Short abstract:

I propose a distinction: for-good intervention, with a common structure of a benevolent intervener purportedly distributing benefits to beneficiaries; versus the appropriation of digital technology for social mobilization, solidarity, and survival: pointing toward Petty’s concept of co-liberation.

Long abstract:

This talk contributes to discussions of what ‘the digital good’ might mean in STS by proposing a bifurcation of existing endeavors that can be said to have been directed toward ‘the good.’ On the one hand, I use the term 'for-good intervention' to bring together endeavors that have the common structure of a benevolent intervener who purportedly distributes benefits to another group of beneficiaries. These endeavors include international development and ICTD (Escobar 1994, Ferguson 1994, Pal 2017, Irani 2019), humanitarianism and humanitarian tech (Fassin 2010, Madianou 2019), philanthropy and digital philanthropy (McGoey 2015), and corporate social responsibility, including from large tech companies (Welker 2009, Pei, Olgado, & Crooks 2021). On the other hand, I group together endeavors that have appropriated digital technology for social mobilizations, solidarity, and survival (Benjamin 2019). I propose an analogy to Fanon’s (1961) distinction between decolonization that was voluntary on the part of the colonizers, where the colonial compartmentalization of society is maintained; and independence that was not granted voluntarily by the colonizers, where greater potential existed to remake society fundamentally. Voluntary benevolence from relatively powerful groups can have important material effects for oppressed communities, and even more so for those who are the helpers (Malkki 2015), yet tend not to address the structural conditions that produce inequality. I draw our attention to Tawana Petty’s (2018) work on the concept of co-liberation to counter conservative tendencies in for-good intervention.