LIVING IN A TECHNOLOGICAL

CULTURE
Technology more than ever has become an established part of our everyday lives. Its
sophistication offers us power that can either dazzle or threaten us.
Living in a Technological Culture examines the relations between science, technology
and culture, introducing basic concepts in ethics and in the philosophy of science and
technology. Some of the issues raised include facts, values, efficiency, instrumental
rationality, pure and applied science, culture, politics and moral responsibility. Mary
Tiles and Hans Oberdiek reveal not only the embeddedness of technologies in cultures,
but also the distinctive ways in which modern technology is embedded in the cultures of
Western industrialized countries.
This book, by questioning our existing uses of technology, opens up the wider debate
on the shape of things to come. The authors argue that unless we address the questions
posed by technology, we will continue to use technology to do stupid things in clever
ways.
As an introduction to the philosophy of technology, Living in a Technological Culture
will be valuable to students, but in assuming no prior background in philosophy, it will
engage all mindful users of technology.
Mary Tiles is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Hawaii; she is the author of
various books including Bachelard: Science and Objectivity (1984); An Introduction to
Historical Epistemology with Jim Tiles (1993) and Mathematics and the Image of Reason
(1991), which is published by Routledge. Hans Oberdiek is Professor of Philosophy at
Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania.
PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES IN SCIENCE
Edited by W.H.Newton-Smith
Balliol College, Oxford

THE RATIONAL AND THE SOCIAL

James Robert Brown

THE NATURE OF DISEASE

Lawrie Reznek

THE PHILOSOPHICAL DEFENCE OF PSYCHIATRY

Lawrie Reznek

* INFERENCE TO THE BEST EXPLANATION

Peter Lipton

* TIME, SPACE AND PHILOSOPHY

Christopher Ray

MATHEMATICS AND THE IMAGE OF REASON

Mary Tiles

METAPHYSICS OF CONSCIOUSNESS
William Seager

* THE LABORATORY OF THE MIND

James Robert Brown

* COLOUR VISION
Evan Thompson

* Also available in paperback

LIVING IN A TECHNOLOGICAL
CULTURE
Human Tools and Human Values

Mary Tiles and Hans Oberdiek

London and New York

 First published 1995 by Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE
This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005.
“ To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of
thousands of eBooks please go to http://www.ebookstore.tandf.co.uk/.”
Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 29 West 35th Street, New York,
NY 10001
© 1995 Mary Tiles and Hans Oberdiek
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or
by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission
in writing from the publishers.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from
the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book has been
requested

ISBN 0-203-98092-1 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN 0-415-07100-3 (hbk)

ISBN 0-415-07101-1 (pbk)
MARY TILES to my Mother Mary B.Tollyfield

HANS OBERDIEK to my Son John Oberdiek

‘The acorn seldom falls far from the oak.’

 CONTENTS

Preface vii

INTRODUCTION: TECHNOLOGICAL CULTURE AND ITS PROBLEMS 1

1 CONFLICTING VISIONS OF TECHNOLOGY 9
2 FACTS, VALUES AND EFFICIENCY 23
3 SCIENCE, SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND THE AUTHORITY OF EXPERTS 45
4 FROM APPLIED SCIENCE TO TECHNO-SCIENCE 65
5 TECHNOLOGY, CULTURE AND POLITICS 84
6 PLANT BREEDING AND THE POLITICS OF HUNGER 104
7 WHO’S RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS MESS? 124
Notes 144
References 148
Index 153
 PREFACE

The book before you exemplifies its central themes. Because we live nearly half way
around the world from each other, the book would not have been written without the aid
of modern technology. And while computers, fax machines, and electronic mail made the
project possible, they imposed their own discipline. This is to say that the book would
have undoubtedly been different (if neither better nor worse) had its authors shared the
kind of daily face-to-face discussions joint authors often enjoy and we would have liked.
The project grew out of a jointly taught course on Philosophy and Technology at
Swarthmore College and subsequent discussions in Oxford, Reading and Swarthmore.
The ease of air travel brought us together to learn from each other yet has also kept us
apart, and so acts as a metaphor for the promise and frustrations of technology. Despite
the miles between us, the book is fully collaborative. While each of us had principal
responsibility for various chapters, each chapter was read and criticized often many times
by the other.
Decisions about the general shape of the book—what to include or exclude—proved
especially difficult. The reason is not far to seek. Until recently, technology was science’s
neglected stepchild. Science was originally done by ‘gentlemen’; technology was not. In
the academy, naturally enough, science was studied by another class of gentlemen:
professors. Philosophers were especially late in coming to technology, long after
historians and sociologists. The neat and deep division between science and technology
was supported by the assumption that technology is nothing but applied science. (It is odd
that no one ever thought that gourmet cooking is nothing but applied chemistry!) Few
now believe that this division or the assumptions on which it is based can withstand
scrutiny, for science depends on advances in technology as much as technology depends
on science. Still, many continue to write and act as if a bright line can be drawn between
science and technology. Not only is the line barely discernible, it is neither hard nor fast.
Technology offers rich terrain for philosophical reflection. As the centrality of
technology to our age becomes increasingly evident and studies of it acquire increasing
intellectual legitimacy, it is as if new continents await philosophical exploration. As with
all explorations, the explorers are likely to find themselves and their disciplinary culture
transformed by the process. Without changing our core theses, we might have written
several, substantially different books. Because our own explorations have been, of
necessity, limited, we have mapped only those features closest to our philosophical
shores that were most salient from our perspective; we simply gesture toward the vast
hinterland, some of which is already being explored by others. So our map—our book—
looks like those old maps of the New World which depict a bit of the Atlantic coastline
but then trail off in the direction from which the rivers seem to flow. Our hope is that
readers will be enticed to make their own journeys.
Many people contributed to the book before you. Each of us individually would like to
acknowledge our specific thanks.
Mary Tiles The jointly taught course which formed the basis of this project took place at
Swarthmore College in Fall 1988 and I am grateful to the Philosophy Department of
Swarthmore College for the visiting professorship that made my participation possible.
Since then I have, thanks to Professor Peter Manicas and the students of the Liberal
Studies Program, been able to create and teach a similar course at the University of
Hawaii at Manoa. Jim Tiles has, as always, been an invaluable source of supportive
criticism of draft material.
Hans Oberdiek I would be especially remiss if I did not acknowledge the enormous
contribution of Carl Barus, late professor of electrical engineering at Swarthmore
College, to my own interest and understanding of the philosophical implications implicit
in technology. Carl’s conviction that science, technology and values intertwine coupled
with his passion for intellectual honesty and social justice helped not only me, but
generations of engineering students at Swarthmore College, to see the importance of
humanizing a technological culture. It was Carl’s tenacity that helped create a course we
twice taught together and served as the forerunner for the course Mary Tiles and I taught.
I have also taken much from Hugh Lacey, whose concern for the way science embodies
values manifests itself throughout. Constance Cain Hungerford deserves thanks of a
different sort for her unfailing support and helpful comments on drafts of various
chapters. Finally, I would like to thank Swarthmore College for funding a sabbatical
leave in which to complete the manuscript.
 INTRODUCTION Technological culture and
its problems

