technology is a dichotomy. each new step forward may turn into two steps back. what is good for one group may be an encumbrance to another. pinch & bijker agree, "different social groups have radically different interpretations of one technological artifact" (1987). in this text, p&b use the example of a bicycle to elucidate the social construction of facts and artifacts. i have a problem with the example; how controversial can a bicycle really be? women might show off their ankle-long petticoats when mounting the bike... OH NO! SIN SIN SIN! (ok ok...i know, it was 1987...and clearly technology and culture are BFF's... taken out of context blah blah)
let's see if this concept holds up to a modern, quickly emerging and HIGHLY controversial field: biotechnology- the ultimate example of marrying science and technology. (would p&b be proud?)
genetic engineering may be the key to new medicines, better food and a better global quality of life. it also holds insane possibility when put in the hands of average citizens. in our biotech future, freeman dyson predicts "the domestication of biotechnology will dominate our lives during the next fifty years at least as much as the domestication of computers has dominated our lives during the previous fifty years" (2007). kids will be creating new species of house pets while parents are choosing the eye and hair color of their kids. am i the only one who finds this insanely frightening?
he talks about "Open Source biology" - genetic alteration technology available to anyone with the "skill and imagination" to use it. he champions a sickeningly idealistic mantra, where biotechnology remedies global hunger, poverty and magically creates world peace. UNLIKELY. multinational corporations control the newly globalized world order. a hyper-free market foreshadows a grimly framed future, one where the elites (k. marx's bourgeoisie?) manipulate and market biotechnology for obscene profits. imagine biotechnology sold like computers or nike sneakers. with control of new technological gold, active self-preservation is inevitable. maybe mr. CEO will prefer uber-sophisticated machines to human workers, completely annihilating the working class. it would be nice not to worry about budgeting for health benefits, pensions, or all of those irritating human expenses. now, i did not intend a harangue, but this example takes p&b's discussion to a whole new level.
how does technological determinism fit in?
i'm so glad you asked! the marx & smith text describes "hard determinism" as "advancing technology has a steadily growing, well-nigh irresistible power to determine the course of events" (1994). we see why the multinationals would like this, eh? if globalization and technology are 'irresistible' and inevitable in the mind of consumers, the negative impact (i.e. climate change, global warming, increasing disparity between classes, objectification of workers and sweatshop labor) is completely disregarded. moreover, if technology has a "life of its own," who is responsible for this damage? no easy answers here.
how does this message disseminate?
corporations control media.
p&b admit that the "hard determinism" point of view is the most pervasive in modern media, stating "the narrative structure is based on the stock before-and-after model." plenty of research shows how media subtly shapes our world view and ultimately, tells us what and how to think about the world around us. (take psychology of media to learn more!) so the more media adopts this model, the more we see globalization as organic, rationalizing the disastrous consequences. Oh yeah, and the rich keep getting richer. But that's just how the world turns, right?
maybe k. marx was on to something...
works referenced:
leo marx & merrit roe smith: does technology drive history? introduction. 1994.
trevor pinch & wiebe bijker: the social construction of facts and artifacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. 1987.
freeman dyson: our biotech future. insane person press: 2007. kidding... the new york review of books.
0 comments:
Post a Comment