Comments on: History and Definition of Technology | John Dyer

By: John Dyer

John Dyer — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 16:46:51 +0000

Eric,
When I asked Stephen Monsma about the distinction he makes between technological tools, products, and activities, and here’s how he responded:

I myself would tend to see video-chatting as making use of a technological object (or product). On page 32, in discussing the non-neutrality of technology, we use nuclear bombs and can openers as examples of technological products that “impose on the user the way in which they are to be used.” Is this not also true of video-chatting? It is a form of communication, using certain technological products that impose certain [non-neutral] strictures on how they are used.

Your point about McLuhan’s limitation is very perceptive…

By: Eric E

Eric E — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 13:00:35 +0000

Both of you make good points I think. John, our conversation in the comments here is still applicable. I still maintain that the authors of Responsible Technology wouldn't consider "using a cell phone" to be a technological activity. The creating of a cell phone is a technological activity and the cell phone itself is a technological product but using the cell phone (to talk to somebody) is a social activity. "Practical purposes" in the RT definition refers to the fact that the products of technological activity are used FOR something. They added this part of the definition to distinguish technological products from works of art. Also curious what you guys think of "A Dolphin's Tale." I haven't seen the movie but in it the dolphin gets a prosthetic tale. Under my interpretation of RT, I don't see a problem. The making of the prosthetic is still a human activity and the practical purpose is making it easier for the dolphin to swim. McLuhan's definition would seem to fall short since a prosthetic dolphin tale isn't really an extension of ourselves.

By: Phil

Phil — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 03:27:27 +0000

Could it be that one of the reasons that technology is so hard to divide, classify, and label is that such “activities” are part of the problem? Language is a technological development. Worse, language is part of how we think. Ever since we developed language, our internal thoughts have been processed through language. So, how do we divide, classify, and label part of our internal thoughts in any real sense?

By: John Dyer

John Dyer — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:20:29 +0000

Great questions Chris. I thought this would be an easy chapter to write, but it proved to be one of the hardest (along with Approach).

My goal was to start by critiquing the narrow view of technology as “recent electronic stuff,” then transition to a wide, pervasive view of technology using Kline’s four layers, and then circle back to a more narrow definition that we avoids saying “everything is technology” or “technology == culture.” The problem is of course that culture, tools, art, technology, etc. don’t fit into neat and clean categories, so any attempt to delineate them runs into problems.

I think we can distinguish between a work of art and a tool, but it’s a gradual transition, not a neat division. To me the iPhone is tool with high aesthetics. It’s sort of “art,” but not in the same way as a Van Gogh painting or Dostoevsky novel. I also agree with you that communication technology, because it is tied to language, is really unique and deserves to be distinguished from bulldozers and stem-cell transplants. However, I also think that both phones and bulldozers can fit under the umbrella of “technology,” so I used a very wide sense of “transform” (i.e. enable something that’s not possible naturally) to link them together.

I wish it were possible to make a Venn diagram showing the overlap of “tools” “art” “technology” “language” “culture” etc. but I think even that would fail to take into account the complexity and interrelation of those massive concepts.

Maybe next time, you and I can co-write a chapter!