That humans have been designated Homo faber (man the maker, tool user) rather than
Homo sapiens (man the wise, thinker) indicates the centrality of technology in the life of
even those primitive communities which we classify on the basis of their stage of
technological development—stone age, bronze age, iron age. But as the Prometheus myth
reminds us, fire and the metal-based technology it confers, although essential to the
development of human civilizations, was surrounded by ambivalent attitudes: it promises
to confer god-like powers of control over nature, but it is not clear that mere mortals are
sufficiently god-like to be able to wield this (stolen) power wisely. It is a power which
can be used to destroy as well as to create: medicines developed to restore health become
poisons when used negligently or maliciously; presses invented to enlighten are used for
propaganda; and computers which extend our knowledge exponentially can invade our
privacy in ways unthinkable only a short time ago. Even the most benevolent technology
carries with it the potential for harm; implicit in every ploughshare there is a sword.
Since World War II the pace of technological development has increased dramatically,
trailing in its wake problems of which our grandparents did not even dream. Waste
disposal has always presented problems for settled human communities, but none
remotely comparable to those presented by nuclear waste disposal, which, if not carried
out properly, could contaminate portions of the earth virtually forever. But what are the
proper methods of disposal? Here a public consensus is strikingly lacking. Genetic
engineering opens up the possibility of manipulating hereditary material in such a way
that species, including our own, can be significantly altered. Do we know enough about
the development of organisms or about ecological balances to pursue this possibility
prudently? Even granting that we have sufficient knowledge, should experiments of this
kind be allowed, and on what species? Should experimentation on human genetic
material be allowed? Computers have altered so extensively the way information is
collected, interpreted and disseminated that it is appropriate to speak of an information
revolution. Much of this development was prompted and funded by military interests.
That generals have the latest computer-generated information seems desirable; that
‘decisions’ to launch nuclear missiles may be made by computers rather than people,
because people cannot respond quickly enough to (possible) enemy attacks, engenders
terror and a feeling of helplessness.
Developments in First World countries generating dilemmas such as these have
accentuated the divide between developed and developing nations. Can this gap be
narrowed by a transfer of technology from developed to developing nations, and if so
should developed nations give aid in this form? Not to do so may retard development to
such an extent that the lives of hundreds of millions of people will remain materially and
spiritually impoverished. Yet technology which may make perfect sense in a developed
nation can be inappropriate when transferred to a developing nation. The use of chemical
 Living in a technological culture 2

