[Air-L] Technology as ideologically neutral?

[Nick Breems]

If someone says "it's just a tool", I often reply with Abraham Maslow's
observation that "When your only tool is a hammer, all of your problems
begin to look like nails."

-- 
Nick Breems
- PhD Student @ University of Salford
- Assistant Professor of Computer Science @ Dordt College (on leave)
 
Email:  nbreems at dordt.edu
Mobile phone:
   (from UK): 0771 822 9005
   (from US): 011 44 771 822 9005


>>> On Saturday, July 07, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Zeynep Tufekci
<socnetres at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Another crucial variant is the "it's just a tool" formulation,
commonly
> found in popular debates. This kept cropping up during discussions of
the
> role of new media in the Arab uprisings and, in my view, impeded
real
> discussion.
> 
> I think that scholars have been so eager to stay away from
technological
> determinism that we've lost sense of how to argue really about the
> structural accordances of technology. Too often, the more acceptable
> formulation, "it's socially constructed," also leans towards "it's
just a
> tool" in essence.
> 
> -z
> 
> On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Cristian Berrio Zapata <
> cristian.berrio at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Pls do not let McLuhan out of the scope... in McLuhan, M. (1995).
The
>> Playboy Interview. Essential McLuhan, 233-269.
>>
>> “*In the past, the effects of media were experienced more
gradually,
>> allowing the individual and society to absorb and cushion their
impact to
>> some degree. Today, in the electronic age of instantaneous
communication, I
>> believe that our survival, and at the very least our comfort and
happiness,
>> is predicated on understanding the nature of our new environment,
because
>> unlike previous environmental changes, the electric media constitute
a
>> total and near-instantaneous transformation of culture, values and
>> attitudes. This upheaval generates great pain and identity loss,
which can
>> be ameliorated only through a conscious awareness of its dynamics.
If we
>> understand the revolutionary transformations caused by new media, we
can
>> anticipate and control them; but if we continue in our self-induced
>> subliminal trance, we will be their slaves*.” (McLuhan, 1995)
>>
>> On the other hand, I am a fan of applying the "complexity" view to
all ICT
>> views. Therefore it would be quite difficult to sepparate politics,
from
>> ideology, from economics, from culture, all of them part of the
>> Internet-Web pack. It  comes to be very visible when looking at
digital
>> divide programes applied to indigenous communities.
>>
>> Regarding the "amputation" problem also raised by McLuhan, ICT tools
let
>> "self perception" out of the scope. Self perception (proprioception
and
>> tactile perception) is the base of affective bound, "love". Then,
what are
>> we depriving new generations of?
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/7/7 jeremy hunsinger <jhuns at vt.edu>
>>
>> > I find this to be an interesting debate, though mostly the
question is
>> > where the ideology actually exists.    Does it exist in the
object
>> itself?
>> >  relations to the object from other objects?  relations to the
object to
>> > semiotic systems around it?  relations to socius or culture?  or
in the
>> > systems alone, cultures alone, socius, alone, etc.
>> >
>> > basically there is a matrix here of ideologies, contexts, objects
and
>> > their axiologies operating both ontologically ala mereological
>> > constructions  and epistemologies.   With many blurry middle
grounds.
>> >
>> > I hold that artifacts have politics in themselves, but i'm not
sure that
>> > all artefacts have ideologies in themselves.  The question i tend
to
>> raise
>> > and ask people to write about is... what is the politics of the
toaster,
>> > because the toaster has a whole political economics and a
politics, but
>> > does it have an implied ideology.  Now the design of a toaster
can
>> > certainly have ideological components, but the idea of a toaster
may
>> > perhaps not, though granted whether the idea exists outside of the
set of
>> > objects is another debate for the Platonists to take up.
>> >
>> > however... I wonder about the neutrality of the internet because
as I've
>> > argued here before, that while there is no real internet beyond
reference
>> > to a conceptual idea that encompasses many technologies and
systems that
>> > lack what i'd all think of as a unity beyond the concept.  So does
it as
>> a
>> > whole have a neutrality or an ideology?  there is a certain
technocratic
>> > rationality to it, and that rationality certainly has a
traditionally
>> > critiqued ideology, but is that in it, or in the design of it, or
in the
>> > relations of it within historic contexts?  and isn't neutrality
and the
>> > claim to it, an ideological claim?  I've always tended to argue
that the
>> > claim toward neutrality and objectivity is almost always
ideological.
>> >
>> > one of my favorite authors on this technology as ideology is Paul
Virilio
>> > and my second favorite is Walter Benjamin in Arcades Project.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
>> > is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers
http://aoir.org 
>> > Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:
>> > http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org 
>> >
>> > Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
>> > http://www.aoir.org/ 
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Cristian Berrío Zapata*
>> _______________________________________________
>> The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
>> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers
http://aoir.org 
>> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:
>> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org 
>>
>> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
>> http://www.aoir.org/ 
>>
>