Communication&innovation
The meaning of technology
-> complex phenomenon
-> the ways technology impacts our individual existence and society
-> stop its unwanted effects and promote its possibilities
-> 4 layers of meaning of the word ‘technology’:
1. Artefacts (= the object, a tangible piece of technology)
technology as an object -> most visible layer of technology -> material dimension, observable forms
-> we associate technology with complex shapes
-> simple objects can be technological in nature
-> almost all technologies have been shaped by human intervention
-> almost all technologies are tangible* (observable through our senses)
BUT technology comes as applications too, driven by algorithms
-> complex collection of artefacts is integrated in a device
-> key feature app: transmission of information
*software is made of algorithms -> software = intagible BUT software = an artefact !!!
-> without algorithms computers are objects without application
-> algorithms are a part of the computer
-> algorithms are partly the result of human intervention and recieved a shape
ex: a smartphone, a hammer, a laptop
2. Affordances (=> what it allows us to do)
=> application modalities of artefacts
-> artifacts become visible in the different ways various actors use them
-> ways are determined by technology’s affordance
producers build an artefact
-> with application modalities in mind / ways of using it (= intended affordances)
-> BUT affordances only show themselves after people start using it
-> affordances comme to live with the things we do with artefacts
= result of 2 separate aspects of an artefact
- material object
- mental representations in the mind of people
affordances intended by the producer
-> technologies come to live because of human drive to fix real problems
-> producers have clear application possibilities in mind
BUT sometimes stuff we produce isn’t an answer to a real problem
solutionism
= useless artefacts get a story
-> when creation doesn’t mean a thing -> waste of time and money
,=> invent problems to sell technology
=> promote fake affordances (so producers make money)
affordances by users
-> thoughts about possibilities for use
-> sometimes unintended by producer
mental representation
-> 2 circles: represent frames of reference shaped by our psychological & sociological being, by our
experiences, our biography
-> habitus (Bourdieu) = natural feeling we have when we act in social context we know
-> frames feed representations
-> pseudo-realities (Lippman) = set of dominant representations of reality imposed by the shared
culture of the society, we use for simplicity
(vorm van framing waarbij we een beeld vormen in ons hoofd dat niet de realiteit is)
1. observe action (event in reality)
2. we make an image of the action in our mind
3. we react to the image in our mind (NOT to the action itself!!!)
3. Social contexts (= complex circumstances in which artefacts are being developed and are
being impacted by the affordances) / Reciprocity of technology & society
link between technology and the social reality in which it’s made
technologies developed in specific societal circumstances change circumstances by their affordances
-> intimate reciprocity
ex: The Manhattan Project
-> set up by United States to develop a nuclear weapon
-> special social circumstances made this development possible (a war)
-> in normal circumstances -> program would be slowed down by social reality we call normal -> a
society driven by democratic decision-making processes
Society & the state it was in made it happen
Nuclear technology changed our world
-> changed science, political power, international relations, digital technologies, people’s worldviews
-> technology that promised limitless energy
=> driver for economic growth
-> new field of science: nuclear physics
, -> world no longer ruled by kings but by communism and capitalism
-> changes in political power stimulated further development of digital technology because it
legitemized the continued investments in development of information and communication
technologies
Society and its cultures
whether a technology is accepted is determined by the social context (norms&values) in which the
inventions take place
-> often technologies don’t become a material form, because it conflicts with social expectations and
ideas about what’s good and what’s not
once new technology is perceived as useful by a sufficient number of consumers -> lots of changes
take place -> people in specific social contexts explore possibilities and redefine technology’s initial
affordances
BUT the social contexts that makes changes in technology possible, changes all the time
SO the histories of people&society is inseparably linked to the history of technology
-> complex relationships of mutual influence
4. Narratives (= the stories we tell about it)
When we talk about technology reciprocity disappears
-> seems like technology is a fictional vacuum that isn’t a part of society
-> society has no impact on technology but gets impacted by it
(hegemonic discouse: technologie wordt gezien als een op zichzelf staande kracht die de samenleving
beïnvloedt, zonder ruimte voor sociale invloed)
In the hegemonic discourse*, reciprocity is replaced by deterministic narratives, that depends on
2 false premises:
1) unidirectional relation between technology & society: technology determines social realities
2) societies have no other option than to passively undergo technology’s effects
-> don’t try to interfere with technology, it’s impossible
*hegemonische narratieven waarin technologie wordt gezien als een op zichzelf staande kracht die
de samenleving beïnvloedt, zonder ruimte voor sociale invloed
The hegemony of deterministic narratives
(= Deterministische verhalen suggereren dat bepaalde uitkomsten onvermijdelijk of “natuurlijk” zijn
door biologie, technologie, geschiedenis of andere krachten waar mensen geen invloed op hebben.
Wanneer deze verhalen hegemoniaal worden, ontmoedigen ze het stellen van vragen en beperken
ze perspectieven op wat mogelijk zou kunnen zijn voor verandering, rechtvaardigheid of
vooruitgang.)
(-> De hegemonie van dergelijke verhalen beperkt het sociale voorstellingsvermogen, waardoor het
voor mensen moeilijk wordt om zich nieuwe manieren voor te stellen om de samenleving te
organiseren, zodat kwesties als ongelijkheid, duurzaamheid van het milieu of mensenrechten beter
kunnen worden aangepakt.)
