| dc.description.abstract | In the past years the smart city discourse has gained a lot of attention in academic literature, government programs and corporate projects. The initial techno-centred approach to the smart city, as coined by multinationals, has been under fierce critique. Recently, in response to this critique, urban scholars have signalled a shift in the debate on smart cities from a techno-centred to a citizen-centric approach (Cardullo and Kitchen 2017, 2018; Joss et al. 2017; de Waal and Dignum 2017). All players in the field seem to propose a new smart city vision that places people rather than technology at its centre. However, what precise understanding the different parties have on the roles and responsibilities of citizens seem to differ, as well as their underlying ideologies (de Waal and Dignum 2017). The debate lacks clarity and sufficient theoretical grounding. A number of scholars (e.g. Zandbergen 2019) suggest there is a need to develop a (new) notion of citizenship in the smart city discourse grounded in political theory. In this thesis I aim to provide an alternative understanding of citizenship (and politics) – distinct from both liberal and republican traditions – as found in the work of Hannah Arendt (The Human Condition, On Revolution and a number of essays). This thesis analyses how we ought to understand citizenship in the smart city from an Arendtian perspective. Arendt’s emphasizes on civic engagement and participation provides an uncontroversial alternative for the development of the future smart citi(es)zens. I propose the future smart city would benefit from a revival of Arendt’s notion of citizenship and politics as digital technologies provide new possibility to organise society accordingly using digital democratic platforms that allow for direct participation. However, from an Arendtian perspective, we should not blindly follow the technological developments and shift all things political to a digital space. In a true smart city, we need an active citizenry that not only debates their differences online but that act together, can take collective initiative. As such, citizens – as civic friends – constitute a common world. | |
