Concrete.pdf

ScienceasCulture,Volume9,Number3,2000

PREJUDICEAGAINSTTHE

CONCRETE

PAULROSEN

QuestioningTechnology ,byAndrewFeenberg,London:Routledge,

1999,xvii 1 243pages,£14.99pb.

IrealizethatIamchallengingacertainprejudiceagainstthe

concretethatisanoccupationalhazardofphilosophy

(p.201).

Howcanweengagewiththetechnologicaltransformationofmodern

societyinawaythataddressesboththeintellectualchallengesthis

presentsandtheimplicationsforpoliticalaction,especiallycom-

munity-basedaction?Thisisthe(very)dif®culttaskAndrewFeen-

bergsetsforhimselfinthisbook,whichsubsequentlytracksapath

betweentwopoles.Firstly,hesetsouthisviewofwherethemost

signi®cantpoliticaldebatesandactionarecurrentlytobefound.

Secondly,hetriestoteaseouttherelevanceforthiskindofpolitics

oftheoreticalargumentsabouttechnology,mostlyfromwithinthe

philosophicalliterature.Theresultisabookwhichisperhapsnot

entirelysuccessfulinallitsgoals,butwhichmakesatleasttwo

importantstepsforward.Firstly,itshowsthatitispossibleto

theorizeabouttechnologyfromacommittedpoliticalperspective.

Secondly,itchallengestheresistancetothinkingabouttechnologyÐ

a`prejudiceagainsttheconcrete’Ðwhichstillpermeatesmuchaca-

demicwriting.

Thislastproblemisperhapssurprising.Concernsovertheas-

sumptionsandpracticesunderpinningtechnologyhaveled,es-

peciallyinthelasttwodecades,toagrowingbodyofcriticalanalysis

concernedwithhowsocialandtechnologicallifeinteract.Thekey

readersinsocialstudiesoftechnology(Bijker etal. ,1987;Bijkerand

Law,1992;MacKenzieandWajcman,1999)demonstratethe

wealthofsubjectmattercoveredinwhatisnowasubstantial(ifstill

littleknown)®eldÐtechnologiesoftheworkplace,ofthemilitary,of

theproductionandconsumptionofvariousgoods,ofthehome,of

Addresscorrespondenceto:PaulRosen,ScienceandTechnologyStudiesUnit,DepartmentofSociology,

UniversityofYork,Heslington,YorkYO105DD,UK,e-mail:pjr8@york.ac.uk

ISSN0950-5431print/ISSN1470-1189online/00/030405±08 Ó 2000ProcessPress

406

SCIENCEASCULTURE

thecity,andsoon.Severalkeytheoreticalapproacheshavebeen

developedthroughsuchwork,allowingaquitesophisticatedunder-

standingofhowtechnologypermeatesandshapessociallife,and

howsocialstructuresandculturalvaluesinformthedesignand

deploymentoftechnology.AsFeenbergdemonstrates,however,

hisowndisciplineofphilosophyhasyettocometogripswith

`things’,preferringtodealwithabstractionsexceptinafewisolated

cases.

Atthesametime,eveninthedisciplineswhichhavegraspedthe

techno±socialrelationship,therehasforthemostpartbeenanotable

absenceofanyclearpoliticaldimensiontoanalyses.Studiesoften

providevaluableinsightsintothepoliticsoftechnologicalpractice,

depictingstrugglesamongdifferentgovernmentagenciesoverthe

directionthatinnovationshouldtake,oramongcompetingdesigners

andmanufacturersoverproductdesignandmarketshare.Only

occasionallydoesacasestudylookbeyondthismicro-politicallevel.

Thereisthus,inmuchwork,animplicitacceptanceofthewider

politicalstatusquo,arising,Isuspect,morefromthemethodology

adoptedinsuchstudiesthanfromanyparticularsupportforestab-

lishedpoliticalstructures.

