Abstract
Mediation is the claim that technologies have an impact on the way in which we perceive the world and on the way we act in it. Often this impact goes beyond human intentions: it can hardly be understood only in terms of “intentions of the user” or in terms of “intentions of the designer.” Mediation argues that technologies have “agency” themselves and then tries to explicate the way in which technological objects and human subjects form a complex relation and constitute each other. Designers should anticipate mediation effects and can use mediation to moralize technologies. However, questions can be asked about how far the moralizing of technologies is compatible with user autonomy.
Keywords
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
References
Akrich M (1992) The description of technical objects. In: Shaping technology/building society. Studies in sociotechnical change. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 205–224
Akrich M, Latour B (1992) A summary of a convenient vocabulary for the semiotics of human and nonhuman assemblies. In: Shaping technology/building society. Studies in sociotechnical change. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 259–264
Anderson J (2010) Review: nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness by Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein. Econom Philos 26(3):369–375
Baker S, Martinson DL (2001) The TARES test: five principles for ethical persuasion. J Mass Media Ethics 16(2 & 3):148–175
Berdichevsky D, Neunschwander E (1999) Persuasive technologies – toward an ethics of persuasive technology. Commun ACM 42(5):51
Brey P (2006a) The social agency of technological artifacts. In: Verbeek P-P, Adriaan S (eds) User behavior and technology development. Springer, Netherlands, pp 71–80. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4020-5196-8_8
Brey P (2006b) Ethical aspects of behaviour-steering technology. In: Verbeek P-P, Slob A (eds) User behaviour and technology development. Springer, Berlin, pp 357–364
Dorrestijn S (2012a) The design of our own lives: technical mediation and subjectivation after Foucault. Universiteit Twente. http://purl.utwente.nl/publications/81848
Dorrestijn S (2012b) Technical mediation and subjectivation: tracing and extending Foucault’s philosophy of technology. Philos Technol 25(2):221–241. doi:10.1007/s13347-011-0057-0
Dorrestijn S, Verbeek P-P (2013) Technology, wellbeing, and freedom: the legacy of Utopian design. http://purl.utwente.nl/publications/88125
Feenberg A (2009) Peter-Paul Verbeek: review of what things do. Human Stud 32(2):225–228. doi:10.1007/s10746-009-9115-3
Fogg BJ (2003) Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do, The Morgan Kaufmann series in interactive technologies. Morgan Kaufmann, Amsterdam/Boston
Gregory D (2011) From a view to a kill: drones and late modern war. Theory Cult Soc 28(7–8):188–215. doi:10.1177/0263276411423027
Hausman DM, Welch B (2010) Debate: to nudge or not to nudge. J Polit Philos 18(1):123–136. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00351.x
Herring H, Sorrell S (2009) Energy efficiency and sustainable consumption: the rebound effect. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke [England]/New York
Ihde D (1993) Postphenomenology: essays in the postmodern context. Northwestern University Press, Evanston
Ihde D (2008) The designer fallacy and technological imagination. In: Philosophy and design. Springer, Netherlands, pp 51–59. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4020-6591-0_4
Ihde D (2009) Postphenomenology and technoscience. SUNY press, Albany (N.Y.)
IJsselsteijn W (ed) (2006) Persuasive technology: first international conference on persuasive technology for human well-being, PERSUASIVE 2006, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, May 18–19, 2006: Proceedings. Berlin. Springer, New York
Illies C, Meijers A (2009) Artefacts without agency. The Monist 36(3):420
Joerges B (1999) Do politics have artefacts? Soc Stud Sci 29(3):411–431
John P (2011) Nudge, nudge, think, think: experimenting with ways to change civic behaviour. Bloomsbury Academic, London
Kaplan DM (2009) What things still don’t do. Human Stud 32(2):229–240. doi:10.1007/s10746-009-9116-2
Kaptein M, Eckles D (2010) Means to any end: futures and ethics of persuasion profiling. In: Ploug P, Hasle H, Oinas-Kukkonen H (eds) Persuasive technology. Persuasive 2010. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York, pp 82–93
Karppinen P, Oinas-Kukkonen H (2013) Three approaches to ethical considerations in the design of behavior change support systems. In: Shlomo B, Jill F (eds) Persuasive technology, vol 7822. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 87–98, http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-642-37157-8_12
Kraemer F, van Overveld K, Peterson M (2011) Is there an ethics of algorithms? Ethics Inform Technol 13(3):251–260. doi:10.1007/s10676-010-9233-7
Kroes P, Verbeek P-P (eds) (2014) The moral status of technical artefacts, Philosophy of engineering and technology. Springer, Dordrecht
Latour B (1979) The social construction of scientific facts. Hills u.a, Beverly
Latour B (1992) Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. In: Bijker WE, Law J (eds) The sociology of a few mundane artifacts, MIT Press, USA, pp. 225–258
Latour B (2005) Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York
Law J (1999) Actor network theory and after. Blackwell/Sociological Review, Oxford [England]/Malden
