LABELLING, STIGMATISATION AND NOTATION OF THE UNDERLYING VALUE CONVEYED BY AI/IT - Brief Considerations on Social Research Aimed at Social Pathology on the WEB

Simmelian social interaction theory, which predates Goffman's theories, highlighted the connection between interaction→sociation→social effects, also identifying the volume of interactions as a key variable in social evolution. This latter, which is generally considered independent of the individual social agent, also explained a pathology: the emergence of the blasé type as a defensive reaction to the incessant growth of interactive stimuli. This provides an opportunity to correlate the effect and frequency of social interaction in a stratified, competitive metropolitan context. Making only general reference to the possible effects (deterministic or probabilistic) of labeling and stigma on the onset of deviance and mental illness or their outcomes, but simply drawing on general Goffmanian indications, it is assumed that stigmatization of an individual actually triggers social effects, including, for example, social isolation (a precursor to alienation), impacting participation, inclusion, and cohesion. This process can be triggered by a generic social agent who identifies as "rejecting the deviant," subsequently taking on a collective dimension. It should be noted, however, that rejection, in any case, is not the only possible option; there may be positions of acceptance or even indifference. This highlights how the effects of simple interaction itself are not only linked to frequency, but also to the value and significance of the interaction, as well as its specific purposes, which can determine its effects, or at least direct them in an intentionally preordained manner. It can be conceptualized that, in a society or segment of it, stigma arises when two interrelated components are employed: a) human differences are identified and labeled; b) a social agent, usually belonging to the dominant culture, links the labeled individual to negative attributes and/or stereotypes. All this in a metropolitan, computerized, stratified and competitive society can lead to pre-ordained discrimination ad excludendum functionally aimed at a desired result according to the ad imperandum ambitions of elite classes, severely influencing political, economic, and social choices and even social mobility, to positions pre-established for the purpose of achieving a desired outcome from strategic centers that are not necessarily immediately traceable and locatable. Conversely, labeled and stigmatized potentials are largely always tracked, thanks to the information technology now widespread across every social strata, and can be located in real time. This poses not only problems of asymmetry, precaution, and prevention for social justice, but also genuine security concerns for every social agent, faced with concrete acts of hacking and falsification through Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems. This portends social conflicts that find their consummation in cyberspace. The analysis's final invitation is to rediscover the myth of social pathology that was forced and relegated to marginal positions after the past student uprisings and the metropolitan ghettos, phenomena that are similarly resurfacing today. Ultimately, it's about rediscovering a serious critique of the power establishment as a whole, whether autocratic or democratic. Regardless of partisanship, and with firm conviction in its values, the sociologist's mission must assume a critical public role, rather than adhering to pseudo-scientific positions, willing to negotiate the elevation of one's status in exchange for renouncing one's own "ideological apologia." Adopting Goffman's metaphor of theatrical representation, labeling and stigmatization can ultimately be seen as a "public spectacle." This is all the more true as today's highly computerized society of spectacle and consumption is pervaded by artificially intelligent media. Three parties always participate in the "spectacle": a victim, a perpetrator, and an audience. It is played out publicly, before the eyes of a territorialized and localized audience, dispersed across its own spaces or known reference territories, where the victims are always identifiable, precisely because they are located in real time by technological means, while the perpetrator is usually elusive, hidden, not always localized, and tending to be increasingly artificially intelligent; mostly immune to potential sanctions and punishment. The audience, however, always appears receptive, but unaware, often lacking and incapable of reactive dignity; and where it does appear truly perceptive, it is at best consumed by impotence and resentment. It then comes to mind that "the medium is the message" applies to all media, leading to the conclusion that McLuhan's warning was not coined by chance, but was a warning for the future "global village," which he had already glimpsed in his time. More generally, the constraints for the treatment of a hypothesized The society of total control , to which our times seem to be tending, with the risk of becoming heterodirected and heterodetermined , and potentially leading to a consequent collective social pathology , does not appear to be technical or scientific, but rather eminently value-based, political, ethical, economic, and social. This leads to the final (unresolved) question of removing constraints and who can or should be responsible for researching, identifying, and treating the detected or detectable social pathology.