Note to Users

NOTE TO USERS This reproduction is the best copy available. UMI SOME ETHICAL AND PUBLIC POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF TECHNOLOGICAL DEPENDENCY WITH REFERENCE $0 INNIS, MCLUHAN AND GRANT A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of Graduate Studies of The University of Guelph by JAMES B. GERRIE In partial fulfilment of requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy January 1999 James B. Gerrie, 1999 National Library BibliotMque nationale du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographic Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395. rue Wellington OttawaON KIAON4 Ottawa ON KIA ON4 Canada Canada The author has granted a non- L7autewa accorde me licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive pennettant a la National Library of Canada to Bibliotheque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, preter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette these sow paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format electronique . The author retains ownership of the L'autew conserve la propriete du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protege cette these. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or othemise de celle-ci ne doivent &e imprimes reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. ABSTRACT SOME ETHICAL AND PUBLIC POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF TECHNOLOGICAL DEPENDENCY WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE WORKS OF HAROLD ADAMS INNIS, MARSHALL MCLUHAN AND GEORGE GRANT James B. Gerrie Advisor : University of Guelph Professor J. Newman This thesis is an investigation of an alternative interpretation of certain aspects of the intellectual legacy of three influential Canadian academics: Harold Innis, Marshall McLuhan, and George Grant. Arthur ~roker's seminal work on these three figures emphasizes the dissimilarities of their positions on the ethical and public policy implications of technology. According to Kroker McLuhan is a more optimistic herald of the new information age, Grant is a dark prophet of technological society, and Innis a practical-minded intermediary between these two possible visions of technological society. This investigation, in contrast, argues that a greater fundamental unity can be found in their varied responses to the ethical challenge of technological dependency, and that their responses are significantly more critical of technological development than Kroker acknowledges. This inquiry focuses on the issue of technological dependency. According to Innis, McLuhan and Grant an adequate ethical approach to technology must be capable of dealing with the bias towards technological practice that our dependence on technological practice helps set up. Without awareness of this kind of technologically induced bias any ethical approach to technology, including those which seek to be critical of technological development, can actually help support unquestioned technological expansion. Although Innis, McLuhan and Grant are unique in their individual expressions of the nature of technological bias, each warn that a bias towards technological practice can even threaten philosophical attempts to properly address the issue of technological dependency. Taken together what emerges from their varied insights into the nature of technological dependency is a unique approach to the ethical control of technology. This approach seeks to bridge the divide between pro- and anti-technological attitudes towards technology. This dissertation seeks to clarify this ethical approach and explore its implications for contemporary public policy analysis. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my advisor, Dr, Jay Newman, for his critical insight, patience, and wisdom in guiding me through this dissertation and for his thoughtful encouragement and humour, which always came at the right time. I would like to thank Dr. William Hughes for being a mentor to me for all my years at the University of Guelph, I would also like to thank my friends, Dr, Adam Dodd and Dr. Steven Haller for being so willing to discuss technology over and over again. ina ally, I would like to thank my wife, Patty and my parents for never wavering in their support, Fool, and the heart and spirit in him could not understand how the glorious gifts of the gods are not easily broken by mortal men, how such gifts will not give way before them. Homer, The Iliad 20~265. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................ 1 Technological Dependency and The Impasse ........ 6 Avoiding the Impasse .................. 13 CHAPTER 1: THE CHALLENGE OF TECHNOLOGY ........... 16 The Challenge of Technology .............. 16 Responses to the Challenges of Technology ....... 23 Appropriate Technology .............. 25 Technology Assessment ............... 27 The Silence of Innis. McEuhan and Grant ........ 29 The Technological Impasses of Innis. McLuhan. and Gat....................... 34 The Challenge of Technological Dependency ....... 39 CHAPTER 2: THE UNDERSTANDING OF TECHNOLOGY ......... 54 Philosophical Definitions of Technology ........ 55 Dictionary Definitions of Technology ........., 58 Innis'. McLuhants and rant's Use of the Term ..... 59 A ~efinitionWhich Captures Their Use of the Term . 62 The Understanding of Technology as Process ....... 67 Innis ....................... 67 McLuhan. ..................... 75 Grant ................,...... 78 Defending the Definition ................ 85 CHAPTER 3: THE SCOPE OF TECHNOLOGY ............. 92 Technology as Process ................. 94 Technology and Morality ................102 Technology and Science ................. 110 Technology and Art ...................116 Technology and Culture .................120 CHAPTER 4: THE NON-TECHNOLOGICAL APPROACH TO THE CHALLENGE OF TECHNOLOGY ..................... 133 Non-technological Action ................ 133 Arguments for the Non-Technological Approach ......140 The Nun-Technological Approach And The Impasse .....146 Technology and Non-Technology .............156 Two Practical Ways of Approaching Problems ....... 192 Technological Problem Solving ........... 196 Non-technological Problem Solving .........196 Public Policy Analysis Involving Technology ......203 CHAPTER 5: APPLICATION OF THE NON-TECHNOLOGICAL APPROACH TO CURRENT PUBLIC POLICY ANALYSIS OF THE EMPLOYMENT CRISIS .........................207 Introduction ......................207 Some Public Policy Studies of Unemployment .......210 Analysis of the Policy Studies of Unemployment ..237 iii CHAPTER 6: PRACTICAL ARGUMENTS FOR THE NON-TECHNOLOGICAL APPROACH ........................242 Implications of the Non-Technological Approach to Unemployment ...................242 Practical Arguments for the Non-technological Approach . 252 Unemployment and the Non-technological Approach ....259 Conclusion .......................266 GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY ................271 GEORGE GRANT: BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PRIMARY SOURCES ........287 GEORGE GRANT: BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SECONDARY SOURCES ....... 289 HAROLD INNIS: BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PRIMARY SOURCES ........291 HAROLD INNIS: BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SECONDARY SOURCES .......293 MARSHALL MCLUHAN: BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PRIMARY SOURCES ......295 MARSHALL MCLUHAN: BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SECONDARY SOURCES .....296 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to clarify certain aspects of the relation between public policy making and technology. One of the most important questicns at the heart of this relation is the ethical question of how technology should be controlled. There have been many philosophical attempts to answer this question. The focus of this inquiry is the point of connection between providing a theoretical answer to this question and putting such theory into action. When it comes to the practical application of theory for guiding public policy about the control of technology new questions emerge: In a technological culture, will not the practical applications of ethical theory about the control of technology tend to take technological form such as new methods, institutions, predictive techniques and administrative modifications? If this is the case, is one not forced to conclude that the practical technological applications that emerge from the theories about the control of technology will have to be subject to the same criteria of assessment and restriction that are laid down in these theories? This predicament makes the task of fashioning public policy based on ethical theories about technology more difficult. For sxanple, if 2 practical recommendation that emerges from one's theory is that some institution for assessing proposed technologies should be created, will not this institution itself have to undergo the process of assessment? But if one's theory has been what has led to the recommendation for such an institution, can this theory be trusted for the assessment of its own recommendations? Will not the recursive implications of this whole situation, added to the already complex interconnections of the vast array of technologies, make the process of fashioning unbiased political mechanisms for addressing technology a futile task? Is such a project even what is most called for by our times? As Langdon Winner describes what be feels is most distinctive about life in the modern world: To be commanded technology must first be obeyed. But the opportunity to command seems forever to escape modern man. Perhaps more than anything else, this is the distinctly modem frustration.1 In a technologically

Load more