Peterson M, Spahn A (2011) Can technological artefacts be moral agents? Sci Eng Ethics 17(3):411–424
Pettersen IN, Boks C (2008) The ethics in balancing control and freedom when engineering solutions for sustainable behaviour. Int J Sustain Eng 1(4):287–297. doi:10.1080/19397030802559607
Pols AJK (2013) How artefacts influence our actions. Ethical Theor Moral Pract 16(3):575–587
Radder H (2009) Why technologies are inherently normative. In: Anthonie M (ed) Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences. Elsevier B.V, Amsterdam/Boston, pp 887–921
Royakkers L, van Est R (2010) The cubicle warrior: the marionette of digitalized warfare. Ethics Inform Technol 12(3):289–296. doi:10.1007/s10676-010-9240-8
Sharkey N (2010) Saying ‘No!’ to lethal autonomous targeting. J Military Ethics 9(4):369–383. doi:10.1080/15027570.2010.537903
Singer PW (2009) Wired for war: the robotics revolution and conflict in the twenty-first century. Penguin Press, New York
Smids J (2012) The voluntariness of persuasive technology. In: Magnus B, Ragnemalm EL (eds) Persuasive technology. Design for health and safety, vol 7284, Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 123–32. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-31037-9_11
Spahn A (2011) Moralische maschinen. Proceedings XXII. Deutscher Kongress fﺰr Philosophie Doc-type: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Mﺰnchen (e-pub) conference object. http://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/12596/
Spahn A (2012) And lead us (not) into persuasion? persuasive technology and the ethics of communication. Sci Eng Ethics 18(4):633–650
Spahn A (2013) Moralizing mobility? persuasive technologies and the ethics of mobility. Transfers 3(2):108–115. doi:10.3167/TRANS.2013.030207
Swierstra T, Waelbers K (2012) Designing a good life: a matrix for the technological mediation of morality. Sci Eng Ethics 18(1):157–172. doi:10.1007/s11948-010-9251-1
Tenner E (1997) Why things bite back: technology and the revenge of unintended consequences. Vintage Publishers, New York
Thaler R, Sunstein C (2008) Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press, New Haven
Tromp N, Hekkert P, Verbeek P-P (2011) Design for socially responsible behavior: a classification of influence based on intended user experience. Design Issues 27(3):3–19. doi:10.1162/DESI_a_00087
Verbeek P-P (2000) De daadkracht der dingen: over techniek filosofie en vormgeving. Boom, Amsterdam
Verbeek P-P (2005) What things do: philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park
Verbeek P-P (2006a) Persuasive technology and moral responsibility: toward an ethical framework for persuasive technologies. In: Persuasive technology 2006, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands. Available from: http://www.utwente.nl/gw/wijsb/organization/verbeek/verbeek_persuasive06.pdf (accessed 29 January 2014)
Verbeek P-P (2006b) Materializing morality: design ethics and technological mediation. Sci Technol Hum Value 31(3):361–380
Verbeek P-P (2006c) Acting artifacts. In: Verbeek PP, Slob A (eds) User behavior and technology development: shaping sustainable relations between consumers and technologies, Springer, vol 53, pp 53–60
Verbeek P-P (2008a) Obstetric ultrasound and the technological mediation of morality: a postphenomenological analysis. Human Stud 31(1):11–26. doi:10.1007/s10746-007-9079-0
Verbeek P-P (2008b) Cyborg intentionality: rethinking the phenomenology of human–technology relations. Phenom Cogn Sci 7(3):387–395. doi:10.1007/s11097-008-9099-x
Verbeek P-P (2009a) Let’s make things better: a reply to my readers. Human Stud 32(2):251–261. doi:10.1007/s10746-009-9118-0
Verbeek P-P (2009b) Ambient intelligence and persuasive technology: the blurring boundaries between human and technology. NanoEthics 3(3):231–242. doi:10.1007/s11569-009-0077-8
Verbeek P-P (2011) Moralizing technology: understanding and designing the morality of things. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Verbeek P-P (2014) Some misunderstandings about the moral significance of technology. In: Kroes P, Verbeek P-P (eds) The moral status of technical artefacts, vol 17, Philosophy of engineering and technology. Springer, Netherlands, pp 75–88, http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-7914-3_5
Waelbers K (2009) From assigning to designing technological agency. Human Stud 32(2):241–250. doi:10.1007/s10746-009-9117-1
Wall T, Monahan T (2011) Surveillance and violence from afar: the politics of drones and liminal security-scapes. Theor Criminol 15(3):239–254. doi:10.1177/1362480610396650
Winner L (1980) Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus 109:121–123
Winner L (1993) Upon opening the black box and finding it empty: social constructivism and the philosophy of technology. Sci Technol Hum Val 18(3):362–378
Woolgar S, Cooper G (1999) Do artefacts have ambivalence? Moses’ bridges, Winner’s bridges and other urban legends in S&TS. Soc Stud Sci 29(3):433–449
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this entry
Cite this entry
Spahn, A. (2014). Mediation in Design for Values. In: van den Hoven, J., Vermaas, P., van de Poel, I. (eds) Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6994-6_9-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6994-6_9-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-6994-6
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Religion and PhilosophyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Humanities