Advertisement

Politicizing Postphenomenology

Chapter
  • 208 Downloads
Part of the Philosophy of Engineering and Technology book series (POET, volume 33)

Abstract

What can postphenomenology contribute to the political theory of technology? To answer this question, I will expand Don Ihde’s hermeneutical approach into a “political hermeneutics of technology”. I will explore this perspective from both “programs” of Ihde’s postphenomenological approach: the program of individual human-technology relations (the “micro level”) and the program of cultural hermeneutics (the “macro level”). I identify three political dimensions of human-technology relations that align with three main lines of investigation in political philosophy. First, I analyze how power relations are technologically mediated; second, how political interaction takes shape in technologically mediated ways; and third, how technology helps to shape the character of political issues. In each dimension, Ihde’s postphenomenological approach is used to expand on central elements in the work of three philosophers who play a central role in political theory and are also at the roots of postphenomenology: Michel Foucault, Hannah Arendt, and John Dewey. In order to relate this political hermeneutics of technology back to political philosophy itself, the exploration of each dimension concludes with a brief exploration of its implications for democracy, one of the central themes in political theory. How can a postphenomenological analysis of the technological mediation of power, interaction, and issue formation contribute to a better understanding of the relations between technology and democracy?

References

  1. Adorno, Theodor. & Max Horkheimer. (1944). The culture industry: Enlightenment as mass deception. In Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer (Eds.), Dialectics of enlightenment (John Cumming, Trans.) (pp. 94–136). New York: Herder and Herder, 1972.Google Scholar
  2. Arendt, Hannah. (1998). The human condition (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bantwal Rao, Mithun, Joost Jongerden, Pieter Lemmens, & Guido Ruivenkamp. (2015). Technological mediation and power: Postphenomenology, critical theory, and autonomist Marxism. Philosophy & Technology, 28(3), 449–474.Google Scholar
  4. Berlin, Isaiah. (1979). Two concepts of liberty. In Four essays on liberty (pp. 118–172). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bernstein, Richard J. (2011). Hannah Arendt’s reflections on violence and power. Iris, 2011, 3–30.Google Scholar
  6. Boer, Bas de, Hedwig Te Molder, & Peter-Paul Verbeek. (2018). The perspective of the instruments: Mediating collectivity. Foundations of Science, 23, 739–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dewey, John. (1927). The public and its problems. New York, NY: Holt.Google Scholar
  8. Dorrestijn, Steven, Mascha van der Voort, & Peter-Paul Verbeek. (2014). Future user-product arrangements: Combining product impact and scenarios in design for multi age success. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 89(Nov. 2014), 284–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Feenberg, Andrew. (1991). Critical theory of technology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. ———. (2002). Transforming technology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hickman, Larry. (2008). Postphenomenology and pragmatism: Closer than you might think? Techne: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 12(2), 99–104.Google Scholar
  12. Ihde, Don. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  13. ———. (1991). Instrumental realism: The interface between philosophy of science and philosophy of technology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  14. ———. (1993). Postphenomenology: Essays in the postmodern context. Evanston, Il: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  15. ———. (1998). Expanding hermeneutics: Visualism in science. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  16. ———. (2008). The designer fallacy and technological Imagination. In Pieter E. Vermaas, Pieter Kroes, Andrew Light, & Steven Moore (Eds.), Philosophy and design (pp. 51–59). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Jackson, Kenneth T. (2007). Robert Moses and the rise of New York. In Hillary Ballon & Kenneth T. Jackson (Eds.), Robert Moses and the modern city: The transformation of New York. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
  18. Kaplan, David. (2009). Readings in the philosophy of technology. Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  19. Kudina, Olga, & Melis Baş. (2018). The end of privacy as we know it: Reconsidering public space in the age of Google Glass. In Bryce Clayton Newell, Tjerk Timan, & Bert-Jaap Koops (Eds.), Surveillance, privacy and public space. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Kudina, Olga, & Peter-Paul Verbeek. (2018). Ethics from within. Google Glass, the Collingridge Dilemma, and the mediated value of privacy. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 44(2), 291–314.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243918793711.
  21. Latour, Bruno. (2005). From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik: An introduction to making things public. In Bruno Latour & Peter Weibel (Eds.), Making things public: Atmospheres of democracy (p. 2005). Cambridge, UK: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Manucci, Luca. (2017). Populism and the media. In Cristobal Rovira Kaltwasser, Paul A. Taggart, Paulina Ochoa Espejo, & Pierre Ostiguy (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of populism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Marres, Noortje. (2007). The issues deserve more credit: Pragmatist contributions to the study of public involvement in controversy. Social Studies of Science, 37(5), 759–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mitcham, Carl. (2006). From phenomenology to pragmatism: Using technology as an instrument. In Evan Selinger (Ed.), Postphenomenology: A critical companion to Ihde (pp. 21–33). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  25. Mudde, Cas, & Cristobal Rovira Kaltwasser. (2017). Populism: A very short introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rosenberger, Robert. (2018). Callous objects. Designs against the homeless. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  27. Swierstra, Tsjalling, Dirk Stemerding, & Marianne Boenink. (2009). Exploring techno-moral change: The case of the Obesitypill. In Paul Sollie & Marcus Düwell (Eds.), Evaluating new technologies (pp. 119–138). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thaler, Richard H., & Cass R. Sunstein. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, CT/London, UK: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Verbeek, Peter-Paul. (2003). Material hermeneutics. Techne: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 6(3), 181–184.Google Scholar
  30. ———. (2005). What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar
  31. ——— (2008) Obstetric ultrasound and the technological mediation of morality: A Postphenomenological Analysis. Human Studies, 31, (1), 11–26.Google Scholar
  32. ——— (2010) Accompanying technology. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 14(1), 49–54.Google Scholar
  33. ——— (2013a). Technology design as experimental ethics. In Simone van den Burg and Tsjalling Swierstra (Eds.), Ethics on the laboratory floor (pp. 83–100). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  34. ——— (2013b). Resistance is futile: Toward a non-modern democratization of technology. Techne: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 17(1), 72–92.Google Scholar
  35. Winner, Langdon. (1986). Do artifacts have politics? In Langdon Winner (Ed.), The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in an age of high technology (pp. 19–39). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  36. Woolgar, Stephen, & Geoff Cooper. (1999). Do artefacts have ambivalence? Moses’ Bridges, Winner’s Bridges and other urban legends in S&TS. Social Studies of Science, 29(3), 433–449.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations