Document Type : Research Paper
Author
Assistant Professor, Iranian Research Institute for Information Science and Technology (Irandoc)
Abstract
Introduction
While there is a wealth of research on smart cities, a significant theoretical and intellectual gap persists, particularly from an urbanism perspective. This gap hinders our full comprehension of the phenomena we encounter or will encounter. Common approaches to smart cities, while beneficial, often consider them in isolation from urbanism trends. A thorough examination of smart cities' conceptual, practical, and socio-ethical aspects must include an understanding of the fundamental nature of cities and their relationship with citizens. Current literature tends to sideline the analysis of the city concept, focusing instead on technological, managerial, and systemic aspects. However, understanding the city and its interaction with citizens is crucial for smart city discourse. This article delves into smart cities within the context of contemporary urbanism, emphasizing Henri Lefebvre's and David Harvey's 'right to the city' as a pivotal concept. We aim to delineate and discuss the 'right to the smart city' within this framework.
Methodology
Our methodology involves a conceptual analysis and argumentation, drawing upon existing literature in contemporary urbanism and smart cities. We seek to reinterpret the smart city concept within contemporary urbanism, particularly through the lens of Lefebvre's and Harvey's 'right to the city,' addressing its core questions and elements.
Findings
The 'right to the city' discourse prompts the question: Do citizens desire a smart city? Harvey interprets this right as the ability to construct, reconstruct, and alter the city's form, suggesting that citizens should have a say in the city's smart transformation. Yet, smart city literature seldom addresses this fundamental query, often assuming the inevitability of smart city development and focusing on mitigating its negative socio-ethical impacts. This presumption may stem from technological determinism, urban elitism, or the tenets of liberalism/capitalism. Lefebvre and Harvey argue for a smart city right that awakens citizens to the dominance of their living spaces. Recognizing the 'right to the city' naturally leads to the question of citizen involvement in smart city development. If affirmative, the subsequent inquiry under the 'right to the city' framework is: What kind of smart city is desired? By extrapolating from Lefebvre's and Harvey's ideas, we identify three components of the 'right to the smart city': the power of citizens to collectively decide and shape the smart city, the necessity of genuine participation in urban governance, that is the ability to oversee major urban processes, and finally the ability to space production. Such participation and oversight are only feasible within the 'production of space' as defined by Lefebvre and others. Without this, not only is urban life experience compromised, but there is also no mechanism to enforce collective will in case of governmental deviation.
Conclusion
Lefebvre's and Harvey's 'right to the city' framework redefines our relationship with the smart city. It challenges the perceived inevitability and taken-for-grantedness of smart city development and aims to heighten citizen awareness of their connection to the smart city. This framework differentiates the city from mere habitat and market. A smart city is not a mere habitat or a data-driven market, and any attempt to reduce the smart city to these two will make this concept meaningless.
Keywords
Agamben, Giorgio (2003). The Coming Community, Translated by Micheal Hardt. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press
Agamben, Giorgio (2007). Infancy and History: On the Destruction of Experience, Translated by LizHeron. London/New York: Verso.
Attoh, K. (2011). ‘What kind of right is the right to the city?’, Progress in Human Geography, 35, 669–685.
Bastos D, Fernández-Caballero A, Pereira A, Rocha NP (2022). ‘Smart City Applications to Promote Citizen Participation in City Management and Governance: A Systematic Review’, Informatics; 9(4):89.
Boulay Harvey (1979). ‘Social Control: theories of urban politics’, Social Science Quarterly Vol. 59, No. 4 (MARCH, 1979), pp. 605-621 (17 pages) Published By: University of Texas Press.
Bozdag, E., van den Hoven, J. (2015). ‘Breaking the filter bubble: democracy and design’, Ethics Inf Technol 17, 249–265.
Bunz, M. and Meikle G (2017). The Internet of Things. Cam- bridge: Polity.
Cardullo P and Kitchin R (2019). ‘Smart urbanism and smart citizenship: The neoliberal logic of ‘citizen-focused’ smart cities in Europe’, Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 37(5): 813–830.
Cieslik, K., & Margócsy, D (2022). ‘Datafication, Power and Control in Development: A Historical Perspective on the Perils and Longevity of Data’, Progress in Development Studies, 22(4), 352–373.
