DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix Theories of Technology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix Theories of Technology Brian Martin, Technology for nonviolent struggle (London: War Resisters’ International, 2001) Appendix Theories of technology This book is based on the idea that technolo- comings of certain approaches and help clarify gies can and should be developed and chosen my approach.1 because they are helpful for nonviolent strug- gle. This in turn is based on a number of Essentialist approaches assumptions about the nature of technology. In chapter 2 on militarised technology, I An “essentialist” approach to technology argued that the military influences the devel- assumes that it has essential or inherent fea- opment of technology in a number of ways, tures. Common essentialist views are that including through funding, applications, technology is good, bad, neutral or inevitable. employment and suppression of challenges, Some people think that technology is inher- plus via deep structures including the state, ently good. Military technology provides the capitalism, bureaucracy and patriarchy. In best example that it isn’t. Bullets and bombs later chapters, I outlined a variety of actual kill. People who are killed by bullets and bombs and potential technological developments that would not see these artefacts as good—not good would be of special value for nonviolent strug- for them, anyway. It is difficult to argue that gle. In making these arguments I have assumed weapons of mass destruction are inherently that: good. In fact, it was the development of • technology is shaped by a range of social nuclear weapons that made many technolo- factors; gists realise that not everything they produced • any given technological system is more was of benefit to humanity. useful for some purposes than others (e.g. When people think that technology is military versus nonviolent struggle); inherently good, they usually make an implicit • it is possible to influence the process of assumption: the only choice is between present technological development to serve desirable technology—all of it, including stereos, baby social goals. bottles and biological weapons—and no tech- It would be possible to attempt to justify nology at all. If it is assumed instead that it is these three assumptions through a set of ab- possible to make choices about technology, stract arguments. My approach, however, has namely to have some artefacts but not others, been to build an argument—with plenty of then the idea that “technology is good” col- examples—based on these assumptions and to lapses. It should be obvious that the technol- implicitly justify the assumptions by demon- ogy-is-good model is of no value in analysing strating the insights available. In this appendix problems with military technology or develop- I continue this strategy by outlining some ing technology for nonviolent struggle. common approaches to studying technology A contrary view, held by a few, is that and seeing whether they provide useful ways to technology is inherently bad. This idea is tackle the topic of technology for nonviolent similarly flawed. After all, some technologies struggle. This will illuminate some of the short- help at least some people: wearing glasses helps some people to see better, even if the produc- 92 Technology for nonviolent struggle tion of the glasses causes pollution and un- operations, hardly makes them neutral in any pleasant work conditions. It is only possible to practical sense. argue that technology is inherently bad if there The idea that technologies are neutral is is no choice between technologies. usually maintained by taking a broad perspec- Many people are attracted to the idea that tive. For example, it can be claimed that technology is inherently neutral, believing that computers are neutral because they can be used it is either good or bad depending on the way it for beneficial or harmful purposes. But this is used. This is the so-called use-abuse model: only means that sometimes they can be used technology can be either used (for good pur- for beneficial purposes and sometimes for poses) or abused (for bad purposes). It is harmful ones. It doesn’t mean that these certainly true that many artefacts can be used applications are equally easy or likely. Nor does for both good and bad purposes. For example, a it mean that the benefits and harm are spread computer word processor can be used to around equally. produce lists of dissidents who are to be arrested To pierce the illusion of neutrality it is only or killed, or it can be used to produce articles necessary to take a closer look, for example at proclaiming the value of dissent. Computers the computer built into the nose cone of a often make tasks easier, but they also can lead cruise missile, enabling the missile to use alti- to people losing their jobs. But does this mean tude readings to assess where it is and to adjust that all artefacts are neutral? its course as necessary. The computer is de- An alternative perspective is that particular signed to help the missile reach its target and artefacts are easier to use for some purposes destroy it. This computer is not neutral. The than others. For