AI & SOCIETY

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 51–54 | Cite as

A contrarian view of postmodern society and information technologies

25th Anniversary Volume A Faustian Exchange: What is to be human in the era of Ubiquitous Technology?
  • 385 Downloads

Abstract

In this short paper—little more than a note, even a short “contrarian” sermon for this anniversary volume—what I do is argue that even the allegedly most “revolutionary” inventions of our computer-driven age are not revolutionary in the sense that their impacts are “driving” society. Some of them are genuinely revolutionary, I admit, but in the reverse direction. The inventions don’t “impact societies”; rather, particular communities within society use the technical languages that are at their core, invent them, embed them in machines, and so on. It is not inventions but particular groups within modern—and so-called postmodern—societies that have invented and use technical languages which are embedded in gadgets that are said to “drive” modern or postmodern societies. And they do so only in one sense: they were invented and are used by various communities in our kinds of societies for a variety of ends. And if this is so, and if we feel those ends are undemocratic or positively anti-democratic, I conclude that we should resist them any way we can, even politically.

Keywords

Information technology Postmodern society Interactionism Ethnomethodology 

References

  1. Berger P, Luckmann T (1966) The social construction of reality. Doubleday, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Blumer H (1969) Symbolic interactionism: perspective and method. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  3. Carreira da Silva F (2011) G.H. Mead: a reader. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Durbin PT (1992) Social responsibility in science, technology, and medicine. Lehigh University Press, Bethlehem, PA (see chapter 8)Google Scholar
  5. Durbin PT (2007) Philosophy, activism, and computer and information specialists. ACM Ubiquity 8(45) (November 13, 2007–November 19, 2007). Unnumbered pages, online journalGoogle Scholar
  6. Durbin PT (2010) Philosophy, activism, and computer and information specialists revisited. AI & Society 25(1):119–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Garfinkel H (1967) Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  8. Goldman S (2009) Information, innovation and society. In: Amichai-Hamburger Y (ed) Technology and human well-being. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Joas H (1985) G. H. Mead: a contemporary re-examination of his thought. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  10. Mead GH (1934) Mind, self, and society. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  11. Straker D (2010) See his website: creatingminds.org. Accessed 2010Google Scholar
  12. Winner L (2010) Cyberlibertarian Myths and the Prospects for Community. http://www.langdonwinner.org. Accessed 2010

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy Department and Center for Energy and Environmental PolicyUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations