Technological Somnambulism
Definition:
Langdon Winner seems to develop a McLuhanian concern about the value-free quality of tools; he as well questions technological determinism. Versions of determinism as defined in Wikipedia:
Hard determinists would view technology as developing independently from social concerns. They would say that technology creates a set of powerful forces acting to regulate our social activity and its meaning. According to this view of determinism, we organize ourselves to meet the needs of technology and the outcome of this organization is beyond our control or we do not have the freedom to make a choice regarding the outcome (autonomous technology)….
Soft determinism, as the name suggests, is a more passive view of the way technology interacts with socio-political situations. Soft determinists still subscribe to the fact that technology is the guiding force in our evolution, but would maintain that we have a chance to make decisions regarding the outcomes of a situation. This is not to say that free will exists, but that the possibility for us to roll the dice and see what the outcome exists….
“For the interesting puzzle in our times is that we so willingly sleepwalk through the process of reconstituting the conditions of human existence” (107). Winner offers several reasons that we take our technology for granted. One is the “tool” metaphor that we employ in speaking and thinking about technology. We pick it up and use it and put it down. Second is the disconnection between making and consuming technology. Third, is the illusion that technology creates new worlds in which we inhabit. The second is fascinating and particularly right with our new seduction and fascination with communications technology. The internet and my cell phone are tools beyond my keen. Whereas, I have used a forge to make a simple but useful pot hanger for cooking with a dutch oven suspended above a fire. I have knapped stone to craft a quick and dirty serrated knife. Turning back to the first the moral argument we attach to our technologies divorces them from any implicit ethical values, rather we say, this knife can be used well to cut bread or used poorly to harm a person. We rarely think beyond that statement.
From this point of view, the important question about technology becomes, As we “make things work,” what kind of world are we making? This suggests that we pay attention not only to the making of physical instruments and processes, although that certainly remains important, but also to the production of psychological, social, and political conditions as a part of any significant technical change. Are we going to design and build circumstances that enlarge possibility for growth in human freedom, sociability, intelligence, creativity, and self-government? Or are we heading an altogether different direction?(112)
So, for me, “technological somnambulism” represents the negative phrasing of the positive values entailed in notions of “appropriate technology” or perhaps said better is that taken together we can probably make better choices about our technological adoptions and applications. Wikipedia offers this first definition of appropriate technology, “Appropriate technology is an ideological movement (and its manifestations) encompassing technological choice and application that is small-scale, decentralized, labor-intensive, energy-efficient, environmentally sound, and locally autonomous.”
I stumbled on a fascinating use of the online resource Quizlet. Langdon Winner, “Technologies as Forms of Life” a short set of flashcards that captures ideas in the article. In truth, it does not cover what I consider all of the key and crucial ideas but is still a fun little resource.
I also stumbled on a previous ED 654 student’s blog posting on the topic, and Chris’s comments as well. Sarah Kessler-Frick explores the question here. Her blog post is dated in as much as some of her linked material no longer connects. But she wrestles with the same fundamental ideas.
References
Appropriate Technology. (27 May 2017)In Wikipedia. Retrieved May 29, 2017, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriate_technology
Kessler-Frick, Sarah. “Technological Somnambulism” EdHeadEd accessed May 29, 2017.
Technological Somnambulism. (5 January 2017). In Wikipedia. Retrieved May 29, 2017, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_somnambulism
Technological Determinism, (16 May 2017). In Wikipedia. Retrieved May 29,2017, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_determinism
Winner, L. Technologies as Forms of Life. in Readings in the Philosophy of Technology., ed. David Kaplan Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004, pp. 103-113.
searchandresearch
“appropriate technology” is a movement that clearly needs some language crafters to get more peoples’ attentions because I agree it is more or less the positive way of framing Langdon Winner’s much more attention-getting somnambulism.
Your first paragraph takes what might be a bit of a diversion into representing Schumacher. Or is it? How do Schumacher’s core ideas connect?
Oh, dear… is this an invitation for me to unpack Schumacher. Chris, be careful what you ask. A chance for me to wax eloquent about a mentor….
Consider it an invitation. I have added Schumacher to my reading list, but the reading list is long and I love an opportunity to learn from others who have had a chance to read, synthesize, contemplate and apply. Just give me a boost 🙂