example, if you want to clean idea of neutrality may be attractive to people your hands, soap is more helpful than a news- because it removes the necessity to think care- paper or a candle. After all, artefacts are fully about the values built into the design, designed for particular purposes. Of course, they choice and use of technology. might be used for other purposes. A toothbrush The idea that technology is neutral provides is designed for cleaning teeth, but it can also be no leverage for analysing technology for used to clean shoes or even for painting. But a nonviolent struggle. After all, if technology is toothbrush is not very helpful for sweeping the neutral, that presumably means that any street or eating peas. This point should be technology can be used for nonviolent struggle obvious: any particular artefact is not equally and there is no obvious means for choosing useful for all purposes. between technologies. In this sense, artefacts are not neutral. A Sometimes it seems like technologies have a pair of dice might be said to be neutral if all will of their own. The telephone and the possible rolls from 2 to 12 are possible. But the automobile have spread throughout society and dice would be called biased if they gave 12 half no one seems able to stop their use. What is the time. In this sort of sense, artefacts are called “technological determinism” can be biased. They potentially can be used for many interpreted in various ways. It can mean that different purposes, but they are much easier once a new technology is developed—such as and more likely to be used for certain purposes. guns or nuclear weapons—it has an inherent This applies clearly to military technologies. momentum leading to its widespread use. It can A nuclear explosion can be used to heat a house mean that there is general pattern of or fry an egg, but this is neither the intended technological development that is inevitable, nor a convenient use of the technology. such as the use of steel, electricity or computers. Thumbscrews are designed and used for torture. Simple interpretations of technological Their actual use as paperweights or parts of a determinism don’t stand up to scrutiny.2 There sculpture, or their potential use for medical are plenty of technologies that have been Theories of technology 93 developed but have never become dominant, of technology.” It proceeds by examining social such as housing with passive solar design, influences on the nature of technology. supersonic transport aircraft, microfiche pub- An extreme version of this approach is to lishing and cryonic suspension. How can it be claim that large-scale social structures almost said that technology determines its own devel- entirely determine technology, for example opment when so many technologies are fail- that capitalist society leads to technology that ures? One answer is that some technologies are serves capitalists.3 This can be called “deter- “better” and hence more successful. But this mined technology” or “social determinism” and provides a circular argument, at least when the is the converse of technological determinism. way to determine whether a technology is This approach provides an antidote to better than another is to see whether it is more technological determinism but isn’t particularly successful. Technological determinism provides helpful when it comes to developing alternative a convenient excuse for ignoring the human technologies. If the structure of society deter- choices, especially the exercise of power, in mines technologies, then advocating alterna- development of technology. tives to current technologies seems futile since it Technological determinism provides no help doesn’t change the process of social determi- in analysing technology for nonviolent strug- nation. In other words, this approach assumes gle. It assumes that military technologies are that the only way to change technologies is to dominant due to their own inherent properties; change the fundamentals of social structure. nonviolent alternatives have not been success- My analysis assumes the contrary, that tech- ful and hence may be ignored. My entire nology is one potential avenue for intervening analysis is based on a rejection of technological to change society as well as technology itself. determinism and an endorsement of the view A more moderate approach involves that social choice is the basis for technological examining the interaction of social and techni- development and that that choice should cal factors on the development and choice of become more participatory. technology. For example, there have been However, by adopting the topic of technol- studies of compression versus absorption refrig- ogy for nonviolent struggle, it is hard to avoid erators, numerically controlled machine tools, sounding like a technological determinist at light bulbs and electricity systems.4 This times.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Philosophy of Technology ‘Un-Disciplined’
