以利物浦为代表的英国后工业时代城市,在面临疫情危机时显现了产业结构脆弱、失业率高涨、心理问题凸显、数据管控不力等诸多城市问题。本期对话讨论因疫情导致的个人和社会层面的心理健康挑战;以及智慧工具给人们带来便捷的同时,引发的一系列有关“监控资本主义”的伦理问题。
本期嘉宾 | Mark Boyle 教授
Professor Mark Boyle is the Director of the Heseltine Institute for Public Policy Practice and Place at the University of Liverpool. The Institute brings together academic expertise with policy-makers and practitioners to support the development of sustainable and inclusive cities and city regions in the process of regeneration, including Liverpool City Region.
此次疫情给公众的心理健康方面带来了什么样的挑战?如何利用城市心理学来降低公共卫生风险,促进城市健康发展?
当前,我们把身体健康放在首要位置,但新冠肺炎将会给人们的精神健康带来长期的损害。隔离在家的人群,在高危环境工作的关键人员,以及独居在家的老年人口都极易产生心理健康方面的问题。这些问题总有一天会暴露。
场所营造与公共卫生预防之间的关系是什么?英国规划系统在这方面提供了什么有益借鉴?
心理学通常被定义为对人类思想的科学研究。心理治疗通过建立个人的适应力来应对不良的心理状态,包括认知行为疗法、正念、冥想、谈话疗法、锻炼、饮食调理、节欲、睡眠和药物治疗等方法。我相信,每一种治疗方法在帮助人们应对COVID-19方面都有其关键作用。学院派心理学有可能使“心理治疗必须针对思维中的异常情况”这一想法合法化。但事实上,个人化心理疗法在任何政治制度环境下也都能发挥一定作用。
图片来源:网络
在《城市与灵魂》(City and Soul)一书中,美国荣格精神分析师、城市学家James Hillman有一句名言:“要改变自己,就要改变你的城市。”只有通过改变我们城市运作的组织原则,才有可能创造出有益于社会的空间和保护生态,从而在结构上发挥治疗作用,并赋予其生命力。
国际上看,大数据和智慧治理工具在公共政策和公共服务的信息传递与改善方面显示出了巨大的潜力,为什么我们在此还要同时关注大数据管理的伦理问题?
很显然,计算机数据分析在应对COVID-19方面可以发挥积极的作用。我们可以利用智能技术来绘制新冠病毒的传播地图,也可以使用手机数据来提醒与感染者有过密切接触的人群。人工智能可以帮助我们模拟疾病的未来扩散。联系人追踪也是功能强大的新工具,可以对疫情有所帮助。
约翰霍普金斯大学全球疫情地图
图片来源:https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6
出现问题的原因并不在于智能技术本身,而是因为该技术受到非常特殊的政治制度动力的支持和约束——即一种新的资本积累模式,其商业模式是在几乎没有法律监管或道德监督的情况下,从个人关联数据中提取有价值的信息积累。
计算机化的数据驱动解决方案本质上是良性的。一切都取决于数据市场的政治构成,以及数据所有权和分享机制的体系架构。特别是取决于如何设计,规范和管理这些内容,以及考虑它们是否获得了社会许可。
我们需要问到,健康计划人员如何才能更有效地建立和管理接触者追踪应用程序,从而使公民能够在以民主、道德、社会许可为基础,并保持持续的公众信任的环境下,更加充分地受益于强大的数据革命?
我们需要让数据民主化,建立一个规章制度,决定谁有权分享数据,谁有数据所有权,谁可以靠数据盈利,以及谁可以为了某些特定目的使用数据。
一个高效能的数据生态系统应该是什么样的?如何对城市数据系统的现状进行“健康检查”?
制定基本框架所需的治理、管理、道德和监管方面的安排(治理和管理,公共利益治理:为公民建设智慧城市,数据道德管理)
作为集成生态系统基础的技术基础设施和挑战(建立开放数据生态系统并促进互操作性,投资数据基础设施:硬件和软件,数据安全性,数据可视化)
数据驱动型生态系统所需的资源、财务和经济问题考量(融资模型和采购,成本效益分析)
图片来源:https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/heseltine-institute/
What would be the mental and well-being challenges to the public? How to engage urban psychology in reducing public health risks and promoting healthy cities?
Whereas the physical aspects of health are being given priority at the moment, the longer-term health damage done by COVID-19 will be on the people’s mental health. There are mental health problems that come from people being locked down, from key workers being exposed to the virus, and also from the elderly population staying home alone. These will come home to roost at some point.
Lockdown is definitely a war on people’s mental health, heightening levels of anxiety, depression, stress levels, nervous exhaustion and so on. It may lead to more substance abuse, alcoholism and drug abuse. We are also seeing an upsurge in domestic violence, as people are being trapped in violent households, fueled by additional family stresses around dealing with added economic pressures and care burdens.
Essentially, until a cure or a vaccine is found, people will be forced to live with COVID-19 – that means going into the world knowing that there is something lurking that could kill you and health professionals and medicines will not be able to save you. Think about that. A reality for every person who leaves the house. Of course, social distancing, testing, tracing and tracking can reduce the risk but it can’t remove it altogether.
People need to socialize, this basic human need cannot be fulfilled when people are at a distance and are isolated from each other. Digital contact is helping hugely but it is no substitute for human intimacy.
COVID-19 mental health problems will be a huge health challenge for the world. I believe this will be something we must properly deal with once the society reopens again or it will haunt us downstream.
What is the relation between place-making with preventative public health? Does the English planning system provide any good lessons in this aspect?
To reopen effectively and build back better, it will be necessary to tackle the present crisis in mental health. And to tackle the crisis in mental health it will be necessary to improve the psychological literacy of planners, policy makers and practitioners. Psychological solutions need to work with social and political questions centrally to the fore.
