Technology and Public Participation

Technology and public participation Technology and public participation Brian Martin, editor Science and Technology Studies University of Wollongong 1999 First published 1999 by Science and Technology Studies University of Wollongong NSW 2522, Australia ISBN 0 86418 559 6 Permission is granted for unlimited reproduction of portions or all of this text provided • full acknowledgment is given of the source; • no changes are made except with the author’s permission; • no restraint is imposed on further reproduction of the text. This text is available on the web at http://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/99tpp/. The editor can be contacted at the above address or at [email protected]. Contents 1 Introduction by Brian Martin I. Technologies shaping participation 15 Toys, play and participation by Wendy Varney commentaries by Lynne Bartholomew and Sudarshan Khanna 37 The telephone as a participatory mechanism at a local government level by Lyn Carson commentaries by Ann Moyal, Wendy Sarkissian and Monica Wolf 61 Lap-tops against communicative democracy: international non-governmental organisations and the World Bank by Miriam Solomon II. Public participation processes 85 The politics of jury competence by Gary Edmond and David Mercer commentaries by David Bernstein and Ian Freckelton response by Gary Edmond and David Mercer 113 “Community participation” in urban project assessment (an ecofeminist analysis) by Janis Birkeland commentaries by Bronwyn Hayward and Paul Selman response by Janis Birkeland 143 Coercive psychiatry, human rights and public participation by Richard Gosden commentaries by Chris Bowker, Peter Macdonald and Denise Russell response by Richard Gosden 169 Public participation or public relations? by Sharon Beder commentaries by Gavan McDonell and Ben Selinger III. Technology policy 195 Policy formation and public participation in the management of technological change by Rhonda Roberts 209 Participation in food industry technologies in the age of sustainability by Andy Monk, commentaries by Richard Hindmarsh and Gyorgy Scrinis 231 Gaining a share of the final frontier by Alan Marshall commentary by Robert Zubrin response by Alan Marshall 249 Conclusion by Brian Martin Introduction Brian Martin* A few hundred years ago, to talk of technology and public participation would have been meaningless to most people. Dramatic changes have occurred in both these areas. The word “technology” today often brings to mind sophisticated things like computers, missiles and genetic engineering. But it also includes everyday items such as chairs, clothes, paper and toothbrushes. For someone who lives in a city in an industri- alised country, one’s entire life seems to take place within a technological framework: driving a car or taking a train to work in an office building, communicating by telephone and electronic mail, purchasing goods manufactured in factories, eating food processed in other factories, using energy produced in distant plants, perhaps consulting a doctor who uses diagnostic equip- ment, going home to a house or apartment built from materials mined and processed, and sleeping on a manufactured bed. Humans have developed and used technologies for hundreds of thousands of years, to be sure, from simple wooden implements to baskets and wheels. But since the development of agriculture some thousands of years ago and especially since the industrial revolution a few hundred years ago, technologies have become ever more powerful and pervasive, leading some to say that we live in a “technological society.”1 * Dr Brian Martin is an associate professor in Science and Technology Studies, University of Wollongong. He is the author of numerous publications in various fields, including scientific controversies, nonviolent defence, information technology and suppression of dissent. He has long experience in the environmental, peace and radical science movements. His most recent books are Confronting the Experts (editor, 1996), Suppression Stories (1997) and Information Liberation (1998). 1. Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society (London: Jonathan Cape, 1965). 2 Technology and Public Participation The word “technology” often is interpreted to mean machines or artefacts, those familiar things that we can see and touch. More broadly, though, technology also includes the social processes through which artefacts are created and maintained, such as the division of labour in a factory. Specifically, “technology” can include systems of knowledge that are associated with artefacts, such as scientific knowledge about a manufactured drug like aspirin. In this book we take a broad view of technology, considering it to include what is commonly called science. Just as technology has become more pervasive in society, so has the importance of public participation, though not in any simple fashion. In many non-industrial societies, including ones that exist today, small groups of people live and work together and nearly everyone is involved in decisions affecting the group, though inequalities in power based on age and gender are common.2 With the rise of larger groups based on agriculture and industry, domination by rulers, such as emperors or landowners, became the usual pattern. The ancient Athenians used a variety of methods for citizen participation in decision making. Even though women and slaves were left out because they were not considered citizens, the ancient Athenians were exceptional in the amount and quality of participation that occurred, especially compared to the autocracy and oppression in much of world in the centuries since. The push for participation has become ever more important in the past few hundred years. At the formal political level, feudal regimes have been replaced by systems of representative government, with elected representatives. At first, voting was restricted to a propertied elite, but successive struggles have broadened the franchise to include nearly all the adult population. Participation in decision making can mean many things. Voting for representatives is indirect participation, since the representatives rather than the voters make the substantive decisions. Referendums are a form of direct democracy, since they allow all voters to express a preference. Then there is the market: when consumers purchase an item or a service, they express a prefer- 2. Harold Barclay, People Without Government (London: Kahn & Averill with Cienfuegos Press, 1982) describes some of the more egalitarian societies. Introduction 3 ence from among the available alternatives. One brand of detergent is chosen over another, or a choice is made between solar, gas and electric heaters. These forms of participation are all very well, but many people want something more. When a freeway is planned that will cut through a neighbourhood, many residents demand a voice. Voting for representatives isn’t enough, since a vote is for a person or a party, not a policy on a specific issue. Nor is being a consumer much help in this situation, since the only consumer choice seems to be to put up with the freeway or move away. Sometimes residents are “consulted” through opinion polls or by tabling of plans for comment. This isn’t enough either, since the agenda doesn’t include basic questions of whether the freeway is needed in the first place or whether other transport modes could be developed. Most people have relatively little say in decisions about technology. They are not involved in choices about research and development and they are not involved in investment decisions. Then, when they are presented with a new development as a foregone conclusion, they are expected to welcome it as “progress.” It is no wonder that the major form of citizen action is protest against new technologies, such as against nuclear power or logging of rainforests. It is only at the stage of implementation that many people become aware of what is happening and its implications. Technological developments are not always beneficial—that has been obvious at least since nuclear weapons were developed. Citizen participation is essential to stop harmful technologies. It can be argued, for example, that popular protest has been a crucial factor in preventing nuclear war and in ending the cold war.3 Technologies are not inevitable.4 For example, it was originally envisaged that there would be 500 supersonic transport aircraft, but popular resistance restricted this to a few Concordes. 3. Ralph Summy and Michael E. Salla (eds.), Why the Cold War Ended: A Range of Interpretations (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1995). 4. Merritt Roe Smith and Leo Marx (eds.), Does Technology Drive History? The Dilemma of Technological Determinism (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994). 4 Technology and Public Participation Protest movements are the most visible force in disputes over technologies, but actually they usually have the least influence. Governments use their enormous resources to research, implement and maintain technological systems, including weapons, transport and communication systems. Corporations routinely develop new products, build factories and sell goods, from perfume to pesticides. Experts, especially scientists and engineers, are also central to technological innovation. Govern- ment and corporate managers, plus a few top-level scientists and engineers, have a great deal of influence over what technologies are investigated and promoted. By contrast, workers and consumers have little say. Just as important as the practical tasks of research, development, production

Load more