Langdon Winner: Frankenstein s Problem and Technology as Legislation Langdon Winner Political theorist at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Best-known books: Autonomous Technology: Technics Out-of-Control as a Theme in Political Thought (1977); The Whale and the Reactor (1986) Past-President of the Society for Philosophy and Technology (SPT); member of many, many other organizations, both academic and activist In short: Mr. Technology Critic. 1
Frankenstein s Problem Notwithstanding the story that Hollywood has been selling for some 70+ years, the Frankenstein with the problem is not the monster, but the eponymous protagonist of Mary Shelley s novel (1818), Dr. Viktor Frankenstein the Modern Prometheus. Frankenstein dreams of power over nature. That such power is possible is his great personal discovery from reading the works of Bacon and Newton. In Descartes words, Frankenstein aims to become a master and possessor of nature. The Problem Frankenstein s problem is that, having acquired nature s secrets, he finds he has created a monster and turned it loose into the world without thinking about what will happen next. Having done so, his creature now appears to him as an autonomous force, with a structure of its own, with demands upon which it insists absolutely. Provided with no plan for its existence, the technological creation enforces a plan upon its creator. (313) 2
According to Winner, Frankenstein s problem has become a general problem for modern societies: We create technologies through the exercise of the highest virtues of humankind intelligence, inventiveness, curiosity and concern. But after a certain point the technological imperative takes on a life of its own. In our world, technologies are developed because they can be, because they are the next logical step in the development of those technologies to which we are already committed. (Recall, e.g., Ellul) Under such conditions, says Winner, our cultural orientation toward technology increasingly becomes one of pervasive ignorance and refusal to know. Technology as Legislation Winner contrasts two fundamental orientations towards technology: 1. The utilitarian/pluralist model, and 2. A more radical model (which goes unnamed) 3
I. The Utilitarian/Pluralist (U/P) Model The U/P model approaches ethics and technology as a matter of risk and safeguard, costs and benefits, distribution (317) Winner claims (plausibly, I d say) that this approach is the status quo, both in technology studies and in public policy Questions Posed on the U/P Model 1. What are the risks? Where risk is presumed to be something that can be measured objectively through standard scientific and engineering practices. 2. What are the costs? Where costs are typically interpreted according to orthodox economic analysis. I.e., Potential harms are interpreted as negative externalities that can be given a dollar value, as side effects that can be rectified by offering compensation. 3. How can the costs and risks be distributed fairly? Where this is typically a matter of normal partisan, adversarial political and judicial processes playing themselves out. 4
U/P Model: Virtues The U/P approach, in itself, is hardly a bad thing. Indeed, when it is absent or not yet fully achieved (in the developing world for example), disaster can result Winner encourages us put the U/P approach in context, however, insofar as it seems to lack the critical resources necessary to question technology in a genuinely radical way, to question the very fact of technology, not just the details of its implementation. In particular 5
U/P Model: Vices The belief that technology is controlled by people is rooted in the notion that at any time the whole thing could be taken apart and something better built in its place (329). But this, according to Winner, is no longer that case if indeed it ever was. In contemporary society, the only way in which technologies are changed is through adding more and more to the technological store and occasionally junking some parts. The U/P model accommodates itself to this situation it s (laissez-faire capitalist) business as usual. II. Winner s Second Approach Winner s second approach focuses on the undesirable effects of technology as legislation, effects that emerge from the way technology enters into and becomes part of human life and activity (320) So, if the components of the U/P model include normal scientific and political practices, what practices characterize Winner s second approach? 6
Humanist Psychology (Rollo May, et al.) Activist Counterculture Utopian and Communal Living Experiments Sensual Re-awakening and Encounter Groups The Peace Movement New Media Activism (in our day: Alt2600, the EFF, Adbusters) The Appropriate Technology movement A diverse list, (ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous, you might say, depending on your opinion of the 60s and 70s-era antiques included). In general, what Winner s second approach practices have in common is a focus on specific, practical ameliorative (and palliative) solutions for the human afflictions caused by technology. They are approaches, Winner says, to snapping out of technological somnambulism ( Forms of Life, 57), and of overcoming a sense of powerlessness in our relationship with technology. 7
Power/Powerlessness As Winner notes, specific technologies can end up shaping and controlling our behaviour, our lives as effectively as any law. E.g., Robert Moses; bridges along the Long Island Parkway Moses Yet, for the most part, new technologies typically are released into the world with practically no opportunity for democratic debate and legitimation Even those who consider themselves well served have cause to wonder at decisions, policies, and programs affecting them directly, over which they exercise no effective influence. In the normal state of affairs, one must simply join the consensus. One consents to a myriad of choices made, things built, procedures followed, services rendered, in much the same way that one consents to let eucalyptus trees continue growing in Australia (321-2) 8
Examples of Technology as Legislation Personal Communications Technologies: Voice mail, pagers, cell phones, PDAs, etc., make genuine solitude impossible for some people; blur the distinction between private and public life. The Automated Office : The mandate to constantly upgrade and to make the workplace more efficient puts many people in a situation where their skill set is quickly outdated. They then have to choose between an anxious, constantly disrupted work life in which they must constantly upgrade their skill set or...unemployment. Winner s Useful Proposals I. Encourage the search for new forms of technology Find new technics to circumvent the problems of the present Social and political considerations should be made part of the process of engineering and design 9
Winner s Useful Proposals II. Development should proceed through direct participation of those concerned Open the processes of planning, construction and control to those will experience the consequences Methods & Institutions: User groups, participatory design, open standards Winner s Useful Proposals III. Specific Principles for the Future Development of Technologies: 1. As a general maxim, technologies be given a scale and structure of the sort that would be immediately intelligible to others 2. That technologies be built with a high degree of flexibility and mutability 3. That technologies be judged according to the degree of dependency they tend to foster, those creating a greater dependency being held inferior 10
Winner s Useful Proposals IV. Return to an understanding of technology as a means, informed by a sense of what is appropriate. Modern society may depend upon (and foster) the illusion that technologies are simply morally neutral tools. That may be mistaken. At a minimum, things may not be so simple. But by consciously and publicly reflecting on what we want technology for we may be able actually to make it the case that technology is our servant rather than our master. 11