-> there are different deterministic narratives
-> due to framing
-> different people choose different frames depending on what they want to show/hide
-> different frames lead to different deterministic narratives
The meaning of technology
-> complex phenomenon
-> the ways technology impacts our individual existence and society
-> stop its unwanted effects and promote its possibilities
-> 4 layers of meaning of the word ‘technology’:
1. Artefacts (= the object, a tangible piece of technology)
technology as an object -> most visible layer of technology -> material dimension, observable forms
-> we associate technology with complex shapes
-> simple objects can be technological in nature
-> almost all technologies have been shaped by human intervention
-> almost all technologies are tangible* (observable through our senses)
BUT technology comes as applications too, driven by algorithms
-> complex collection of artefacts is integrated in a device
-> key feature app: transmission of information
*software is made of algorithms -> software = intagible BUT software = an artefact !!!
-> without algorithms computers are objects without application
-> algorithms are a part of the computer
-> algorithms are partly the result of human intervention and recieved a shape
ex: a smartphone, a hammer, a laptop
2. Affordances (=> what it allows us to do)
=> application modalities of artefacts
-> artifacts become visible in the different ways various actors use them
-> ways are determined by technology’s affordance
producers build an artefact
-> with application modalities in mind / ways of using it (= intended affordances)
-> BUT affordances only show themselves after people start using it
-> affordances comme to live with the things we do with artefacts
= result of 2 separate aspects of an artefact
- material object
- mental representations in the mind of people
affordances intended by the producer
-> technologies come to live because of human drive to fix real problems
-> producers have clear application possibilities in mind
BUT sometimes stuff we produce isn’t an answer to a real problem
solutionism
= useless artefacts get a story
-> when creation doesn’t mean a thing -> waste of time and money
,=> invent problems to sell technology
=> promote fake affordances (so producers make money)
affordances by users
-> thoughts about possibilities for use
-> sometimes unintended by producer
mental representation
-> 2 circles: represent frames of reference shaped by our psychological & sociological being, by our
experiences, our biography
-> habitus (Bourdieu) = natural feeling we have when we act in social context we know
-> frames feed representations
-> pseudo-realities (Lippman) = set of dominant representations of reality imposed by the shared
culture of the society, we use for simplicity
(vorm van framing waarbij we een beeld vormen in ons hoofd dat niet de realiteit is)
1. observe action (event in reality)
2. we make an image of the action in our mind
3. we react to the image in our mind (NOT to the action itself!!!)
3. Social contexts (= complex circumstances in which artefacts are being developed and are
being impacted by the affordances) / Reciprocity of technology & society
link between technology and the social reality in which it’s made
technologies developed in specific societal circumstances change circumstances by their affordances
-> intimate reciprocity
ex: The Manhattan Project
-> set up by United States to develop a nuclear weapon
-> special social circumstances made this development possible (a war)
-> in normal circumstances -> program would be slowed down by social reality we call normal -> a
society driven by democratic decision-making processes
Society & the state it was in made it happen
Nuclear technology changed our world
-> changed science, political power, international relations, digital technologies, people’s worldviews
-> technology that promised limitless energy
=> driver for economic growth
-> new field of science: nuclear physics
, -> world no longer ruled by kings but by communism and capitalism
-> changes in political power stimulated further development of digital technology because it
legitemized the continued investments in development of information and communication
technologies
Society and its cultures
whether a technology is accepted is determined by the social context (norms&values) in which the
inventions take place
-> often technologies don’t become a material form, because it conflicts with social expectations and
ideas about what’s good and what’s not
once new technology is perceived as useful by a sufficient number of consumers -> lots of changes
take place -> people in specific social contexts explore possibilities and redefine technology’s initial
affordances
BUT the social contexts that makes changes in technology possible, changes all the time
SO the histories of people&society is inseparably linked to the history of technology
-> complex relationships of mutual influence
4. Narratives (= the stories we tell about it)
When we talk about technology reciprocity disappears
-> seems like technology is a fictional vacuum that isn’t a part of society
-> society has no impact on technology but gets impacted by it
(hegemonic discouse: technologie wordt gezien als een op zichzelf staande kracht die de samenleving
beïnvloedt, zonder ruimte voor sociale invloed)
In the hegemonic discourse*, reciprocity is replaced by deterministic narratives, that depends on
2 false premises:
1) unidirectional relation between technology & society: technology determines social realities
2) societies have no other option than to passively undergo technology’s effects
-> don’t try to interfere with technology, it’s impossible
*hegemonische narratieven waarin technologie wordt gezien als een op zichzelf staande kracht die
de samenleving beïnvloedt, zonder ruimte voor sociale invloed
The hegemony of deterministic narratives
(= Deterministische verhalen suggereren dat bepaalde uitkomsten onvermijdelijk of “natuurlijk” zijn
door biologie, technologie, geschiedenis of andere krachten waar mensen geen invloed op hebben.
Wanneer deze verhalen hegemoniaal worden, ontmoedigen ze het stellen van vragen en beperken
ze perspectieven op wat mogelijk zou kunnen zijn voor verandering, rechtvaardigheid of
vooruitgang.)
(-> De hegemonie van dergelijke verhalen beperkt het sociale voorstellingsvermogen, waardoor het
voor mensen moeilijk wordt om zich nieuwe manieren voor te stellen om de samenleving te
organiseren, zodat kwesties als ongelijkheid, duurzaamheid van het milieu of mensenrechten beter
kunnen worden aangepakt.)
-> there are different deterministic narratives
-> due to framing
-> different people choose different frames depending on what they want to show/hide
-> different frames lead to different deterministic narratives
