I am in the midst of assembling my final project, but since our blog post is open this week, I would like to present a book review on technology I produced last year. If you are in rapture with the latest technology of anything, you may not want to read this, but it is certainly something to think about.
Robert J. Murphy
Spring 2010
CSUSB
Slack, Jennifer and Wise, J. Macgregor. (2006) Culture and Technology, Peter Lang Publishing, New York N.Y.
Recently, while watching an NBA playoff game on laptop through ESPN, an ad for Honda ran continuously, giving me the chance to see it repeatedly. Ironically, it wasn’t about their cars at all, but about research into robotics and alternative energy. What first caught my attention was the beginning, where scientists who worked with robots explained why we all were so afraid of them (fear of the unknown and bad science-fiction movies) and why we shouldn’t be (they weren’t too clear on that one). About halfway through, of all people, Deepak Chopra appeared in his guise as New Age Guru, and said, “Technology itself is neither good nor bad; it is how we use it that makes the difference.” I guess at that point I was supposed to breathe a sigh of relief that Honda had the technology well in hand, and we didn’t have to worry, especially if they have Mr. Chopra advising them about how to use it for good.
I’m not sure what the point of this ad was, except that everyone I witnessed in it needs to read Slack and Wise’s book at least twice. In a succinct 196 pages, the authors have presented not only a baseline look at technology in relation to culture, both past and modern, but explain in a clear manner the varying aspects of how technology is viewed and reacted to by academics, scientists, and philosophers, and the rest of us (not to mention the Unabomber). Their contention is that not only do we not understand the consequences of technology, we are actually embracing those consequences without much consideration of the costs versus the benefits.
They first challenge the notion that technology is a thing that can be measured by adding up devices or use statistics. Technology is a process, perhaps surely consisting of inventors or inventions, but a movement nonetheless, which can be defined in terms of science, or progress, or something else, but it is not a separate thing from culture itself. In this view, they are not alone. Poser (2009) talks extensively about a culture’s necessity to invent technology to survive mankind’s deficiencies, i.e., culture determines technology, and cannot be separated. Borgmann (2010) goes a step further by describing the “commoditization of technology” which can make it commonplace, and therefore a result of everyday use. While Poser says that we have developed technology to help meet our needs, the authors contend that we now develop and use technology to go beyond this and overcome the bodily limits of space and time. We have transportation to whisk us off for a quick weekend across the globe, a cell phone to make the reservation quickly, laser-eye surgery so we can sightsee better, new body parts so we can live longer and travel, computer screens and the Internet so as to be in two places at once, and just perhaps overcome the final limit, death. To question the necessity or the value of all this progress is modern heresy. Slack and Wise then add the concept of convenience. We invent things to make our life more convenient. However, this leads to the never-ending race; the more conveniences we have, the more we are expected to do or experience.,
Next is the notion of causality. The two extremes of technological opinion are that we invent our technology and control it (cultural determinism), or that our tools are out of our control already and are running us (technological determinism). Also, there is a vague middle-ground opinion which is a little of both. For sake of simplicity, let’s say that Bill Gates would be a cultural determinist, while Theodore Kaczynski (the Unabomber) is a technological determinist. These two camps are constantly at odds with each other. Gates believes that technology is progress; Kaczynski believes that this kind of progress will kill us all. In between is a vast pool of the populace that has to use technology, but isn’t sure about it and what it all means. When the process is combined with the political arena, as it invariable is, the debate turns into heated discussion or worse, violent ecological protest or bombs in the mail.
Slack and Wise contend that politics has always been a major determinant of opinion on these issues, along with big businesses such as today’s Big Oil. World’s Fairs are sponsored by government and private sector cooperation to show how progress is inevitable and is good for us. Hammer (2010) goes back even further. In a discussion of how Roman technological prowess equaled world power, he shows how the Roman elite’s sophisticated technological re-creation of massive land and sea battles for the entertainment of the Romans kept the populace in-check. By sharing the “fruits of power”, it gave the Romans what they wanted: an illusion that they, too, were a part of the big picture. However, the elite’s hold on power was eventually weakened in this way, for by bringing the action to the people, those people lost interest in anything but the next big Circus Maximus race or Colisseum fight and abandoned political leaders of any kind for authoritarian central rule.
In her article about Life magazine between 1936 and 1941, Webb (2010) notes that new photographic technology and printing techniques allowed a large picture magazine to be possible. This, in turn allowed some of the best photographers of the day to take pictures mainly of other marvels of American technology. The ironies abound, especially when she notes dryly:
Contemporary commentators viewed technology as a positive force. Even though technology was responsible for automation that had thrown many out of jobs, and even though it could not forestall the downturn, it could still provide an avenue out of the Depression. In 1930, the Reader’s Digest noted, “We need not fear that we shall progress too fast. The overwhelming danger is that we shall not progress fast enough. “(p.199)
The authors’ final contention is that in reality, the world of technology cannot be defined as inherently good or bad, or determined or not, or really by any other definition except technological culture. This, they admit, even renders the title of their book an anachronism, since culture and technology are not separate, but like interwoven strands. We live, we plan, we vote, technology is invented, either by necessity or not, but it’s there, an inescapable part of our culture. What will happen as a result is often anybody’s guess. We all have and use cell phones. When we use one, we never think about the Chinese laborer who made it, the shipper who sent it, the trade deficit in the U.S. because of it (now $40 billion and counting), the low wages of the Wal-Mart employee who sold it to you, the government monopolies that allow the airwaves to use it. There are repercussions and results from all these stages that contribute to sending a ripple effect through the cultural waters. Cell phones help us communicate, save lives for people in remote areas who need help, enable us to work faster and longer, and give us the impression we are connected with the world. They also possibly emit dangerous radiation, contain toxic contaminants that are not always recycled when thrown away, are a major distraction in schools and the workplace, and can be used to trigger terrorist explosive devices. I seriously doubt that Mr. Chopra could render this technology solely for good, even if he wanted to. Robots are robots and how they will change us remains to be seen.
At the last, Slack and Wise advise us that we can at least identify the negative aspects of technology and try to work through the political system to set limits on what we see is going wrong. Can technology be undone and abandoned? Consider this: we still listen to music, but when’s the last time you heard it on an 8-track tape cartridge? The authors challenge us to be ready to take the next step.
Citations:
Borgmann, A. (2010). Reality and technology. Cambridge Journal of Economics V. 34 No. 1 (January 2010) P. 27-35, 34(1), 27-35.
Hammer, D. (2010). Roman spectacle entertainments and the technology of reality. Arethusa V. 43 No. 1 (Winter 2010) P. 63-86, 43(1), 63-86.
Lewis, W., Agarwal, R., & Sambamurthy, V. (2003). Sources of influence on beliefs about information technology use: An empirical study of knowledge workers. MIS Quarterly, 27(4), 657-678.
Mayhew, A. (2010). Clarence ayres, technology, pragmatism and progress. Cambridge Journal of Economics V. 34 No. 1 (January 2010) P. 213-22, 34(1),
Poser, H. (2009). Technology and necessity. The Monist V. 92 No. 3 (July 2009) P. 441-51, 92(3), 441-451.
Webb, S. (2010). Prowess unlimited: The portrayal of science and technology in life, 1936-41. Journalism History V. 35 No. 4 (Winter 2010) P. 194-204, 35(4), 194-204.
Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807-840.
Recent Comments