=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2021/paper8
|storemode=property
|title=Using Enkapsis theory for unravelling societal complexities: The case of Uber
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2021/paper8.pdf
|volume=Vol-2021
|authors=Christine Boshuijzen-van Burken,Darek M. Haftor
}}
==Using Enkapsis theory for unravelling societal complexities: The case of Uber==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2021/paper8.pdf
Using Enkapsis Theory for Unravelling
Societal Complexities: The Case of Uber
Christine Boshuijzen-van Burken
Department of Informatics, Linnaeus University
christinevanburken@gmail.com
Darek M. Haftor
Department of Informatics, Linnaeus University
darek.haftor@lnu.se
Keywords: Enkapsis theory, digital businesses, transportation networking
companies, Uber, societal complexities
Abstract
Digital technologies can create novel clusters of societal entities. This can lead to tensions in
relationships between existing societal entities and in some cases it requires a rethinking of
the structures that characterize these relationships. An example of a digital technology that
has challenged existing relationships between traditional businesses, legal authorities and the
public is Uber, an application-based transportation networking company. One way of
understanding such complex relationships is in terms of enkaptic interlacements. The theory
of enkapsis is a philosophical tool, based on a specific view of reality, which may guide a novel
understanding of the relationship between artefacts and entities and between social structures
that exist in reality. It distinguishes between three main types of relationships between societal
entities, namely part-whole relationships, enkaptic interlacements and interlinkages. If we
apply this rather abstract theory to the complex case of Uber, we find, for example, that Uber
has a part-whole relationship with the information technology infrastructure. This implies that
without digital technologies, Uber loses its meaning and will not function according to its
primary function, namely to connect drivers to passengers. We explore how the theory of
enkapsis can explain a multiplicity of other complex relationships and explain the different
responses to Uber in different countries, cultural settings and legal systems.
Introduction
Societal challenges may be evoked by novel digital technologies that connect different
stakeholders in society in new ways. An example of a societal challenge is the arrival of
smartphone applications that create peer-to-peer digital businesses, such as the transportation
networking application Uber. Uber has caused unrest in the traditional taxi sector and it has
evoked legal debates and numerous newspaper articles have been devoted to this so-called
‘disruptive technology’ (see for example Weisse and Guynn 2014; Suster 2014; Adhikari 2015).
Uber directly or indirectly connects drivers to passengers, credit card companies to developers
of geographical maps, mobile network providers to car manufacturers, legal authorities to
international investors, etc.
A way of understanding the complex relationships between the different entities and
stakeholders in digitally enabled clusters such as Uber, is in terms of enkaptic interlacements.
The theory of enkapsis is a philosophical tool, based on a specific view of reality, which may
guide a novel understanding of the relationship between artefacts, entities and social
structures that exist in reality. We contribute to interdisciplinary research by using insights from
philosophy to understand societal complexities caused by digital technologies. This approach
connects academic research in humanities with research and innovation in the public and
private sector to tackle societal challenges.
Enkapsis Theory
The theory of enkapsis is unique to Dooyeweerd, a Dutch philosopher, who introduced his
theory in his book “A New Critique of Theoretical Thought” (1953). It is part of a larger
philosophical framework of individuality structures and modal structures.
Aspects of reality
The theory of individuality structures is a philosophical undertaking to understand the nature
of specific things and events in reality as well as to grasp the identity of entities in a non-
reductionist manner. It proceeds on the basis that reality presents itself according to a number
of irreducible yet closely interrelated aspects. Dooyeweerd distinguished 15 aspects in total.
This article, for example, exists in the numerical aspect (it is one article in a bundle of articles),
it exists in the social aspect (it is part of a communal effort to understand digital humanities), it
exists in the economic aspect (you may have bought the article), it exists in the juridical aspect
(it has copyrights), it exists in the pistic aspect (you may or may not trust the information in the
article – or in academic papers in general). Below we have inserted a full list of aspects as
Dooyeweerd has distinguished them.
