This paper offers an account of the social foundations of a theory of democracy. It purports to show that a social ontology of democracy is the necessary counterpart of a political theory of democracy. It notably contends that decisions concerning basic social ontological assumptions are relevant not only for empirical research, but bear a significant impact also on normative theorizing. The paper then explains why interactionist rather than substantialist social ontologies provide the most promising starting point for building a social (...) ontology of democracy. It then introduces and examines the three notions of habits, patterns of interaction, and forms of social organization, conceived as the main pillars of an interactionist social ontology of democracy and briefly discusses some major implications of this approach for democratic theory. (shrink)

Since the 1940s Harold Garfinkel developed ethnomethodology as a distinctive sociological attitude. This sociological attitude turns the focus of the analysis of interaction to the actor’s perspective. It suggests that interaction is ongoingly produced through actions that are organized in a retrospective and prospective fashion. The ethnomethodological analysis of interaction therefore investigates how actors produce their actions in light of their analysis of immediately prior actions and in anticipation of possible next actions. Ethnomethodologists describe the relationship of actions emerging from (...) this analysis as “sequential”. This article discusses how Garfinkel’s description of practical action as “experiment in miniature” can be seen as a precursor to the concept of “sequentiality” that defines today’s ethnomethodological analysis of interaction. Having discussed the intellectual background to ethnomethodology the article briefly explores two fragments of interaction audio-/video-recorded in a museum and an optometric consultation to illustrate the key concerns of this kind of analysis. The article closes with a short reflection on current developments in ethnomethodology and their relationship to sociology. (shrink)

The risks AI presents to society are broadly understood to be manageable through ‘general calculus’, i.e., general frameworks designed to enable those involved in the development of AI to apprehend and manage risk, such as AI impact assessments, ethical frameworks, emerging international standards, and regulations. This paper elaborates how risk is apprehended and managed by a regulator, developer and cyber-security expert. It reveals that risk and risk management is dependent on mundane situated practices not encapsulated in general calculus. Situated practice (...) surfaces ‘iterable epistopics’, revealing how those involved in the development of AI know and subsequently respond to risk and uncover major challenges in their work. The ongoing discovery and elaboration of epistopics of risk in AI (a) furnishes a potential program of interdisciplinary inquiry, (b) provides AI developers with a means of apprehending risk, and (c) informs the ongoing evolution of general calculus. (shrink)