The International

Journal
TECHNOLOGY,
KNOWLEDGE
& SOCIETY

Volume 3

Technology and Development: A Discourse on Urban Life and

Modernization

Venkata Krishna Nadella, Saumil Sharma

www.technology-journal.com
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY, KNOWLEDGE AND SOCIETY
http://www.Technology-Journal.com

First published in 2007 in Melbourne, Australia by Common Ground Publishing Pty Ltd
www.CommonGroundPublishing.com.

© 2007 (individual papers), the author(s)

© 2007 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground

Authors are responsible for the accuracy of citations, quotations, diagrams, tables and maps.

All rights reserved. Apart from fair use for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under
the Copyright Act (Australia), no part of this work may be reproduced without written permission from the
publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact <cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com>.

ISSN: 1832-3669
Publisher Site: http://www.Technology-Journal.com

The INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY, KNOWLEDGE AND SOCIETY is a peer refereed

journal. Full papers submitted for publication are refereed by Associate Editors through anonymous referee
processes.

Typeset in Common Ground Markup Language using CGCreator multichannel typesetting system
http://www.CommonGroundSoftware.com.
Technology and Development: A Discourse on Urban Life and
Modernization
Venkata Krishna Nadella, DA-IICT, Gujarat, India
Saumil Sharma, DA-IICT, Gujarat, India

Abstract: A semi autonomous system based on the opportunity market created by the articulation of risk constitutes the
contemporary urban. Using classifications of space and time the urban can be understood as enclosures dominantly portrayed
as markets of technology running on capitalist ideology. This involved risk enframes opportunities into avenues of techno-
logical advancement in these spaces. The paper includes the study of the impacts of introduction of technologies on a
modern urban life. Technology supports its notion of development by providing a sense of purpose to be found in the end
results of any endeavors in the name of development. The purpose when designed to be development provides enhanced
choices to a human life, deteriorating the virtue of exercising unbiased choice. Most introductions of technology are respons-
ible for abstracting the consciousness of an urban human life with an assumption of the ‘better life’ promised by the implic-
ations of such technologies on urban existence. Technology can be explained as a tool to support the higher standards of
urban belonging but certainly is not sufficient to understand its impacts on the same. The co-existence of urban chaos and
social order, often sustained by implications of technology, induce an ambivalence which can explain the distortions in the
perceptions of development and modernization of our contemporary urban spaces.

Keywords: Urban Spaces, Semi Autonomous Systems, Risk, Development, Modernization, Technology Market, Urban
Chaos, Information, Ambivalence, Industrial Modernity

Introduction introductions in markets of controlled trends of in-

novation and advance.
N AN EFFORT to understand the interactions

I of new technologies and their markets in the

urban spaces of our time, a discourse has been
produced explaining the origins, inter-workings,
and fundamental grounds of sustaining of technology
markets in concerned scenarios. A variety of theories
and explanations have been put forward by scholars
since the last century to comprehend and investigate
the existence of ‘the urban’. These theoretical inter-
pretations of the city or the urban provide with the
basic outlines that sum up to create a semi-
autonomous system capable of self-differentiating
itself from its surroundings. In later decades of the
last century the introduction of new orders of percep-
tion towards the urban has considerably changed the
outlook towards these spaces. Acceptance and under-
standing risk as a critical prospect of natural exist-
ence in today’s world has invariably affected these
perceptions and has given birth to an idea called the
‘risk society’. Categorizing the urban into forms of
risk society is an implicit understanding of the semi-
autonomous nature of urban spaces and their risk
based growth and development. When risk is articu-
lated into the workings of the urban spaces, techno-
logy is found to use these articulations as consolid-
ated ideas demanding growth and sophistication in
the current trends and standards of technology, thus
creating an opportunity base for new technological
The Urban Space
The contemporary urban culture has evolved through
the explanations provided by intellectuals of the last
century. There have been different influences of
Marxian and Durkheimian ideas of ‘the urban’ or
the city. The neo-Marxist writers have extended their
ideas to establish the understanding of the urban
culture by linking dynamics of the cities with ideas
of space and time. Henri Lefebvre analyzed the
nature and workings of space as the set of conditions
shaping and dictating the everyday lives (Orum and
Xiangming, 2003). He singled out the significance
of 'space’ which creates a channel to view the
workings of human societies, providing imaginative
and productive ways of linking the basic urban sur-
vival to the operations and development of cities.
Lefebvre examined the city with three key elements
- spatial practices, representation of spaces, and rep-
resentational spaces. But the Lefebvre examination
lacked focus on the importance of connections that
human beings have with these spaces. Like Lefebvre,
Manuel Castles also understood the nature of a city
as urban space based on the underlying framework
of the Marxist theory of class struggle, the contradic-
tions of capitalism, and the need for reproduction of
labour to continue the dominance of capitalism as a