• Quantitative aspect: amount
• Spatial aspect: continuous extension
• Kinematic aspect: movement
• Physical aspect: molecules
• Biotic/Organic aspect: life functions
• Sensitive/Psychic aspect: feelings and emotions
• Analytical aspect: distinction and logics
• Formative aspect: historical, technology
• Lingual aspect: symbolic communication
• Social aspect: social interaction
• Economic aspect: frugality
• Aesthetic aspect: harmony
• Juridical aspect: what is due (rights, responsibility)
• Ethical aspect: love
• Pistic aspect: faith, ultimate trust
Each aspect presupposes the previous aspect and therefore they are closely related. For
example, the chemical processes (physical aspect) are needed in order to explain life functions
(biotic aspect).
Aspectual Norms in reality
How are these aspects relevant to societal relationships? First, things in reality often have a
remarkably stable appearance: trees usually point towards the sky, water feels wet when
touched and freezes at temperatures below zero, cups drop down when kicked from the table,
bridges tend to bear the weight of cars and chairs luckily bear the weight of people (but not of
cars), seasons come and seasons go, greeting one another seems an intercultural habit, not
paying for groceries is a rarity rather than common practice, and it is universally unquestioned
that family members take care of each other. These examples show that things (trees) and
common events (economic activity) or relationships (family, friends) in reality, at first sight, act
according to recognizable, stable patterns. These patterns are often not ex-nihilo invented by
humans, but reflect some deeper foundation or order in reality as it presents itself that underlies
these actual realizations. The order can also be referred to as a specific ‘normativity’ or ‘law-
sphere’ to which the matter or event or relationship ‘ought’ to respond in order to function and,
according to Dooyeweerd, to contribute to human flourishing. There are plainly laws in nature
that determine the strength of a material and that make a chair collapse or not under a certain
load.
Dooyeweerd further distinguishes between a qualifying aspect and a foundational aspect of
things and events in reality. A tree, a family, a business, a church, and diplomacy have a
distinct structural quality which can be related to one of the 15 aspects that were previously
mentioned: a family has a biotic foundational aspect, a business, church and diplomacy are all
formatively founded, though each has a distinct qualifying function. With a qualifying function,
Dooyeweerd means the leading function or the highest aspect in which an entity or structure
functions, and which characterizes it, and which provides the leading normative principle:
without this qualifying aspect, the entity or structure will cease to exist. A tree is qualified by
the biotic aspect, a business by the economic aspect, a church by the pistic aspect.
In Dooyeweerd’s philosophical framework, there is moreover a distinction between pre-
normative aspectual laws and normative aspectual laws. Normative aspectual laws hold for
social reality (Chaplin 2011). It means that, in the social realm, there is room for neglecting or
disobeying the laws and norms that hold for being a priest, a lawyer, a teacher or a
businessman, etc. We can speak of a ‘good businessman’ or a ‘bad teacher’ to express that a
person acts against or complies well with the norms that are inherent in these social practices.
But what if new entities emerge, as we will see presently in the case of digital businesses? We
will show how Dooyeweerd’s theory of enkapsis can help in disentangling complex
relationships between existing and novel societal entities.
Societal relationships
Not only societal entities are bound by structural laws, but also relationships between the
different societal entities are subject to normative structures in order to contribute to human
flourishing. Dooyeweerd distinguishes between enkaptic interlacements and part-whole
relationships in order to explain how individuality structures cohere amidst their differences
(Chaplin, 2011).
An enkaptic interlacement pre-supposes that the structures of things and events, or those of
societal relationships functioning in it, have an independent internal leading function and an
internal structural principle of their own. (Dooyeweerd, 1953, Vol. III, p. 637).
A part-whole relationship can be defined as follows: “In all those things whose structure is not
that of a homogeneous aggregate, a part is essentially qualified by the structure of the whole.
In this case the structure of a whole can never be construed by means of its parts, because
the parts, as such, are entirely dependent on the whole. The question what is a part of a non-
homogeneous whole cannot be decided by a functional mathematical-physical analysis, but
only by an inquiry into the internal individuality-structure of this whole.” (Dooyeweerd 1953,
Vol. III, pp. 638-639).
Another type of relationship, different from enkaptic interlacements and part-whole
relationships, is interlinkages: these are relationships between two entities that function
independent of each other and cooperate on a temporary, voluntary basis. Interaction does
not disrupt or intervene in their respective qualifying functions. Figure 1 shows a schematic
representation of the types of relationships.
Part-whole relationship:
Enkaptic interlacement:
Interlinkage:
Figure 1: Schematic presentation of the types of societal relationships. The circles represent societal
entities; the stars represent qualifying functions.
Chaplin (2011) gives some examples of normatively structured types of relationships into
which individuals or communities can enter without losing their distinct identity: “publicity,
fashion, sporting events, the press, public traffic, public artistic performances, charitable work,
diplomacy, international political relations, political communication, and missionary activity” (p.
116). Fashion and sport are socially qualified, charitable work is morally qualified, international
political relations are juridically qualified and so on. For the individuals functioning in
interindividual relationships or the communities functioning in intercommunal relationships,
such qualifying norms also exist.
Dooyeweerd treats the market under the theme of intercommunal relationships, which is a type
of interlinkage. Intercommunal relationships are communities that are linked together and
operate in a non-hierarchical manner. According to Chaplin, “a market is an economically
qualified interlinkage” (2011, p. 116). This is in contrast with signing a labor contract, which
brings the employee into the community of a business enterprise and, with it, into the
hierarchical structure of an employer-employee relationship, which is a typical enkaptic
interlacement.
We have now reached the point in our argument where the philosophical work can be linked
clearly to a case study of a digital nature, namely the application-based ridesharing company
Uber. Uber challenges the previous assertions about the nature of the market, disrupts
traditional ideas of a business enterprise and redefines labor relationships according to its own
standards.
Case Study: the ‘app-based’ company Uber
Uber is an application-based transportation network company, founded in 2009, which
develops, markets and operates the Uber smartphone application, also known as the “Uber
app”. Uber relies on and combines a number of digital technologies such as GPS, credit card
transaction systems, and an online matching system which connects drivers to passengers.
The Uber app enables smartphone users to submit a trip request, which the software program
then automatically sends to the nearest Uber driver, who is thus alerted to the location of the
passenger. A large group of Uber drivers are Uber Pop drivers, who use their own personal
cars. In February 2017, Uber was available in more than 81 countries and more than 581 cities
worldwide (http://uberestimator.com/cities). The Uber app automatically calculates the fare and
transfers the payment from the passenger’s smartphone to the driver. Since Uber's launch,
several other companies have replicated its business model: the most well-known is Lyft in
North America, and there are some country-specific versions such as Didi in China and Ola in
India. Uber’s current estimated value is $70 billion
(https://lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/technology-blog/uber-greyball/). Since its inception, Uber
has faced protests from several different directions. Most notably, Uber was seen as unfair
competition by traditional taxi drivers, who are subject to a number of laws and rules that Uber
drivers refuse to comply with because Uber is not a taxi-company (Davis, 2015).
Analysis
If we apply the rather abstract theory of enkapsis to the complex case of Uber, we can define
all stakeholders in terms of qualifying and foundational functions. The next step is to see in
which way the stakeholders are connected; and we may find that some relationships are not
appropriate, i.e. are interfering with their respective qualifying functions, and that they cause
problems and tensions. In Table 1 below, we have listed a selection of the various stakeholders
with whom Uber interacts.
Table 1: Stakeholders in the digital transportation networking business network and their qualifying
and foundational aspects
Qualifying aspect Foundational aspect
Uber Economic Technical/Formative
(business) (internet, smartphone,
GPS)
Driver Economic Technical/Formative
((extra) income) (car + driving skills)
Sometimes social
(meeting people)
Passenger Social Economic
(work or leisure) (ability to afford)
Regular Taxi Economic Technical/Formative
company (business) (fleet of cars)
Regular Taxi Economic Technical/Formative
driver (income) (skills)
Regulators Juridical Technical/Formative
(law enforcement) (fines, coercive means)
Credit Card Economic Juridical
Company (business) (terms and agreements)
Local Social Spatial
Community (community) (sharing physical space)
The above table shows the key similarities and differences in terms of qualifying and
foundational functions between the different stakeholders. This may inform the relationships
between the different stakeholders, which depend to a large degree on the sharing or not of
qualifying functions.