pesticides can bring benefits, but is also hazardous. Peasant farmers, unused to handling
such substances, may cause serious damage to themselves and the environment. The
emergence of resistant pests means that increased crop yields are frequently sustainable
only by increased dosage or use of new types of pesticide, which have to be purchased
using scarce foreign exchange. In transferring its technology a donor nation inevitably
transfers its own ways of thinking and doing, its own institutions and values. These
interact profoundly but unpredictably with the ways of life of the recipient nation.
The course of technological development in First World countries reflects their
dominant values and institutions, their ways of thinking and doing. The results of science
and technology are familiar enough, and can mesmerize us. But they are the results and
embodiments of human problem solving practices, results which in turn shape the lives of
people employing them. (Pesticides are a response to crop destruction. To be used
effectively and safely, however, farmers must take all sorts of precautions, study crop
development and carefully determine time and rate of applications. To do so with modern
pesticides they must be numerate and literate.) As practices, science and technology
involve presuppositions, the acquisition of skills, norms of behaviour, and value
commitments. Any practice will initially present itself to initiates as ‘objective’ in that it
will exist as an ongoing concern in which they must learn to participate and whose rules
must be learnt much in the way that the language and manners of one’s society are learnt.
Usually a practice is simply accepted as it is; its underlying assumptions and values are
absorbed without ever being made explicit, unless or until it faces troubling internal
problems, such as those posed by the rapid development of technology. Internal problems
are characterized by their seeming intractability; one finds oneself baffled, confused, torn
between opposing intuitions.
It is here that philosophical reflection may be able to make a contribution to the
discussion of issues which have drawn the thoughtful attention of reflective scientists,
engineers and policy makers. This contribution cannot take the form of answering or
solving the problems, since that is beyond the scope of any single discipline or any purely
reflective process. Philosophical reflection may, however, hope to render a practice
intelligible to those involved in it by not only revealing the sources and tracing the
development of what seems troubling, but also by seeking to understand how the practice
itself, as something humanly devised, is capable of alteration, amendment or
reinforcement. In short, one may see how to rethink and thereby begin to restructure a
practice so that what troubles, bothers, perplexes and sometimes torments need not arise
in so acute a form. And even if restructuring cannot be done all at once now (as surely it
never can), at least one understands more clearly why things are as they are and what
directions might be explored in making the practice accord better with what our
understanding of it requires.
Yet philosophy has a long tradition of ignoring technology; that is, of treating it as
something not within the range of its reflective gaze. Is this not puzzling? How could
technology and its problems be invisible to philosophical reflection in the industrializing
and industrialized Europe and North America of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries?
Why has it been so difficult for the relatively new philosophical subdiscipline labelled
‘philosophy of technology’ to establish itself? To see why this has been so may already
be to make a contribution to understanding something about the interlocking of our
technological practices with our deeply held cultural assumptions.
 Introduction 3

In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries industrialization and unprecedented

technological innovation were accompanied by the professionalization of science and its
assumption of a progressively increased public role. This growth of science and of its
influence was paralleled by the emergence of a strong tradition in the philosophy of
science, whereas the corresponding technological innovations did not generate a
philosophy of technology, even though technology figures more prominently and often
more problematically in the lives of most people than does pure research science. But
then most people, including such shapers of public opinion as politicians and journalists,
do not draw the clear distinction between science and technology that philosophers and
scientists themselves have insisted upon. Scientists and philosophers of science have
insisted that science is concerned with acquisition of the most accurate knowledge
possible of the natural world, and that scientific research is pursued to this end without
concern for, or regard to, any application this knowledge may or may not have.
Politicians and industrialists, on the other hand, seem to view science primarily as a
means of access to new technologies. Recently many governments have set up science
policy units with the aim of trying to determine what scientific and technological research
should be funded in order to keep up with, and hopefully steal a march on, industrial and
military competitors. New ‘advanced’ technology is seen as the key to industrial
competitiveness and military supremacy and hence to national prosperity and security.
Philosophy of science has mostly concerned itself with the nature of scientific
knowledge, the kinds of rational justification that can be afforded for scientific claims,
criteria for making choices between competing theories and the mechanisms of scientific
change (or progress). With increased public interest in the development of technology it
was not unnatural that philosophers of science should think of extending their domain of
enquiry to include technology And since at least some philosophers of science have
suggested that there are methods by which scientific progress can be secured, this kind of
research has been given encouragement in the form of financial support by those with an
interest in determining what are the methods by which technological advances can be
made. Could a philosophy of technology yield the kind of theoretical understanding of
the processes of technological change which could be used to provide a rational basis for
policy decisions aimed at securing technological dominance? To believe so would be to
continue, in modern guise, the age old pursuit of the philosopher’s stone—a recipe for
securing knowledge, wealth and power.
What these ways of looking at science rest on is an implicit view of technology, an
unreflective ‘philosophy’ of technology, according to which technology is simply applied
science. And if sophisticated technology is the product of applying scientific knowledge
in practical, problem solving contexts, then surely technological advance depends on and
will automatically flow from scientific research. Hence many research scientists have
supported the case for continued funding for fundamental scientific research by arguing
that without this research new technologies will not be forthcoming, even though
technological development is not the aim of the research, and the argument has frequently
been accepted, with generous government and company funding for fundamental
scientific research being based on this premise. But as budgets get tight and fundamental
scientific research and development gets more expensive, questions are being asked about
the effectiveness of such a strategy. And as research funding is increasingly linked to
technological dividends, questions are also being asked about the ‘purity’ of pure
 Living in a technological culture 4

research. Hence we find that in current debates the concepts both of science and of
technology are highly contested. We shall return to the concept of science in Chapter 3,
but here let us give a preliminary indication of why the equation of technology with
applied science must both be questioned and taken seriously.

WHAT IS TECHNOLOGY?

Many histories of technology are histories of the stages of development of tools (such as
the plough), of machines (such as the steam engine), of structures (such as bridges) or of
instruments (such as the microscope). Here technology is being equated with material
devices designed and manufactured to make existing human activities easier or to make
possible activities which people have dreamt of engaging in, but to which they are not
biologically adapted (flying, swimming under water, looking at minute objects).
Technological devices are designed to perform some function. They thus embody
practical and also, often, theoretical knowledge together with creative problem solving.
Simple lever and pulley systems make it possible to move and lift heavy weights (the
blocks of stone used in building the pyramids). By working out the theory behind these
(found already in the works of Archimedes) it is possible to design maximally efficient
systems. The creative practical challenge is then to find suitable materials (strong enough
levers and ropes), to get pulleys to run freely, and so on. From this point of view
advanced electronic technology is not different in kind from a stone-hammered flint
arrowhead; modern technological devices may be more complex and be put to more
sophisticated uses, but there is no real basis for regarding the former, but not the latter, as
part of a technological culture. Any tool using culture will be ‘technological’ in the sense
of having its own characteristic technology.
Such historical studies suggest that there is no consistent pattern to the relation
between technological development and scientific progress (for further discussion see, for
example, Volti, 1992, pp. 56–7, Gibbons, 1984, Webster, 1991, Mowery and Rosenberg,
1989). Although some technologies have arisen out of fundamental scientific work,
many, particularly those in earlier historical periods, did not. Even in those cases where
the path from pure theory to practical outcome was most direct, as in the case of the
development of the atomic bomb in the Manhattan Project, much more than pure science
was involved (Gowing and Arnold, 1979). In other cases, such as the steam engine,
widespread adoption of a new technology preceded and seems to have spurred scientific
research in the direction of developing the theory of thermodynamics (Kuhn, 1959,
Musson and Robinson, 1969, Ch.XII). So even in this narrow sense of technology, the
idea that it is just applied science is hard to sustain. It might, however, be possible to
argue that since technological devices embody technical discoveries and increased
technical know-how, it might be possible to develop a methodology for the progressive
acquisition of this kind of technical knowledge. But such a methodology would not be an
adequate base for technology development policy. The mere ability to construct a device
on a one-off basis, its invention, does not ensure the feasibility of its future manufacture
or its widespread adoption. The Alexandrian Greeks discovered steam power in the sense
that they used it in creating moving statues of the gods, self-opening temple doors, etc.,
but they never developed a steam technology. Various people prior to the twentieth
 Introduction 5

century built mechanical calculators and reasoning machines, but they were never
anything more than ‘curiosities’.
A first broadening of the term ‘technology’ would be to include ‘techniques’. Any tool
or machine has itself to be manufactured and then put to use. Early steam engines, such
as Stevenson’s Rocket, were individually built by craftsmen. In the absence of
established standard techniques, engineers developed their own, modifying and learning
from the experience of others. The history of the develop-ment of engineering production
techniques, including things like welding, improvements in the quality of steel, accurate
machining of parts (such as pistons), is an integral part of the history of the development
of the steam engine. More efficient and more widely used engines presuppose the
development of techniques for building them successfully in large numbers.
The steam engine also provides a striking example of the way in which tracing the
development of steam technology, as a culturally significant phenomenon, requires that
one look beyond the basic devices to the techniques for using them. The very earliest
steam engines were stationary beam engines used for pumping water out of mines. These
were enormous machines. The use of steam to power a locomotive required the
production of very much smaller, lighter engines. This development again occurred
within the mining context, where horse-drawn carts running on metal or wooden rails
were already used for transporting ore, coal and slag. For steam engines to gain a use
outside the mining context ways of using them for transport had to be developed
(railways, steamships); a whole new set of techniques and practices had to arise bringing
profound social, economic and industrial changes with them. Steam engines could come
to be widely used only once they could be manufactured in sufficiently large numbers
and at a price which would make investment in them attractive. This in turn required the
development of standardized production techniques. In this respect steam differed
significantly from water or wind as a power source. Windmills and waterwheels and their
accompanying gearing, belts and drives could usually be locally manufactured by skilled
carpenters and blacksmiths who also had the necessary practical, mechanical knowledge.
The tolerance on the uniformity and accuracy of parts was large. Steam is a much more
demanding power source. The results of a boiler explosion are dramatic and catastrophic,
pistons must be able to move freely in the cylinders without allowing significant amounts
of steam to escape, replacement parts must be available. Here the technology starts to
impose standards of accuracy, quality and standardization in engineering production.
Thus the development and use of steam technology both presupposed other economic and
industrial developments and in its turn imposed forms of organization and made demands
upon industrial and social organization.
Under ‘techniques’ one thus has to include the whole complex of ways of doing and
making in which a technological device has a place. A plough plays a role in an
agricultural system. Different kinds of plough may be best suited to the demands of
different kinds of system, which in turn depend on soil conditions, terrain, crops grown
and size of farms and fields. Equally the introduction of a new kind of plough makes new
kinds of agricultural practices possible. Grain farming on the scale practised on the plains
of the American mid-west is practicable only with the introduction of large tractors
pulling multi-furrow ploughs, yet such machinery would be of no use to a hill farmer in
North Wales. Because the modern plough disturbs the earth much more than older ways
of planting, soil erosion and soil depletion become greater problems. Again, in a country
 Living in a technological culture 6

with no roads, a motor car is useless for transportation. Where it had not been the custom
to transport goods using wheeled vehicles, such as carts and carriages, the motor car
would not have been developed as a way of facilitating an already existing activity. It
might be introduced to such a country, from outside, making possible a form of transport
which had not been used before, but only if accompanied by a massive road building
programme. Its introduction would then necessarily entail changes in the way of life of
the country concerned.
Thus an understanding and appreciation of technological devices, as devices designed
to perform a function, requires a knowledge of the background practices and techniques
in which it has or had a role. It cannot be derived simply from looking to see how science
was applied to solve a practical problem. It is quite clear that technology choices are
never made by determining, in a narrowly technical sense of ‘best’, which device best
performs the task in question. The ‘best’ chosen is relative to all sorts of constraints other
than those of performing a certain technical task as well as possible. This is another way
of saying that the problems technology is introduced to solve are never purely technical
problems. Technologies, to be widely adopted, have to be mass manufactured, marketed,
purchased and used successfully. The extra constraints thus derive from the contexts in
which the device is to be manufactured, purchased and used. Many of these have to do
with material infrastructure and existing practices, which of course vary from one country
to another and have both technical and social aspects. This means that technological
change, in the sense of change in widely adopted technology, whether military or civilian,
cannot be understood by looking simply at technical problem solving and its methods,
those practical-cognitive contexts of engineering research and development which are
most closely analogous to theoretical science. Instead it requires understanding of the
complex economic, political, socio-cultural and infrastructural contexts of technological
decision making (see for example Mowery and Rosenberg, 1989, Ch. 11).
However, even when our conception of technology is broadened to include associated
techniques, it does not yield an understanding of technology which would entitle us to
think of the culture of developed countries in the twentieth century as specifically
‘technological’, i.e. in a way which would distinguish them from the cultures of medieval
Europe or Ancient Egypt. Yet we are frequently said to live in a technological age. What
does this mean? What further is embodied in this conception of technology? What does it
mean to live in a ‘technological culture’?
Here the discussion of steam technology can perhaps give us some initial clues. We
have already noted that the production of steam engines begins to impose demands of
standardization, accuracy and quality control in construction and in the supply of
component materials and parts. This in turn entails a degree of industrial systematization
and organization not required by the use of water or wind power. In addition, the use of
steam power involves an ongoing cost after the initial installation; unlike water or wind
steam had to be generated from coal (or wood) which has to be paid for. There is thus a
pressing economic incentive to improve the efficiency of steam engines. It was in this
context that a much more exact study of steam engines, their characteristics and the
determinants of their efficiency was undertaken and the theoretical aspects of engineering
design started to come more into play. The technology became an object of scientific
study and theoretical results were applied in the design of new engines. The knowledge
required by an engineer is now more than practical know-how; it increasingly comes to
 Introduction 7

involve a theoretical, scientific component. That is to say, a technology which was not
originally an instance of applied science becomes one to which science is applied. It is in
the nineteenth century that science and technology really start to come together in the
way in which Francis Bacon had dreamt of at the end of the sixteenth. It is here perhaps,
with the emergence of theoretically directed practices, that we might look for an attitude
or approach which could be said to be technological in a sense which does not find
application in earlier cultures. As a provisional conjecture we might say that the move
towards a situation in which technology (including techniques) is applied science is what
has created a ‘technological culture’ and is what perhaps differentiates it from previous
cultures.
In other words, technological culture is a product of, and continues to embody, a
vision of what constitutes human progress, one in which the equation of technology with
applied science plays an important role. (The desire for a science/technology policy
founded on a rational methodology would itself be a manifestation of this vision.) As
Woolgar (1989, p. 312) remarked, discussions of technology are the reverse side of the
coin to debates about human nature. Recognition of this connection between human
ideals and technology, which goes via the conception of progress through technology, can
help us understand why the definitions of science, technology and their interrelation
should be highly sensitive. To contest them is to contest presuppositions deeply
embedded in modern cultural ideals. Moreover, modern philosophy both helped to shape
and has in turn been shaped by those ideals, hence its inability to ‘see’ technology as
anything other than applied science. Consequently there are no neutral positions, for no
definition of such sensitive central terms can be philosophically neutral. For the
increasing number of people who, like ourselves, wish to discuss and understand
technology, to start from a definition of technology would be premature, since our
enquiry is directed towards acquiring a better understanding of its actual significance in
our culture. Such an enquiry may, in itself, be interpreted as a challenge to dominant
philosophical and cultural ideologies, in that it suggests that they be subjected to critical
scrutiny. There is no way to sit on the fence. For even if we do not presuppose a precise
definition of technology, we do need to give a preliminary demarcation of the domain
with which we will be concerned, and this will already require us to make some
commitments. Exactly what these commitments are will become clearer as the
investigation progresses.
We will take it that technologies are ways of doing and making which are both
affected by and affect ways of thinking. Thus when considering any technology one
would minimally expect to consider technological devices (artefacts), techniques for their
production and use, the relative roles played in each of these by technical and manual
skills, practical knowledge (know-how) and theoretical knowledge. In addition, we would
suggest that one cannot grasp the significance of any complex technological device, such
as a hydroelectric generator or a nuclear reactor, without understanding its history,
complex support system, social meaning and political implications. Just as a satisfactory
understanding of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel cannot be confined to a mineral and
chemical analysis of the paint used, even if supplemented by attention to Michelangelo’s
tools and state of mind, so the great bridges of the world cannot be satisfactorily
understood without tracing their connections with the Industrial Revolution, the self-
confident, explorative urge prevalent in the nineteenth century, the expanding needs of a
 Living in a technological culture 8

youthful, vigorous capitalism, and the moral and political commitment to universalism
over parochialism.
Thus, clearly we have rejected the simple equation of technology with applied science,
but at the same time we must acknowledge the technological significance of this
conception of technology, since it has been part of the context of technological
development in the twentieth century in particular. Therefore we shall have to take time
(in Chapter 3) to consider in more detail the relations between pure science, applied
science and technology. Before doing so, however, we need to probe more deeply into
our ambivalent attitudes towards technology
 REFERENCES

Adams, J., 1981, Transport Planning: Vision and Practice, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Albury, David, and Schwartz, Joseph, 1982, Partial Progress, London: Pluto Press.
Aristotle Protreptikos, Politics and Physics, in Jonathan Barnes (ed.) The Complete Works of
Aristotle, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984.
Ayer, A.J., 1948, Language, Truth and Logic, London: Victor Gollancz.
Bachelard, Gaston 1978, Le nouvel esprit scientifique 14th edition, Paris: Presses Universitaires de
France. Originally published Paris: Alcan, 1934. English edition The New Scientific Spirit, trans.
Arthur Goldhammer, Boston: Beacon Press, 1984.
Bacon, Francis, 1620, Novum Organum, English edition The New Organon, Fulton Anderson (ed.),
from the translation of Ellis and Spedding, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1960.
——1627, New Atlantis, London. Modern edition The Advancement of Learning and the New
Atlantis, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1906.
——1964, ‘Thoughts and Conclusions’, in Benjamin Farrington (ed.) The Philosophy of Francis
Bacon, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Berlin, Isaiah, 1981, ‘The Divorce between the Sciences and the Humanities’, in his Against the
Current, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Berman, Morris, 1978, Social Change and Scientific Organization: The Royal Institution 1799–
1844, London: Heinemann Educational Books.
Bernard, Claude, 1984, Introduction a l’étude de la médicine expérimentale, written in 1865 but not
published until 1947. Edition quoted, Paris: Flammarion.
Bhaskar, Roy, 1975, A Realist Theory of Science, Leeds, UK: Leeds Books Ltd and Hassocks,
Sussex: Harvester Press and Atlantic Highland, NJ: Humanities Press, 1978.
Billington, David P., 1983, The Tower and the Bridge: the New Art of Structural Engineering,
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Borgmann, Albert, 1984, Technology and the Character of Modern Life, Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Bray, Francesca, 1986, The Rice Economies: Technology and Development in Asian Societies,
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Brown, Lester R., 1994, ‘Feeding China’, World Watch, September/October 1994, Washington,
DC: World Watch Institute, pp. 10–19.
Bush, Corlann Gee, 1983, ‘Women and the Assessment of Technology’, in Joan Rothschild (ed.)
Machina Ex Dea, New York: Pergamon Press.
Bush, Vannevar, 1946, Endless Horizons, Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press.
Butler, Bishop Joseph, 1736, The Analogy of Religion, Modern edition, New York: Unger, 1961.
Cartwright, Frederick F., and Biddiss, Michael D., 1972, Disease and History, New York: Dorset
Press.
Cobbett, William, 1845, The English Gardener, London: A.Cobbett.
Cunningham, Andrew, and Williams, Perry, 1993, ‘“Decentring the Big Picture”: The Origins of
Modern Science and the Modern Origins of Science’, British Journal for the History of Science,
pp. 407–32.
Curd, Martin, and May, Larry, 1984, Professional Responsibility for Harmful Actions, Dubuque,
IA: Kendel/Hunt.
 References 149

Davis, Gregory H., 1981, Technology—Humanism or Nihilism: A Critical Analysis of the

Philosophical Bias and Practice of Modern Technology, New York: University Press of
America.
Davy, Humphry, 1839, John Davy (ed.) The Collected Works of Sir Humphry Davy, Bart., 9 vols,
London: Smith and Elder.
de Boef, Walter, Amanor, Kojo, and Wellard, Kate (eds), 1993, Introduction to Cultivating
Knowledge: Genetic diversity, farmer experimentation and crop research, London: Intermediate
Technology Publications.
De George, Richard, 1981, ‘Ethical Responsibility of Engineers in Large Corporations: The Pinto
Case’, Business and Profession Ethics Journal 1, (1) pp. 1–14.
Dickinson, David, 1974, The Politics of Alternative Technology, New York: Universe Books.
Donagan, Alan, 1977, The Theory of Morality, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Eddy, Paul, Potter, Elaine, and Page, Bruce, 1976, Destination Disaster, New York: The New York
Times Book Company.
Ellul, Jacques, 1964, The Technological Society, trans. John Wilkinson, New York: Knopf.
——1983, ‘The Technological Order’, in Carl Mitcham and Robert Mackey (eds), Philosophy and
Technology: Readings in Philosophical Problems of Technology, New York: The Free Press.
Reprinted from Carl F.Stover (ed.) 1963, The Technological Order, Detroit: Wayne State
University Press.
Evans, Hughes, 1993, ‘The Introduction of Blood Pressure Instruments into Medicine’, Technology
and Culture, pp. 784–807.
Faiz, Asif, et al., 1990, ‘Automotive Air Pollution Issues and Options for Developing Countries’,
Washington, DC: World Bank.
Farey, John, 1827, A Treatise on the Steam Engine: Historical, Practical and Descriptive, London:
Rees, Orme, Brown Green. (Modern edition, Davis & Charles reprints, 1971.)
Feenburg, Andram, 1991, Critical Theory of Technology, New York: Oxford University Press.
Ferguson, Eugene S., 1992, Engineering and the Mind’s Eye, Cambridge, MA, and London: MIT
Press.
Fitzgerald, Deborah, 1993, ‘Farmers Deskilled: Hybrid Corn and Farmers’ Work’, Technology and
Culture, pp. 324–43.
Freund, Peter E.S., and Martin, George, 1994, The Ecology of the Automobile, Montreal and New
York: Black Rose Books.
Geertz, Clifford, 1973, Interpretation of Cultures, New York: Basic Books.
Gibbons, M., 1984, ‘Is Science Industrially Relevant? The interaction between science and
technology’, in Michael Gibbons and Philip Gummett (eds) Science, Technology and Society,
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Glas, Eduard, 1993, ‘Mathematical Progress: Between Reason and Society’, Journal for General
Philosophy of Science 24, pp. 235–56.
Goldhaber, Michael, 1986, Reinventing Technology: Politics for Democratic Values, London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Goonatilake, Susantha, 1984, Aborted Discovery, London: Zed Books.
Gordon, J.E., 1968, The New Science of Strong Materials, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Gowing, Margaret, and Arnold, Loma, 1979, The Atomic Bomb, London: Butterworths,
Grandy, Richard, 1992, ‘Theories of Theories: A View from Cognitive Science’, in John Earman
(ed.) Inference, Explanation and other Frustrations: Essays in the Philosophy of Science,
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Hacking, Ian, 1983, Representing and Intervening: Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural
science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hart, H.L.A., 1968, Punishment and Responsibility, New York: Oxford University Press.
Hesseltine, Clifford W., 1992, ‘Mixed-Culture Fermentations’, in Applications of Biotechnology to
Traditional Fermented Foods: report of an ad hoc panel of the Board on Science and
Technology for International Development, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
 References 150

Hillman, Mayer, Adams, John, and Whitelegg, John, 1990, One False Move—A Study of Children’s
Independent Mobility, London: Policy Studies Institute.
Hilts, Philip, 1991, ‘California to Test Children for Lead Poisoning’, New York Times, 12 October.
Hochschild, Arlie R., 1989, The Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution at Home, New
York: Viking Press.
Howard, Robert, 1985, Brave New Workplace, New York: Viking Press.
Hugh of Saint Victor, 1961, trans. Jerome Taylor, The Didascalion of Hugh of Saint Victor, (c.
1127), New York: Columbia University Press.
Kelly, A., 1986, ‘The New Materials’, Science and Public Affairs No. 1, London: Royal Society.
Kloppenburg, Jack Ralph Jr, 1988, First The Seed, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kovel, Joel, 1983, Against the State of Nuclear Terror, London: Free Association Books.
Kramarae, C. (ed.), 1988, Technology and Women’s Voices: Keeping in Touch, London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul.
Kuhn, Thomas S., 1959, ‘Energy Conservation as an Example of Simultaneous Discovery’, in
Marshal Claggett (ed.) Critical Problems in the History of Science, Madison, WI: University of
Wisconsin Press. Reprinted in Kuhn, Thomas S., 1977, The Essential Tension, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Lacey, Hugh, and Schwartz, Barry, forthcoming 1995, ‘The Formation and Transformation of
Values’, in R.Kitchener and W.O’Donohue (eds) Psychology and Philosophy: Interdisciplinary
Problems and Responses, New York: Allyn & Bacon.
Lachterman, David, 1989, The Ethics of Geometry, New York: Routledge.
Lappé, Frances, and Collins, Joseph, 1978, Food First: Beyond the Myth of Scarcity, New York:
Balantine Books.
Latour, Bruno, 1987, Science in Action, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
——and Woolgar, Steve, 1979, Laboratory life: the social construction of scientific facts, Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Lewis, P.M. and Booth, J., 1989, The Invisible Medium, London: Macmillan.
Lipton, Michael (with Richard Longhurst), 1989, New Seeds and Poor People, London: Unwin
Hyman.
Lowe, Marcia D., 1990, Alternatives to the Automobile: Transport for Livable Cities, Washington,
DC: World Watch Institute, Paper No. 98.
Lucas, J.R., 1986, ‘Dubious Doubts’, in M.C.Doeser and J.N.Kray (eds) Facts and Values,
Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.
MacIntyre, Alasdair, 1984, After Virtue, 2nd edition, Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University
Press.
Marx, Karl, and Engels, Frederick, 1970, The German Ideology, (ed.) C.J. Arthur, London:
Lawrence & Wishart.
Mayr, Otto, 1986, Authority, Liberty and Automatic Machinery in Early Modern Europe,
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Meadows, Donella, 1994, ‘Daly Medicine’, The Amicus Journal, New York: Natural Resources
Defense Council, p. 11.
Mencken, H.L., 1920, ‘Sententiae’, in his A Book of Burlesques, New York: Knopf.
Meral, Gerald H., 1990, ‘Back on Track: Trains in California’s Future’, pp. 94–100 in Robert
L.Dean, (ed.) The Alternatives to Gridlock: Perspectives on Meeting California’s
Transportation Needs, Sacramento, CA: California Institute of Public Affairs.
Mesthene, Emmanuel, G., 1967, Technology and Social Change, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Selection reprinted in Carl Mitcham and Robert Mackey (eds), 1983, Philosophy and
Technology: Readings in Philosophical Problems of Technology, New York: The Free Press.
Midgley, Mary, 1978, Beast and Man, London: Methuen.
Mitcham, Carl, and Mackey, Robert (eds), 1983, Philosophy and Technology: Readings in
Philosophical Problems of Technology, New York: The Free Press.
 References 151

