[Wellsy]

http://innovate.ucsb.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Winner-Do-Artifacts-Have-Politics-1980.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langdon_Winner#Technology_and_politics

I thought this might be an interesting read for others and perhaps brings up questions that could incite interesting responses and put here thinking this be most appropriate to share a paper. I don't have any questions for others about the work though would be interested to hear any thoughts should one glance over it or read it entirely.

Intro

Writing in Technology and Culture almost two decades ago, Lewis Mumford gave classic statement to one version of the them, arguing that "from late neolithic times in the Near East, right down to our own day, two technologies have recurrently existed side by side: one authortarian, the other democratic, the first system-centered, immensley powerful, but inherently unstable, the other man-centered, relatively weak, but resourceful and durable."2

This thesis stands at the heart of Mumford's studies of the city, architecture, and the history of technics, and mirrors concerns voiced earlier in the works of Peter Kropotkin, William Morris, and other nineteenth century critics of industrialism. More recently, antinuclear and prosolar energy movements in Europe and America have adopted a similar notion as a centerpiece in their arguments.

Thus environmentalist Denis Hayes concludes, "The increased deployment of nuclear power facilities must lead society toward authoritarianism. Indeed, safe reliance upon nuclear power as the principal source of energy may be possible only in a totalitarian state." Echoing the views of many proponents of appropriate technology and the soft energy path, Hayes contends that "dispersed solar sources are more compatible than centralized technologies with social equity, freedom and cultural pluralism."3

An eagerness to interpret technical artifacts in political language is by no means the exclusive property of critics of large-scale high-technology systems. A long lineage of boosters have insisted that the "biggest and best" that science and industry made available were the best guarantees of democracy, freedom, and social justice. The factory system, automobile, telephone, radio, television, the space program, and of course nuclear power itself have all at one time or another been described as democratizing, liberating forces. David Lilienthal, in T.V.A.: Democracy on the March, for example, found this promise in the phosphate fertilizers and electricity that technical progress was bringing to rural Americans during the 1940s.4
In a recent essay, The Republic of Technology, Daniel Boorstin extolled television for "its power to disband armies, to cashier presidents, to create a whole new democratic world - democratic in ways never before imagined, even in America."5 Scarcely a new invention comes along that someone does not proclaim it the salvation of a free society.

Here's a critical response from Bernward Joerges: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/papers/artefacts.pdf

[mikema63]

That's rather silly.

Toothbrushes push us towards neo-feudalism and MRI's clearly promote parliamentary systems.

[Ummon]

Maybe it is, but military satellites, drones, and autonomous weapons systems definitely push us toward authoritarianism.

[mikema63]

Are molotov cocktails anarchist then? Or is it that all weapons are authoritarian? What makes a fascist vs communist authoritarian weapon?

[Potemkin]

Thus environmentalist Denis Hayes concludes, "The increased deployment of nuclear power facilities must lead society toward authoritarianism. Indeed, safe reliance upon nuclear power as the principal source of energy may be possible only in a totalitarian state." Echoing the views of many proponents of appropriate technology and the soft energy path, Hayes contends that "dispersed solar sources are more compatible than centralized technologies with social equity, freedom and cultural pluralism."3

An interesting change seems to have occurred in people's thinking over the past couple of centuries. At the time of the French Revolution, it was centralisation which was seen as democratic and egalitarian, levelling all regional and class differences between people. The drive of the French revolutionaries was, above all else, to centralise and to simplify. The authoritarianism of the revolutionary regime was regarded as a manifestation of the authority of the people themselves. It was the ancien regime which was dispersed, decentralised and which differentiated between people.

Of course, both perspectives were and are fundamentally wrong-headed. We can now see that the clearing away of the old feudal regional differences and the simplification and consolidation of political power in the name of egalitarianism and liberty has tended to lead to new forms of tyranny, sometimes worse than any feudal tyranny. But at the same time, simply returning to the old feudal regional and class distinctions, decentralising everything in the name of egalitarianism and liberty, will probably tend to lead back to something resembling the old ramshackle feudal system, as inefficient and oppressive as the ancien regime had been.

In other words, positing a simple-minded one-to-one correspondence between types of technology or ways of organising that technology and political ideologies is very silly, and serious thinkers probably shouldn't do it.

[Cookie Monster]

In other words, positing a simple-minded one-to-one correspondence between types of technology or ways of organising that technology and political ideologies is very silly, and serious thinkers probably shouldn't do it.

Agreed, nevertheless thinking about how our inventions also reinvent us it is not only a fascinating thought experiment but also very important. After all, our civilisation is the product of various inventions that accumulated into the agricultural and industrial revolutions and whatever revolution we currently find ourselves in. These developments dramatically and radically changed our ability to manipulate and utilise our environment and, because of that, how we organise ourselves. But I agree that it is simple-minded to categorise technologies as inherently favouring any type of political ideology.

[Pants-of-dog]

Are molotov cocktails anarchist then? Or is it that all weapons are authoritarian? What makes a fascist vs communist authoritarian weapon?

While I agree with the posters above who said it's more complicated than simply saying certain technologies are linked to certain ideologies, it is obvious that Molotov cocktails are inherently more accessible than a nuclear bomb. Simply because of the ease of manufacture.

Communities that use fossil fuels are more likely to go to war over oil. Sustainable agriculture will last longer and have less.environmental problems. People on bicycles use less health care resources.

None of these are earth shattering changes or proposals. Much less.newsworthy than revolution. But for that reason, they are easier to implement.

"I to my blueprints and you to your pamphlets. We will see who changes the world more."

[Potemkin]

Agreed, nevertheless thinking about how our inventions also reinvent us it is not only a fascinating thought experiment but also very important. After all, our civilisation is the product of various inventions that accumulated into the agricultural and industrial revolutions and whatever revolution we currently find ourselves in. These developments dramatically and radically changed our ability to manipulate and utilise our environment and, because of that, how we organise ourselves. But I agree that it is simple-minded to categorise technologies as inherently favouring any type of political ideology.

Indeed, there is a dialectical relationship between human technology and the human mind - our mind creates the technology (usually through praxis, due to the need to solve a real-world problem), which changes our social and material environment, which in turn changes our minds - a new mode of production creates new forms of thought. This, in its turn, leads to new technologies, and so on....

Nevertheless, it is important to avoid falling into the trap of simple-minded technological determinism - the idea that the human mind creates new technologies ex nihilo, which then through a deterministic process of cause-and-effect change the world, and that this process is ongoing and is driven by nothing but the 'genius' of the human mind operating in splendid isolation from its material or social environment. Far less should we make the mistake of making direct correspondences between particular technologies and particular political ideologies. A nuclear power station is not more or less egalitarian than a wind farm. The fact that the nuclear power station requires a sophisticated industrial society and a strongly centralised economic and political system does not necessarily make it less egalitarian - after all, the French revolutionaries centralised the French state in the name of egalitarianism, and the ancien regime kept the French nation decentralised in the name of feudal class privilege. The fact that people think differently about these matters nowadays changes nothing - we are no more right or wrong about these matters than our 18th century forebears. Decentralising things does not necessarily lead to greater egalitarianism; indeed, history suggests rather the opposite.

[Ummon]

Are molotov cocktails anarchist then? Or is it that all weapons are authoritarian? What makes a fascist vs communist authoritarian weapon?

Molotov cocktails are gay, bazookas are hispanic, shields are libretarian, etc. I am not making a literalist argument that all of these things MUST be used in a particular fashion or what have you, simply that a particular technology in the world which we inhabit often IS or tends to be.

[Cookie Monster]

Nevertheless, it is important to avoid falling into the trap of simple-minded technological determinism - the idea that the human mind creates new technologies ex nihilo, which then through a deterministic process of cause-and-effect change the world, and that this process is ongoing and is driven by nothing but the 'genius' of the human mind operating in splendid isolation from its material or social environment. Far less should we make the mistake of making direct correspondences between particular technologies and particular political ideologies. A nuclear power station is not more or less egalitarian than a wind farm. The fact that the nuclear power station requires a sophisticated industrial society and a strongly centralised economic and political system does not necessarily make it less egalitarian - after all, the French revolutionaries centralised the French state in the name of egalitarianism, and the ancien regime kept the French nation decentralised in the name of feudal class privilege. The fact that people think differently about these matters nowadays changes nothing - we are no more right or wrong about these matters than our 18th century forebears. Decentralising things does not necessarily lead to greater egalitarianism; indeed, history suggests rather the opposite.

Indeed, there is always the danger that a critical thought/view of history is reduced to a deterministic model. For example, geography is of crucial impact for the social and technological development of cultures, but this does not mean that geography determines a culture's history, since geographic awareness, perception and reality - so to say - changes also through social and technological development.

And I very much agree about the differences between contemporary and enlightenment views about centralization and decentralisation. Another example, and related to (de)centralisation, is how the dominant states of the West invented the monolithic and somewhat culturally impoverished Nation-State to efficiently conquer and exploit the natural resources that was necessary for its industrialisation. Many of the non-dominant states back than were culturally "cosmopolitan" and "pluralistic". These non-dominant states got gradually destroyed, one way or another, to eventually mimic the Western Nation-State model. In our time, however, the West gradually reinvented itself as a "cosmopolitan" and "pluralistic" states again, precisely similar to those who were on the losing side ever since the enlightenment era.

[Potemkin]

And I very much agree about the differences between contemporary and enlightenment views about centralization and decentralisation. Another example, and related to (de)centralisation, is how the dominant states of the West invented the monolithic and somewhat culturally impoverished Nation-State to efficiently conquer and exploit the natural resources that was necessary for its industrialisation. Many of the non-dominant states back than were culturally "cosmopolitan" and "pluralistic". These non-dominant states got gradually destroyed, one way or another, to eventually mimic the Western Nation-State model. In our time, however, the West gradually reinvented itself as a "cosmopolitan" and "pluralistic" states again, precisely similar to those who were on the losing side ever since the enlightenment era.

It seems to be an unusual - perhaps historically unprecedented - characteristic of the West that it periodically seems to negate itself. What I mean by that is that many of its leading ideas periodically seem to flip over into their dialectical opposites. This can sometimes be infuriating for nations or cultures which are trying to imitate the West in order to modernise themselves. For example, it was the British who introduced laws against homosexuality in India, Africa and other of their colonies during the 19th century. The British believed that this was a progressive, modernising reform to improve the effete morals of the decadent colonial cultures. But now, in the early 21st century, we are moralistically scolding these cultures for their 'backward' laws against homosexuality, laws which we ourselves imposed upon them in the name of progress and enlightenment in the 19th century. What we in the West understand as 'progress' and 'enlightenment' has actually flipped over into its opposite. Our former colonial subjects can be forgiven for thinking that we must have long ago taken leave of our senses.

The issue of centralisation and de-centralisation of authority as a marker of egalitarianism versus authoritarianism is, of course, merely another example of this tendency. It's another of the leading ideas of our culture which has flipped over into its dialectical opposite since the Enlightenment. No doubt it will flip over yet again in the future. As Marx pointed out, ideas such as this are neither correct nor incorrect; they merely reflect the relative balance of class forces and the particular stage of economic and social development of a given society.

[noemon]

No doubt it will flip over yet again in the future. As Marx pointed out, ideas such as this are neither correct nor incorrect; they merely reflect the relative balance of class forces and the particular stage of economic and social development of a given society.

I don't see why Marx should take credit, but yes. There is a constant struggle for privileges in any given area and that struggle can be ethnic, class, regional, etcetera the more centralization the less chance for competition among the groups vying for privilege.

The British believed that this was a progressive, modernising reform to improve the effete morals of the decadent colonial cultures. But now, in the early 21st century, we are moralistically scolding these cultures for their 'backward' laws against homosexuality, laws which we ourselves imposed upon them in the name of progress and enlightenment in the 19th century. What we in the West understand as 'progress' and 'enlightenment' has actually flipped over into its opposite. Our former colonial subjects can be forgiven for thinking that we must have long ago taken leave of our senses.

Well said.

Gibbon is not just responsible for the negative narrative of the other, he is also responsible for the popularization of the new classical discipline in Britain, which was interpreted and served on misogynistic platter.
That is why Amanda Foreman has a bloody hysterical rant on Women(BBC documentary) but she eventually explains herself at the end as saying essentially that it was interpreted intentionally this way, so that is another irony of Britain this time changing its values.

[Ummon]

I will say this though, I think many in this thread are being a bit flippant about dismissing the idea that technology an influence on the course of how a species evolves. For example, we have evidence that in the long run many of evolution's twists and turns may follow predictable patterns and that these evolutionary paths can be affected by large scale environmental factors like mineral composition. Is it really so controversial to think that factors that influence the behavior, internal dynamics of an organism, or the dynamics within groups of organisms like technology could exert a similar influence on the broad scale development of a species? In fact, there is the possibility that some technology like fire has already influenced the course of our evolution as a species.