Further insights into the relationships between stakeholders can help to explain what is
important and should be protected, and what seems less important on closer inspection. In the
section below, we elaborate on a selection of relationships that are listed in Table 2. We use
italics to denote entities or actors that relate to Uber.
Table 2: Types of relationships between stakeholders in the digital taxi networking business and Uber
Relation to Uber: Part-whole Enkaptic Interlinkage
Interlacement
Driver X
Passenger X
Regular Taxi company X
Regular Taxi driver X
Regulators X X
Credit Card Company X
Local Community X X
Uber has a part-whole relationship with the information technology infrastructure: without
digital technologies, Uber loses its purpose and will not function according to its leading or
qualifying function, namely to connect drivers to passengers and to earn money through this
activity. For Uber it is of major consequence to be aware of the technological potential of digital
infrastructures now and in the future, in order to remain in business.
Uber has an enkaptic interlacement with the credit card company that takes care of the
automatic payments. Uber can exist independently of the credit card company system since it
can handle payments in different ways, even in cash, as it does in some countries where credit
cards are a rarity (https://drive.uber.com/joburg/cash-is-here/). The credit card company and
Uber share the same qualifying function (they are both qualified by the economic aspect); and
for the actual functioning and the success of Uber, automatic credit card payment is an
important feature that is often mentioned as a benefit (Frostick, 2016). The reverse is also true:
the credit card payment system does not depend on Uber for its existence.
Uber has an interlinkage with regular taxi companies. Dooyeweerd treats the market under the
theme of interlinkages. A market, in this case the market of passenger transportation, is an
economically qualified interlinkage. Both Uber and a regular taxi company are qualified by the
economic aspect.
Surprisingly, the relationship between Uber and the drivers has the character of an interlinkage
too: the drivers do not sign a labor contract with Uber. If they sign a labor contract, the driver
becomes an employee and therefore enters into the community of a business enterprise, an
enkaptic interlacement which entails a certain degree of hierarchy. An interlinkage has a much
more voluntary, non-hierarchical character. Uber cannot force drivers to work at certain hours
or in certain areas, which is in contrast to the regular taxi drivers. Another feature of an
interlinkage is that the entity, in this case the Uber driver, can be replaced by something else,
for example an automated driver. What is needed for Uber’s long-term continuation is a
physical platform which can move from A to B (i.e. currently the car), but which does not a
human driver per se. Uber is actually experimenting with automated driving (Isaac, 2016;
Levin, 2016), which is in accordance with the current primary process that characterizes Uber's
qualifying function.
Uber’s relationship with legal authorities such as municipal, regional and national
transportation regulation boards is not univocal and has caused conflicts in many places. In
some countries, Uber has been banned (GrantSimran Khosla, 2015), whereas in others it has
been embraced (Mardiste, 2016). In most cases, Uber has an enkaptic interlacement with legal
authorities. This is so because the state and a business have different qualifying functions that
should not dominate one another: a state should remain a state (juridically qualified, protecting
and enabling justice) and a business should remain a business (economically qualified, aimed
at the continuation of the business through frugal allocation of means). Uber cannot be forced
by legal authorities to adopt a certain way of doing business (for example, it should not tell
Uber where to invest) and Uber cannot force the government to implement a new
transportation law. It does not mean that, in the actual functioning of the state or the functioning
of Uber, they cannot inform one another about these issues. This happens, for example, in
Manila or in Estonia, where there is a strong enkaptic relationship because each Uber driver
has to be registered with the transportation board. (Reuters, 2016; Alba, 2015).
From a normative perspective, business and the state should remain an enkaptic interlacement
(and not a part-whole relationship, such as in the case of the relationship between a state and
an army).