Psychology is often defined as the scientific study of the human mind. Psychotherapies target undesirable psychological states by building personal resilience – including through cognitive behavioural therapy, mindfulness, meditation, talking therapies, exercise, diet, abstinence, sleep and medication and so on. I believe each of these therapies has a crucial role to play in helping people cope with COVID-19. But cloaked in a scientific aura, institutional Psychology risks legitimating the idea that therapies must be targeted at abnormalities which exist ‘under the skull’. In fact personalised therapies can only do so much in any given politico-institutional environment.
We can edge closer to a bundle of more fundamental solutions if we construe the present crisis in mental health as socially and politically produced. In tackling the crisis in mental health then, it will be necessary to ‘fix’ economies, societies and cities as much as suffering individuals.
In City and Soul, US Jungian psychoanalyst and urbanist James Hillman famously declared: ‘to change yourself, change your city’. Only by changing the organising principles around which our cities work will it be possible to create pro-social spaces and ecologies of care which are structurally therapeutic and life affirming.
We need a tradition of place making which taps into the formidable intellectual resources which already exist in communities, find a method to bring this knowledge to the fore, respect peoples’ analysis of where they are at and why, dignify their concerns and ideas, entertain the solutions they propose and champion policies which are authentically co-created, co-governed and co-implemented by planners, policy makers and practitioners and the communities they serve.
Internationally, big data and smart governance tools have shown their strong potential in informing and improving public policies and services, why it is important at the same time to pay special attention to the ethics of big data management?
Obviously computerised data analytics have a role to play in tackling COVID-19. We can use smart technologies to map the spread of COVID-19; we can use mobile phone data to warn people if they have been contacted with people diagnosed with the disease. AI can help us model the future diffusion of the disease. Contact tracing is a powerful new tool that could make a difference.
But we need to be careful; the origins and development of smart technology within a framework of what Shoshana Zuboff calls ‘surveillance capitalism’ has given rise to technology that is not only configured primarily to serve the interests of commercial data harvesters, but which is also substantially – and manifestly – under-regulated.
Problems arise not because of smart technology, per se, but because this technology is being enabled and constrained by a very particular politico-institutional dynamic – a new mode of capital accumulation whose business model is the extraction of value from amassed linked personal data with little juridical, regulatory or ethical oversight.
Computerised data driven solutions are actually essentially benign. Everything depends upon the political constitution of data markets, and the architecture of data ownership and sharing arrangements – specifically, how these arrangements are designed, regulated and governed, and whether they command a social licence.
We need to ask, how can health planners build and govern contact tracing apps that enable citizens to exploit more fully the powerful data revolution in a way which is democratic, ethical, underpinned by a social licence, and which maintains ongoing public trust?
We need to democratize the data, to establish a regulatory framework and decide who is sharing the data, who is allowed to own the data, who is allowed to make money out of the data, and who is allowed to use data for certain aims.
In this COVID-19 window, there are probably all sorts of uses and abuses of data going on – using the emergency situation as cover. I suspect after this crisis, there are going to arise lots of questions about the democratic legitimacy of these uses. Whether or not computing power and the data revolution will help us shield ourselves better from COVID-19 will depend upon the crucial social and political choices we will make today.
What should a high-performing data ecosystem be like? How to carry out a ‘health check’ of the current status of urban data system?
Fortunately, before the COVID-19 pandemic, Liverpool City Region was actively building a high-performing data ecosystem. The Heseltine Institute was centrally involved in this. Our health check was covered three areas:
·The governance, management, ethics, and regulation arrangements necessary to set the basic framework (governance and management, governing for public good: building Smart Cities with and for citizens, governing data ethically)
·The technical infrastructures and challenges which are fundamental for an integrated ecosystem (building Open Data ecosystems and fostering interoperability, investing in data infrastructure: hardware and software, data security, data visualisation)
· Resources, finance and economics questions which need to be asked of data-driven ecosystems (financing models and procurement, cost–benefit analysis)
In our view, the most significant innovation in Liverpool City Region’s data governance to date is the pioneering Liverpool Civic Data Cooperative (CDC). The CDC is a partnership of eight NHS Trusts, Liverpool Clinical Commissioning Group, and four higher education institutions: the University of Liverpool, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool John Moores University, and Edge Hill University. It is working to develop an integrated data and digital innovation facility which supports collaboration between health tech partners and provides secure access to relevant data, while cementing trust from the public in how data is used.
Accountability in data governance is safeguarded by elected members, and thus secured for the public within a ‘diameter of trust’. Trustworthy national infrastructure is used wherever possible. Local communities work with NHS analysts, data scientists and health technology engineers to find new ways of improving healthcare and wellbeing, while citizen juries adjudicate on which datasets might be shared and which kept confidential. When it serves the public good, the CDC will also open public sector datasets to private market actors with particular computer data analytic capacities.
We hope that the CDC will be helpful in overcoming the fragmented data landscape in Liverpool and already it is helping with the COVID-19 response. Once we deal with this for health and social care, we hope then to replicate this model of data sharing in transport, climate, environmental and housing data-sets. It would be wonderful if the city could eventually build all of those data-sets into a single data set, so we could then get a much better understanding of how people use transport, where they live, what their health status is, how many visits to the doctors they’ve had and so on. It would also very much help the planning and the management of the whole city.
Of course the essential objective is to ensure tech and big data are being put to public good and that citizens are in control of defining what public good means.
More information about Heseltine Institute for Public Policy Practice and Place on:
https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/heseltine-institute/
-End-
相关阅读
城市设计与城市人的心理发展
全球疫情下:英国后工业的脆弱性和资本主义新伦理
资讯 | [日]后疫情时代的新成熟社会