Cugurullo F. (2020). Urban Artificial Intelligence: From Automation to Autonomy in the Smart City. Front. Sustain. Cities 2:38.
David Nina, Justice Jonathan & John G. McNutt (2015). ‘Smart Cities Are Transparent Cities: The Role of Fiscal Transparency in Smart City Governance’, In Rodríguez Bolívar Manuel Pedro (ed.) Public Administration and Information Technology (PAIT,volume 8). Springer.
Elden Stuart (2007). ‘There is a Politics of Space because Space is Political: Henri Lefebvre and the Production of Space’, Radical Philosophy Review 10(2):101-116.
Elliott Brian (2010). Constructing Community: Configurations of the Social in Contemporary Philosophy and Urbanism. Lexington Books/Fortress Academic.
Ellul, Jacques (1964). The Technological Society, New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Ess, Charles (2020. Digital Media Ethics. Polity.
Floridi, L (2019). ‘Translating principles into practices of digital ethics: Five risks of being unethical’, Philosophy & Technology, 32(2): 185–193.
Gell, Alfred (1992). ‘The Technology of Enchantment and the Enchantment of Technology’, In Anthropology, Art and Aesthetics. J. Coote and A. Shelton, eds., Oxford: Clarendon.
Giang, T.T.H.; Camargo, M.; Dupont, L.; Mayer, F. (2107). ‘A Review of Methods for Modelling Shared Decision-Making Process in a Smart City Living Lab’, In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC), Funchal, Portugal, 27–29.
Giffinger, R., Fertner, C., Kramar, H., Kalasek, R., Pichler-Milanović, N. and Meijers, E. (2007).
Smart cities: Ranking of European medium-sized cities, Centre of Regional Science, Vienna
UT. www.smart-cities.eu/download/smart_cities_final_report.pdf (last accessed 12 October
2015)Giusti, Serena and Piras, Elisa (2021). Democracy and Fake News: Information Manipulation and Post-Truth Politics, Routledge
Goodman, Ellen P (2020). 'Smart City Ethics: How “Smart” Challenges Democratic Governance', in Markus D. Dubber, Frank Pasquale, and Sunit Das (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of AI: Oxford.
Habermas, Jürgen (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume One: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Translated by Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press.
Harvey D. (1981). ‘The urban process under capitalism: a framework for analysis’, In Urbanization and Urban Planning in Capitalist Society. Routledge.
Harvey, D. (1973). Social Justice and the City, Athens: University of Georgia Press.
Harvey, D. (2003). ‘The Right to the city’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Volume 27.4, 939-41.
Harvey, D. (2008). The right to the city. New Left Rev. 53, 23–40.
Harvey, D. (2012). Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution, London; New York, NY: Verso books.
Hollands RG. (2015). ‘Critical interventions into the corporate smart city’, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 8(1): 61–77.
Houtman Dick and Meyer Birgit (2021). Things: Religion and the Question of Materiality, Oxford university press.
Ihde Don (2010). ‘A phenomenology of technics’. In Craig Hanks. ed., Technology and Values: Essential Readings. Wiley-Blackwell.
King Loren Antony (2018). ‘Henri Lefebvre and the Right to the City’, In Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of the City. Sharon M. Meagher, Samantha Noll, and Joseph S. Biehl, (eds). Routledge.
Kitchen, Rob (2016a). ‘The Ethics of Smart Cities and Urban Science’. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, Vol. 374, pp. 1-15.
Kitchin, Rob (2015). ‘The Promise and Perils of Smart Cities’. Society for Computers & Law, Vol. 26, Issue 2, pp. 1-5.
Kitchin, Rob (2014). ‘The Real-Time City? Big Data and Smart Urbanism’. GeoJournal, Vol. 79, pp. 1-14.Kitchin R. et al (2019). ‘Smart cities, algorithmic technocracy and new urban technocrats’, In Planning and knowledge How new forms of technocracy are shaping contemporary cities, Raco Mike and Savini Federico (eds.), Bristol University Press.
Kitchin, Rob (2016a). Getting Smarter about Smart Cities: Improving Data Privacy and Data Security. Data Protection Unit, Department of the Taoiseach, Dublin, Ireland.
Laniran B, Williams I. (2020). Social Media Effects: Hijacking Democracy and Civility in Civic Engagement. Platforms, Protests, and the Challenge of Networked Democracy;77-94..
