5 ms·

This is the daily reminder that technology is not politically or socially "neutral".

by Torgo 10y ago

cushychicken 10y ago
What was the origin of that quote? I mentioned it offhand in conversation the other day but couldn't remember where I'd heard it.
- Torgo 10y ago
  I improvised it from Michel Foucault.
- tome 10y ago
  Are you perhaps thinking of "Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melvin_Kranzberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melvin_Kranzberg
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  I'm familar with it from Jerry Mander, Neil Postman, and Joyce and Michael Heusemann, who address it specifically and at length in their book Techno-Fix. Also in Marshall McLuhan (of whom Postman was a student). I think you'll find a philosophical basis in Jaques Ellul among others (Foucalt is also mentioned). From Postman: [E]very technology has an inherent bias. It has within its physical form a predisposition toward being used in certain ways and not others. Only those who know nothing of the history of technology believe that a technology is entirely neutral. French philosopher Jacques Ellul, who... ...cautions that technology brings with it a great number of unforeseen effects [4]. This is because “technology leads a double life, one which conforms to the intentions of designers and interests of power and another which contradicts them—proceeding behind the backs of their architects to yield unintended consequences and unintended possibilities” [5]. It is difficult then for us to control what we cannot always see. http://www.helwyssocietyforum.com/?p=1360 http://www.helwyssocietyforum.com/?p=1360 There's a related concept of Technological Determinism, originating with Thorstein Veblen: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_determinism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_determinism More reading: http://www.worldcat.org/title/techno-fix-why-technology-wont-save-us-or-the-environment/oclc/709681580&referer=brief_results http://www.worldcat.org/title/techno-fix-why-technology-wont... http://www.worldcat.org/title/four-arguments-for-the-elimination-of-television/oclc/3240263&referer=brief_results http://www.worldcat.org/title/four-arguments-for-the-elimina... http://www.worldcat.org/title/technopoly-the-surrender-of-culture-to-technology/oclc/24694343&referer=brief_results http://www.worldcat.org/title/technopoly-the-surrender-of-cu... http://www.worldcat.org/title/this-is-marshall-mcluhan-the-medium-is-the-message/oclc/2998154&referer=brief_results http://www.worldcat.org/title/this-is-marshall-mcluhan-the-m...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
marmot777 10y ago
Technology is neutral, though. It's the people using the technology that are not neutral or am I missing something?
- mcphage 10y ago
  It's not, because technology is a product of the people and processes that created it. And since people and processes aren't neutral (who is, after all), the technology they create won't be, either.
  - marmot777 10y ago
    I may come off as disagreeing but I question to understand. Do you have some tangible examples?
    - germinalphrase 10y ago
      Accessibility is often offered as an example here. When we create a technology that requires certain abilities (the ability to use a qwerty keyboard, for instance) we have inadvertently made a technology that can't be utilized by people that lack that ability level. Likewise, for stairs, visual public signage, color use, etc. Other examples include accessibility not based on physical difference, but social or economic difference. If you can't afford a smart phone or other computer, it can become prohibitively difficult to apply for jobs (or seek services, etc.) that only accept online applications. Or - famously - the standard IQ test used to ask what color the keys on a piano were long ago. This test was used for employment, military services, etc.; however, that question was inadvertently biased towards middle/upper class people who had experience with musical instruments. These designs are not created with exclusion in mine, but there are often accessibility issues in one form or another because of our blind spots. Other times, we create designs that actively mimic our biases - for instance, a bias towards rationalism led the military to design airplane cockpits back in the 1930's+ around an "ideal standard" of human physiology without any adjustability. Because no one is actually average, once you get beyond a one or two physiological measurements (maybe), these cockpits didn't really fit anyone and many US pilots died unnecessarily because they couldn't properly operate the airplane. Once the military overcame that bias they were able to make cockpits that fit many more sizes/shapes of people and our pilot deaths dropped significantly.