The relationship between Uber and the passenger seems at first sight to be a part-whole
relationship: without potential passengers, an automatic system that connects drivers to
passengers would not make sense. However, on closer inspection, Uber can and does use its
underlying software for purposes not solely restricted to the transportation of human
passengers. Theoretically, one can order a taxi to transport anything from A to B and Uber is
experimenting with several options such as delivering food (Hempel, 2015), a cat (Molloy,
2015) and, from 2016, it is investing in taking over freight transportation
(http://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-trucking-idUSKCN11Y0DI). Therefore, the passenger
as such is not what makes up the part-whole relationship with Uber, but any human or non-
human entity that may be moved. Thus, if a general need for transporting something or
somebody is gone, Uber will no longer exist as such, since its part-whole relationship falls
apart.
Conclusion
Digital technologies can create novel clusters of societal entities. This can lead to tensions in
relationships between existing societal entities and in some cases it requires a rethinking of
the structures that characterize the relationships. The theory of enkapsis, which is a
philosophical framework posed by Dooyeweerd (1953) and was further refined by Chaplin
(2011), can help determine what is important to a societal structure and what is, on closer
inspection, less important. It distinguishes between three main types of relationships between
societal entities, namely part-whole relationships, enkaptic interlacements and interlinkages.
An example of a digital technology that has challenged existing relationships between
traditional businesses, legal authorities and the public is Uber, an application-based
transportation networking company. We have applied the theory of enkapsis to the example of
Uber to explain a multiplicity of complex relationships and furthermore, how these relationships
correlate to different responses to Uber in different countries and legal systems.
REFERENCES
Adhikari, S. (16 February 2015). Taxi industry slams Uber's 20,000 jobs stunt. Retrieved from
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2015/2/16/technology/taxi-industry-slams-
ubers-20000-jobs-stunt
Alba, D. (2015). In the city with the World’s worst traffic, Uber is an awkward fit. Retrieved
from https://www.wired.com/2015/12/in-a-city-with-the-worlds-worst-traffic-uber-tries-to-
fit-in/
Chaplin, J. (2011). Herman dooyeweerd: Christian philosopher of state and civil society. Notre
Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Davis, J. (2015). Drive at your own risk: Uber violates unfair competition laws by misleading
UberX drivers about their insurance coverage. Boston College Law Review, 56, 1097-
1142.
Dooyeweerd, H. (1953) A New Critique of Theoretical Thought, Vol III. Presbyterian &
Reformed Publishing Co, Phillipsburg, NJ.
Frostick, J. (2016). The weekend series: Five reasons to celebrate Uber’s imminent
legalisation. Retrieved from https://theweekendedition.com.au/gentlefolk/uber-vs-taxis/
GrantSimran Khosla, E. (2015). Here's everywhere Uber is banned around the world.
Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-everywhere-uber-is-banned-
around-the-world-2015-4?international=true&r=US&IR=T
Hempel, J. (2015). The UberEATS standalone app has nothing to do with rides. Retrieved
from https://www.wired.com/2015/12/ubereats-is-ubers-first-app-thats-not-about-rides/
Isaac, M. (2016). Uber expands self-driving car service to San Francisco. D.M.V. says It’s
illegal. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/14/technology/uber-self-
driving-car-san-francisco.html?_r=0
Levin, S. (2016). Uber blames humans for self-driving car traffic offenses as California orders
halt. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/14/uber-self-
driving-cars-run-red-lights-san-francisco
Mardiste, D. (2016). Embracing Uber, Estonia shows tax needn't be an issue. Retrieved
from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-estonia-uber-idUSKCN0YV1PS
Molloy, M. (2015). Uber delivers cute kittens to stressed workers on National Cat Day.
Retrieved
from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/11963318/Uber-
delivers-cute-kittens-to-stressed-workers-on-National-Cat-Day.html
Reuters. (2016). Gov't suspends applications for Uber, grab in Metro Manila. Retrieved
from http://news.abs-cbn.com/business/07/22/16/govt-suspends-applications-for-uber-
grab-in-metro-manila
Suster, M. (22 November 2014). In defense of Uber: An objective opinion. Retrieved from
http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2014/11/22/in-defense-of-uber-an-unbiased-
opinion/
Weisse, E., & Guynn, J. (2014). Uber tracking raises privacy concerns. Retrieved from
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/11/19/uber-privacy-tracking/19285481/