Latour, Bruno (1994). ‘On Technological Mediation: Philosophy, Psychology, Geneaology’, Common Knowledge, Vol. 94, No. 4.
Law, John (2002). Aircraft stories: decentering the object in technoscience, Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press.
Leclercq, E.M., Rijshouwer, E.A. (2022). ‘Enabling citizens’ Right to the Smart City through the co-creation of digital platforms’, Urban Transform 4(2).
Lefebvre, H. (1968). Le Droit à La Ville, Paris: Anthropos.
Lefebvre, H. (1974). La production de l'espace. Paris: Anthropos.
Lefebvre, H. (1991). Critique of Everyday Life, Vol. II. New York, NY: Verso.
Lefebvre, H. 1996. Writings on cities (E. Kofman & E. Lebas, Trans.), Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Mayer, M. (2012). ‘The “right to the city” in urban social movements’, In N. Brenner, P. Marcuse, & M. Mayer (Eds.), Cities for people, not for profit (pp. 63–85), New York: Routledge.
Mejias, U. A. & Couldry, N. (2019). ‘Datafication’, Internet Policy Review, 8(4).
Mitchell, D. (2003). The right to the city: Social justice and the fight for public space, New York: Guilford Press.
Mouffe, Chantal (2000). The Democratic Paradox. London/New York: Verso.
Nancy, Jean-Luc (1991). The Inoperative Community. Edited by Peter Connor and translated by Peter Connor et al. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Niels Nagelhus Schia & Lars Gjesvik (2020). ‘Hacking democracy: managing influence campaigns and disinformation in the digital age’, Journal of Cyber Policy, 5:3, 413-428.
Pinch, T. and W. E. Bijker (1984). ‘The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other’. Social Studies of Science 14.
Purcell, M. (2002). ‘Excavating Lefebvre: The right to the city and its urban politics of the inhabitant'. GeoJournal 58(2–3), 99–108.
Purcell, M. (2013). ‘Possible Worlds: Henry Lefebvre and the right to the city’. JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS, Volume 36, Number 1, pages 141–154.
Rancière, Jacques (1999). Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy. Translated by Julie Rose.
Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.Ryan Mark, Gregory Anya (2019). ‘Ethics of Using Smart City AI and Big Data: The Case of Four Large European Cities’, The ORBIT Journal, Volume 2, Issue 2, 2019, Pages 1-36.
Ryan, Mary (2017). ‘Sousveillance as a Tool in US Civic Polity’, In Spaces of Surveillance, pp. 211-227. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2017.
- Mann; J. Nolan; B. Wellman (2002). ‘Sousveillance: Inventing and Using Wearable Computing Devices for Data Collection in Surveillance Environments’, Surveillance & Society. 1 (3): 331–355.
Sadowski, J. (2019). ‘When data is capital: Datafication, accumulation, and extraction’, Big Data & Society, 6(1).
Scott Kirsch (1995). ‘The Incredible Shrinking World? Technology and the Production of Space,’ in Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 13, pp. 533, 544.
Simonofski A., E. S. Asensio, J. De Smedt and M. Snoeck (2017). ‘Citizen Participation in Smart Cities: Evaluation Framework Proposal’, IEEE 19th Conference on Business Informatics (CBI), Thessaloniki, Greece, 2017, pp. 227-236, doi: 10.1109/CBI.2017.21.
Sweeting, D., de Alba-Ulloa, J., Pansera, M., & Marsh, A. (2022). ‘Easier said than done? Involving citizens in the smart city’, Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 40(6), 1365–1381.
Tavani, Herman T. (2013). Ethics and Technology: Ethical Issues in an Age of Information and Communication Technology (4thedn.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Verbeek, peter-paul (2011). Moralizing Technology, Understanding and Designing the Morality of Things, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.
Verrest Hebe and Karin Pfeffer (2019). ‘Elaborating the urbanism in smart urbanism: distilling relevant dimensions for a comprehensive analysis of Smart City approaches’, INFORMATION, COMMUNICATION & SOCIETY, VOL, 22, NO. 9, 1328–1342.
Winner, Langdon (1993). ‘Upon Opening the Black Box and Finding it Empty: Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Technology’, Science, Technology, and Human Values. 18 (3): 362–378.
Young, Iris Marion (1990). Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press.Young, Iris Marion (2000). Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
)