This is the daily reminder that technology is not politically or socially "neutral".

by Torgo 10y ago

This is the daily reminder that technology is not politically or socially "neutral".

What was the origin of that quote? I mentioned it offhand in conversation the other day but couldn't remember where I'd heard it.

Torgo 10y ago
I improvised it from Michel Foucault.
tome 10y ago
Are you perhaps thinking of "Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melvin_Kranzberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melvin_Kranzberg
dredmorbius 10y ago
I'm familar with it from Jerry Mander, Neil Postman, and Joyce and Michael Heusemann, who address it specifically and at length in their book Techno-Fix. Also in Marshall McLuhan (of whom Postman was a student). I think you'll find a philosophical basis in Jaques Ellul among others (Foucalt is also mentioned). From Postman: [E]very technology has an inherent bias. It has within its physical form a predisposition toward being used in certain ways and not others. Only those who know nothing of the history of technology believe that a technology is entirely neutral. French philosopher Jacques Ellul, who... ...cautions that technology brings with it a great number of unforeseen effects [4]. This is because “technology leads a double life, one which conforms to the intentions of designers and interests of power and another which contradicts them—proceeding behind the backs of their architects to yield unintended consequences and unintended possibilities” [5]. It is difficult then for us to control what we cannot always see. http://www.helwyssocietyforum.com/?p=1360 http://www.helwyssocietyforum.com/?p=1360 There's a related concept of Technological Determinism, originating with Thorstein Veblen: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_determinism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_determinism More reading: http://www.worldcat.org/title/techno-fix-why-technology-wont-save-us-or-the-environment/oclc/709681580&referer=brief_results http://www.worldcat.org/title/techno-fix-why-technology-wont... http://www.worldcat.org/title/four-arguments-for-the-elimination-of-television/oclc/3240263&referer=brief_results http://www.worldcat.org/title/four-arguments-for-the-elimina... http://www.worldcat.org/title/technopoly-the-surrender-of-culture-to-technology/oclc/24694343&referer=brief_results http://www.worldcat.org/title/technopoly-the-surrender-of-cu... http://www.worldcat.org/title/this-is-marshall-mcluhan-the-medium-is-the-message/oclc/2998154&referer=brief_results http://www.worldcat.org/title/this-is-marshall-mcluhan-the-m...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

marmot777 10y ago

Technology is neutral, though. It's the people using the technology that are not neutral or am I missing something?

mcphage 10y ago
It's not, because technology is a product of the people and processes that created it. And since people and processes aren't neutral (who is, after all), the technology they create won't be, either.
- marmot777 10y ago
  I may come off as disagreeing but I question to understand. Do you have some tangible examples?
  - germinalphrase 10y ago
    Accessibility is often offered as an example here. When we create a technology that requires certain abilities (the ability to use a qwerty keyboard, for instance) we have inadvertently made a technology that can't be utilized by people that lack that ability level. Likewise, for stairs, visual public signage, color use, etc. Other examples include accessibility not based on physical difference, but social or economic difference. If you can't afford a smart phone or other computer, it can become prohibitively difficult to apply for jobs (or seek services, etc.) that only accept online applications. Or - famously - the standard IQ test used to ask what color the keys on a piano were long ago. This test was used for employment, military services, etc.; however, that question was inadvertently biased towards middle/upper class people who had experience with musical instruments. These designs are not created with exclusion in mine, but there are often accessibility issues in one form or another because of our blind spots. Other times, we create designs that actively mimic our biases - for instance, a bias towards rationalism led the military to design airplane cockpits back in the 1930's+ around an "ideal standard" of human physiology without any adjustability. Because no one is actually average, once you get beyond a one or two physiological measurements (maybe), these cockpits didn't really fit anyone and many US pilots died unnecessarily because they couldn't properly operate the airplane. Once the military overcame that bias they were able to make cockpits that fit many more sizes/shapes of people and our pilot deaths dropped significantly.