• Today, many people use computers to store and retrieve pertinent information.
• In order to understand the way technology may be changing our views of ourselves and the world that surrounds us, we must first understand the way in which modern technology itself processes information.

COMPUTER ITSELF:

• Microcomputers are made up of different internal parts that perform functions essential to the machine’s operation. This process of having different elements which performs individual functions to create a complex whole is very significant to our investigation of the effects computers have on our society.
• Within the computer a microprocessor interprets and executes machine language, which is a set of all-purpose instructions. Machine language is a numeric language, which means that all machine language instructions and the data on which those instructions operate are in numeric form.
• Since numbers represents both instructions and data, the microprocessor can not tell the difference between the two simply by appearance.
• It is the way a program is written (specifying where in the program execution is to begin) that the programmer tells the processor how to interpret the contents of each instruction.
• Therefore, the computer does not have a pre-designated answer for every question or operation which the user attempts. Each program tells the computer how to respond to the inputted information.

BREAKDOWN:

• So what does this all mean? Does understanding the internal motions of the computer really help us interpret the way technology is changing our perspectives?
• If we understand that a computer is not a single entity, but a collection of smaller machines that when put together correctly create a computer, then we see how we can create other "entities" through the combination of multiple mechanisms.
• This combining of resources is essential to our western society. Without it we would not have machines e.g. lawn mowers, cars, drills, cranes, dump trucks and firearms; nor would we have human organizations e.g. construction companies, manufacturing companies, consumer rights organizations, lobbying firms, business corporations, police departments, fire departments, and educational facilities; or even the country in which we live.
• So we can see how this information is relevant, now we must explore some perspectives on the issue of technology and its effect on us as both individuals and as a society.

BENSTON

• Margaret Lowe Benston has written some material on technology as a language.

• She understands technology as a language for action and self-expression. "The technology available at any specific time provides a range of options for acting on the world... these options function rather like words in a language... you must use what tools and techniques are available in any attempt to carry out a particular action."(Benston p.18)

• Unfortunately, however, men control this language and therefore this makes technology a "gendered language".
• She goes on to point out that part of the current worldview is the right to own or control the material world and this is achieved through technology. If women are cut off from this controlling medium, then they too are cut off from the control.
• "Women generally do not think they have the right to control the material world and have little confidence in their ability to; as long as they doubt either, it is very difficult for them to use a technology created by those who accept domination/control as a given."(Benston p.20)
• If the woman does not understand or even have access to this critical aspect of our society, then she has less control over her physical surroundings than her male counterpart.
• Benston claims that men frequently ‘do not understand what women are talking about’. This, she believes, results from a sort of "tunnel vision" that comes out of complete acceptance of the "dominant definition" of reality.
• Benston wants us to recognize possible generalizations as well as attitudes that both genders may make.
• She feels that women need to learn more about technology and gain more self-assurance, but both men and woman, together, need to develop technology into a medium that would serve the interests and goals of more that a group of privileged white males.
• Through the creation of technology as a combination of mechanisms, working together as one, we have taken aim at a new target. We want to dominate our surroundings, but is this really helpful?
• Benston wants humans to work together and find a common goal, regardless of gender, race or ethnicity. "Fundamental change can only come about by an attack on all the structures of domination in the society. As a part of this, we will have to change science and technology to give more primacy to the kinds of approaches now considered feminine. If we can do that, the consequences will be new kinds of technology as well as new kinds of people."(Benston p.27)

HEIDEGGER

• Martin Heidegger, a well-known German writer and philosopher, understood humanity and it’s relation to technology in a much different manner.
• He wants the human to be at one with itself.
• He wants us to see things as they are, not as how they may appear to us at first. In order to see the truth we must be "granted" the revealing of these things, this he calls Granting.
• If we could see technology as what it is, we could see that it is itself a sort of revealing, who’s essence is Enframing.
• Once things have been revealed to us we place them inside of a "frame" of understanding (much like a picture frame does to an image). Not only does the image now have a place inside the frame, but we can call it a picture because of the frame that it has around it.
• What Heidegger wants us to realize is that we can not neglect the surroundings, no matter how insignificant they may appear to us at the time. What is a block without a city? What is a city without a state or province? ...without a country? ... without the Earth? ...without the Solar System? And what is the any of this without the Universe? Therefore, can we think of a city block without thinking of its relation to and place in the Universe?
• Heidegger believes that modern technology as Enframing is dangerous. If we Enframe, we are losing sight of our revealing and our essence. There is a tendency for us to reduce ourselves to "standing-reserve" or a source of energy for human use, we becomes "users" of the world around us and this includes other humans.
• Heidegger supports the idea that through Enframing technology shapes society, at least in the way we perceive our surroundings and ourselves.

MARX

• Marx believed in human beings as producers, in an essay about politics he wrote, "In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness."(Marx p.38)
• Here, Marx is expressing his feelings that in their social lives, humans (in a society) go through processes which they do not control and many times do not even realize, none the less, these activities are instrumental to the development of their material lives and the economy of their society.
• These processes are relationships with others.
• In these unions, they (as humans) are being used and/or using another in an effort to achieve a goal.
• Whether the individual is aware of it or not, out of these relationships comes the basis of both legal and political superstructures which are vital to our society.
• Marx has hypothesized that our society, which is dependent upon many relationships of mechanisms, determines how we perceive, and therefore interact with our surroundings, including other humans.