[Cookie Monster]

It seems to be an unusual - perhaps historically unprecedented - characteristic of the West that it periodically seems to negate itself. What I mean by that is that many of its leading ideas periodically seem to flip over into their dialectical opposites. This can sometimes be infuriating for nations or cultures which are trying to imitate the West in order to modernise themselves. For example, it was the British who introduced laws against homosexuality in India, Africa and other of their colonies during the 19th century. The British believed that this was a progressive, modernising reform to improve the effete morals of the decadent colonial cultures. But now, in the early 21st century, we are moralistically scolding these cultures for their 'backward' laws against homosexuality, laws which we ourselves imposed upon them in the name of progress and enlightenment in the 19th century. What we in the West understand as 'progress' and 'enlightenment' has actually flipped over into its opposite. Our former colonial subjects can be forgiven for thinking that we must have long ago taken leave of our senses.

The issue of centralisation and de-centralisation of authority as a marker of egalitarianism versus authoritarianism is, of course, merely another example of this tendency. It's another of the leading ideas of our culture which has flipped over into its dialectical opposite since the Enlightenment. No doubt it will flip over yet again in the future. As Marx pointed out, ideas such as this are neither correct nor incorrect; they merely reflect the relative balance of class forces and the particular stage of economic and social development of a given society.

Seeing the increasing ugliness and bias of people and societies to one another (despite our increasing ability to organise and help ourselves and exploit and control our environment) I wonder whether we really can sustain the enlightenment project. It seems we are on slippery slope to a post-enlightenment dark era, equavalent to the "dark ages" in its relation to the ancient world. We live in a society where capital and products can easily cross borders around the world while people can't. I do not want to imply that borders are per se bad (in fact they are very functional), but admittingly it is a silly situation as we are the architects of that society. A sociey also in which our survival as a society and as a species is neglected while we fetishise the "protection" of the environment and animals and other fashionable commodity concepts. All in all public discourse seems in retreat and society increasingly dehumanised. What remains is a very well connected world, both physically and digitally, while societies, groups and nations (for whatever collectivity remains) are highly disconnected and fragmented. All in all, a situation fertile for (even more) dispute and conflict.

[Potemkin]

Seeing the increasing ugliness and bias of people and societies to one another (despite our increasing ability to organise and help ourselves and exploit and control our environment) I wonder whether we really can sustain the enlightenment project.

Of course the Enlightenment Project will fail, as every other ideology in human history has ultimately failed or been transformed beyond all recognition. Every such project, from the 'Greek miracle' of Athens c.400 BC to the Pax Romana to the Renaissance to the Enlightenment has eventually faltered and then collapsed. In fact, it could be argued that the Enlightenment Project ended in the fires of the crematoria at Auschwitz and Treblinka, and that we are living in the period of its ghostly afterlife just before it winks out of existence altogether. The point is not whether such a 'project' survives indefinitely or not - of course it can't. The point is that its achievements must be absorbed into human culture and human progress and then transcended in an endless process of Hegelian sublation. As it dies, it propels the human race into a higher level of development. The 'Greek miracle' is no more, but its legacy lives on. The same will probably be true of the Enlightenment Project.

[Pants-of-dog]

If that is the case, then it behooves those of us who work in technical fields to ensure that the transition to a post-Enlightenment future is as peaceful and painless as possible.

[Paradigm]

In fact, it could be argued that the Enlightenment Project ended in the fires of the crematoria at Auschwitz and Treblinka, and that we are living in the period of its ghostly afterlife just before it winks out of existence altogether.

Count me in that camp (no pun intended). The Enlightenment still has its partisans in the form of New Atheists and scientific triumphalists, liberal politicians and pundits, Keynesian and Neoclassical economists, etc. But I would argue that these views, however prominent they are in our media, are part of the ancien régime, and are largely oblivious to the ground that is shifting under their feet. They are relics of an era when secularism was trying to overcome the hegemony of the church and the mercantile class was vying for power with the landed gentry. Their worldview is ill-equipped for a world increasingly characterized by non-state actors, global capital markets where transactions cross borders at the speed of light, the dawn of the anthropocene where nature can no longer be separated from the human, multiple cultures and beliefs attempting to assert and preserve themselves in a pluralistic society that seeks to tolerate multiple truths while standing for nothing in itself, and grand narratives collapse into a sea of information overload. All of this is in large part a consequence of, and reaction to, the dark underbelly of the Enlightenment, including capitalism, colonialism, and the mechanistic paradigm. The issues of today cannot be properly addressed from within this paradigm, and require a new ontology, a new politics, and a new understanding of what it is to be human. The old models are obsolete, and a new one suited to the challenge has yet to emerge. In the meantime, the death throes of the old paradigm make for some interesting times indeed.

