Enhancing Machine Nature

From the Myth of the Machine to Sociotechnical Imaginaries of Nonmechanical Machines
  • Alfred NordmannEmail author
Part of the Technikzukünfte, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft / Futures of Technology, Science and Society book series (TEWG)


Our conversations about human enhancement by technological means are premised on an image of technology: what it is, what it can do, by which of its virtues humans can transcend their present condition. This image of technology, however, is not technical but social. Günther Anders pointed out already that how we valorize technology expresses our sense of deficiency or vulnerability and, thus, ex negativo, a conception of a better life, of better humans in a better society (Anders, 1956). Half a century later, Sheila Jasanoff foregrounds sociotechnical imaginaries: all the stories of technological determinism or enablement, including the visionary expectations of emergent technologies, are framed by sociotechnical imaginaries (Jasanoff , 2015).


Synthetic Biology Steam Pressure Wishful Thinking Molecular Machine Steam Engine 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anders, G. (1956). Die Antiquiertheit des Menschen. München: Beck.Google Scholar
  2. Bensaude-Vincent, B. (2004). Se libérer de la matière? Fantasmes autour des nouvelles technologies. Paris, France: Institut national de la recherche agronomique.Google Scholar
  3. Bensaude-Vincent, B., & Guichet, X. (2007): Nanomachine: One word for three different paradigms. Technè, 11 (1), 71–89.Google Scholar
  4. Bloch, E. (1973[1959]). Das Prinzip Hoffnung. Frankfurt, Germany: Suhrkamp. In English: Principle of hope. (3 vols.) (N. Plaice, S Plaice, & P. Knight, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  5. Cassirer, E. (1930). Form und Technik. In E. Cassirer, Symbol, Technik, Sprache (pp. 39–92). Hamburg, Germany: Meiner, 1985.Google Scholar
  6. Drexler, E. (2003a). Drexler counters. Chemical & Engineering News, 81, 40<–41.Google Scholar
  7. Drexler, E. (2003b). Open letter to Richard Smalley. Chemical & Engineering News, 81, 38–39.Google Scholar
  8. Dupuy, J.-P. (2007). Some pitfalls in the philosophical foundations of nanoethics. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 32 (3), 237–261.Google Scholar
  9. Ferrari, A., & Nordmann, A. (Eds.). (2009). Reconfiguring responsibility: Lessons for nanoethics—Part 2 of the report on deepening debate on nanotechnology. Durham, England: Durham University.Google Scholar
  10. Geuss, R. (2010). Realismus, Wunschdenken, Utopie. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie, 58 (3), 419–429.Google Scholar
  11. Heidegger, M. (2007). Die Technik und die Kehre. Stuttgart, Germany: Klett Cotta.Google Scholar
  12. Jasanoff, S. (2002): Citizens at risk: Cultures of modernity in the US and the EU. Science as Culture, 11, 363–380.Google Scholar
  13. Jasanoff, S. (2015). Future imperfect: Science, technology, and the imaginations of modernity. In S. Jasanoff & S.-H. Kim (Eds.). Dreamscapes of modernity: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power (pp. 1–47). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Jones, R. (2004). Soft machines: Nanotechnology and life. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Jones, R. (2011). What has nanotechnology taught us about contemporary technoscience? In T. Zülsdorf, C. Coenen, A. Ferrari et al. (Eds.). Quantum engagements: Social reflections of nanoscience and emerging technologies (pp. 13–26). Heidelberg, Germany: AKA.Google Scholar
  16. Kearnes, M., Macnaghten, P., & Wilsdon, J. (2006). Governing at the nanoscale: People, policies and emerging technologies. London, England: Demos.Google Scholar
  17. Lösch, A. (2007). Nanoroboter und Mini-U-Boote—Mediale Vermittlung nanomedizinischer Visionen. In D. Korczak & A. Lerf (Eds.), Zukunftspotentiale der Nanotechnologien: Erwartungen, Anwendungen, Auswirkungen (pp. 127–145). Kröning, Germany: Asanger.Google Scholar
  18. Lösch, A., Gammel, S., & Nordmann, A. (2009). Jenseits von Regulierung: Zum politischen Umgang mit der Nanotechnologie. Heidelberg, Germany: AKA.Google Scholar
  19. Maasen, S. (2010). Converging technologies—diverging reflexivities? Intellectual work in knowledge-risk-media-audit societies. In M. Kaiser, M. Kurath, S. Maasen & C. Rehmann-Sutter (Eds.). Governing future technologies: Nanotechnology and the rise of an assessment regime (pp. 303–319). (Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook 27). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Macnaghten, P., & Kearnes, M. (2007). DEEPEN deliverable 4: Working paper—Scenario planning and draft design of focus groups. Unpublished. Durham, England.Google Scholar
  21. Mayr, O. (1986). Authority, liberty and automatic machinery in early modern Europe. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Mumford, L. (1967). The myth of the machine: Technics and human development (volume 1). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  23. Mumford, L. (1970). The myth of the machine: The pentagon of power (volume 2). London, England: Secker and Warburg.Google Scholar
  24. Myers, N. (2008): Conjuring machinic life. In Spontaneous Generations, 2 (1), 112–121.Google Scholar
  25. Nerlich, B. (2005, December 22). From nautilus to nanobo(a)ts: The visual construction of nanoscience. AZoNano—Online Journal of Nanotechnology. Available at doi: 10.2240/azojono0109.
  26. Nordmann, A. (2008). Technikphilosophie zur Einführung. Hamburg, Germany: Junius.Google Scholar
  27. Nordmann, A. (2010). Enhancing material nature. In K. L. Kjølberg & F. Wickson (Eds.), Nano meets macro: Social perspectives on nanoscale sciences and technologies (pp. 283–306). Singapore: Pan Stanford,Google Scholar
  28. Nordmann, A. (2014). Sanfte Technik: Vom Mythos der Maschine zum Mythos nicht-maschineller Maschinen. In A. Gelhard & A. Kaminski (Eds.). Zur Philosophie informeller Technisierung. Darmstadt, Germany: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  29. Nordmann, A., & Schwarz, A. (2010). Lure of the “yes”: The seductive power of technoscience. In M. Kaiser, M. Kurath, S. Maasen, & C. Rehmann-Sutter (Eds.), Governing future technologies: Nanotechnology and the rise of an assessment regime (pp. 255–277) (Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook 27). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2004). Wissenschaft neu denken: Wissenschaft und Öffentlichkeit in einem Zeitalter der Ungewißheit. Weilerswist, Germany: Velbrück.Google Scholar
  31. Pitt, J. (2011). Doing philosophy of technology: Essays in a pragmatist spirit. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rabinbach, A. (1992). The human motor: Energy, fatigue and the origins of modernity. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  33. Reuleaux, F. (1875). Theoretische Kinematik. Grundzüge einer Theorie des Maschinenwesens. Braunschweig, German: Vieweg. Translated as Kinematics of machinery: Outlines of a theory of machines (A. W. B. Kennedy, Trans. & Ed.). London: Macmillan and Co., 1876.Google Scholar
  34. Riskins, J. (2003). Eighteenth-century wetware. Representations, 83, 97–125.Google Scholar
  35. Schwarz, A. (2009). Green dreams of reason: Green nanotechnology between visions of excess and control. Nanoethics, 3, 109–118.Google Scholar
  36. Simondon, G. (1958). On the mode of existence of technical objects. London, England: University of Western Ontario.Google Scholar
  37. Smalley, R. (2003a). Smalley responds. Chemical & Engineering News, 81, 39–40.Google Scholar
  38. Smalley, R. (2003b). Smalley concludes. Chemical & Engineering News, 81, 41–42.Google Scholar
  39. Taylor, C. (2004). Modern social imaginaries. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DarmstadtDeutschland

Personalised recommendations