In his piece, Langdon Winner writes about how all technologies have politics. Now, to be clear, he is not talking about the commonly known form of politics. Rather, Winner describes politics as “arrangements of power and authority in human association as well as the activities that take place within those arrangements.” In addition, Winner says that technology can either be authoritarian (being system-centered, powerful, but unstable) or democratic (man-centered, weak, but resourceful and durable). As such, the purpose of his piece is to show how technologies are political in nature, and how they fall into these categories.
The largest issue I have with Winner’s work is that he states that all technologies are either authoritarian or democratic in nature. Personally, I am against looking at things in extremes, saying that something must be either one thing or another (as I also stated in my previous post). Certainly, not all technologies can fall under only one category. After all, the word “technology” means thousands upon thousands of things, ranging from things like computers and the internet to USB cables and TVs. Saying that every single technology must fall under one category is, in my opinion, bordering on being foolish. Is it possible for something to be both powerful (part authoritarian) and resourceful/durable (part democratic), following Winner’s definitions? The answer, to me, is quite obviously yes. The internet is a prime example of such a thing. It is nearly impossible to argue that the internet is not powerful, and it is equally as difficult to say that the internet is not resourceful. Thus, it is both authoritarian and democratic in nature, or perhaps even neither.
Yet, do not get me wrong, I do not believe that Winner is entirely wrong. Without a doubt, there are many technologies that fall under these two categories. In his piece, Winner uses the nuclear bomb as an example. Winner states that the nuclear bomb must be regulated through an authoritarian approach, and for good reason. Something as powerful as a nuclear bomb, or any immensely powerful weapon, must be strictly regulated. In fact, it is safe to say that anything but a democratic approach should be used in regulating such things, or else everyone would have access to them and have a say in how they are used, which quite obviously would not end well for the world.
Another of Winner’s points is that all technology has an inherent design/method/purpose given by its creator. While I personally, take the view that technology is neutral and that its effects are based solely on how one uses it, I also agree with Winner on this point. Everything that has ever been created has been made with a purpose in mind, even if only its creator has its true intended purpose in mind. For example, Winner writes about the design of the overpasses in New York’s parkways and how they were meant to keep anyone who was not white and a member of the upper or middle class out of his parks. While the overpasses seemingly have little purpose and the average person will not see a large purpose in them, their creator certainly had one in mind and chose to implement them as he did. In this sense, the overpasses can be seen as political, as they helped to forward one man’s views and goals. Yet I must say, in light of all of this, it is a bit unsettling to know that one man’s beliefs and views, which by today’s standards are quite discriminatory and looked down upon, will remain in place by his overpasses until they day they are destroyed through whatever means. This is merely another sign of how powerful of a tool technology can be, allowing one man’s politics to be materialized and put into effect for, potentially, an eternity.
No comments:
Post a Comment