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY, KNOWLEDGE AND SOCIETY,

VOLUME 3, 2007
http://www.Technology-Journal.com, ISSN 1832-3669
© Common Ground, Venkata Krishna Nadella, Saumil Sharma, All Rights Reserved, Permissions: cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY, KNOWLEDGE AND SOCIETY, VOLUME 3
central system of the modern world (Susser, 2002).
Castles further incorporated the idea of seeing the
urban as a space for reproduction of labour power
or the importance of the nature of consumption by
the collective social class. Castles brought up the
ideas which centralized the importance of techno-
logy, generally relating to capitalism, in creating the
problematic of the urban.
For the last two decades the commentators of
urban culture have not only considered the population
growth and the working of the human society but
also the symbolic forms of a city which count for the
architectural outlook. The symbolism has appeared
to be encasing the essence of the contemporary pan-
orama which has a controlled domination over the
human consumption patterns depicting the space and
also the lives of the people living in it.
Two clear distinctions that signify the creation of
urban are - the spatial concentration of the population
on the basis of certain limits of dimension and
density; and the diffusion of the system of values,
attitudes, and behavior called urban culture. It be-
comes necessary to understand the structuring and
transformation of values to break down the theoret-
ical analysis into a practical synthesis. The relation
between the productive forces, social class, and cul-
tural forms (including space) can elicit the occupation
of space by a population of high concentration and
relatively high density and also of greater functional
and social differentiation, although it characterizes
the idea of ‘the urban' but is insufficient to define it.
The existence of a system of distribution and ex-
change can be used as a parameter of defining and
differentiating, as the city becomes a geographical
locus in which it establishes the politico-administrat-
ive superstructure of a society providing a dynamic
internal coherence and greater autonomy. The city
was dissected into a system of social classes, a
political system permitting both the functioning of
the social ensemble and the domination of one class,
an institutional system of investment in particular
with regards to culture and technology, a system of
external exchange (Loon, 2002).
During the medieval times the political specificity
of the city made it a world in itself and defined its
frontiers as a social system with conflict of classes
raising urban isolation, with spheres of consumption
and investment in focus. According to Weber, city
is a centre of trade and commerce where the needs
of the urban and non-urban population are catered
through the developed economic institutions (Weber,
2001). Weber quotes the urban as the physical loca-
tion or representation of the economic institutions
working today. So, the relationship between the city
and its population was material and the nature of
workings was the focus of Weber’s theory. This
theory provided by Weber would be extended into
the idea of a market place further in the discourse.
But for such a transformation of the city or the urban,
there should be a transition in the fundamental nature
of understanding of the urban and its inner-workings.
With the introduction of industrial capitalism there
was a visible shift in the perception of the urban and
its implications on to forming a culture relating to
it. It gave the urban space an outlook of institutional
and relatively autonomous system, organized around
specific objects. The industrial constitution of com-
modities formed an underlying basic block for the
economic system, the technical and social division
of labour, the diversification of social and economic
institutions over a larger space (Wynne, Lash and
Szerszynski, 1996). This shifting urban ideology was
based on the subjective presupposition of a theoret-
ical space defined by the specificity of its objects.
The social structures were considered as a unity to
adhere to the establishments of the pure administra-
tion of an internally divided but projected as a
classless society and also to disregard the discontinu-
ity and obstruction imposed by its internal rhythm.
This discontinuity and obstruction would later be
understood as the consequence of social order forced
by a risk based society.
The transition from industrial modernity into the
information age has proved to be the basis of growth
and destruction of the urban spaces that exist today.
It brought the focus from ideas of space and workings
of the society to be diverted on the visual culture and
symbolic articulation of the contemporary cities. The
visual culture prevailing in today’s urban spaces has
been manifestly originated by the dominant present-
ation of advanced capitalistic commerce. Integration
of visual culture, dominance of commerce institu-
tions, and transitory aesthetic value towards a world
of ‘goods’ and ‘commodities’ comprise the face of
contemporary urban development. The loss of in-
dustry and the rise of financial capital gave birth to
the more attractive forms of urban existence. Tech-
nology played a major role as the postmodern society
was taking shape into its contemporary form. With
intensified development models in practice technolo-
gical developments were made the undivided choice
of the social classes that exist in these spaces. Tech-
nology marketing was spread into swelling lucrative
markets that sustained themselves and grew into
larger and larger spaces (Loon, 2002).
The contemporary urban spaces can be understood
as semi-autonomous systems evolved all through
their history where in the last two decades the writers
have started to integrate the techno-natural existence
with identifying the new urban society. The urban
space as a system is semi-autonomous because the
desire for an autonomous wholeness is deeply in-
scribed in the logic of modern being which tends to
break the bounds of exclusive internal relations to
 VENKATA KRISHNA NADELLA, SAUMIL SHARMA