LawandCallon’s(1992)mappingofthevarious®rms,agencies

andgovernmentdepartmentsinvolvedinthedevelopmentofa

Britishmilitaryaircraftisacaseinpoint.Theauthorsprovidea

fascinatingaccountofthestrugglesamongthesevariousactorsto

de®nethetechnologybeingdeveloped,anapproachwhichcouldbe

foundusefulperhapsbythosewantingtounderstandindustrial±

governmentalnetworksinordertochallengethem.However,Law

andCallon,likemanyothers,donotlookoutsidethisparticular

networktoconsiderotherperspectives.Whatin¯uence,forexample,

didanti-militarycampaignshaveatthispoint?Whatoptionsexisted

forthegovernmentapartfromthemilitaryone?Andwhatimpact

diddecisionsaroundthistechnologyhaveonthecommunitieswhere

therelevantindustrieswerebased?Bynotconsideringsuchissues,

SSTscholarsmissagreatdealintermsoftechnology’swider

locationwithinsocialandpoliticalstructuresÐandhencehowtech-

nologymightreinforceorchallengethosestructures.Inaddition,

despiteastrongfocusonunderstandingtheprocessesinvolvedinthe

conception,designanduseofartefacts,toolittleattentionhasbeen

paidtotheroleplayedindesignbymoremarginalusers,whetherin

PREJUDICEAGAINSTTHECONCRETE 407

theworkplaceorinthecommunitiesaffectedbytechnicalinnova-

tions.

QuestioningTechnology appears,then,atanopportunemoment,

foroneofFeenberg’smainobjectivesistotakeforwardtheconcep-

tualinsightsdevelopedwithintechnologystudiesintoacontext

wherethiswiderconceptionofpoliticsistakenforgranted.Thisis

adirectioninwhichsometechnologystudiesacademicshavealready

beguntomove.WiebeBijker,forexample,expressesaconcernthat,

havingfollowedan`academicdetour’forseveralyears,technology

studiesoughttobecomemoreconsciouslypoliticallyrelevant(Bi-

jker,1993).Bijkerarguesthathis`socialconstructionoftechnology’

(SCOT)frameworkoffersameansofunderstandingthepolitical

dimensionsoftechnologicalchangebyhighlightingthealternatives

thatexisttothedominantversionsofparticulartechnologies.Ex-

ploringthis`interpretative¯exibility’ofanartefactcanmakemar-

ginaldesignsforthattechnologymorevisible;thesemayatonepoint

havechallengedthedominantmodel,buttheygenerallyendup

fallingbythewaysideasaresultofpoliticalÐratherthansimply

technicalÐstruggles.Likewise,GrintandWoolgar(1997)offerup

their`post-essentialist’accountoftechnologyasawayofchallenging

thecommonnotionthattechnologieshaveessentialcharacteristics.

Thisapproachcanbeused,theyargue,tochallengethetechnologi-

calstatusquo,sincethereisnothinginherenttotechnologythat

meansithastofurthertheinterestsofpoliticalortechnologicalelites

ratherthanothersocialgroups.

Wheretechnologystudieshasfailedisnot,then,inthenatureof

theiranalysis.Rather,asFeenbergnotesinthisbook,theclaimthat

SSTcanbepoliticallyengagedhassimplynotyetbeenputinto

practiceinanysatisfactoryway.Theconceptofsocialstudiesof

technologywhicharepoliticallyrelevanthasnotyettranslatedvery

farintotherealmwhichisthis®eld’sstrength,i.e.itsrichandlively

casestudies.

Feenbergdoesnotattempttoredressthisfailing,sinceheis

writingfromadifferentdisciplinaryperspective.Rather,hedoestwo

thingshereÐ ®rstly,heseekswaysofaligningtechnologystudies

perspectiveswithactivisttraditionssuchastheeventsofMay1968,

environmentalismandAIDSactivism.Secondly,heattemptsto

transferthekindsofdebatesabouttechnologythathavecharacter-

izedsocialstudiesoftechnologyintotheworldofphilosophy.Few

408

SCIENCEASCULTURE

philosophers,Feenbergargues,considertechnologyaworthysubject

ofstudy(LangdonWinnerwouldbeanotableexception).Where

technologyhasbeengivenconsiderationtheanalysisisusually

lacking.Feenbergthereforespendsagooddealoftimeexploring

theseanalyses.Inparticular,hetriestoreconciletheirpositive

dimensionsinordertocomeupwithacredibleperspectivethat

thinksabouttechnologyfromapoliticallyinformedcriticalview-

point,andwhichcanthenbeappliedinpoliticallyrelevantcontexts.

