History, Philosophy, and Actuality of the Utopian View of Technology: On Pierre Musso’s Critique of Network Ideology

Chapter
Part of the Philosophy of Engineering and Technology book series (POET, volume 27)

Abstract

Steven Dorrestijn outlines the advantages of Musso’s contribution, putting together an essay on the utopian, dystopian or ambivalent interpretations of technical mediation, while developing a dual critique of Musso’s appropriation of the notions of ‘network’ and ‘utopia’. Dorrestijn sees the breadth of Musso’s historical perspective as its principal merit, in that it gives him an analytical advantage when it comes to discussing the issues surrounding technology today. Dorrestijn goes on to explain the origins and meaning of the notion of utopianism and describes the historical development of ideas which link technology and its social worth.

With references to Francis Bacon and Jeremy Bentham, Dorrestijn demonstrates how utopian were Saint-Simon’s plans, combining the utopian intentions of technocratic philanthropism with the aim of revolutionising religion. In identifying industry as the desired model for society, the Saint-Simonian project conveys that negative characteristic which Dorrestijn seems to stress as being central to the utopian conception of technology: the lack of critical ethical reflection.

Moving on from the utopian vision, Dorrestijn notes the advent of ethical concerns in relation to technology, before identifying a more recent and ambivalent notion: that technology, deprived of any essence, contains both positive and negative possibilities, so that the way it is implemented becomes significant, and adverse effects can be avoided or corrected. The third part of Dorrestijn’s analysis is a critique of this idea. Musso seems to distinguish two sorts of techno-utopianism: one inspired by the Saint-Simon’s social semi-utopia, which recognizes the importance of positive technology, and the other which identifies the technical network as the ideal organism, based on Saint-Simonian ideas. Dorrestijn believes that distinction should depend on the relationship between utopianism and social involvement. If social and political participation depend on utopian inspiration, then perhaps some utopianism may be justified.

In conclusion, Dorrestijn analyses the centrality of the notion of networks in Musso’s explanations of techno-utopianism, suggesting that its omnipresence does not necessarily imply acceptance of the techno-utopia. In this connection the work of Bruno Latour is revealing, in that it shows how immersion in the network does not mean abandoning an empirical stance towards concrete social issues. Dorrestijn favours an empirical orientation rather than one subordinated to “mental concepts” and, rather than being critical of Musso’s thought, suggests alternatives in the form of a more empirical orientation.

References

  1. Achterhuis, H. 1998. De erfenis van de utopie [The legacy of utopia]. Amsterdam: Ambo.Google Scholar
  2. ———. 2001. Introduction: American philosophers of technology. In American philosophy of technology: The empirical turn, ed. H. Achterhuis, 1–9. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bacon, F. 1999. New Atlantis. In The utopia reader, ed. G. Claeys, and L.T. Sargent, 118–125. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bentham, J. 1843. The Works of Jeremy Bentham, ed. J. Bowrin, vol. 4 (11 vols.). Edinburgh: William Tait.Google Scholar
  5. ———. 1995. The Panopticon writings, ed. M. Bozovic. London/New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 2002. Panoptique: Mémoire sur un nouveau principe pour construire des maisons d’inspection, et nommément des maisons de force. Paris: Mille et Une Nuits.Google Scholar
  7. Borgmann, A. 1984. Technology and the character of contemporary life: A philosophical inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Canguilhem, G. 1965. Machine et organisme. In La connaissance de la vie, 2nd ed., 101–127. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
  9. Chamayou, G. 2007. Présentation. In Principes d’une philosophie de la technique, E. Kapp, trans. G. Chamayou, 7–40. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
  10. Claeys, G., and L.T. Sargent. 1999. Introduction. In The utopia reader, ed. G. Claeys, and L.T. Sargent, 1–5. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Clark, A. 2008. Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dant, T. 2005. Materiality and society. Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill International.Google Scholar
  13. Dorrestijn, S. 2012a. The design of our own lives: Technical mediation and subjectivation after Foucault. PhD dissertation. Enschede: University of Twente.Google Scholar
  14. ———. 2012b. Theories and figures of technical mediation. In Design and Anthropology, ed. J. Donovan, and W. Gunn, 219–230. Surrey/Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  15. ———. Forthcoming. The care of our hybrid selves: Ethics in times of technical mediation. Foundations of Science. [Published online first: DOI 10.1007/s10699-015-9440-0]
  16. Feenberg, A. 2002. Transforming technology: A critical theory revised. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gehlen, A. 1980. Man in the age of technology. Trans. P. L. Berger. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Grevsmühl, S. 2014. La Terre vue d’en haut: L’invention de l’environnement global. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  19. Harman, G. 2009. Prince of networks: Bruno Latour and metaphysics. Prahran: Re. Press.Google Scholar
  20. Heidegger, M. 1996 [1927]. Being and time: A translation of Sein und Zeit. Trans. J. Stambaugh. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  21. Ihde, D. 1990. Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  22. ———. 2009. Foreword. In New waves in philosophy of technology, ed. J.-K.B. Olsen, E. Selinger, and S. Riis, viii–xiii. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  23. Kapp, E. 2007. Principes d’une philosophie de la technique. Trans. G. Chamayou. Paris: Vrin [Translation of Grundlinien einer Philosophie der Technik. Braunsweig: Westermann, 1877].Google Scholar
  24. Kelly, K. 2010. What technology wants. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kockelkoren, P. 2003. Technology: Art, fairground and theatre. Rotterdam: NAI.Google Scholar
  26. Latour, B. 1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. ———. 1994. On technical mediation. Common knowledge 3(2): 29–64.Google Scholar
  28. ———. 2013. An inquiry into modes of existence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lemmens, P.C. Forthcoming. Social autonomy and heteronomy in the age of ICT. The digital pharmakon and the (dis)empowerment of the general intellect. Foundations of Science. [Published online first: DOI 10.1007/s10699-015-9468-1]
  30. Lintsen, H.W. 2002. Keynote lecture: Flying in the New Atlantis- and the evolution of technology. In Around Glare, ed. C. Vermeeren, 3–18. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  31. Mauss, M. 2006. Techniques of the body. In Techniques, technology, and civilisation, ed. N. Schlanger, 77–96. New York: Durkheim Press/Berghahn Books [Translation of Les techniques du corps. Journal de psychologie, 32(3–4), 365–386, 1936].Google Scholar
  32. McLuhan, M. 2003 [1964]. Understanding media: The extensions of man. Critical edition by W.T. Gordon. Corte Madera: Gingko Press.Google Scholar
  33. Merleau-Ponty, M. 1962 [1945]. Phenomenology of perception. Trans. C. Smith. London: Routledge [Translation of Phénoménologie de la perception, Paris: Gallimard, 1945].Google Scholar
  34. Mitcham, C. 1994. Thinking through technology: The path between engineering and philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  35. Musso, P. 2010. Saint-Simon, l’industrialisme contre l’État. La Tour-d’Aigues: Éd. de l’Aube.Google Scholar
  36. Noland, C. 2009. Agency and embodiment: Performing gestures/producing culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Paquot, T. 2007. Utopies et utopistes. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  38. Riis, S. 2008. The symmetry between Bruno Latour and Martin Heidegger: The technique of turning a police officer into a speed bump. Social Studies of Science 38(2): 285–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Scharff, R.C. 2012. Empirical technoscience studies in a comtean world: Too much concreteness? Philosophy & Technology 25(2): 153–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stiegler, B. 2010. Taking care of youth and the generations. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Tenner, E. 2003. Our own devices: The past and future of body technology. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  42. Timmermans, B. 2003. L’influence hégélienne sur la philosophie de la technique d’Ernst Kapp. In Les philosophes et la technique, ed. P. Chabot and G. Hottois, 95–108. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
  43. Verbeek, P.-P. 2005. What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  44. ———. 2011. Moralizing technology: Understanding and designing the morality of things. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. ———. 2012. Humanity in design. In Design and anthropology, ed. W. Gunn, and J. Donovan, 163–176. Surrey/Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  46. ———. 2014. Op de vleugels van Icarus: Hoe techniek en moraal met elkaar meebewegen [On the wings of Icarus: How technology and morality develop together]. Rotterdam: Lemniscaat.Google Scholar
  47. Warnier, J.P. 2001. A praxeological approach to subjectivation in a material world. Journal of Material Culture 6(1): 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Saxion University of Applied SciencesDeventer and EnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations