Understanding technology through time
The concept of technology has been defined in different ways across time. Originally, it was considered an art or craft together with the tools used to accomplish it (for example: the carpenter’s practice), but as society develops and changes, so has the concept of technology. Dobres (2000) states that “technology is a continually unfolding process of social, meaningful, and sensuous engagement – a verb of action and interaction – engendered by social agents during their everyday activities of object making and use in historically and culturally circumscribed settings” (p. 61). I believe, the author is implicitly stating that technology has to be interpreted in terms of the society (time or era) it belongs to.
The word technology is composed of two parts: tekhné and logos. The first part, tekhné originally meant the “knowledgeable practice and practical knowledge” (Dobres, p. 50). But today, Dobres states it “is used colloquially to mean the narrowest (mechanical or practical) aspects of a (material) technology …” (p. 53). The second part, logos, was originally conceived of “not only reason but also the ontological structure of reality, as well as speech, and ‘giving an account’” (p. 53). Nevertheless, logo “has come to mean a very specific kind of reason that produces theory: the dispassionate, the objective, the computational” (p. 53).
Dobres points out that the changes in the definition of technology are dependant on philosophical assumptions that move in a continuum of different positions related to ontology (the study of being) and epistemology (the study of knowledge), a continuum that also moves through different theoretical perspectives: positivist, interpretivism, constructionism, and critical inquiry (Crotty, 1998). So it could be argued that the definition of technology is dependent on the time or era where it is taken from.
Dobres also points out the relationship of ethics and social values to technology. Because “technology is a particular kind of practice through which humans reflect on who and what they are” (p. 85), it cannot be argued that technology carries an evil (bad) connotation. More than that, it all depends on how technology is used – take for example the nuclear bombing in Hiroshima and Okinawa, Japan, or the use of the instructional computer software to practice a skill or learn a new subject.
The time we live in has been identified as the Information and Communication Era. Telegraphy, phones, radio, television, and the internet (including the world wide web) are inventions of the last two centuries that seemed to have made of the world a smaller place. But this is not to say that everyone is connected to some kind of communication media, in fact Slevin (2000), citing Dougan points out that even in our days “half the people on earth have yet to make their first phone call” (p. 17). There is digital divide that has become even bigger with the advances in telecommunications. The tendency for globalization (“new forms of stratification”, Slevin, p. 18) has also made it possible for powerful companies to enslave poor countries, paying ridiculous wages and having little or no safety controls, even less worker’s humanitarian compensations like health insurance or accident insurance.
To conclude, technology “includes everything” (Dobres, p. 87). Its use could be good or evil, it only depends on how we (as the human race) decide to use it and how we allow others to use. The “negotiation of experience, the reacquisition of knowledge and skills, and the forging of commitment and mutuality” will allow us to transform “lifestyles and practices of individuals” (Slevin, p. 24).
References:
Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspectve in the Research Process. London: SAGE Publications.
Dobres, M. (2000). Technology and Social Agency. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. [Chapters 2-3].
Slevin, J. (2000). The Internet and Society. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. [Chapter 1].
-- If you like, send me an e-mail with your comments to: mortizro@ufl.edu.
