And I want to point to two possible components of a critical reconstruction of the trend towards automated workflows in institutional arrangements: the prophetic critique of mechanistic utilitarianism and the deliberately moral and constructive use of automation technology for the benefit of all humans.
In a 1951 speech on reforming the institutions of global governance, Pope Pius XII. criticized mechanistic interpretations of egalitarianism. While he emphatically endorses an “effective political world organization,” Pius warns against treating humans as cogwheels in a massive machine on auto-pilot.
Pius interprets the Catholic interpretation of order as the affirmation of lively institutions structured through subsidiarity, “free of the engines of mechani-stic leveling” of all partici pants and actors.291 When such language is used, one must pay heed to antidemocratic tendencies. If egalitarianism as such is the target of such criticism, it erodes the very foundations for inclusive institutions. If, however, such criticism is directed towards the use of hum-ans as mere technical resources in order to fuel an automated machinery of institutions without true consideration of the humans involved, it is entirely on point. The concept of freedom-ensuring institutions is built on an anth-ropology of dignity which Immanuel Kant famously explicated as his third categorical imperative: Treat yourself and others not as mere means to an end, but always as ends in themselves.292
In addition to the necessary alertness we need to employ with new techno-logies, we must also recognize the potentials in computer-based automation of repetitive labor. Automated workflows can indeed help institutions regain
291 Arthur-Fridolin Utz and Joseph-Fulko Groner, eds, Aufbau und Entfaltung des gesell-schaftlichen Lebens. Die soziale Summe Pius XII., (Freiburg: Paulusverlag, 1954), par. 3995.
Fritz and Groner translate this passage as “Triebwerk einer mechanistischen Gleichma-cherei.”
292 Kant writes: “Handle so, daß du die Menschheit sowohl in deiner Person, als in der Person eines jeden andern jederzeit zugleich als Zweck, niemals bloß als Mittel brauchst.” Cf. Im-manuel Kant, Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten, AA IV, 429. He also writes: “Denn vernünftige Wesen stehen alle unter dem Gesetz, daß jedes derselben sich selbst und alle andere niemals bloß als Mittel, sondern jederzeit zugleich als Zweck an sich selbst behan-deln solle.” Cf. Kant, Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten, 433.
137 legitimacy by creating user-friendly points of interaction in the digital
de-vices we incorporate into our daily lives. Automated workflows can take care of those tasks that function well without human judgment: renewing your driver’s license, filing your taxes, registering your vehicle and so forth. From the institution’s perspective, automation can free up staff in order to focus on what only human staff can achieve: creativity, warmth, empathy, active listening, critical thinking. Moreover, automation does not just substitute or complement human work, it will also create jobs of oversight, for which human judgment will remain indispensable. It appears, therefore, that new forms of intelligent distribution of labor will be at the core of institutional innovation in the near future: Robotics and specialized artificial intelligen-ce will improve the precision, reliability and consistency of repetitive tasks, while humans can refocus on what only humans can do, thus enabling insti-tutions to be more attentive, empathetic, mindful, and creative.
Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt agrees with a constructive coexistence model:
“I’ve come to a view that humans will continue to do what we do well, and that computers will continue to do what they do very well, and the two will coexist, but in different spaces.” With their perfect memories, Schmidt says, computers can handle “needle-in-a-haystack problems”. Humans, on the other hand, are good at “judgment, emotion, and creativity.” At some point computers might improve at non-quantitative tasks as well, but for now “the separation of powers means that computers will sit around and help you.”293 Daniel Pink argues along similar lines in A Whole New Mind, arguing that
“the era of ‘left brain’ dominance” and the information culture it produced are both giving way to “a new world in which right brain’ qualities [like] inventi-veness, empathy, [and] meaning predominate.”294
In their paper Dancing With Robots, Frank Levy and Richard Murnane make out three distinctly human tasks of the future: “the human labor mar-ket will center on three kinds of work: solving unstructured problems,
wor-293 Drake Baer, “Eric Schmidt: Do What Computers Aren’t Good At,” Fast Company, Oc-tober 7, 2017, accessed OcOc-tober 22, 2016, https://www.fastcompany.com/3013979/bot-tom-line/eric-schmidt-do-what-computers-arent-good-at.
294 Cf. Daniel H. Pink, A Whole New Mind. Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future (New York: Riverhead Books, 2006). The quote is taken from the Pink’s website: “A Whole New Mind,” Dan H. Pink, accessed October 22, 2016, http://www.danpink.com/books/whole-new-mind/.
138
king with new information, and carrying out non-routine manual tasks.”295 In line with Pink and Schmidt, Anya Kamenetz adds a fourth task: “Being human: Expressing empathy, making people feel good, taking care of others, being artistic and creative for the sake of creativity, expressing emotions and vulnerability in a relatable way, making people laugh. The human touch is indispensable for most jobs, and in some cases, it is the entire job. In this one, humans win.”296
The constructive coexistence model is not only brought forth by contem-porary research. We can find it in Aristotle’s Politics as well. There he descri-bes the potential of automation as something we today would call the advan-cement of social justice and socio-economic rights. Right after his famous passage on the zoon politikon Aristotle writes that “every state is composed of households.” The head of a household “must have his tools, and of tools some are lifeless and others living.” The slave “belongs to the class of tools” and is “a live article of property.” However, “if every tool could perform its own work when ordered, or by seeing what to do in advance, … if thus shuttles wove and quills played harps of themselves, master-craftsmen would have no need of assistants and masters no need of slaves.”297
295 Jonathan Cowan and Elaine C. Karmack, “What’s Next?,” in Dancing With Robots. Human Skills for Computerized Work, ed. Frank Levy and Richard J. Murnane, accessed October 22, 2016, http://content.thirdway.org/publications/714/Dancing-With-Robots.pdf.
296 Anya Kamenetz, “The Four Things People Can Still Do Better Than Computers,” Fast Com-pany, July 19, 2013, accessed October 22, 2016, https://www.fastcompany.com/3014448/
the-four-things-people-canstill-do-better-than-computers.
297 Aristotle, “Politics,” 1253b, in Aristotle. Aristotle in 23 Volumes Vol. 21, trans. Harris Rack-ham (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1944), accessed October 19, 2016, http://
www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:tlg,0086,035:1:1253b.
139
VIII. Literature
140