Abstract
Policy and technology actors seem to focus “naturally” on risk rather than on technology’s social and ethical impacts that typically constitute an important focus of concern for philosophers of technology, as well as for the broader public. There is nothing natural about this bias. It is the result of the way discourses on technology and policy are structured in technological, liberal, pluralistic societies. Risks qualify as “hard” (i.e., objective, rational, neutral, factual), other impacts as “soft” (i.e., subjective, emotional, partisan, value-laden) and are therefore dismissable. To help redress this bias, it is necessary to understand how this distinction between hard and soft impacts is construed – in practice and in theory. How are expected (desired, feared) impacts of technology played out in expert-citizen/consumer interactions? We first discuss online patient deliberations on a future pill for celiac disease (“gluten intolerance”) promising to replace patients’ lifelong diet. By “rejecting” this pill, patients displayed concerns about how the new technology would affect their identity, and the values incorporated in the way they had learned to handle their disease. Secondly, we analyze how experts construct a consumers’ concern with “naturalness” of food: as a private – and invalid – preference that requires no further debate. The point of the analysis is to make available for discussion and reflection currently dominant ways to demarcate public and private issues in relation to emerging technologies, including the accompanying distributions of tasks and responsibilities over experts and laypersons. However, the actors themselves cannot simply alter these demarcations and distributions at will. Their manoeuvring room is co-shaped by discursive structures at work in modern, technological, pluralist, liberal societies. In the third section, we therefore identify these structures, as they provide the hegemonic answers to the three key questions with regard to the possible impacts of emerging technologies: how are impacts evaluated; how are they estimated; and how are they caused? We conclude with some suggestions for further research.
Keywords
- Celiac Disease
- Technology Actor
- Celiac Patient
- Public Agenda
- Technological Mediation
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Achterhuis H (ed) (2001) American philosophy of technology: the empirical turn. Indiana University Press, Bloomington/Minneapolis
Akrich M (1992) The description of technical objects. In: Bijker W, Law J (eds) Shaping technology, building society: studies in sociotechnical change. MIT Press, Cambridge
Boenink M, Swierstra T, Stemerding D (2010) Anticipating the interaction between technology and morality: a scenario study of experimenting with humans in bionanotechnology. Stud Ethics Law Technol 4(2): article 4
Edwards D (1997) Discourse and cognition. Sage, London
Heritage J, Raymond G (2005) The terms of agreement: indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Soc Psychol Q 68(1):15–38
Hobson-West P (2007) ‘Trusting blindly can be the biggest risk of all’: organized resistance to childhood vaccination in the UK. Sociol Health Illn 29(2):198–215
Idhe D (1993) Postphenomenology. Northwestern University Press, Evanston
Jaeger CJ, Renn O, Rosa EA, Webler T (2001) Risk, uncertainty, and rational action. Earthscan, London
Jasanoff S (2003) Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41:223–244
Jasanoff S (ed) (2004) States of knowledge: the co-production of science and social order. Routledge, New York
Jefferson G (2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In: Lerner GH (ed) Conversation analysis: studies from the first generation. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp 13–31
Lamerichs J, te Molder H (2011, frth) Reflecting on your own talk: the discursive action method at work. In: Antaki C (ed) Applied conversation analysis. Intervention and change in institutional talk. Pallgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke
Latour B (1992) Where are the missing masses? In: Bijker W, Law J (eds) The sociology of the new mundane artefacts. Shaping technology, building society. MIT Press, Cambridge
Marris C (2001) Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths. EMBO Rep 21(7):545–548
Middendorp S, te Molder H, van Woerkum C (in prep.) Responsible innovation in the food sector: what impacts of food technology may enter the public debate? Wageningen University, Wageningen
Mill JS (1859) On liberty. Oxford University, Oxford, pp 21–22
Potter J (1996) Representing reality. Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. Sage, London
Ravetz JR (1975) …et augebitur scientia. In: Harré R (ed) Problems of scientific revolution. Progress and obstacles to progress in the sciences. Clarendon, Oxford, pp 42–57
Rawls J (1993) Political liberalism. Columbia University Press, New York
Rip A, Kemp R (1998) Technological change. In: Rayner S, Malone EL (eds) Human choice and climate change, vol 2. Battelle, Columbus, pp 327–399
Roesser S (ed) (2010) Emotions and risky technologies. Springer, Dordrecht/London
Slovic P (2000) The perception of risk. Earthscan, London
Swierstra T (2002) Moral vocabularies and public debate: the cases of cloning and new reproductive technologies. In: Keulartz J, Korthals JM, Schermer M, Swierstra T (eds) Pragmatist ethics for atechnological culture. Kluwer Academic, Deventer, pp 223–240
Swierstra T, Waelbers K (2010) Designing a good life: the matrix for the technological mediation of morality. Eng Ethics (Online First, 30 Nov 2010)
Swierstra T, Stemerding D, Boenink M (2009) Exploring techno-moral change. The case of the obesity pill. In: Solllie P, Duwell M (eds) Evaluating new technologies. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 119–138
te Molder H (2008) Discursive psychology. In: Donsbach W (ed) The international encyclopedia of communication, vol IV. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK/Malden, pp 1370–1372
te Molder H, Potter J (eds) (2005) Conversation and cognition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
te Molder H, Bovenhoff M, Gremmen B, van Woerkum C (submitted) Talking future technologies: how celiac disease patients neither accept nor reject a ‘simple pill’
Tenner E (1996) Why things bite back. Technology and the revenge of unintended consequences. Knopf, New York
Turkle S (2010) Alone together. Why we expect more from technology and less from another. Basic Books, New York
Van der Pot JHJ (1985) Die Bewertung des technischen Fortschritts. Eine systematische Uebersicht der Theorien. Van Gorcum, Maastricht
Veen M, Gremmen B, te Molder H, van Woerkum C (2010) Emergent technologies against the background of everyday life: discursive psychology as a technology assessment tool. Public Underst Sci. doi:10.1177/0963662510364202. Prepublished 13 Apr 2010
Verbeek PP (2005) What things do. Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. Pennsylvania State U.P, Pennsylvania, PA
Waelbers K (2011) Doing good with things–taking responsibility for the social role of technologies. Springer, Dordrecht
Wynne B (1996) Misunderstood misunderstandings. Social identities and public uptake of science. In: Irwin A, Wynne B (eds) Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 19–46
Wynne B (2001) Creating public alienation: expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Sci Cult 10(4):446–481
Wynne B (2006) Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science – hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genet 9:211–220
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this entry
Cite this entry
Swierstra, T., te Molder, H. (2012). Risk and Soft Impacts. In: Roeser, S., Hillerbrand, R., Sandin, P., Peterson, M. (eds) Handbook of Risk Theory. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_42
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_42
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-1432-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1433-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawReference Module Humanities and Social Sciences