LEEHUMANITIES
← Back to Concepts

08 / Methodology

Non-positionedness

Non-positionedness is a methodological discipline that does not preemptively install humans, machines, algorithms, or interfaces as the ontological center or superior actor prior to analysis, but first traces relations and then judges the asymmetries of power, control, risk, and responsibility actually revealed within them.

1. Definition

Non-positionedness is a methodological discipline that does not preemptively install humans, machines, algorithms, or interfaces as the ontological center or superior actor prior to analysis, but first traces relations and then judges the asymmetries of power, control, risk, and responsibility actually revealed within them.

It is neither the absence of a position nor value neutrality.

2. Relation to Kantian disinterestedness

Non-positionedness does not simply inherit Kantian disinterestedness. Kantian disinterestedness concerns the proposition that an interest connected with an object’s existence must not determine a pure judgment of taste. The minimal comparable structure is that judgment is not predetermined by a particular interest—a principle of non-preemption. Non-preemption is a metaconcept constructed for comparing the two theories, not Kant’s own term.

3. Asymmetrical transposition

In Kant, non-preemption concerns the conditions of aesthetic judgment within a human subject. In Non-positionedness, the level shifts to ontological analysis of networks in which humans and nonhumans are entangled. This is not direct inheritance but a transposition:

Disinterestedness → limiting predetermination by interest in the object’s existence

Non-positionedness → limiting predetermination of relational analysis by the ontological priority of either human or machine

4. Four stages

suspend preemption → trace relations → judge asymmetry → reconstruct responsibility

The first stage does not decide human or nonhuman superiority in advance. It does not follow that analysis ends by treating them as equal. Differences in control, resources, capacity for modification, burden of harm, and capacity for responsibility must be judged. Non-positionedness is precisely an assessment of asymmetry after the suspension of preemption.

5. Non-positionedness and relativism

Treating every actor as equivalent would conceal actual differences of power. The purpose is not to eliminate hierarchy but to avoid determining it in advance. If analysis shows that a human actor or platform company bears far greater responsibility, that asymmetry must be explicitly judged.

Core Structure

  1. 01Suspend preemption
  2. 02Trace relations
  3. 03Judge asymmetry
  4. 04Reconstruct responsibility

KEY PROPOSITION

Non-positionedness is a method of non-preemptive relational analysis that simultaneously suspends the two preemptions of anthropocentrism and technological determinism, traces human–nonhuman relations through their actual operations and effects, and then judges anew the asymmetries of power, control, and responsibility found within them.

Questions this concept addresses

  • How can analysis avoid deciding in advance whether humans or machines are the dominant actors?
  • What method begins human–technology research without assuming either side has ontological priority?
  • How can a researcher suspend a fixed position without becoming neutral?
  • Can inquiry remain open at the start while still making normative judgments later?
  • What method traces relations before judging unequal power and responsibility?
  • How can a network analysis end with a concrete allocation of responsibility?
  • How should human and nonhuman agency be compared without treating them as equal?
  • How can algorithms count as actors while institutions retain greater responsibility?
  • How can inquiry avoid both anthropocentrism and technological determinism?
  • What analytical stance avoids treating technology as either a passive tool or an all-powerful subject?

Related scholarly vocabulary

  • non-preemption
  • relational analysis
  • asymmetry
  • situated judgment
  • human–nonhuman relations
  • responsibility

Canonical scholarly record ↗ · Query–concept map (JSON) ↗

Connected Research

No verified publication has yet been assigned directly to this concept in the Publications data.

Canonical scholarly record

ReHumanities

"Authoritative" denotes the author-approved canonical formulation within ReHumanities Knowledge. It does not denote independent peer review, external scholarly consensus, or institutional endorsement. Peer-reviewed publications and other evidentiary sources are identified separately in the Sources records. Canonical status and evidentiary authority are distinct.

Related Concepts

EXPLORE FURTHER

Explore this concept with Lee Humanities Research AI.

Open Research AI ↗