I'm not sure if I don't agree with Winner's (and Slack's & Wise's by extension) conclusion on the politics of technology, or if I just don't understand it. I had trouble with this chapter because I found it hard to divorce myself from the popular definition of politics. Intuitively, we think of politics as the process of governing and organizing people. However, Winner wants us to abstract that definition to just relations of power. Like the previous chapter on agency, I don't necessarily agree with applying this definition to technology. Like agency, I think that politics and relations of power require some semblance of intention. While I agree that technology shapes us as we use it, it is a process that is started by us and ends with us.
I do agree, though, that we must change our view of technology. I guess I fall somewhere between what Slack & Wise describe as the popular view of technology symbolized by the NRA (Guns don't kill people, people do) and Winner's conclusion. I think that technology does necessarily shape us as we use it, but I wouldn't call it an agent and I wouldn't call it powerful on its own. Technology is only powerful in the right hands. Just because it has a certain power over us (such as being dependent on our cell phones or Facebook, or even a washing machine), doesn't mean it's powerful on its own.
winner pulls out some big technological guns to make his argument, namely atomic power -- which does seem to have incredible innate power.
ReplyDeletealso, you are right that our default or lay concept of politics differs from winner's usage which is fundamental, or structural. he seems to be using the term to consider how is power constituted and exercised within a society. i find this a useful way to use the term, as it cuts through a lot of clutter and reminds us of the basics.
ReplyDelete