In this paper, I propose the notion of “digital communal welfare infrastructures” in the study of citizens agency in datafied welfare states. I approach it as a definitive or etic concept (Blumer, 2006). This term is meant to encompass digital media which are concerned with welfare beyond (a) the usual “core” conception of welfare as risk reduction in affairs of citizens health, economics, and education (cf. Jensen, 2011), and (b) are not necessarily tied to the state as such.

In doing so, I revisit the concept of “civil society” (Cohen & Arato, 1999) as a contrast to the usual distinctions between market and state which is often highlighted in discussions of welfare (Fraser, 2022) and of datafication (Bagger et al., 2023). Drawing on the sociologist Emile Durkheim, I view civil society organizations as potential intermediary institutions. As the name implies, such institutions may be capable of mediating between atomized citizens and abstracted state institutions. Examples might include labour organizations, political parties, and potentially even local communities.

My argument in this paper is that such intermediary institutions require digital media of their own, especially given the increasingly datafied nature of welfare states (Kaun and Dencik, 2020). These media are what I term “digital communal welfare infrastructures”. Drawing on related discussions in digital labour organizing (Grohmann, 2023) and “smart city” research (Mosco, 2019), I outline the challenges of such communal welfare infrastructures as resources in the face of reconfigurations of the welfare landscape.

In conclusion, I maintain that while the “intermediary institutions” of civil society require media of their own to effectively function, such media are not immune to being subsumed under the market or the state. Nevertheless, given how datafication itself arguably reshapes the relationship between citizen and state (Fourcade, 2021), I argue that researchers of digital welfare should be sensitized to the potentials of citizens to communally maintain and organize welfare.

References
Bagger, C., Einarsson, A. M., Andelsman Alvarez, V., Klausen, M., & Lomborg, S. (2023). Digital Resignation and the Datafied Welfare State. Big Data & Society, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517231206806
Blumer, H. (2006). What Is Wrong with Social Theory? In Sociological Methods. Routledge.
Cohen, J. L., & Arato, A. (1999). Civil Society and Political Theory (1. Aufl). The MIT Press.
Dencik, L., & Kaun, A. (2020). Datafication and the Welfare State. Global Perspectives, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2020.12912
Fourcade, M. (2021). Ordinal citizenship. The British Journal of Sociology, 72(2), 154–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12839
Fraser, N. (2022). Cannibal Capitalism: How our System is Devouring Democracy, Care, and the Planet and What We Can Do About It. Verso Books.
Grohmann, R. (2023). Not just platform, nor cooperatives: Worker-owned technologies from below. Communication, Culture & Critique, 16(4), 274–282. https://doi.org/10.1093/ccc/tcad036
Jensen, C. (2011). Velfærdsstaten: En introduktion (1. udg., 1. opl). Hans Reitzel.
Jensen, K. B. (2021). A theory of communication and justice. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Mosco, V. (2019). The Smart City in a Digital World. Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/9781787691353