Mowery, David C., and Rosenberg, Nathan, 1989, Technology and the Pursuit of Economic
Growth, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Musson, A.E., and Robinson, Eric, 1969, Science Society and Technology in the Industrial
Revolution, London: Curtis Brown, New York: Gordon & Breach.
Nerlich, Graham, 1989, Values and Valuing: Speculations on the Ethical Life of Persons, Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Newton, Isaac, 1686, Principia, Modern edition Sir Isaac Newton’s Mathematical Principles of
Natural Philosophy and his System of the World, Andrew Motte’s 1729 translation, revised by
Florian Cajori, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1934.
——1730, Opticks, 4th edition. Modern edition Opticks or A Treatise of the Reflections, Inflections
and Colours of Light, New York: Dover, 1952.
Newton-Smith, William, 1984, ‘The Role of Interests in Science’, in A. Phillips Griffiths (ed.)
Philosophy and Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Noble, David F., 1992, A World Without Women: the Christian Clerical Culture of Western
Science, New York: Oxford University Press.
Opole, Monica, 1993, ‘Revalidating Women’s Knowledge on Indigenous Vegetables: Implications
for policy’, in Walter de Boef, et al. (eds) Cultivating Knowledge: Genetic diversity, farmer
experimentation and crop research, London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Ovitt, George Jr, 1987, The Restoration of Perfection: Labor and Technology in Medieval Culture,
New Brunswick, NJ, and London: Rutgers University Press.
Palladino, Paolo, 1993, ‘Between Craft and Science: Plant Breeding, Mendelian Genetics and
British Universities, 1900–1920’, Technology and Culture, pp. 300–23.
Parayil, Govindan, 1992, ‘The Green Revolution in India: A Case Study of Technological Change’,
Technology and Culture, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 737–56.
Pickstone, John V., 1993, ‘Ways of Knowing: toward a historical sociology of science, technology
and medicine’, British Journal for the History of Science, pp. 433–58.
Polyani, Michael, 1955, ‘Pure and Applied Science and their Appropriate Forms of Organisation’,
in Science and Freedom: the proceeding of a conference convened by the Congress for Cultural
Freedom and held in Hamburg on July 23rd.-26th. 1953, London: Secker & Warburg.
Popper, Karl, 1959, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, London: Hutchinson.
Renner, Michael, 1988, Rethinking the Role of the Automobile, Washington, DC: World Watch
Institute, p. 16.
Robins, Kevin, and Webster, Frank, 1988, ‘Athens without Slaves…or Slaves without Athens’, in
Science as Culture, No. 3, pp. 7–53.
Rotblat, Joseph, 1986, ‘Leaving the Bomb Project’, in Len Auckland and Stephen McGuire (eds)
Assessing the Nuclear Age: selections from the bulletin of the atomic scientists, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Schrödinger, E., 1952, ‘Are there Quantum Jumps?’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science
III.
Sen, Amartya, 1989, Poverty and Famine, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Shiva, Vandana, 1991, The Violence of the Green Revolution, London: Zed Books.
Sinclair, Sir Clive, 1983, Advertisement in Observer, 22 May, quoted in Kevin Robins and Frank
Webster, 1988, ‘Athens without Slaves…or Slaves without Athens’, in Science as Culture, No.
3, pp. 7–53.
Smith, John E., 1980, ‘Science and Conscience’, American Scientist, Vol. 68.
Snell, B., 1974, ‘Report on American Ground Transport’, Senate Judicial Committee, 26 February.
Snow, C.P., 1961, ‘The Moral Un-Neutrality of Science’, Science, 27 January, Vol. 133, No. 3448.
——1964, Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution, 2nd edition, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Stamp, Patricia, 1989, Technology, Gender and Power in Africa, Ottawa: International
Development Research Centre.
Stover, Carl F. (ed.), 1963, The Technological Order, Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
 References 152

Street, John, 1992, Politics and Technology, New York: The Guildford Press.
Volti, Rudi, 1992, Society and Technological Change, 2nd edition, New York: St Martin’s Press.
Wajcman, Judy, 1993, Feminism Confronts Technology, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Webster, Andrew, 1991, Science, Technology and Society, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University
Press and London: Macmillan Education.
Weinberg, Alvin M., 1972, ‘Social Institutions and Nuclear Energy’, Science, Vol. 177, July, p. 34.
Williams, Bernard, 1984, ‘Morality, Scepticism and the Nuclear Arms Race’, in Nigel Blake and
Kay Pole (eds) Objections to Nuclear Defence, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Winner, Langdon, 1977, Autonomous Technology: Technics-out-of-control as a Theme in Political
Thought, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
——1980, ‘Do Artefacts Have Politics?’, Daedalus, Z1, Winter, pp. 121–36.
——1993, ‘Artifact/Ideas and Political Culture’, Whole Earth Review, No. 73 (Winter 1991),
reprinted in Albert H.Teich, Technology and the Future, 6th edition, 1993, New York: St
Martin’s Press.
Woolgar, Steve, 1989, ‘Reconstructing Man and Machine’, in Wiebe Bijker, et al. (eds) The Social
Construction of Technological Systems, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Young, John, 1994, ‘The New Materialism and Matter of Policy’, World Watch,
September/October 1994, Washington, DC: World Watch Institute, pp. 30–7.
Young, Leslie Fook-Min, 1992, ‘Future Directions’, Applications of Biotechnology to Traditional
Fermented Foods: report of an ad hoc panel of the Board on Science and Technology for
International Development, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.