Feenberglocateshimselfintellectuallyinrelationtoatraditionof

oppositiontotechnocraticsociety,atraditionwhichoftenwalksa

thinlinebetweenrallyingforchangeandsubmittingtoapessimistic

dystopianism.Writers,includingWeber,Ellul,Heidegger,Marcuse,

HabermasandFoucault,offeranadmirablecritiqueofthethreat

technologyposestosocialandculturallife,butaresometimesless

helpfulinprovidingpossiblesolutions.Feenberg’spuzzleishowto

getbeyondtheinabilityofsomeofthesewriterstoconceivean

accommodationwithtechnology.HeideggerandEllul,forexample,

bothseetechnologyassomethingwhichisintegraltotherationaliza-

tionofsociety,andtoitsdominationbythevaluesofeconomistsand

technologists.Feenbergchallengestheessentialismanddeterminism

thispositionentails.Bypresentingtechnologyassomethingless

monolithic,moreopentomultipleinterpretationsandalternative

goals,hetriesto®ndawayofremainingengagedwithtechnology

whilstwrestingcontrolofitawayfrom`thetechnocrats’.Heargues,

further,thattheirtechnologicallydeterministassumptionsaboutthe

natureofchangeandofourrelationshiptothingsareoftensharedby

theircritics,andthatthisoftenservestomakeinvisiblethemore

creativeengagementswithtechnologywhichheseesasawayfor-

ward(p.88).

Feenberg’sanalysisconsequentlycombinesthecritiqueofcritical

theoristsoftechnologywiththepromiseoffuturepotentialthatis

offeredbyconstructivisttechnologystudiesandbytheactivismof

communitypolitics.Indoingso,hesetsouthisownaccountofhow

ademocratictechnologymightwork,inspiredbywhathecalls

democraticrationalizations or democraticinterventions. Thesearethe

kindsofactivitiesthatsubversivelyrecon®guretechnologiesinorder

tobettersuittheneedsofthecommunitiesaffectedbythem.

ExampleshediscussesincludethereconstructionoftheFrench

Minitelsystembyitsusersasacommunicationsdeviceratherthan

PREJUDICEAGAINSTTHECONCRETE 409

itsintendedroleasameansofdistributingcentralizedinformation,

andthewayAIDSactivistschallengedandtransformedexperimental

medicaltreatmentinordertobecomeactiveresearchparticipants

ratherthanpassivemedicalsubjects(pp.126±27).CentraltoFeen-

berg’sargumentistheneedfortheassumptionsthatunderliethe

designoftechnologytobecometransparent,andforinputintothe

processtobecomemoreparticipatory.Thiscanthenleadtoa

processof`re¯exivedesign’that`couldtakeintoaccountthesocial

dimensionsoftechnologyatthestartinsteadofwaitingtobe

enlightenedbypublicturmoilorsociologicalresearch’(p.90).

Thisargumentishardlynewwithinthetechnologystudieslitera-

ture.NotonlyhasBijker’sSCOTapproachdemonstratedthe

viabilityofidentifyingalternativeviewpointsindesigningtechnology,

butotherssuchasSclove(1995)havesetoutinsomedetailhow

designprocessesmightbemademoredemocratic.Whatisunusual

inFeenberg’sbookisthewaythisgoalispresentedagainstthe

backdropofacriticalengagementwiththetechnocraticfoundations

ofpost-warWesternsociety,andhisbringingtogetherofanalysis

withaction.Whatisperhapsmissingfromhisownengagementwith

thiscritiqueisadeeperconsiderationofwhat`technocracy’actually

means.Feenbergwritesconvincinglyaboutthewaythatasenseof

societybecomingincreasinglytechnocraticcanserveasastimulusto

becominginvolvedincommunity-basedpoliticalaction,buthe

doesn’treallyconsidertheactualworkingsoftechnocracy,especially

fromtheperspectiveofthosewhodonothavetheopportunityto

makedemocraticinterventions,butwhoselivesarecloselycircum-

scribedbyeconomicandtechnologicalrationalization.

Attheleveloftheoriesoftechnology,too,thereareseveral

problemswiththebook.Feenbergdevotesaconsiderableamountof

attentiontoassessinghowwellcritiquesofmodernsocietydealwith

technology.HepaysparticularattentiontoHabermas,perhaps

reasonablysogivenHabermas’prominentroleinanalysingcontem-

porarysociety.Feenbergquestionstheabsenceoftechnologyasa

dimensioninHabermas’mediatheory,whichdistinguishesthe sys-

tem ofmedia-regulatedinstitutionsfromthe lifeworld sphereof

everydaycommunicativeinteractions.Hearguesthattheabsenceof

muchconsiderationoftechnologyinHabermas’theorycanbe

remediedbyincludingitasanadditional`medium’alongsideHaber-

mas’paradigmmediaofmoneyandpower(p.167).Inthis,Feen-

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: