Abstract
Current psychological conceptualizations of the human–technology relation still fail to seriously take into account technology’s central role in constituting modern subjectivity and everyday life. Accordingly, we face a fundamental discrepancy between the world of technology and the human ability to meaningfully conceive its implications. This discrepancy manifests itself in psychology’s failure to address the current societal and ecological crises that humanity faces. The chapter therefore argues for a conceptual reformulation of the science of subjectivity along four lines: (1) From a disembodied, dissecting and individualizing scientific vision toward an embodied conception of the internal relationship between humans and the more-than-human world; (2) from an external and artificially distancing “view from above”, including a subduing research practice, toward restructuring research from a situated standpoint of the human subject; (3) from quick-fix methodical recipes toward content-based methodologies enabling the exploration of the complexity and conflictuality of the internal relationship between humans and the world; and finally (4) from conceptualizing technology as neutral instruments for controlling world toward grasping technological artifacts as contradictory and political forms of everyday life. Crucially, psychological concepts must be able to grasp subjectivity as both being decentered and dependent on more-than-human worlds, and simultaneously as concretely situated within the embodied experiential realm of human everyday life.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Anders, G. (1992). Die Antiquiertheit des Proletariats. Forum,39(462–464), 7–11.
Anders, G. (2018a). Die Antiquiertheit des Menschen. Band 1. Über die Seele im Zeitalter der zweiten industriellen Revolution. München: Beck (Original work published 1956).
Anders, G. (2018b). Die Antiquiertheit des Menschen. Band 2. Über die Zerstörung des Lebens im Zeitalter der dritten industriellen Revolution. München: Beck (Original work published 1980).
Axel, E. (2002). Regulation as productive tool use: Participatory observation in the control room of a district heating system. Frederiksberg: Roskilde University Press.
Bakan, D. (1967). On method: Toward a reconstruction of psychological investigation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bang, J. (2012). Aesthetic play: The meaning of music technologies for children’s development. Journal für Psychologie, 20(1). https://www.journal-fuer-psychologie.de/index.php/jfp/article/view/114. Accessed 5 March 2018.
Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Barad, K. (2014). Diffracting diffraction: Cutting together-apart. Parallax,20(3), 168–187.
Baucom, I., & Omelsky, M. (2017). Knowledge in the age of climate change. The South Atlantic Quarterly,116(1), 1–18.
Becker-Schmidt, R. (1989). Technik und Sozialisation. Sozialpsychologische und kulturanthropologische Notizen zur Technikentwicklung. In D. Becker, R. Becker-Schmidt, G.-A. Knapp, & A. Wacker (Eds.), Zeitbilder der Technik. Essays zur Geschichte von Arbeit und Technologie (pp. 17–74). Bonn: Dietz.
Bozalek, V., & Zembylas, M. (2017). Diffraction or reflection? Sketching the contours of two methodologies in educational research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education,30(2), 111–127.
Braidotti, R. (2017). Critical posthuman knowledges. South Atlantic Quarterly,116(1), 83–96.
Brinkmann, S. (2012). Qualitative inquiry in everyday life. London: Sage.
Bungard, W., & Schultz-Gambard, J. (1988). Technikbewertung: Versäumnisse und Möglichkeiten der Psychologie. In W. Bungard & H. Lenk (Eds.), Technikbewertung. Philosophische und psychologische Perspektiven (pp. 157–182). Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.
Chimirri, N. A. (2014). Investigating media artifacts with children: Conceptualizing a collaborative exploration of the sociomaterial conduct of everyday life. Roskilde: Roskilde University.
Chimirri, N. A. (2015a). Moving as conducting everyday life: Experiencing and imagining for teleogenetic collaboration. In B. Wagoner, N. Chaudhary, & P. Hviid (Eds.), Integrating experiences: Body and mind moving between contexts (pp. 179–197). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Chimirri, N. A. (2015b). Designing psychological co-research of emancipatory-technical relevance across age thresholds. Outlines,16(2), 26–51.
Chimirri, N. A. (2019). Specifying the ethics of teleogenetic collaboration for research with children and other vital forces: A critical inquiry into dialectical praxis psychology via posthumanist theorizing. Human Arenas. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-019-00069-7.
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Costall, A., & Dreier, O. (Eds.). (2006). Doing things with things: The design and use of everyday objects. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Dreier, O. (2007). Generality and particularity of knowledge. In V. van Deventer, M. Terre Blanche, E. Fourie, & P. Segalo (Eds.), Citizen city: Between constructing agent and constructed agency (pp. 188–196). Concord: Captus.
Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R.-L. (Eds.). (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Feenberg, A. (2017). Critical theory of technology and STS. Thesis Eleven,138(1), 3–12.
Gergen, K. J. (2000). The saturated self: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. New York: Basic Books.
Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. New York, NY: Psychology Press (Original work published 1979).
Gordo-López, Á. J., & Parker, I. (Eds.). (1999). Cyberpsychology. London: Routledge.
Haraway, D. J. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.
Haraway, D. J. (1997). Modest_Witness@Second_Millenium: FemaleMan©_Meets_OncoMouse™. London: Routledge.
Haraway, D. (2016). Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the Chthulucene. Durham: Duke University Press.
Harding, S. (Ed.). (2004). The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies. New York: Routledge.
Hasse, C. (2015). An anthropology of learning: On nested frictions and cultural engagements in organisations. Dordrecht: Springer.
Hess, D. J. (2000). Ethnography and the development of science and technology studies. In P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, L. Lofland, & J. Lofland (Eds.), Handbook of ethnography (pp. 234–245). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Højgaard, L., & Søndergaard, D. M. (2011). Theorizing the complexities of discursive and material subjectivity: Agential realism and poststructural analyses. Theory & Psychology,21(3), 338–354.
Holzkamp, K. (1983). Grundlegung der Psychologie. Frankfurt/M.: Campus.
Holzkamp, K. (2013a). The development of critical psychology as a subject science. In E. Schraube & U. Osterkamp (Eds.), Psychology from the standpoint of the subject: Selected writings of Klaus Holzkamp (A. Boreham & U. Osterkamp, Trans.) (pp. 28–45). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Holzkamp, K. (2013b). Psychology: Social self-understanding on the reasons for action in the conduct of everyday life. In E. Schraube & U. Osterkamp (Eds.), Psychology from the standpoint of the subject: Selected writings of Klaus Holzkamp (A. Boreham & U. Osterkamp, Trans.) (pp. 233–341). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ingold, T. (2013). Making: Anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture. London: Routledge.
Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon.
Kontopodis, M., Wulf, C., & Fichtner, B. (Eds.). (2011). Children, development and education: Cultural, historical, anthropological perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.
Langemeyer, I. (2015). Das Wissen der Achtsamkeit: Kooperative Kompetenz in komplexen Arbeitsprozessen. Münster: Waxmann.
Langemeyer, I. (2019). Beyond the cyborg-metaphor: Psychology in times of smart systems. In K. O’Doherty, L. Osbeck, E. Schraube, & J. Yen (Eds.), Psychological studies of science and technology. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Latour, B. (2017). Facing Gaia: Eight lectures on the new climatic regime. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Law, J. (2007). Making a mess with method. In W. Outhwaite & S. P. Turner (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social science methodology (pp. 595–606). London: Sage.
Leontyev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Luria, A. R. (1928). The problem of the cultural behavior of the child. Journal of Genetic Psychology,35, 493–508.
Martín-Baró, I. (1994). Writings for a liberation psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Marvakis, A. (2013, May 3–7). Re-reading Marx for psychology, e.g. alienation I. Paper presented at the 15th Biennial Conference of the International Society for Theoretical Psychology, Santiago, Chile.
Mol, A. (2008). I eat an apple: On theorizing subjectivities. Subjectivity,22, 28–37.
Nissen, M. (2012). The subjectivity of participation: Articulating social work practice with youth in Copenhagen. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ollman, B. (2003). Dance of the dialectic: Steps in Marx’s method. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Ollman, B. (2015). Marxism and the philosophy of internal relations; or, how to replace the mysterious ‘paradox’ with ‘contradictions’ that can be studied and resolved. Capital & Class,39(1), 7–23.
Papadopoulos, D. (2018). Experimental practice: Technoscience, alterontologies, and more-than-social movements. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Puig de la Bellacasa, M. (2017). Matters of care: Speculative ethics in more than human worlds. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Ripple, W. J., Wolf, C., Newsome, T. M., Galetti, M., Alamgir, M., Crist, E., … Laurance, W. F. (2017). World scientists’ warning to humanity: A second notice. BioScience, 67(12), 1026–1028.
Scarry, E. (1985). The body in pain: The making and unmaking of the world. New York: Oxford University Press.
Schatzki, T. R., Knorr Cetina, K., & von Savigny, E. (Eds.). (2001). The practice turn in contemporary theory. New York: Routledge.
Schraube, E. (2009). Technology as materialized action and its ambivalences. Theory & Psychology,19(2), 296–312.
Schraube, E. (2013). First-person perspective and sociomaterial decentering: Studying technology from the standpoint of the subject. Subjectivity,6(1), 12–32.
Schraube, E. (2019). Technology and the practice of everyday living. In H. J. Stam & H. Looren de Jong (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of theoretical psychology. London: Sage.
Schraube, E., & Højholt, C. (Eds.). (2016). Psychology and the conduct of everyday life. London: Routledge.
Schraube, E., & Marvakis, A. (2016). Frozen fluidity: Digital technologies and the transformation of students learning and conduct of everyday life. In E. Schraube & C. Højholt (Eds.), Psychology and the conduct of everyday life (pp. 205–225). London: Routledge.
Seghal, M. (2014). Diffractive propositions: Reading Alfred North Whitehead with Donna Haraway and Karen Barad. Parallax,20(3), 188–201.
Sørensen, E. (2009). The materiality of learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stengers, I. (2015). In catastrophic times: Resisting the coming barbarism. Lüneburg: Meson Press.
Stetsenko, A. (2005). Activity as object-related: Resolving the dichotomy of individual and collective planes of activity. Mind, Culture, and Activity,12(1), 70–88.
Teo, T. (2009). Philosophical concerns in critical psychology. In D. Fox, I. Prilleltensky, & S. Austin (Eds.), Critical psychology: An introduction (pp. 36–53). London: Sage.
Teo, T. (2017). From psychological science to the psychological humanities: Building a general theory of subjectivity. Review of General Psychology,21(4), 281–291.
Thiele, K. (2014). Ethos of diffraction: New paradigms for a (post) humanist ethics. Parallax,20(3), 202–216.
Turkle, S. (1984). The second self: Computers and the human spirit. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Turkle, S. (2015). Reclaiming conversation: The power of talk in a digital age. New York: Penguin Press.
Walkerdine, V. (1997). Postmodernity, subjectivity and the media. In T. Ibanez & L. Iniguez (Eds.), Critical social psychology (pp. 169–177). London: Sage.
Wartofsky, M. W. (1979). Models: Representation and the scientific understanding. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Winner, L. (1989). The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in an age of high technology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Winner, L. (1996). The gloves come off: Shattered alliances in science and technology studies. In A. Ross (Ed.), Science wars (pp. 102–113). Durham: Duke University Press.
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. New York: Public Affairs.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chimirri, N.A., Schraube, E. (2019). Rethinking Psychology of Technology for Future Society: Exploring Subjectivity from Within More-Than-Human Everyday Life. In: O’Doherty, K.C., Osbeck, L.M., Schraube, E., Yen, J. (eds) Psychological Studies of Science and Technology. Palgrave Studies in the Theory and History of Psychology. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25308-0_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25308-0_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-25307-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-25308-0
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)