    Philosophy of Technology ‘Un-Disciplined’ William J. Davis III Dissertation submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy In Science and Technology Studies James H. Collier, Chair Joseph C. Pitt Richard F. Hirsh Ellsworth R. Fuhrman 25 March 2016 Blacksburg, Virginia Keywords: Philosophy of Technology, Postphenomenology, Posthumanism, Science and Technology Studies Copyright 2016, William J. Davis III Philosophy of Technology ‘Un-Disciplined’ William J. Davis III Abstract Philosophy of technology (PoT) analyzes the nature of technology, its significance and consequences, and its mediation of human experiences of the world. Classical philosophers of technology describe mechanization as alienating: Technology causes humans to lose their connection with the natural world. Tehno-rationality replaces critical engagement and creativity. Failing to comprehend the essence/nature of Technology, and its consequences, portends disastrous social, political, and economic consequences. Such perspectives, however, neglect individual experiences of technologies. Filling that lacuna, contemporary philosophers of technology challenge the sweeping determinism of their intellectual forerunners and investigate how specific technologies mediate particular human experiences. Their descriptive prowess, however, lacks the normative engagement of classical PoT, and they emphasize micro effects of technologies to the detriment of macro implications. This dissertation describes an “un-disciplined” philosophy of technology (UPoT) that unites the macro and micro perspectives by providing narratives of human-technology symbiosis and co-development. Un-disciplined philosophers of technology present posthuman and transhuman perspectives that emphasize the symbiotic relationships between humans and technology. Thus, they deny disciplined philosophy’s first critical maneuver: define and demarcate.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Notes on Theories of Technology, Society and Innovation Systems for S&T Policy Studies
    1 Some notes on theories of Technology, Society and Innovation Systems for S&T policy studies Mónica Salazar-Acosta and Adam Holbrook CPROST Report 08-02 2 3 Some notes on theories of technology, society and innovation systems for science and technology policy studies Mónica Salazar-Acosta and Adam Holbrook, with editorial comments by Glenda Shaw-Garlock CENTRE FOR POLICY RESEARCH ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Vancouver BC Report 08-02 Introduction Does technology shape society, or does society influence our technological choices? Is technological determinism a theory of society or a theory of technology? The debate on Science, Technology and Society (STS) studies has been animated by two opposite views on technology: one that affirms that technology shapes society, and the other that society shapes technology. The former, is commonly associated with the notion of technological determinism; while the latter could be labeled ‘social shaping of technology’ which covers various approaches, such as social constructivism and actor-network theory. Neither provides an overall view: one looks at the forest and the other at the trees, but both have failed to give us a comprehensive view of technological change and the major forces driving social change. What follows is an examination of technological determinism – the shaping of society by technology - and the influence of society on the evolution of technology . It does not pretend to be exhaustive or representative of the most recent scholarship on the subject. A good, recent,
    [Show full text]
  • Andrew Feenberg's Critical Theory of Technology
    Technical politics Technical politics Andrew Feenberg’s critical theory of technology Graeme Kirkpatrick Manchester University Press Copyright © Graeme Kirkpatrick 2020 The right of Graeme Kirkpatrick to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. This electronic version has been made freely available under a Creative Commons (CC- BY-NC- ND) licence, which permits non- commercial use, distribution and reproduction provided the author(s) and Manchester University Press are fully cited and no modifications or adaptations are made. Details of the licence can be viewed at https:// creativecommons.org/ licenses/ by- nc- nd/ 4.0/ Published by Manchester University Press Altrincham Street, Manchester M1 7JA www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk British Library Cataloguing- in- Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978 1 5261 0532 5 hardback ISBN 978 1 5261 0534 9 open access First published 2020 The publisher has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for any external or third- party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. Typeset by Newgen Publishing UK Contents Acknowledgements vi Introduction: from critical theory to technical politics 1 1 Critical theory and technology 21 2 The theory of bias and the ethics of technology design 46 3 Technical politics 70 4 Aesthetic critique 96 5 From critique to utopia 122 Beyond critique: utopia 148 References 156 Index 161 v Acknowledgements I could not have written this book without the assistance of many people, principal among them Andrew Feenberg, who, ever since I first turned up on his doorstep in 2002, clutching an apple tart from one of the bakeries near his apartment in Paris, has been unstintingly generous with his time and unbelievably patient when listening to my criticisms of his ideas.
