Slack, Jennifer Daryl and J. Macgregor Wise. Culture and Technology: A Primer. Peter Lang Publishing Inc., 2015.
The authors set out their work as ‘a primer’ in three senses: first, as “an introduction to the contributions of generations of scholars that provide guidance on understanding technological culture.” The second sense comes from “an introduction to a coherent cultural studies approach to understanding and critiquing technological culture.” The third sense is “a spark to light the fire of conscious and responsible engagement with technological culture.”
They are determined to engage us in understanding technology’s relationship to every aspect of our lives. They ask:
What, after all, is technology, and how is it connected to our assessment of all the other aspects of daily life that matter? Without that key, that sense of common theoretical ground, we remain destined to discuss, argue, and live at cross-purposes in a communicative space…. Page 108-109
In examining the meaning of technology, the authors examine the most common meaning in today’s parlance – ie: Technology as a Thing – a ‘useful thing’ – an object – An artifact, an instrument, a tool a machine, a structure, constructions…. Technology has been synonymous with progress – particularly over the last two centuries. The authors ask the question if we have trusted technology too much. (p. 16) the authors assess the purpose of progress and ask how criteria come about that measure technological progress.(p. 15-16)
The authors talk of a “cultural tendency” to conceive of technology in terms of thingness" – which they say, has interesting and serious consequences…that draws our attention away from the context within which artifacts are produced and used in our culture/s. They also explain the negative aspect of focusing on ‘bounded artifacts’ –:
on thingness~ is to deflect understanding from the ongoing energies, activities, relations, interpenetrations and investments within which these things appear, take flight, and have effects. Further, the formulation of technology as things that are "useful" deflects vision toward the tool-like use of these things, and away from the work or role of these things beyond matters of their usefulness. (p. 111)
By understanding the powerful forces of history and when “you are moving against the grain of historical formations” the authors find that “you may be able to find a way to break/ contest or interrupt” that flow.
This work ‘works’ towards providing a “testament to the belief that rearticulating people's understandings of the relationship between culture and technology away from the idea that they are autonomous entities and toward the idea of technological culture or the technological assemblage can make a difference.”
In examining: Why Articulation and Assemblage? They state:
Technology as articulation and assemblage offers a whole new way of posing the problem" of culture and technology. No longer is it possible to think in terms of either technological determinism or cultural determinism, or for that matter, some hybrid of the two positions. By understanding assemblage, flow, relations, connections, and articulations as what matter and what are effective, the “things” themselves, the physical arrangements of matter, drift into helpful perspective. They are not unimportant; they are just no longer all-important. They do not act alone or independently. As assemblages---those imaginary yet concrete constellations-matter. (P. 162)
In this work, the authors are intent on developing a way of understanding technology that “foregrounds the interconnectedness within which things appear, are developed, and have effects. While the approach they develop “relies on the theoretical concepts of articulation and assemblage…” (P. 111)
Slack goes on to state…
While these formulations may not yet make sense, they do point to flows, connections, relationships, and interpenetrations among the living, the nonliving, producers, possibilities and energies---and not just to things. If we can learn to think with meanings such as these, we may be able to find productive common ground from which to speak about technological culture. (p.112)
They also point to the great importance of the words we use. “Words imply or evoke associations, memories, commitments, values, beliefs, and affects. These meanings are harder to track down than are denotative meanings, because they tend to be less consensual, less culturally explicit, and less likely to be "codified" in dictionaries.” (p.113)
They go on to discuss the fact that changes in definition emerge within real cultural struggles….That we as a culture/ society, need to move away from the equation of technology with " thingness" and toward a notion of technology as articulation and assemblage…By understanding technologies as meaning different things to different people,…. “we are compelled to explore the culture, the cultural arrangement, and the flows and relationships within which these machines come to have, a variety of meanings. We learn, as a result, more about everyday life, and more about technology as part of everyday life (p.114)
The authors then take on the challenge of Causality.
The new technology, like the cue ball, is understood as though it comes from somewhere outside culture, with no pre-existing relationship to the culture it affects….The danger of technologies being regarded and treated as unique acts of invention in the minds of isolated inventors, the culture reinforces the understanding that technologies arise autonomously, which reinforces, in turn the privileging of the individual in culture generally. (Page 118-121)
They explain that the key danger to people thinking that technology arises autonomously is this means, that technology:
is viewed as something that can act with impunity, as an amoral force that cannot be held responsible for its effects, whether for good or evil. It simply exists, and, because it exists, it simply acts. Members of the culture upon which it acts are virtually helpless in the face of this enormous, autonomous force. Page 130
But when people define technology integrally – meaning connected to context
within which it arises, it cannot (by definition), come from outside the culture. It cannot drop from the sky, appear like a bolt out of the blue, pop like a lightbulb in the head of an inventor, or emerge like a booby from another technology. It cannot be understood set of connections, or relationships, within a particular culture-not an independent thing, but always already a structure of connections. Within these connections, things emerge and are used, but the "thingness~ of a technology is only one aspect of what it is. The rest of what it is can only be understood by describing the nature of the connections within which it is developed and used. (Page 126)
The authors look at what happens when people believe and understand that there is a non-mechanistic causality…Page 126-127
In non-mechanistic causality, no particular cultural component, such as education or the economy, stands alone. What cultural components are is the set of connections or relationships among forces. Culture is a complex set of connections or relationships.
Page 127: The authors outline what is meant by Expressive Causality
Expressive Causality When people think with and understand culture and technology from an expressive causal perspective, they assume the three basic assumptions of" non-mechanistic perspective:
- that technology is not autonomous, but is integrally connected to the context within which it emerges, is developed, and used;
- that culture is made up of connections; and
- that technologies arise within these connections as part of them and are effective within them.
In speaking about Articulation and assemblage, the authors explain that :
Page 132-133: a non, mechanistic perspective an articulation and assemblage assume: that technology is not autonomous, but is integrally connected to the context within which it is developed and used; that culture is made up of such connections; and that technologies arise within these connections as part of them and as effective within them.
it does not insist that all these connections are reducible to an essence or to a critical factor. Articulations are dynamic interminglings that can move in many and various directions, propelled by various and changing circumstances (of other articulations). The "web of these articulations is what we call an "assemblage".
In discussing Agency, (p. 139) the authors outline the most commonly understood meaning of the term…
“That agency is the power and ability to do something and it assumes an "agent that possesses that power can then act.” In this context, agency is associated with agents who have the power to make things happen. They say AGENCY is considered a THING – ultimately with human intent.” (p. 139) The challenge with this understanding is that there is no understanding of Agency as a ‘process or a relationship.’
Agency is not just about human intention; many elements are involved in relations of agency, including technology. Second, agency is not a possession of agents; "rather, it is a process and a relationship in which some elements are designated as agents, as having the power to act. Page 139
Technological Agency
Technology ‘bends space around it’ – according to Bruno Latour (its presence affects the space around it and how you approach/use it…
Page 140-141: Technology makes other elements dependent upon itself." A technology is never alone or isolated; it is always connected with other actors, that is, with other technologies and beings in a network of relations.
Technology… "translates their will into a language of its own." Translation implies an altering of form…. Translation is the process of transformation. The function of a mediator is to translate and transform. An actor- whether human or technology- is a mediator.
Delegation
When humans delegate tasks to technologies, the technology does something the human used to do (direct traffic, open doors, assemble cars, carry. Messages etc).
The effect of delegation in reinscribing forms is evident – most of the time (e.g.: a bread making machine)
The authors ask: Why does Agency Matter?
What are the consequences of delegating or not delegating tasks to technology? How do our interactions with technologies contribute to the shape of everyday life? How do the processes of translation, delegation, prescription, and inscription account for what we do, think, and feel? How do technologies reinforce or give shape to rules and values form the mundane (when to cross a street) to the extraordinary (how to make war)? P. 146
With respect to actors in relations of agency among technologies and humans, one is not the cause and the other effect. It is the network that requires understanding; it is the network that is effective. P. 146
attention to agency in the sense of the ability to make things happen and linking that to a concept of the network absolutely demands that we address the mechanisms and work of POWER IN NETWORKS. These issues (discussion of agency in actor-network analyses) need to be addressed more centrally. P. 147
Understanding technology as articulation and assemblage – the authors explain:
It is vital to understand technology as articulation and assemblage … thinking of both articulation and assemblage in tension brings to articulation the idea of "multiple trajectories" and brings to assemblage a way to more specifically "think through solidarities and alliances," contributing "a directly political edge that usages of assemblage generally lack.·'19 (David Featherstone) if you want to imagine to contribute to change, look more closely at the particular articulations that account for the particular constellation of the assemblage. (Page 160)
