung und symmetrischer Inklusion berufen. Die diskursive Verflechtung utopisch-dystopischer Semantiken ist Indiz einer ambivalenten Subjektivierung im Spannungsfeld von Technik und Verantwortung. Der Beitrag schließt mit der These, dass sich die Genese einer post-technokratischen Verantwortungssemantik in digitalen Kontexten beobachten lässt, welche sich durch ein Oszillieren zwischen individueller Verantwortungsnegation und inflationärer individueller Verantwortungszuschreibung auszeichnet.

Sascha Dickel,
Precarious responsibility in digital contexts

The paper offers an analysis of technocracy as a discourse that de-individualizes responsibility. This discourse was based on three structural features of industrial society: ubiquitous technologization, infrastructural centralization, and asymmetric regimes of inclusion. In the context of ubiquitous digitalization a renaissance of technocratic narratives emerges. These narratives, however, are contested by utopian hopes of technological democratization based on possibilities of infrastructural decentralization and more symmetric regimes of inclusion. At the intersection of dystopian and utopian discourses the individual is confronted with a negation of responsibility on the one hand and excessive expectations of personal responsibility on the other. This contemporary situation can be understood as the emergence of a post-technocratic discourse in contexts of digitalization.

Cristina Besio
Uncertainty and attribution of personal responsibility in organizations

Modern society complicates the attribution of responsibility to individual actors. However, processes of attributing responsibility remain a frequent occurrence – also in the context of organizations. How can we explain this phenomenon? This contribution endeavors to describe processes of attributing moral responsibility to reveal some of the functions and problems these processes produce and to explain why they assume a new role in modern society. The focus lies on highly uncertain situations as crucial moments in which organizations resort to morality. The article introduces two examples for the forms in which the attribution of moral responsibility is manifested: the first is the figure of the "scapegoat", which is typically activated after catastrophes. The second is the figure of the "firm founder", which provides an important reference for highly uncertain innovation processes. By activating these figures, organizations can portray themselves as moral actors and acquire, at least for a while, the internal and external backing necessary to continue operating. This is vital in the short term, but can be dangerous over time, because morality sets high expectations but gives little specific advice for action in complex systems.

Malte-Christian Gruber
Flashmobs, Flashboys und Flashbacks des automatisierten Handelns Zur rechtlichen Konstruktion neuer Verantwortlichkeiten

In der Krise des individualistischen Kausalitäts- und Schuldzuordnungsdenkens reagiert das Recht zunehmend mit Kollektivierungen: Verantwortung für technische Risiken muss demnach von subjektiv-orientierten Zurechnungsfragen nach individueller Verursachung und Verschulden abstrahieren und in diesem Sinne objektiv zugerechnet werden, sei es einem Betrieb, einem Unternehmen oder sei es auch einer sonstigen Verbindung von Menschen und Dingen. Die Mechanismen der kollektivierenden Verantwortungszumutungen reichen dabei von einer Ausdehnung der Kausalhaftung als Gefährdungshaftung über eine weitere Verbindung von Haftungssubjekten zu besonderen Risikoassoziationen bis zu einer Re- Personalisierung der Haftungsverantwortlichkeit. Vor diesem Hintergrund lassen sich Verschiebungen der rechtlichen Verantwortungszuordnung nachzeichnen, die vor allem in informationstechnischen Kontexten beobachtbar sind und beispielsweise in den Exzessen von Flashmobs oder auch im Flash Trading des Hochfrequenzhandels auf weitere Herausforderungen stoßen.

Malte-Christian Gruber,
Flashmobs, flashboys and flashbacks of automated acting. About the legal construction of new responsibiliteis

In the crisis of individualistic concepts of causal attribution and culpability, the law increasingly reacts with collectivization: Responsibility for technological risk therefore has to be abstracted from subjective-oriented issues of attribution of individual causation and fault, and focus on objective mechanisms of attributing responsibility to a company, an enterprise or another association of human and non-human entities. These mechanisms of collective attribution range from an extension of strict liability rules to a combination of legal entities as risk associations and re-personalization of legal responsibility. From this point of view, it is possible to trace the drift of legal attribution of responsibility as it can be observed in information-technological contexts and, for example, will face further challenges in excesses of flash mobs or flash trading (high-frequency trading).