    [Show full text]
  • Acknowledgements
    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisors, Dr. Peter-Paul Verbeek and Dr. Tsjalling Swierstra. Dr. Verbeek, as principal supervisor of the thesis, has closely followed the development of this work right from the choice of the topic through the organization of the proposal to the write up of the chapters. This final product wouldn’t have been a reality without his relentless comments on each and every step of the analyses and interpretations I made. I am also very much grateful to Dr. Swierstra, my second advisor, for giving me very decisive comments on the proposal and the first draft of the paper. My gratitude also goes to all of the professors who introduced me to the various areas of philosophy of science, technology, and society. I cannot forget the warm reception and help I always get from Ms. Petra Bruulsema, Secretary of the Department of Philosophy. Ato Shiferaw Bekele, associate professor of history at Addis Ababa University, has generously assisted me in selecting archival materials for the case analysis as well as commenting on the third chapter of the thesis where I discussed historical narratives. Thanks Gash Shiferaw. My study was sponsored by Addis Ababa University. I would therefore like to acknowledge the support I received from the university. I would more specifically like to thank Dr. Bekele Gutema, then Dean of the College of Social Sciences, Professor Endeshaw Bekele, then Academic Associate President for Research, and Professor Andreas Eshete, President of the University, for facilitating the grant. I have also received a waiver for the program fee from the University of Twente.
    [Show full text]
  • Feminist Theories of Technology
    Cambridge Journal of Economics 2010, 34, 143–152 doi:10.1093/cje/ben057 Advance Access publication 8 January 2009 Feminist theories of technology Judy Wajcman* Feminist theories of technology have come a long way over the last quarter of a century. The expanding engagement at the intersection of feminist scholarship and Downloaded from science and technology studies (STS) has enriched both fields immeasurably, and I will largely focus my reflections on the literature associated with these sites. I begin by highlighting the continuities as well as the differences between contemporary and earlier feminist debates on technology. Current approaches focus on the mutual shaping of gender and technology, in which technology is conceptualised as both a source and consequence of gender relations. In avoiding both technological cje.oxfordjournals.org determinism and gender essentialism, such theories emphasise that the gender- technology relationship is fluid and situated. These deliberations highlight how processes of technical change can influence gender power relations. A feminist politics of technology is thus key to achieving gender equality. Key words: Gender, Technology, Power JEL classifications: B54, J16, 031 at BIUS Jussieu on February 3, 2011 1. Introduction This article provides an overview of the various approaches to conceptualising the link between gender and technology, both past and present. In turning to this task, I should emphasise that feminist discussions have always taken diverse and overlapping forms. While standard accounts of feminist thought tend to present liberal, socialist and post- modern feminisms as distinct perspectives, in reality they did not develop as independent strands or in a simple chronological order.
    [Show full text]
  • Diffusion Theory & Instructional Technology
    Diffusion Theory & Instructional Technology Diffusion Theory and Instructional Technology Daniel W. Surry University of Southern Mississippi Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), Albuquerque, New Mexico February 12 - 15, 1997. [email protected] © 1997, DAN SURRY Abstract This paper discusses how the theories of innovation diffusion have been incorporated into the field of instructional technology. The paper begins with a brief description of general diffusion theory that includes mention of the four most commonly discussed diffusion theories. Following the discussion of general diffusion theory, the author describes how general diffusion theories have been used to form diffusion theories specific to the field of instructional technology. The paper states that the two màjor categories of IT-related diffusion theory are Systemic Change Theories and Product Utilization Theories. Examples of each category are provided. The paper identifies and describes two opposing philosophical views of technology: Determinism and Instrumentalism. The author uses the two philosophies of technology to create two subcategories of IT-related diffusion theory: Developer Based Theories and Adopter Based Theories. Examples of both subcategories are provided.The author contends that Developer àBased Theories are flawed in that they overstate the role of technological superiority in the diffusion process. DIFFUSION THEORY AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY The purpose of this paper is to describe how the theory of innovation diffusion has been incorporated http://www.gsu.edu/%7Ewwwitr/docs/diffusion/ (1 of 14) [11/22/04 8:09:31 AM] Diffusion Theory & Instructional Technology into the field of instructional technology. Professionals in a number of disciplines, from agriculture to marketing, have used the theory of innovation diffusion to increase the adoption of innovative products and practices.
