What Is Technology? An Anthropologist's View

What is technology? Some might say it is simply the application of science to practical tasks. But is that all it is?

Let's first examine the definitions of technology. Arnold Pacey, an anthropologist/author for the MIT Press, defines technology as the systematic application of scientific or other organized knowledge to practical tasks. What generally defines technology? Pacey identifies three aspects.

The first is the technical aspect, also referred to as the restricted aspect, which encompasses knowledge, skills, techniques, tools, resources, and more. The second is the cultural aspect, which includes goals, values, creativity, and ethical standards. The third is the organizational aspect, which involves economic and industrial activity, users, consumers, trade unions, and similar elements.

Pacey believes these three aspects subtly influence each other or collectively form a system known as "technology." Additionally, Pacey suggests that the uses of technology vary according to different cultures and human needs. Therefore, it is up to us to determine whether the use of technology is neutral, and whether it results in positive or negative impacts. For instance, nuclear energy can be utilized both constructively and destructively.

But is technology inherently neutral? This question invites us to explore the intricate relationship between our creations and the intentions behind them. Another author from the MIT Press offers a compelling counterpoint. Langdon Winner, a distinguished political philosopher, begins with a premise that echoes Pacey's insights. He argues that artifacts can be designed with specific political intentions. Since machines are human creations, they inevitably carry the fingerprints of their designers' motives, which can tilt towards a particular political agenda.

Winner's subsequent assertions take a bold departure from Pacey's stance and the prevalent notion of technology as a neutral tool. He provocatively claims that certain technologies are inherently political in a specific way. To illustrate this, he invokes the ship analogy from Plato's Republic. Large sailing vessels, by their very nature, demand strict control; sailors must adhere to the captain's commands. No rational person would argue that a ship can function democratically; thus, a sailing vessel is fundamentally authoritarian in its operational structure. Moreover, Winner delves deeper into the political implications of energy technologies. He posits that solar energy fosters democratic governance, as it can be managed by a decentralized authority, empowering communities and individuals alike. In stark contrast, nuclear energy plants, as complex technical entities, require a more centralized governance model, rendering them inherently more authoritarian. This distinction underscores the critical interplay between technology and political structure, challenging us to reconsider the neutrality of our technological advancements.

What I find most intriguing about Winner’s philosophy is this idea that technology is never just technology. Behind every technological advancement lies a deeper political structure, one that can quietly shape who holds power, how decisions are made, and ultimately how society is organized. It makes me wonder whether, as we rush toward new technologies like AI, we should be asking not only what they can do, but what kind of society they are pushing us toward.