Bettina Schmidt
Verantwortung für Gesundheit: Formen, Funktionen und Folgen der Zurechnung

Die Frage danach, wer verantwortlich ist für die Gesundheit einer Bevölkerung, wird kontrovers diskutiert. Derzeit wird vor allem der Einzelne für verantwortlich gehalten für den Erhalt seiner gesunden funktionstüchtigen Leistungsfähigkeit. Andere Verantwortungsakteure mit Einfluss auf die Gesundheit stehen seltener im Aufmerksamkeitsfokus, obwohl auch sie den Gesundheitszustand einer Bevölkerung maßgeblich mitbestimmen können, etwa durch die Gestaltung von Arbeits- oder Wohnbedingungen, den Zugang zu Bildung oder Gesundheitsversorgung. Eine effektive Gesundheitsförderung benötigt kollektive und konzertierte Anstrengungen aller relevanten Gesundheitsakteure, insbesondere um gesundheitliche Ungleichheiten besser als bislang zu reduzieren. Eine akzeptanzorientierte benutzerfreundliche Gesundheitsförderung basiert auf kooperativen Verantwortungsarrangements und zielt darauf ab, Strategien zu entwickeln, die der Bevölkerung sowohl das notwendige Maß an individueller Freiheit als auch das notwendige Maß an Schutz und Unterstützung gewähren.

Bettina Schmidt,
Responsibility for health: forms, functions and consequences of attributions of responsibility

Who is responsible for population health, and what can help people to lead a healthy life? Is it entirely up to individuals, or does the state also play a role? The individual certainly has personal responsibility for his own health and health behavior, but health and behavior are influenced by many factors, such as socio-economic status, working conditions, housing environment, or access to health care. Therefore it seems to be too simplistic to see personal behavior as the primary factor determining the health of the population. Effective public health promotion needs corporate social responsibility strategies which include all relevant target groups with particular roles in relation to health. An acceptance-oriented and user-friendly health promotion refers to the collective efforts of all health actors to improve the health of the whole population and to reduce health inequalities. The strategy acknowledges that the state should not restrict the freedom of people, but the state is responsible for protecting citizens from harm, for promoting health of disadvantaged groups and for providing conditions under which all people can reach better health.

Erik Højbjerg
The limits of ignorance – financial literacy and the corporate responsibilization to the business of life

How do corporations seek to construe and mobilize responsible consumers by offering products and services, the consumption of which are assumed to transform the individual's self-relationship along proclaimed ethical and political goals? In the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis, increasing the financial literacy of ordinary citizen-consumers has taken a prominent position among regulators and financial institutions alike. The logic seems to be that financially capable individuals will enjoy social and political inclusion as well as an ability to exercise a stronger influence in markets. The article specifically contributes to our understanding of the governmentalization of the present by addressing how ­ at least in part ­ the corporate spread of financial literacy educational initiatives can be observed as a particular form of power at-a-distance responsibilizing the consumer. The focus is on the role of private enterprise in governmentalizing the business of life by establishing and mobilizing specific conceptual forms around which the life skills of the entrepreneurial self involves a responsibilization of the individual citizen-consumer.

Andreas Eis/Claire Moulin-Doos
Prekäre Verantwortung zwischen Entpolitisierung und politischer (Selbst-) Steuerung: Verantwortungskonflikte in der Politischen Bildung

Im Beitrag wird die These begründet, dass moderne Verantwortungsrelationen sich nicht nur verschieben, sondern sich tendenziell auflösen. Dieser Prozess ist durch eine Entpolitisierung gesellschaftlicher Steuerung gekennzeichnet, die sich auch in der normativen Neuausrichtung einer »postpolitischen« Bildung niederschlägt. Es wird analysiert, inwiefern die Bedeutungsverschiebungen politischer Verantwortung demokratietheoretische Grundannahmen der Politischen Bildung infrage stellen. Dabei wird untersucht, inwiefern die Handlungsräume der Zivilgesellschaft in bildungspolitischen Diskursen von individualisierten, entpolitisierten Leitbildern sozialen Handeln dominiert werden. Vielfach geht es hier um soziales Engagement, moralische Verantwortung und individuelle Kompetenzentwicklung, jedoch weniger um kollektives, machtbezogenes Handeln in gesellschaftlichen Auseinandersetzungen. Die Autoren argumentieren daher für einen hegemonie- und subjektkritischen Ansatz Politischer Bildung, dessen zentrale Aufgabe es ist, die Ermöglichungs- und Verhinderungsbedingungen »mündiger Subjekte« vor dem Hintergrund einer Herrschaftsanalyse von Verantwortungsbeziehungen zu klären und neue kollektive Handlungsräume aufzuzeigen oder zu erproben.

Andreas Eis / Claire Moulin-Doos,
Precarious responsibility between de-politicization and political (self-) regulation: conflicts of responsibilities in civic education

The article shows how modern political responsibility not only blurs but also tends to disintegrate. This process is characterized by the de-politicization of numerous social regulations, a phenomenon reflected by "post-political" normative readjustments in education. The authors analyze to what extend democratic theory core assumptions in civic education are challenged through this shift of meaning of political responsibility. Furthermore, they examine how educational discourses about civil society's scope for actions are dominated by individualized and depoliticized approaches. These concepts have more often to do with social liability, moral responsibility and the development of individual skills, than with actions that are both collective and centered on the questions of power. The authors argue for a hegemony-critical and subject-oriented approach to civic education to clarify the conditions of possibility and the factors preventing "self-reliant" subjects. This task includes the analysis of relations of power and domination as well as the disclosure and testing of new forms of collective actions.

