Skip to main content

Technology as Prospective Ontology

  • 496 Accesses

Part of the Technikzukünfte, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft / Futures of Technology, Science and Society book series (TEWG)

Abstract

Engineers add to the furniture of the world, and thus shift its ontology – if we use the term “ontology” in a simplistic way (Rip 2000: 8). This ‘adding” is not a simple, linear activity of first making something, and making it available, which is then added to the world. There is a strong prospective element. Artefacts start as technological options, a promise of functionalities, in other words ‘hopeful monstrosities’ (Mokyr 1990, Stoelhorst 1997). This is visible, sometimes literally, in the prototypes: these embody a prospective.

Source: Synthese. 168 (2009) 405-422.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-658-21754-9_8
  • Chapter length: 21 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-658-21754-9
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  • Akrich, M. (1992). The de-scription of technical objects. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology / building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 205-224). Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akrich, M. (1995). User representations: Practices, methods and sociology. In A. Rip, T. J. Misa & J. W. Schot (Eds.), Managing technology in society. The approach of constructive technology assessment (pp. 167-184). London, New York, NY: Pinter Publishers St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appadurai, A. (Ed.). (1986). The social life of things. Commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appadurai, A. (1990). Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy. Theory, Culture and Society, 7(2-3), 295-310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baird, D., Nordmann, A., Schummer, J. (Eds.). (2004). Discovering the nanoscale. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry, A. (2001). Political machines. Governing a technological society. London and New York, NY: The Athlone Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bensaude-Vincent, B. (2006). Two cultures of nanotechnology? In J. Schummer & D. Baird (Eds.), Nanotechnology Challenges (pp. 7–28). WORLD SCIENTIFIC. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812773975_0002

  • Bergson, H. (1911/1983). Creative evolution (translation Arthur Mitchell). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bijker, W. E., & Law, J. (Eds.). (1992). Shaping technology / building society. Studies in sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M., Law, J., & Rip, A. (1986). Mapping the dynamics of science and technology. Basingstoke and London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M. (1999). Whose imposture? Physicists at war with the third person. Social Studies of Science, 29, 261-286.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Laat, B., (1996). Scripts for the future. Technology foresight, strategic evaluation and socio-technical networks: The confrontation of script-based scenarios. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Laat, B. (2000). Future scripts. In N. Brown, B. Rappert & A. Webster (Eds.), Contested futures. A sociology of prospective techno-science. Aldershot etc: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupuy, J.-P., & Grinbaum, A. (2006). Living with uncertainty: Towar the ongoing normative assessment of nanotechnology. In J. Schummer & D. Baird, Nanotechnology challenges (pp. 287–314). WORLD SCIENTIFIC. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812773975_0014

  • Feynman, R. (1960). There’s plenty of room at the bottom. Engineering and Science, 23, 22-36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grint, K., & Woolgar, S. (1997). The machine at work. Technology, work and organization. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hay, C. (forthcoming). Political ontology. In R. E. Goodin & C. Tilly (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of contextual political analysis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology, and other essays. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hla, S.-H., Bartels, L., Meyer, G., & Rieder, K.-H. (2000). Inducing all steps of a chemical reaction with the scanning tunneling microscope tip: Towards single molecule engineering. Physical Review Letters, 85(13), 2777-2780.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, T. P. (1986), ‘The seamless web: technology, science, etcetera, etcetera’, Social Studies of Science 16, 281-292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchby, I. (2001). Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology, 35, 441-456.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, A., & Michael, M. (2003). Science, social theory and public knowledge. Maidenhead and Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • IWGN (Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology). (1999). Nanotechnology – shaping the world atom by atom. Washington, DC: National Science and Technology Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joerges, B. (1999a). Do politics have artefacts? Social Studies of Science, 29(3), 411-431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joerges, B. (1999b). Scams cannot be busted. Reply to Woolgar and Cooper. Social Studies of Science, 29(3), 450-457.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1991). Technology is society made durable. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 103-131). London and New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope. Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2004). Politics of nature. How to bring the sciences into democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lianos, M. (2003). Social control after Foucault. Surveillance and Society, 1(3), 412-430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lombardi, O., & Labarca, M. (2005). The ontological autonomy of the chemical world. Foundations of Chemistry, 7, 125-148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. (Ed.). (1998). Material cultures. Why some things matter. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, P., & Wilsdon, J. (Eds.). (2006). Better humans? The politics of human enhancement and life extension. London: DEMOS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mokyr, J. (1990). The lever of riches. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mol, A. (1999). Ontological politics: A word and some questions. In J. Law & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor-network theory and after (pp. 74-89). Oxford: Blackwell’s.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1977). In search of a useful theory of innovation. Research Policy, 6, 47-76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nersessian, N. J. (2006). The cognitive-cultural systems of the research laboratory. Organization Studies, 27(1), 125-145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordmann, A. (2006). Noumenal technology: Reflections on the incredible tininess of nano. In J. Schummer and D. Baird (Eds.), Nanotechnology Challenges (pp. 49-72).

