Borgmann's Philosophy of Technology: A Critical Review (original) (raw)
Related papers
Call for Papers: A History of Technology for an Age of Crisis
2020
ICOHTEC Annual Symposium in Eindhoven 2020 Technology and crisis are linked in multiple and paradoxical ways: although technological developments have precipitated many crises, technology has just as often been proposed as a proper way out. Resistance against new technologies (such as the 19th century Luddite movement or the 20th century anti-nuclear movement), subversive uses of mainstream technological solutions, and some instances of user-innovation and appropriation can be studied as indications of crisis as well as strategies to cope with crisis. In general, members of industrialized societies seem to have a very strong belief in technology and innovation as key to manage and solve crises: in case of the long lasting crisis of the 19th century, labeled the “Social Question”, there was demand for new technologies solving social problems as well as those of industrial health and safety. Although the expression is linked to 19th century, the Social Question is on display until today – now combined with the Environmental Crisis. Politics mirror the paradoxical relation of technology and crisis: although democratic and authoritarian regimes, and political parties of very different stripes, might disagree fundamentally about the causes and nature of crises and the issues at stake, they have often converged in favoring technological solutions to major societal challenges. Attempts to deal with the Environmental Crisis (which is largely technology-made in the sense that anthropogenic climate change, biodiversity loss, and resource depletion followed the expansion of the human-built world) seems to follow a similar path: technological fixes are discussed, ranging from renewable energy, AI-based efficiency, sensor technologies, electric cars, smart homes, and other ‘sustainable’, ‘responsible’ or ‘smart’ innovations. Such approaches often sidelined non-tech solutions such as zero-growth. It remains an open question whether technology will provide solutions. This raises the question if and how historians of technology should engage with present-day debates on the ambivalent roles of technology in today’s global crisis—the so-called grand challenges to humanity, society, and the environment. The paradox of crisis and technology rises questions such as: In which way have crises influenced technological change, and conversely, how have technologies shaped crises? What’s the role of technology to predict, avoid, or manage crises? How can we study the geography of crisis, taking into account transnational and (post)colonial relationships and global North-South interactions? In which way did different societies and societal groups cope with technology-related crises? How has the historic pursuit of innovation by technology companies and designers contributed to the creation of technological crises? What role(s) did protests and resistance against technology play in avoiding or managing technology-related problems or crises? How have media representations shaped narratives of technological crises and/or technological redemption? Do crises “reveal” how deeply technology is embedded in society? What (and whose) histories do the imaginaries and historiographies of technological crises highlight and obscure? We invite sending in paper- and session proposals on technology & crisis for a broad range of historical periods, geographies, and crisis domains—including political conflicts, social and civil rights, colonial practices, health epidemics and health care, economic depressions, environmental disasters, and so on, along with the crises of collective identity that are often related to both technological crises and technological solutions. Contributions which examine the correlations of crisis and technology are welcome, as are case studies of specific technologically-related crises, and presentations which explore the implications and interconnections of technological crisis in media representation, art, and legislation for example. Beside contributions to the main theme of the symposium, paper and session proposals on different topics of the history of technology are welcome. Proposal Guidelines The symposium welcomes scholarship on all periods of history and all areas of the globe, especially contributions from beyond Europe and the United States, and presentations on regions that have been less extensively covered by historians of technology. In keeping with a cherished tradition of the field, the meeting is open to scholars from all disciplines and backgrounds. The conference language is English. Although we invite to submit individual papers as well, priority will be given to proposals of whole sessions. INDIVIDUAL PAPER proposals must include: (1) a 300-word (maximum) abstract and (2) a one-page (maximum) CV. Abstracts should include the author’s name and email address, a short descriptive title, three to five key words, a concise statement of the thesis, a brief discussion of the sources, and a summary of the major conclusions. If you are submitting a paper proposal dealing with a particular subtheme in this CfP, please indicate this in your proposal. In preparing your paper, remember that presentations are not full-length articles. You will have no more than 20 minutes to speak, which is roughly