Semester: Spring 2023

Course Code: HHM9020

Course Name: Special Course in Public Administration
Student Name: Pisith San
Instructor Name: Dr. Amirouche Moktefi
Date: June 1, 2023

Book Review

Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy

Written by Michel Callon, Pierre Lascoumes, and Yannick Barthe (Translated by Graham
Burchell). The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, and London, UK, 2009.

The book "Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy" by Michel Callon
et al. explores complex relationships between science, technology, democracy, and society. As
the book argues, technical knowledge and expertise play an essential role in shaping public
policy and decision-making in contemporary societies, and it is essential to adopt a more
democratic approach to technical decision-making to address the challenges and uncertainties of
our rapidly changing world. This book is classified into seven chapters, each addressing different
but correlated topics and examining the complex relationship between science, technology, and
society.

Despite its technical language, the book is well-organized and written clearly and concisely,
enabling it to appeal to technical readers and, to some extent, even non-technical readers. In
addition, the authors use several case studies to illustrate their points, including those from
biotechnology, environmental policy, and risk management. In doing so, the authors demonstrate
how technical expertise and non-specialists can influence decision-making and shape public
policy.

In this book, the authors examine the challenges and complexities of implementing technical
democracy, including the complexity and uncertainty of technical issues, the influence of
powerful interest groups, and the difficulty of balancing competing interests and values. The
authors argue for a more democratic approach to technical decision-making processes, which can
contribute to ensuring the fair distribution of technical decisions' impact and marginalized
groups' interests. 

This book begins with a discussion of the vital role that hybrid forum plays in the problem-
solving process. The authors point out that these forums are described as a hybrid because they
provide an open forum for diverse groups to discuss technical options, including experts,
politicians, technicians, and laypersons. Various levels of expertise are involved in the
discussions, which cover a wide range of topics, from ethics to economics.
The first chapter illustrates how collective experimentation and learning can enrich political
discourse through hybrid forums. In an uncertain situation, the hybrid forum allows specialists,
scientists, experts, and stakeholders, particularly laypersons, to contribute information and
knowledge. 

In their article, the authors raise the precise point that we should acknowledge that specialist
knowledge is not the only knowledge that can be employed in response to a particular crisis. As
the authors point out, we as specialists should recognize the importance of the knowledge
developed by laypeople. Moreover, the voice and knowledge of laypersons can be heard or seen
only through hybrid forums. 

A key focus of the second and third chapters is how secluded research or research in the
laboratory and research in the wild of laypersons can complement one another in an uncertain
environment. According to the authors, it would be a mistake to ignore or completely reject the
role of laypersons who conduct their research regarding a particular crisis happening in the
community. As the authors pointed out, research in the wild makes a very valuable contribution
to the knowledge of specialists during the crisis, as specialists might need it. 

In solving complex problems such as how to manage radioactive waste, how to control disease
spreading, and how to make technical decisions responding to any particular issue, the authors
made a clear point that we need to integrate multiple forms of expertise, including scientific,
technical, social, and ethical, to make an informed and valid technical decision. 

The authors tried to highlight the shortcoming of the monopoly of the experts and representatives
in responding to crises or making the right decision. The authors argue that the expert monopoly
does not align well with democratic culture. If we want to enrich the democratic culture in the
decision-making process, the authors suggest limiting the role of delegative democracy. As the
authors argue, the shortcomings of delegative democracy impact the effectively delivering or
representing the need of the citizen.

The authors point out that socio-technical controversies illustrate how delegative democracy
manages uncertainties associated with states of the world and collective composition. As the
authors argue, delegation democracy eliminates uncertainty by "delegating the production of
knowledge to specialists, who are granted an almost exclusive monopoly; moreover, delegative
democracy purges political debate of all uncertainty regarding possible states of the world" (p.
121). 

The authors propose a 'dialogic democracy' as a solution. The authors argue that implementing
dialogic democracy would enrich traditional representation democracy. In addition, the book
points out that dialogic democracy favors the exploration of problems, identities, and the
collective.

As a result, dialogic democracy is essential in forming a new identity for the marginalized group,
which is an open future. The book concludes that technical democracy represents a significant
shift in how we think about the relationship between science, technology, and society and can
potentially promote more democratic and just forms of governance. It is concluded in the book
that technical democracy represents a significant shift in the way we think about the relationship
between science, technology, and society, as well as the potential to promote more democratic
and just forms of government.

In the rising age of Artificial Intelligence (AI), where access to new possibilities is expanding, it
also presents us with uncertain moments to distinguish the truth from the possibility of advanced
technological manipulation. Therefore, the dialogic democratic form proposed by the authors in
the book becomes even more relevant. It challenges us to question whether the future facilitated
by AI aligns well with our desires and who has the authority to shape that future. Regarding this
issue, I firmly believe that the dialogic democratic form can empower us as non-specialists to
play a meaningful role in this AI-driven era.

Living in this fast-moving technological society, the amount of uncertainty is increasing daily,
and the path to the right direction seems limited for us. It would be a mistake if we just let our
society be run by a few selected groups, particularly a group of ICT specialists who stay behind
the keyboard to make a decision, shape a future, or even run a diverse and complex society for
us. Therefore, with the approach proposed by the authors here, it would be a crucial part to
include our role in the process of addressing this growing concern.

The dialogic democracy could provide a hybrid forum for the government, specialists, and
stakeholders to discuss, debate, or even question the possibilities of causing social harm
regarding the rising concern over AI technological advancement. This procedure could give us
more time to examine and learn the advantages and disadvantages of AI before it is fully
implemented in our society. Instead of giving all autonomous power to AI to run our society, this
platform could also hold the specialists and government actors more accountable in decision-
making by including the stakeholders' role in the process. This inclusive democratic approach to
solving problems and making the correct decisions is the critical contribution of this book. The
acknowledgment of the significant role of laypersons by the specialist is also a striking point of
seeing the knowledge limitations of the expert in their field. 

From a broader point of view, I think this book provides an in-depth analysis of the relationship
between science, technology, and democracy, as well as a call to increase democratic processes
in decision-making. However, one can argue that the dialogic democratic form can also be
viewed as a disturbing process or a distracting factor of the research conducted by specialists, as
specialists require their own space to conduct proper research to avoid interference from the
outside world, including distraction from laypersons. Although the authors propose some
thought-provoking solutions with various case studies, many lack practical implementation
guidance. For instance, the proposed idea of a dialogic democratic approach seems more
theoretical than practical. Despite offering valuable insights, the book could benefit from a more
accessible writing style and more actionable recommendations for those interested in fostering
technical democracy.