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A. (1990). The design of everyday things. New York, NY: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oransky, I. (2006). All hwang human cloning work fraudulent. The Scientist, published 10 January 2006. Retrieved from www.the-scientist.com

  • Gasset, J. O. Y. (1962). Man the technician. In idem (Ed.), History as a system (pp. 87-164). New York, NY: Norton. Originally published in 1940.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A., & Kemp, R. (1998). Technological change. In S. Rayner & E. L. Malone (Eds.), Human choice and climate change (2nd ed., Chapter 6), (pp. 327-399). Columbus, Ohio: Battelle Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A. (2000). There’s no turn like the empirical turn. In P. Kroes & A. Meijers (Eds.), The empirical turn in the philosophy of technology (pp. 3-17). Amsterdam etc.: JAI, an imprint of Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schummer, J., & Baird, D. (Eds.). (2006). Nanotechnology challenges. Implications for philosophy, ethics and society. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, R. L. (2004). Towards a process philosophy of chemistry. Hyle – International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, 10(1), 1-17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoelhorst, J.-W. (1997). In search of a dynamic theory of the firm. An evolutionary perspective on competition under conditions of technological change, with an application to the semi-conductor industry. Enschede: University of Twente.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas, H. (2005). Complex knowledge: Studies in organizational epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Belt, H., & Rip, A. (1987). The Nelson‑Winter/Dosi model and synthetic dye chemistry. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems. New directions in the sociology and history of technology (pp. 135-158). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Vleuten, E. B. A. (2003). De materiele eenwording van Nederland. In J. W. Schot, H. W. Lintsen, A. Rip & A. A. A. de la Bruheze (Eds.), Techniek in Nederland in de Twintigste Eeuw. VII. Techniek en Modernisering. Balans van de Twintigste Eeuw (pp. 43-73). Zuthphen: Walburg Pers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (2005). Alternative approaches for studying organizational change. Organization Studies, 26(5), 1377-1404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Lente, H. (1993). Promising technology – The dynamics of expectations in technological developments. Enschede: University of Twente.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Lente, H., & Rip, A. (1998). Expectations in technological developments: An example of prospective structures to be filled in by agency. In C. Disco & B. J. R. van der Meulen (Eds.), Getting new technologies together (pp. 195-220). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbeek, P.-P. (2005). What things do. Philosophcal reflections on technology, agency, and design. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbeek, P.-P. (2006). Materializing morality—design ethics and technological mediation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 31(3), 361-380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, V., Cohen, C., & Richards, A. (2002). The incorporation of user needs in telecom product design. In A. McMeekin, K. Green, M. Tomlinson & V. Walsh (Eds.), Innovation by demand. An interdisciplinary approach to the study of demand and its role in innovation (pp. 168-186). Manchester and New York, NY: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead, A. N. (1929). Process and reality. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Reprinted In D. MacKenzie & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The social shaping of technology (2nd ed.). (pp. 28-40). Buckingham & Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, M. (2002). Mind the gap? A processual reconsideration of organizational knowledge. Organization, 9(1), 151-171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolgar, S. (1991). The turn to technology in social studies of science. Science, Technology & Human Values, 16(1), 20-50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolgar, S., & Cooper, G. (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 

  • Woolgar, S. (2002). After word? – On some dynamics of duality interrogation. Or: Why Bonfires are not enough. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(5-6), 261-270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, B. (1988). Unruly technology: Practical rules, impractical discourses and public understanding. Social Studies of Science, 18, 147-167.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arie Rip .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Rip, A. (2018). Technology as Prospective Ontology. In: Futures of Science and Technology in Society. Technikzukünfte, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft / Futures of Technology, Science and Society. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-21754-9_8

Download citation