equivalent to 8 double-spaced typed pages. For more suggestions about preparing your conference presentation, please consult the guidelines at the conference website http://www.icohtec.org/w-annual-meeting/proposal-guidelines/ . Contributors are encouraged to submit full-length versions of their papers after the conference for consideration by ICOHTEC’s peer-reviewed journal ICON. PANEL proposals must include: (1) an abstract of the panel (300 words maximum), listing the proposed papers and a session chairperson; (2) an abstract for each paper (300 words maximum); (3) a one-page CV (maximum) for each contributor and chairperson. Panels should consist of three or four speakers. Several panels may be organized on one topic. The programme committee encourages the organizers of sessions to announce their plans to compile sessions and communicate with potential collaborators through H-NET and other networks such as social media. You may also use this google docs to find an appropriate panel for your paper or to recruit panelists to your session. We encourage creating panels which examine history of technology in different parts of the world, enabling international comparisons, and contributing to an emerging transnational historiography. Please note, the programme committee reserves the right to make adjustments to proposed panels, relocating papers to different themes and/or adding papers to panels, as required. POSTER proposals must include: (1) a 300-word (maximum) abstract; and (2) a one-page CV. Abstracts should include the author’s name and email address, a short descriptive title, a concise statement of the thesis, a brief discussion of the sources, and a summary of the major conclusions. The programme committee also encourages submission of ALTERNATIVE FORMATS for sessions: round tables, the presentation of an important book or film, etc. If you wish to submit a proposal for a session in an alternative format, please contact the Chair of the Program Committee, Stefan Poser, stefan.poser@kit.edu Please consider joining ICOHTEC. Members of ICOHTEC pay reduced conference fees. Additional benefits of membership and subscription information can be found at http://www.icohtec.org/a-homepage-section/join-or-renew-icohtec/ Proposal submissions The final deadline for all submissions is Sunday 30 January 2020. Please submit your session, individual paper, or poster, online: www.eindhoven2020.icohtec.org The submission form will guide you through the submission process. If questions arise, please consult the pdf document ‘Technical instructions’, which can be found on the opening page of the submission form. The Program Committee Stefan Poser GE (Chair) stefan.poser@kit.edu Jan Hadlaw CA Stefan Krebs LUX Jacopo Pessina IT Thomas Schütz GE Kamna Tiwary IND Erik van der Vleuten NL Artemis Yagou GE/GR Magdalena Zdrodowska PL
Skills and tools: A philosophical perspective on technology
Culture should be seen as the first nature of human beings. However, the rich diversity of cultural objects present within the life world of humans presupposes the all-embracing role of tools en technology. What appears to be unique and distinctive in human tool-making is the innovation to use tools in the production of other tools. Simpson even discerns in this ability a defining trait: humans are " the only living animal that uses tools to make tools. " Against this background attention is given to prominent scholars and their views on technology and its development. It starts with the philosophy of Descartes and Hobbes and proceeds by considering the views of Dijksterhuis, von Bertalanffy, Heidegger, Weber, Habermas and Ellul – with special attention given to the rise of machine technology. The Enlightenment ideal of progress is related to an over-estimation of technology present in what Schuurman calls technicism, which ought to be understood in terms of the dialectic between nature and freedom in modern philosophy. The technocrats assume universal cultural laws while the revolutionary utopians accept an open future for human freedom. In the final part of the article an assessment is given of some implications entailed in the preceding analysis. It is noted that technology is not " applied science " and that technology and tools should be understood in term of both subject-subject relations and subject-object relations. Since subjects and objects are determined and delimited by applicable cultural norms and principles attention is also given to such principles, intimately connected to an account of the mening of technology. In conclusion it is pointed out that the nature of technology and the all-pervasive use of tools confirm the opening remark regarding culture as the first nature of human beings. Sometimes culture is seen as the second nature of human beings, whereas in fact it should be appreciated as the first nature of humankind. This remark is confirmed by the fact that the general history of human civilizations is assessed in terms of the artefacts they produced. However such artefacts could not have been produced without the development of multiple tools. And with the advent of tool-making technology irrevocably entered the scene. The life-world of humankind is unthinkable without the presence of a cultural environment, including cultural objects such as clothes, cutlery, furniture, houses, roads and so on. Just contemplate the diversity of cultural designs evinced in functionally differentiated cultural objects: analytical artefacts (test tubes) lingual artefacts (books), social artefacts (homes),
