Send message to Author

Paper short abstract

Goal-oriented policies fix desirable visions while foreclosing others. Examining visions of "love technologies", we reveal theoretical blind spots that reproduce the injustice they aim to overcome, closing down a more inclusive intimacy. This opens space for negotiating alternative affective futures

Paper long abstract

In the EU’s research context, goal-oriented research policies, such as the UN SDGs, fix certain sociotechnical visions as desirable and plausible while foreclosing others. These goals enact socio-epistemic assemblages that prioritize innovation actors, political responsibilities, temporal horizons, and academic products (Lösch et al., 2017; Schneider et al., 2021). Consider, for instance, SDG 3 (health) and SDG 5 (gender equality), which shape which possibilities receive attention and funding while rendering others invisible.

Examining emerging visions on “love technologies” —from algorithmic matchmaking and sex robots to biochemical enhancers— we analyze how these frameworks close down possibilities for "affective justice". This debate is polarized between bioethical optimists who see these technologies as democratizing control over sexual well-being (Nyholm et al., 2023) and feminist pessimists who warn of commodification and surveillance of women (Illouz, 2020). A closer hermeneutical assessment reveals unexamined blind spots. First, dominant visions treat "love" as self-evident while each smuggles assumptions about "real" affective justice, failing to enable collective deliberation. Second, their research treats "technology" either as value-neutral or through linear user/device models (e.g., Courtois & Timmermans, 2018; Sayeras & Rueff-Lopes, 2025), failing to grasp entangled sociotechnical complexity.

These visions consolidate modal power (Fuller, 2018), reinforcing the hegemonic plausibility of "love" and "technology". The consequences are political: such frameworks ignore those who do not fit the amatonormative mold, foreclosing more inclusive technological developments for romantic relationships. These frameworks thus reproduce the exclusions they ought to overcome. Identifying these dynamics, however, opens a space for a transforming negotiation of alternative affective futures.