Date & Time:
6 May 2025, 10:15–11:45
Location:
Room Nikolai, STS Conference 2025, Graz
Chairs:
Erich Prem (Association of Digital Humanism),
Katja Mayer (University of Vienna)
Session Overview
This interdisciplinary session explored the conceptual future and practical direction of Digital Humanism in light of critical posthumanist, feminist, and STS perspectives. The panel brought together scholars to examine tensions between universalist humanist ideals and the need for situated, pluralist approaches to digital ethics and governance in the digital transformation.
Key Contributions
Erich Prem argued for Digital Humanism as a pragmatic ethical-political framework that resists the dehumanizing tendencies of contemporary information technologies. He cautioned against misapplying abstract posthumanist critiques and emphasized the movement’s societal focus and democratic aims. His intervention called for philosophical responsibility and stressed that digital humanism must not be dismissed due to historical critiques of humanism but rather re-appropriated for contemporary political agency.
Katja Mayer on the other hand explicitly called for a critical reorientation of Digital Humanism through the lens of Science and Technology Studies (STS). She highlighted how important it is to connect these thought-schools to counter universalist concepts such as “the human”, and thus “autonomy” and “dignity” risk reproducing exclusion if not grounded in relational and situated ethics. Her call was for a “resignification” of digital humanism as a practice attentive to power, embodiment, and epistemic diversity.
Maria Zanzotto focused on the trust paradox in generative AI, arguing that probabilistic systems like LLMs undermine traditional models of epistemic trust. Maria advocated for critical digital literacy and reflexive user engagement, aligning this approach with Digital Humanist values, bridging traditions from French and German literature. Her argument underscored the urgency of developing new epistemological frameworks for trust, moving beyond reliability toward contextual understanding.
Philip Birkner critiqued the limits of regulatory approaches and stressed the need for systemic alternatives to „techno-feudalism.“ He argued for treating core digital infrastructures as public goods and called for institutional innovation rooted in STS insights and public value frameworks. His contribution emphasized the necessity of reimagining state roles and building infrastructures for democratic digital sovereignty beyond market logic, but based on better understanding of the current extraction of wealth and outsourcing of social and environmental impacts.
Pia-Zoe Hahne and Alexander Schmoelz traced the environmental implications of AI back to the Enlightenment-era, which has partially overwritten the emancipatory project of humanism. They proposed an ethics of care and relationality as an entry point for a more ecologically attuned Digital Humanism. Their analysis invited a philosophical deepening of the rationalisation of nature in the enlightenment phase and the humanist protections of nature that does not fall into anti-humanism, which would endanger human well-being. We propose a Digital humanism by confronting the difference between humanist and enlightenment ideas of nature and drawing on the history of ideas for a renewed engagement with nature within the realm of Digital Humanism.
Discussion Highlights
Participants debated how to position Digital Humanism as both a movement and a boundary object that enables collaboration across academic, civic, and policy spheres.
There was strong support for better connecting the worlds of computer science and social science and not abandoning the commitment to shaping technology responsibly.
A recurring theme was the need to broaden the epistemic foundations of Digital Humanism and to resist epistemic hegemony, particularly by acknowledging contributions from feminist, decolonial, humanist and STS traditions.
Conclusion
The session underscored that the future of Digital Humanism depends on its ability to evolve into a more reflexive, inclusive, and action-oriented framework. It must balance normative clarity with contextual sensitivity, and universal aspirations with situated practices—transforming from a rhetorical project into a lived, institutionalized ethics of the digital age. It should better recognize where it is already happening and engage with its communities of practice.