    [Show full text]
  • Technology Innovation Diffusion at the University of Botswana: a Comparative Literature Survey
    Technology innovation diffusion at the University of Botswana: A comparative literature survey Seitebaleng Susan Dintoe Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to identify factors that influence adoption and diffusion of information and communication technology in developing countries through a thorough review of past and current literature, focusing on the case of University of Botswana. Despite the value in adoption and diffusion of technology innovation in the developing world, universities are faced with problems, and studies show that generally, use of accessible and available technology implementation is not successful. The Rogers (2003) concepts of social systems, compatibility of technology, early adopters and factors, are complex. This includes organizational characteristics focusing on policies, faculty support through professional development and training, time, beliefs, and workload. The article concluded that (a) the social system (university administration) develops policies, which accounts for little when the technology plan is not concrete for implementation, (b) technology is not compatible with faculty traditional teaching practices, and (c) university administration does not consider understanding the faculty (early adopters) in context. The study suggests that developing countries need to understand the faculty as early adopters from a bottom- up approach instead of top-down, and should not base success on outcomes, but rather, strategies based on the context. Keywords: diffusion and adoption of innovation technology; ICT; social system; compatibility of technology; early adopters, developing countries, University of Botswana INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND This article reviews the past and current related literature on adoption and diffusion of technology innovation in developing countries, particularly University of Botswana.
    [Show full text]
  • A Reevaluation of Marcuse's Philosophy of Technology
    A Reevaluation of Marcuse's Philosophy of Technology Michael Kidd Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. University of Tasmania, July, 2013. 1 A Reevaluation of Marcuse's Philosophy of Technology Michael Kidd 2 Declaration of Originality This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for a degree or diploma by the University or any other institution, except by way of background information and duly acknowledged in the thesis, and to the best of my knowledge and belief no material previously published or written by another person except where due acknowledgement is made in the text of the thesis, nor does the thesis contain any material which infringes copyright. This thesis may be made available for loan and limited copying and communication in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968. 3 Abstract This thesis provides a reevaluation of Herbert Marcuse's philosophy of technology. It argues that rather than offering an abstract utopian or dystopian account of technology, Marcuse's philosophy of technology can be read as a cautionary approach developed by a concrete philosophical utopian. The strategy of this thesis is to reread Marcuse's key texts in order to challenge the view that his philosophy of technology is abstractly utopian. Marcuse is no longer a fashionable figure and there has been little substantive literature devoted to the problem of the utopian character of his philosophy of technology since the works of Douglas Kellner and Andrew Feenberg. This thesis seeks to reposition Marcuse as a concrete philosophical utopian. It then reevaluates his philosophy of technology from this standpoint and suggests that it may have relevance to some contemporary debates.
    [Show full text]
  • Our Subject Today Is What Is Philosophy of Technology
    1. What Is Philosophy of Technology? Andrew Feenberg Introduction In this chapter I will attempt to answer the question posed in my title from two standpoints, first historically and then in terms of contemporary options in the field, the various different theories that are currently under discussion.1 But before I begin, I would like to clear up a common misunderstanding: philosophy of technology is not closely related to philosophy of science. Science and technology share a similar type of rationality based on empirical observation and knowledge of natural causality, but technology is concerned with usefulness rather than truth. Where science seeks to know, technology seeks to control. However, this is by no means the whole story. Our image of premodernity is shaped by the struggles between science and religion in the early modern period. From those struggles we derive the notion that traditional societies restrict questioning of their basic customs and myths. In the premodern West, the principle of authority was the basis not just for church doctrine, but for knowledge of the world as well. Modern societies emerge from the release of the power of questioning against such traditional forms of thought. The 18th century Enlightenment demanded that all customs and institutions justify themselves as useful for humanity. Under the impact of this demand, science and technology become the new basis for belief. Eventually, technology becomes omnipresent in everyday life and scientific-technical modes of thought predominate over all others.2 In a mature modern society, technology is taken for granted much as were the customs and myths of traditional society.