[ThirdTerm]

An eagerness to interpret technical artifacts in political language is by no means the exclusive property of critics of large-scale high-technology systems. A long lineage of boosters have insisted that the "biggest and best" that science and industry made available were the best guarantees of democracy, freedom, and social justice. The factory system, automobile, telephone, radio, television, the space program, and of course nuclear power itself have all at one time or another been described as democratizing, liberating forces. David Lilienthal, in T.V.A.: Democracy on the March, for example, found this promise in the phosphate fertilizers and electricity that technical progress was bringing to rural Americans during the 1940s.4

This MIT scientist published the original paper back in 1980 and this thesis was quite relevant during the Cold War. America was very keen on selling its technological prowess as the liberalising force and it was commonly believed that the West's technological advancement was closely associated with the democratic system, which promoted free thinking, contrary to the communist system in the Soviet Union that stifled innovations.

[Potemkin]

This MIT scientist published the original paper back in 1980 and this thesis was quite relevant during the Cold War. America was very keen on selling its technological prowess as the liberalising force and it was commonly believed that the West's technological advancement was closely associated with the democratic system, which promoted free thinking, contrary to the communist system in the Soviet Union that stifled innovations.

We can now see that the Soviet system was itself founded on Enlightenment thinking - hence its strong impulse towards centralisation, simplification and authoritarianism. Even the 'gigantism' of Stalinist architecture with its 'People's Palaces' was a direct heir of the French revolutionaries and their conviction that the authority of the state was not merely the symbol of but actually was the authority of the people. The Soviet regime actually pushed this Enlightenment thinking to its logical conclusion, often with absurd and self-contradictory results. As Dostoyevsky once said of the bourgeois revolutions of Europe - "it will begin with infinite freedom, but will end with infinite slavery". Dostoyevsky, because of his reactionary, mystical thinking, was highly attuned to the dark underbelly of Enlightenment thought, and it repulsed him. There is, in fact, a dialectical relationship between the 'good' side of Enlightenment thought and its dark underbelly - they are inextricably intertwined with each other, and as Lao Tzu put it, "reversion is the nature of the Dao". No matter how much we try to suppress the dark underbelly of the Enlightenment Project, it will tend to rise to the surface, and will eventually destroy it.

[Cookie Monster]

The point is not whether such a 'project' survives indefinitely or not - of course it can't. The point is that its achievements must be absorbed into human culture and human progress and then transcended in an endless process of Hegelian sublation. As it dies, it propels the human race into a higher level of development. The 'Greek miracle' is no more, but its legacy lives on. The same will probably be true of the Enlightenment Project.

You make it sound so sterile. History demonstrates that nothing lasts forever, but the question is whether the Enlightenment project really reached its end. If so, shouldn't there be cultural decay at a much faster rate/or collapse of greater scale than what is present? Because the only alternative to a cultural abyss seems to be postmodernism; which of itself doesn't offer any grand narrative, it only deconstructs but constructs nothing.

As Dostoyevsky once said of the bourgeois revolutions of Europe - "it will begin with infinite freedom, but will end with infinite slavery". Dostoyevsky, because of his reactionary, mystical thinking, was highly attuned to the dark underbelly of Enlightenment thought, and it repulsed him. There is, in fact, a dialectical relationship between the 'good' side of Enlightenment thought and its dark underbelly - they are inextricably intertwined with each other, and as Lao Tzu put it, "reversion is the nature of the Dao". No matter how much we try to suppress the dark underbelly of the Enlightenment Project, it will tend to rise to the surface, and will eventually destroy it.

But what is the source of that dark underbelly? Is it like a the natural yang to what the Enlightenment's yin? Or does it relate to our unconscious nature/instinct that cannot be overcome, whatever self-image or narrative we pursue consciously?