↓ Skip to main content

The Care of Our Hybrid Selves: Ethics in Times of Technical Mediation

Overview of attention for article published in Foundations of Science, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
The Care of Our Hybrid Selves: Ethics in Times of Technical Mediation
Published in
Foundations of Science, October 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10699-015-9440-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steven Dorrestijn

Abstract

What can the art of living after Foucault contribute to ethics in relation to the mediation of human existence by technology? To develop the relation between technical mediation and ethics, firstly the theme of technical mediation is elaborated in line with Foucault's notion of ethical problematization. Every view of what technology does to us at the same time expresses an ethical concern about technology. The contemporary conception of technical mediation tends towards the acknowledgement of ongoing hybridization, not ultimately good or bad but ambivalent, which means for us the challenge of taking care of ourselves as hybrid beings. Secondly, the work of Foucault provides elements for imagining this care for our hybrid selves, notably his notions of freedom as a practice and of the care of the self. A conclusions about technical mediation and ethics is that whereas the approaches of the delegation of morality to technology by Latour and mediated morality by Verbeek see technical mediation of behavior and moral outlook as an answer in ethics, this should rather be considered the problem that ethics is about.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 21%
Student > Master 5 17%
Researcher 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 4 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Arts and Humanities 6 21%
Philosophy 4 14%
Social Sciences 4 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 6 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 July 2020.
All research outputs
#13,960,695
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from Foundations of Science
#152
of 274 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,610
of 284,662 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Foundations of Science
#9
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 274 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 284,662 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.