Niels Åkerstrøm Andersen / Hanne Knudsen
Playful hyper-responsibility and the making of a performing audience

The citizen is currently presumed to lack both the will to take responsibility and the imagination to see what his or her responsibility may include. This "lack of responsibility" becomes an object of intervention because function systems see themselves as depending on the citizens: The educational system sees itself as depending on the student to succeed in creating learning; the health system sees itself as depending on the patient to succeed in promoting health. Responsibility games are one method used to make citizens responsible. In this paper we argue that these games and other present welfare politics striving to increase personal responsibility do not simply increase responsibility, they have at least two important effects: 1. With responsibility games personal responsibility is no longer presumed, and the form of personal responsibility is dislocated into a form of playful hyper-responsibility. To be recognized as responsible, the citizen should go second order and reflect on and investigate his/her potential responsibilities. 2. Responsibility games redistribute the roles in the function systems as the traditional distinction between performance roles (e.g. doctor or teacher) and audience role (e.g. patient or student) is challenged by a new hybrid, "the performing audience". The citizen is both an object of treatment and investigation, - with the professional as the expert - , and a performer, regarding him/herself through the eyes of the system in order to take responsibility.

Alfons Bora
Vanishing points. Responsibility as a normative shifting symbol and the search for social addressability

Focusing on the world society's new regulatory settings, this article asks if the social form of responsibility can be replaced by other forms. The answer is based on the assumption that responsibility requires social addresses. In new forms of regulation, the question is whether this minimum requirement is still fulfilled. The paper's thesis claims that in advanced modes of governance and regulation, responsibility ultimately relies upon such addresses, which operate in the medium of meaning. Against this background the question finally arises, how regulation can work under conditions where it becomes increasingly difficult to identify such addresses.

Anna Henkel
Gesellschaftstheorie der Verantwortung. Funktion und Folgen eines Mechanismus der Reduktion sozialer Komplexität

Die im Folgenden angestellten Überlegungen gehen der Vermutung nach, dass eine aktuelle Ubiquität individueller Verantwortung als gesellschaftliches Krisensymptom gedeutet werden kann – einerseits werden Schäden tendenziell als Resultat eines individuell zu verantwortenden menschlichen Handelns auf den von diesem Schaden betroffenen Akteur zugerechnet, andererseits stehen solche unerwünschten Ereignisse zunehmend mit komplexen Systemdynamiken in Verbindung. Diese Entwicklung wird auf der Grundlage einer kursorischen Evidenz sowie einer Begriffsklärung von Verantwortung, Handlung und Erwartung gesellschaftstheoretisch verortet: Ausgangspunkt ist der Gedanke, dass in der modernen Gesellschaft Handlungsfähigkeit ausschließlich Menschen, dafür aber allen Menschen grundsätzlich zuerkannt wird. Dabei ist die sachlich-soziale Reichweite dieser Handlungsfähigkeit jedoch zunächst noch nach einem stratifizierten Muster differenziert. Diese Zurechnung von Verantwortung auf Personen wird als Mechanismus der Komplexitätsreduktion beobachtet und nachgezeichnet, wie der Bereich der in ihren Folgen zu verantwortenden Handlungen sachlich und sozial generalisiert wird. Abschließend wird diskutiert, wie mit der Konstellation umzugehen ist, dass einerseits die Zurechnung als Handlung auf Menschen in der modernen Gesellschaft unhintergehbar, andererseits eben jene Zurechnung zum Teil jedoch fragwürdig geworden ist.

Anna Henkel,
A social theory of responsibility. Function and consequences of a mechanism of complexity reduction

The considerations discussed in the article revolve around the assumption that the current ubiquity of individual responsibility can be interpreted as a symptom of a social crisis. Not only is there a general trend for damage to be regarded as a result of individual responsible human action and be attributed to the actor that is affected by that damage; such undesirable outcomes are also increasingly connected to complex system dynamics. The article addresses this development by providing some cursory evidence, as well as a definition of the concepts of responsibility, action and expectation from a perspective of societal theory. It takes as its starting point the idea that in modern society only humans can have the capacity to act and that every human has that capacity. However, at first the substantive and social scope of this capacity to act is still differentiated according to a stratified pattern. Such attribution of responsibility to individuals has been observed as a mechanism of complexity reduction. In the next step, the article details how the area of actions for whose consequences individuals are held accountable is generalized substantively and socially. It concludes with a discussion of how to deal with the situation that attribution to individuals as an action is inherent in modern society, and that certain aspects of that very attribution have become questionable in our time.