find external interference as a necessary input. The Risk and Urban Society
divisions of the organized flow of this system can
Risk has always been a subject of concern to human
be underlined as- self sufficient communication net-
existence. The industrial society saw risk as an entity
works; social, economic, and political institutions;
modifying visions of our modernity and produced
self regulatory class arrangement, class struggle of
sufficient accumulation of risk laden activities
the advanced capitalism; and markets running on
(Franklin and Beck, 1998). But this risk was pre-
competition(Susser, 2002). These subsystem entities
sumed to be industrial and was a focus against the
are well supported by technology as the society is
techno-economic advantage and opportunity. In the
turning to be more apprehensive about information.
late 20th century, the articulation of risk went under
So technology becomes the method through which
a drastic change of perception through which risk
different divisions interact with each other and
has evolved into its contemporary meaning.
therefore extends its pervasion into the roots of de-
Today, the significance of risk has transformed
velopment and growth of urban spaces.
from a consequence of collective human activity into
The whole idea of being connected to the world,
a realistic outlook towards the internal and external
the world of the urban, sustains itself on the commu-
dynamics of social change, which open up individual
nication technologies that have been brought to the
and political opportunities. During the industrial
world. Like the internet, the cellular phones, electron-
modernity risk was a prerogative of the political
ic mails, etc. form the backbone of communicative
charge which defined risk as an entity in existence
behavior in social relationships. These communica-
with the institution (Franklin and Beck, 1998). The
tion networks act as the foundation for the different
transformation has brought about the ‘deinstitution-
institutions, the class division, and the contention in
alization of risk’ due to which risk has become an
the market. Also the class division is a necessary
idea of individual security/insecurity through person-
idea for the existence of the urban space as the divi-
al intellection. The step down traversal of risk to-
sion provides the opportunity to link different classes
wards a broader significance among individuals
which complement the rest of the divisions.
comes through the notion of creating a community
A duality of ‘the urban’ existence lies in the
or a world that can be taken for granted, which gen-
foundations of our everyday lives distributed around
erates a sense of conformity towards the intense
the economic, political, and social constructs where
activity of change or a certainty towards the uncer-
the sky scrapers alienate and the city centers animate,
tain. The exposure to the dynamics of such a system,
large public spaces create anonymity and the private
a secured society, created awareness towards the
spaces provide identity, the socio-political regime
unawareness inherent in the system. This realization
creates peace and the city also faces crime. This du-
supported the perception shift of our society towards
ality is an unavoidable characteristic of the new
a consideration for uncertainty in the implications
urban ecology creating spaces for more class accom-
of our social and political existence (Beck, 1992).
modation and thus a feeling of belonging, and also
Risks, as illustrated by Beck and Giddens, are
belonging to nothing. Technology can be the answer
manmade hybrids. ‘Manufactured Uncertainty’ is a
for the ambivalence which is responsible for binding
term given to characterize the risks that are surfaced
the reasonability of urban existence with the ration-
due to the exercise of man’s desire to gain control
ality of social choice. As a result of technological
over the future. As supported by the idea of ‘reflexive
intrusion into ‘the urban’, urban spaces have under-
modernity’ (Beck, 1992), risk appears to have co-
gone a perception shift in the last two decades (Nardi
evolved with the modernity. The modern culture
and O'Day, 1999).
characterizes the control of man over risks where
A shift in the perception of looking at the urban
risk makes the future predictable or atleast promises
as a societal construction projecting scenarios of
to do so by supporting idea of human beings forecast-
choices and their outcomes elevates the urban spaces
ing the future, and therefore, forestalling for any
into a paradigm of risk contemplation. This risk be-
‘bad’ consequential reactions to their actions. In this
havior is inherent in existence in the urban spaces
process, risk is assessed to be an enclosure with
and excludes no dimension of its characterization.
sealed boundaries. But with all efforts to contain and
Risk articulation and assessment as a necessary vis-
avert the risk that is integrated to our existence, risk
ion of urban culture and urban society is described
still escapes the bounds of human intervention.
as a natural relationship based on foundations of
What others see as the development of social or-
