DOCSLIB.ORG

Enchantment Paper CLASS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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 and emphasizing the motivation, skills, Askegaard 2003; Campbell 1987; Hartmann and characteristics, and interests of innovators (e.g., Brunk 2019; Kozinets, Patterson, and Ashman Gatignon and Robertson 1985; Rogers 1962). In 2016; Ritzer 1999; Williams 1982). information science, the Technology Acceptance Furthermore, prior works do not discuss the Model (TAM) emphasizes perceived usefulness continuous reproduction and transmutation of and perceived ease-of-use by consumers (e.g., the technology ideologies that frame our Venkatesh 2000; Venkatesh and Davis 2000). expectations for the new. These models have received increasing criticism This paper situates technology consumption for emphasizing the utilitarian and tool-like alongside its contemporary expectations and elements of technology adoption while desires in a sociohistorical context. Our research overlooking its expressive, ludic, and has three aims. First, we offer a more temporally interpersonal aspects. In doing so, these grounded view of technology consumption that approaches ignore the social, cultural, and incorporates the cyclical renewal of consumer emotional elements underlying technology desire for new technologies. Second, we relate consumption and adoptation (e.g., Bagozzi less to hypothetical rational decision-making and 2007; Hedman and Gimpel 2010; Antón, more to the social, emotional, and cultural Camarero, and Rodríguez 2013). factors that seem critical to understanding Conversely, cultural consumer researchers technology consumption (e.g., Downs and Mohr have focused more on the social, historical, and 1976; Venkatesh and Morris 2000). Third, and ideological aspects of technology use that shape most importantly, we ground our theory in the consumption subjectivities (Mick and Fournier cultural and historical marketplace realities of 1998; Thompson 2004; Kozinets 2008; Belk what we call disenchanted enchantment – a 2016; 2017). Yet these works only begin to jaded, distanced, and ironic seduction in which develop the historical elements and temporal we buy into the next technological disruption progressions involved in technology adoption; even though we know it is likely to fail to satisfy they lack an account of how consumer hyped expectations. The ideology of subjectivities evolve from a technology’s disenchanted enchantment expands current introduction to marketplace proliferation historical ideological framings of technology (Robinson 2019). The future orientation of consumption (Mick and Fournier 1998; Kozinets 3 2008) by introducing the dubious consumer. Brunk’s (2019) recent study usefully links This consumer is skeptical, but ever-susceptible enchantment to nostalgia and retro, but does not to yet another magic show (During 2002; Saler focus on technology, nor the future. We, on the 2012). other hand, contend that enchantment in Enchantment is frequently evoked in consumer culture is irrevocably linked to, and consumer research (e.g. Belk, Wallendorf, and exacerbated by, the consumption of disruptive Sherry 1989; Firat and Venkatesh 1995; technologies. When such technologies come in Kozinets 2002; Ritzer 1999; Thompson and close temporal proximity they may beget belief Coskuner-Balli 2007), but rarely as the explicit that we are living in an age of miracles, even if a target of inquiry (for notable exception, see true apocalypse does not seem eminent (Geraci Hartmann and Brunk 2019). Theoretical 2010). discussions of enchantment invariably begin This is a conceptual paper informed by with Max Weber’s (1964) famous die theory and history. We begin by reviewing prior Entzauberung der Welt–the disenchantment of literature on the technology adoptation the world brought on by the Enlightenment and processes. We then revisit the Weberian Modernity that rid the world of magic, religion, disenchantment thesis and review the history of and enchantment, stripping the world of technology production and consumption. We mystery, wonder, and surprise. Some work has then outline our model of Technology revisited Weber’s grand theory and argues that Enchantment Churn (TEC) that unfold through the relation between modernity and enchantment four cyclically repetitive stages: 1) the paradox has been mischaracterized (Jenkins 2000; Gane of the impossible realized; 2) the promise of 2002; Saler 2006; 2012). These studies see gratification; 3) ludic satiation; and 4) new enchantment as being very much alive, but in a normalization. We provide historical and recent form only possible in a late modernist world: a examples to illuminate the evolution of these disenchanted enchantment relying on spectacle, processes. We conclude our investigation with and, more importantly, wondrous technologies current and emerging examples of disenchanted imbued with promises of progress and liberation enchantment and discuss directions for future of human potential (During 2002; Ritzer 1999; research. Saler 2012). Although these scholars powerfully illustrate the historicity of enchantment and its PROCESS THEORIES OF relationship to technologies, they do not explain TECHNOLOGY CONSUMPTION the specific processes of consumer appropriation Everett Rogers (1962) provided an early and of individual technologies and how it plays into highly influential theorization of technology technological enchantment. Hartmann and adoption processes via his innovation diffusion 4 model. Rogers theorized that the population example, research found that the longer could be divided into distinct groups based on technologies were on the market, the more their psychological makeup and general favorable the perceptions of their ease of use and willingness to appropriate new technologies: usefulness (Venkatesh and Morris 2000). Social innovators, early adopters, early majority, late norms and peer perceptions moderate majority, and laggards. Not included, but technology acceptance, underlining the social implicit are non-adopters. In Rogers’ view, these construction of technology perceptions groups display relatively consistent behavioral (Thompson, Higgins, and Cowell 1991; and attitudinal traits; a person who is an eager Venkatesh et al. 2003). In response to revisions innovator in car shopping should not be a and criticisms, TAM pioneers Venkatesh and hesitant laggard when buying a television. colleagues (2003) went on to synthesize a Younger consumers are generally thought to be Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of ahead of the curve, as evinced by more recent Technology (UTAUT) that also incorporated discussions relating to so-called digital natives social influences, hedonic orientation, gender, (Prensky 2008). Rogers’ model still enjoys age, and voluntariness of use as key new widespread popularity and has had a great variables (see also Venkatesh, Thong, and Xu influence on, for example, lead user theories that 2012). follow similar psychological profiling (von Even with these revisions TAM and Hippel 1986). UTAUT models implicitly or explicitly define Rogers’ work inspired research that asked technologies as tool-like, not personally why are some technologies more readily adopted meaningful or expressive. Notions of matches than others. Particularly in the field of with personality or self-image congruence have information sciences, the Technology only recently been added to TAM discussions Acceptance Model (TAM) became highly (Antón et al. 2013). Bagozzi (2007), a one-time influential and soon proliferated into other TAM scholar himself, sees the incremental fields, including marketing and consumer revisions into TAM/UTAUT research as research (Gatignon and Robertson 1985; Davis relatively obvious and merely underlining that 1989; Mahajan, Muller, and Bass 1990). Early the models clearly lack explanatory power TAM research found that technology adoption regarding the social, cultural, and emotional through intended and actual use could be factors behind technology consumption. As explained by two functional factors: the Hedman and Gimpel (2010) point
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]
  • 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.
    [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]
  • 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]