Philosophy of Technology: The Technological Condition: An Anthology
2013
Click here if your download doesn"t start automatically Philosophy of Technology: The Technological Condition-An Anthology Philosophy of Technology: The Technological Condition-An Anthology This anthology brings together, for the first time, a collection of both seminal historical and contemporary essays on the nature of technology and its relation to humanity. Its selections not only situate technology in the familiar context of ethical, political, aesthetic, and engineering concerns, but also thoroughly examine historical, metaphysical, and epistemological issues.The volume begins with historical readings on knowledge and its applications that have laid the foundation for contemporary writings on the philosophy of technology. Contemporary essays then critically assess previous assumptions about science and discuss the relation between science and technology and philosophy's treatment of both. The second half of the volume focuses on Heidegger's writings on technology, on the relationship between technology and the natural world, and on the issues that arise as technology becomes an integral part of our society. Philosophy of Technology includes, beyond the commonly anthologized figures, selections from European writers often not available in English-language collections. It is a valuable resource for anyone who wishes to explore the technological condition.
Rethinking Technology as Culture with Hans Blumenberg ---"Atommoral" as Dialectic Ethics
In this paper, I will criticize the position of advocating the autonomy of technology, and insist that it is necessary to capture technology as the activity of human beings, that is, as "culture" in a special sense. In the section 1, following Blumenberg, I show that at the beginning of modern era technology originated from the empty space of the scholastic philosophical system, and technology was a characteristic of human beings that distinguishes between modern and earlier times. In the section 2, I will criticize
1991
Must human beings submit to the harsh logic of machinery, or can technology be redesigned to better serve its creators? This is the question on which the future of industrial civilization depends. It is not primarily a technical question but concerns a fundamental issue in social philosophy: the neutrality of technology and the related theory of technological determinism. If technology is neutral, then its immense and often disturbing social and environmental impacts are accidental side effects of progress. Much current debate polarizes around the question of whether these side effects outweigh the benefits. The advocates of further progress claim "reason" as their ally while the adversaries defend "humanity" and "nature" against machines and mechanistic social organizations. The stage is set for a struggle for and against technology.
Do We Need a Critical Theory of Technology? Reply to Tyler Veak
Science Technology & Human Values, 2000
Let me begin by thanking Tyler Veak for his sharp critique of Questioning Technology. I am particularly interested in what he has to say as he has attacked my argument from the Left, a position I had hoped to occupy myself with a critical theory of technology.
A Critical Theory of Technology
Introduction This chapter summarizes the main ideas of critical theory of technology and shows how it relates to its two sources, Frankfurt School Critical Theory and early work in Science and Technology Studies (STS). 1 Critical theory of technology is concerned with the threat to human agency posed by the technocratic system that dominates modern societies. Two early trends in STS, various versions of social constructivism and Actor-Network Theory (ANT), addressed this threat implicitly, through challenging positivist and determinist ideologies that left little place for democratic control of technology. Critical theory of technology agrees with STS that technology is neither value neutral nor universal while proposing an explicit theory of democratic interventions into technology. As STS has responded in recent years to the emergence of public participation in determining technology policy, it has moved closer to the concerns of critical theory of technology (Chilvers and Kearnes 2016). Critical theory of technology is still distinguished from most contributions to STS by its emphasis on certain themes derived from the Frankfurt School, especially the critique of rationality in modern culture. It thus puts STS in communication with traditions of social critique often overlooked. In this respect it is not so much an alternative to STS as an invitation to open STS to a wider range of philosophical and social theories of modernity. The first sections of this chapter will map the relation between critical theory of technology and some of the major scholars and methodological innovations of STS. Next, the essay explains relevant reservations concerning the concept of symmetry which historically is a central concern of STS scholarship. The succeeding sections explain the principal concepts and methods of critical theory of technology and discuss its political implications. The concluding sections will show how the theory interprets an interesting STS case study.