    [Show full text]
  • Enchantment Paper CLASS
    1 The Technology Enchantment Churn: Technology Adoption and Disenchanted Enchantment RUSSELL W. BELK, HENRI A. WEIJO & ROBERT V. KOZINETS Abstract Dominant perspectives on technology adoption and consumption tend to be cognitive, deliberative, and individualistic. We offer a more desire-centered and cultural alternative. Leaning on historical evidence and revised Weberian theories of enchantment and disenchantment, we show how technology consumption became enchanted. Providing an important cultural counterbalance to models such as the technology acceptance model (TAM), the paper outlines a novel process we term the Technology Enchantment Churn (TEC). This process drives contemporary technology adoption and consumption by overtly or covertly ballyhooing a sense of wonderment accompanying the promises of new technologies. We offer current and recent examples of the TEC process before discussing some of the implications it holds for our wider understanding of technology, consumption, and greater consumer culture. Keywords: Technology adoptation, enchantment, conceptual paper, process theories. 2 A wealth of prior research has theorized technology consumption, for instance, has consumer adoptation of new technologies. The largely been ignored in prior research, despite fields of marketing and consumer research have this orientation otherwise featuring pervasively been dominated by perspectives on technology in studies of the cultivation of anticipation and use drawing from diffusion of innovations desire (e.g., Belk 2001; Belk, Ger, and theory
    [Show full text]
  • Inside the Politics of Technology Discuss The
    Amsterdam University Press hans harbers The old saying that ‘man is the measure of all things’ presupposes free and autonomous human beings on the one hand, and neutral instruments on the other. Humanism plus instrumentalism, however, is a double illusion, this volume argues. Science and technology are not simply the means to reach human ends. On the contrary, they also actively shape human beings, their goals, their meanings, and their mutual relations. By means of case studies of technological innovations as diverse as video- cameras, electric cars, electronic notebooks, pregnancy tests, and genetic ( ed. screening devices the authors of Inside the Politics of Technology discuss the implications of this so-called ‘co-production’ of science, technology, and ) society for our philosophical and political ideas about humanity and techno- Technology of Politics the Inside logy. Are human beings the only ones endowed with agency, or do technolo- gical artifacts act as well? And if they do, then how should we understand or practice a politics of technology? Hans Harbers was trained as an historical sociologist and is currently Associate Professor at the Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Groningen. His research and publications focus on the roles of nonhuman actors in the co-production of knowledge, power, and morality. With contributions by: Cornelis Disco, Philip Brey, Nelly Oudshoorn, Margo hans harbers (ed.) Brouns, Ellen van Oost, Dirk Stemerding, Annemiek Nelis, Peter-Paul Verbeek, Petran Kockelkoren, Boelie Elzen, Tsjalling
    [Show full text]
  • Marcuse Or Habermas: Two Critiques of Technology1
    Inquiry, 39, 45-70 Marcuse or Habermas: Two Critiques of Technology1 Andrew Feenberg San Diego State University The debate between Marcuse and Habermas over technology marked a significant turning point in the history of the Frankfurt School. After the 1960s Habermas's influence grew as Marcuse's declined and Critical Theory adopted a far less Utopian stance. Recently there has been a revival of quite radical technology criticism in the environmental movement and under the influence of Foucault and constructivism. This article takes a new look at the earlier debate from the standpoint of these recent developments. While much of Habermas's argument remains persuasive, his defense of modernity now seems to concede far too much to the claims of autonomous technology. His essentialist picture of technology as an application of a purely instrumental form of nonsocial rationality is less plausible after a decade of historicizing research in technology studies. The article argues that Marcuse was right after all to claim that technology is socially determined even if he was unable to develop his insight fruitfully. The article derives a new approach to technology criticism from both constructivism and Habermas's communication theory. The essence of technology is shown to be historical and reflexive, like the essence of other social institutions. As such an institution, its rationality is always implemented in value-biased forms subject to political critique. I. Introduction In this essay I confront Marcuse and Habermas's views on technology and propose an alternative which combines elements of both. A synthesis is possible because the two different traditions of critique on which these thinkers draw are complementary.
    [Show full text]