Change

It is technologies that allow society to do certain actions while prohibiting other possibilities (the same goes for the agglomeration of all these technologies:  technical constitution in society). The construction of a technical constitution in society is a slow, incremental process. If we are to follow a technological momentum approach, these constitutions stay as long as the technology is there. As Winner sums up in his piece: techne becomes politeia once these constitutions are in place. The question that we are left with is: if the technology can’t change, can we rely on human nature to change?

Before attempting to discuss a possible answer to this question, we must first understand the role of these technical constitutions in society. Winner emphasized that it is necessary to look at both the technical objects and the surrounding contexts. Society must examine how a technology creates “material and social infrastructure” that infiltrate everyday life (Winner, 55).

However, one must also be careful to not over generalize the construction of technologies: “Political surveillance and institutional transparency do not automatically convey authority over decision-making process” (Daemmrich and Rucken, 529). Why is this the case? As Winner states, “…No part of modern technology can be judged neutral a priori. All varieties of hardware and their corresponding forms of social like must be scrutinized to see whether they are friendly of unfriendly to the idea of a just society” (Winner, 40). Each society is unique in regards to culture, values, norms, and institutional structure. As such, a technology in one society will be accepted and reacted to differently than in another society. Take for example the process of approving new medicine: the structure of the state’s regulatory system is linked with the expectations of that state and that society (Daemmrich and Rucken, 529).

What of Winner’s views on change? In order for a society to be in charge of their structural evolution, they must plan ahead of technological change and understand all the possibilities. This needs to be done grounded on an idea of “what society ought to be” (Winner, 52). Society must “imagine and seek” specific technologies that fit with certain political ends—democracy, freedom, justice (Winner, 55). If incompatible, then the technology must be excluded. This is not a radicle suggestion as regulation of technological change has been done and based on a set justification based on resource depletion, environmental degradation, and health. However, Winner sees that this limits what is allowed with a discourse about technological change.

Though convincing, Winner’s argument seems to be partially incomplete.  Winner seems to suggest during the initial stage of adopting a technology, change is possible in the way society seeks out and accepts it. However, he never goes into the available tools society can employ to do this. A quick glance might suggest that this can be done via capitalism and state policy. A discussion on technological constitutions in society needs to include the tools society and state use to build and change them.