The question now arises: is it our society that determines the direction of our technology, or is it our technology that determines the direction of our society?

MCDERMOTT

• In regards to technology, he wrote, "No other single subject is so universally invested with high hopes for the improvement of mankind generally and of America in particular..."(McDermott p.95)
• Here, McDermott wants to emphasize the level which technology has transcended our lives. He feels very strongly that technology is involved and, to some degree, influences us.
• In regards to technology, he wrote, "No other single subject is so universally invested with high hopes for the improvement of mankind generally and of America in particular..."(McDermott p.95)
• Here, McDermott wants to emphasize the level which technology has transcended our lives. He feels very strongly that technology is involved and, to some degree, influences us.
• This machine is starting to gain ground, it now has a place in society as a machine, and it can only be replaced by machines of its type, which makes it important.
• The machine has taken on more that just the performance of its task, it has a place in the economic structure as well.
• If there are many machines that are taking over the tasks of human labors then we must become aware of their effect on our society.
• "Complex technological systems are extraordinarily resistant to intervention by persons or problems operating outside or below their managing groups, and this is so regardless of the ‘politics’ of a given situation. Technology creates its own politics."(McDermott p.104)
• If the machines in a community have political power serviced by and in addition to playing an economic role in society, then technology begins to determine the direction of society and we must ask ourselves: who is really in control?

WINNER

• Contrary to McDermott, Winner has some good things to say about the effects technology has on our society.
• "If the experience of modern society shows us anything, however, it is that technologies are not merely aids to human activity, but also powerful forces acting to reshape the activity and its meaning. The introduction of a robot to an industrial work place not only increases productivity, but often radically changes the process of production, redefining what ‘work’ means in that setting."(Winner p.6)
• We can see here that Winner wants us to see the positive results and effect technology can have on society.
• There are two type of technologies for Winner, non-inherently political technologies and inherently political technologies.
• So called non-inherently political technologies: those which carry no political implications when they are created and in use.
• Inherently political technologies: ones which are created with intentions to have political implications.
• One example of inherently political technology is the highway system in Long Island, New York: "Many of the overpasses are extraordinarily low, having as little as nine feet of clearance at the curb. Even those who happened to notice this structural peculiarity would not be inclined to attach any special meaning to it."(Winner p.22)
• It turns out, however, that over two hundred or so low overpasses on Long Island are there for a purpose. They were willfully designed and constructed by someone who wanted to attain a specific social influence. "Robert Moses, the master builder of the 1920’s to the 1970’s in New York, built his overpasses according to the specifications that would discourage the presence of buses on his parkways. According to evidence provided by Moses’ autobiographer, Robert A. Caro, the reasons reflect Moses’ social class bias and racial prejudice."(Winner p.23)
• Moses built these highways for the upper class whites to use and since they usually were not on buses, they were free to enjoy the benefits of the parkways.
• Not only were Moses’ parkways created with political intentions, but their effects were not even realized by the public.
• Until recently, the effects were still accepted by the Long Island population and Moses was successful in oppressing the poorer classes.
• Whether we realized it or not was irrelevant because Moses’ creation of the parkways was inherently political.
• It was not the technology itself that created this effect, but the creator who designed the outcome.

FLORMAN

• Florman wants us to realize that everything in this world has both good and bad aspects, technology is no different.
• There are positive effects as well as negative effects in every technological creation.
• Florman believes in technology as a self-correcting process, each time we create a technology it has both positive and negative implications, but the next time we create technology it is to correct the negative aspects of the previous one, and so on in a continuous cycle.
• "Technology is revolutionary. Therefore, hostility toward technology is anti-revolutionary, which is to say, it is reactionary."(Florman p.129)
• We must not move backwards in our thinking, we must move forward, otherwise we will be in a paradoxical state. We must accept technology for what it is, a self-correcting process, and take that into account whenever we use it.

OVERVIEW

• We can see that there are some definite imperfections in technology, but expecting anything to be perfect, in this world, is an illusion.
• Some difficulties lie in the gender differences between men and women, and how this may influence our development of technology.
• Other problems may lie in our implementation of technology.
• We may also be letting technology take hold of our perspectives, closing ourselves in, as well as limiting us. We must remember that we are human beings and what that means to us individually.
• True Being is remembering where we are and who we are, while still understanding what we are doing and why we are doing it.

CONCLUSION

• Through all this we must still ponder what is not clear to us and a very relevant question in this day and age is attempting, to determine the distinction between the "technological determination of society" or the "social determination of technology".
• If we are to be the ultimate controllers of our lives then we must make sure technology is not making too many of our own decisions for us.
• I would like to close with a theory from an article by Don Ihde, "Technology as the revelation of the world as standing-reserve [a source of energy for human use] is the ontological presupposition and ground for modern science." (Ihde p.201)
• If this is in fact true and both our science and technology are based on using of the earth as a source of "materials", then we have a problem, because we are going to eventually run out of materials.

Would you like to comment on this page?