creation of opportunity and forecast of possible fu-
der, my argument interprets as a stage of radicalized
ture.
modernity. A stage where the dynamics of individu-
alization, globalization and risk undermine modern-
ity and its foundations. Whatever happens, the
modernity gets reflexive, that means concerned with
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY, KNOWLEDGE AND SOCIETY, VOLUME 3
its unintended consequences, risks and foundations.
(Franklin and Beck, 1998)
Risk is the modern idea of being. The ‘good’ being
the correspondence of maximum advantage inher-
ently has classified the choices and their consequence
to be good and bad. The ambivalence prevailing in
any classification spawns the unknown. This exclus-
ive categorization of the bad and the unknown gave
an enhanced relevance to risk in our society (Bau-
man, 1998). This raised platform for risk has brought
the state apparatus into securing and regulating the
urban space by tools of prediction and estimation. It
has been evident by the history of risk that the under-
standing of risk to create regularity and security al-
ways transgresses to become a story of irregularity
and insecurity. So this state authority which include
and combine politics, ethics, mathematics, mass
media, technologies, cultural definitions and percepts
have made indefinite efforts towards creating a place
where risk can be bought and sold in terms of the
extent of damage estimation and aversion (Franklin
and Beck, 1998). So, in these urban spaces risk itself
was transformed into a commodity which could be
exchanged as a tangible good or an intangible idea
with a certain interest of human behavior to control
the future.
One of the important factors that risk society sus-
tains itself is that risk is not attributed to an external
agency and thus remains a part of the autonomous
character of our urban spaces (Loon, 2002). The
urban regulatory social and political institutions le-
gitimize the science of risk assessment and risk
management as thoroughly modern embracing ideas
like ‘complexity theory’, which itself includes unde-
cidability and unpredictability. Our urban existence
is a prevailing risk society which is entailed by the
primarily dominant technological culture, assumed
to create and sustain a relatively stable state for sur-
vival. But risks are not a responsibility that can be
attributed to any specific entity. They are no one’s
responsibility. Therefore, it becomes a paradox for
the technological innovation providing solutions, at
an ever increasing pace, to solve a problem with its
root unknown. Risk has been an instrument in the
advance of techno cultural systems of science, gov-
ernance, mediation, commerce, law and the military,
and also endangered the gradual erosion. The risks
endangered by techno-science constantly spill over
and flow into other social institutions. The techno
cultural enframing of risks transforms risk into op-
portunities. All opportunities are presented as
benchmarks for attaining a ‘better life’ offered by
the urban space. These opportunities are valued in a
market where valuations of certain intangible and
tangible assets, marked as requisites of the better
life, are performed using parameters of benefit and
welfare, where risk indeed is a product of the desire
to create a state of maximum self-interests, which is
also defined as the utilitarian selfishness. It’s the
superficial understanding of the population which
helps sustain the opportunity market in urban spaces.
Majority of these opportunity markets are dictated
by the new and latest trends of technological innov-
ation and development because the root of opportun-
ity creation lies in the application of technology to
understand and obviate risks. We will see in the fol-
lowing section the role of technology in creating a
self sustaining new age opportunity market labeled
with tags of welfare and social development which
is driven by the ‘knowing’ and ‘not knowing’ of risks
(Wynne, Lash and Szerszynski, 1996; Loon, 2002).
Technology and the Market
Technology is one of the most complex phenomena
in the world today although the modernist outlook
considers it simplifying life. It is only through history
that we can gain an insight into the impact and im-
plications of technology on culture, which has been
lately known as the technological culture. Techno-
logy is playing a role which has varied on different
scales through factors that one chooses to involve.
In this paper, we intend to discuss technology in the
light off the urban space and its evolution into a risk
society. Risk, as we discussed in the last section,
permeates the limits of human bounds and always
creates a ‘future with risk’ when the future is expec-
ted to be free from it. Technology insulates the risk
recreation and the autonomy with which risk handle
itself rather than humans handling the risk, for ex-
ample, the case of exercising control over natural
calamities using technology. Technology has trans-
formed itself from being an influence over the society
to an access to people. With the advent of informa-
tion revolution, the technological intrusion and pro-
liferation into almost all fields of an urban life have
become unavoidable. Technology has evolved to
dominate human thought and choice. There are two
major factors responsible for this. First, the magical
ability of technology to paint its cause and effect on
the world which creates an awed welcome by social
constructions like the risk based contemporary urban
spaces. Second being, a more pragmatic one, the
technology providing human beings the things they
value and technology having the only capability to
provide them (Wynne, Lash and Szerszynski, 1996).
Consider all the converted reality which exists in the
digital paradigm based on the objectification and
tagging of the world and its entities into a database
which can be referred in the future. By presenting
such focus it’s not an intention to choose a techno-
phile or a dystopian view. This paper asks the follow-
ing question implicitly in a previous section. What
is to be sustained in the urban space, and how? Well,
 VENKATA KRISHNA NADELLA, SAUMIL SHARMA
this answer requires some explanation based on the
opportunity market or rather a market of technology.
Market of technology is an opportunity market
which is more or less based on the methods of late
advanced capitalist ideology to propagate its ideas
of benefit through maximizing opportunity. This
market is generated by the interest of the urban
population, through the answers they seek towards
various ecological virtues involving human beings.
The opportunity is seen as a mode of altering the
future to create more secure and viable circumstances
providing the necessary routes of development for
human beings and their quest for the ‘better life’,
assumed to be promised by their existence in an
urban space. But technology has its own realm of
existence. The technology market has a consumer
base which creates the ever expanding need for the
development of technology for improving living
standards, also rephrased as the notion of moderniz-
ation. This market has certain entities which play the
defining role of holding the market together and also
create this space called the ‘technology market’.
Technology Market is based on a very careful mix
of inevitable choices, opportunity generated through
risk, and a desensitized consumer base. The designer,
a role played by the joint collaboration of the innov-
ators and marketers of technology, is responsible to
create, sustain, and expand the consumer base for
this market. The designer manipulates the choices
of the consumers to focus towards a point of deliber-
ate inevitability of a particular choice (Nye, 2006).
Technology in the everydayness of the urban life
is considered as a tool working in hand with the hu-
man existence. The market thrives on the causality
of the introduction and diffusion of each technology
in the society. Problems of one technology are to be
solved by more technologies, creating expanding
loops of similar phenomenon. This propagation runs
as a rationale for the sustaining the productivity of
each entity in the technology market. Reducing the
common urban thought to a concentrated mass of
similar understanding of the technologies in terms
of utility, usability, skill, and learning is the whole
idea of technology as a tool. In our view this is not
the right method to understand technology because
the new technologies tend to be mystifying as there
is not a certain definition of their use and work. The
idea of utilitarian selfishness, or the will to survive
being comparative to the will of self-preservation
has been under subtle usage by the designers of the
markets of technology who put their efforts through
pressing technology onto converting human lives
into processes involving tasks. They produce unques-
tionable rationality to the technology and its use,
both defined by them, to create the sense of enhanced
choice but in the end being tone down to a single
predefined and presupposed dictation of the designer.
The rationality used by the markets of technology
and their designers is the reasonability of the urban
life and its existence. Rationality is constituted by
reason, common sense, and conventional morality,
supported by actions that follow (Beck and Beck-
Grensheim 2002). The focus has always been on the
centrality of reason in an urban space. For everything
that exists in this space is undoubtedly reasonable,
else it creates a condition of self-elimination from
this space. The designer uses the notions of rational-
ity to create structurally induced needs (Winner,
1977). The structural composition of these needs is
presupposed by the market and thus is presented to
the humans prevailing in this space as to transform
these needs into desires.
The rationality in the market can be attributed to
‘faith in reason’ and ‘truth in reason’. Faith in reason
is the basis of an unchallenged acceptance of techno-
logy as the way of living in the urban spaces. The
faith is built upon the frameworks of scientific proofs
and research outcomes which also are an indirect
part of this market dictation. Technology being an
introduction of scientific methodology has leverage
because scientific expertise does not tolerate dissent
and stays at a clear advantage because of the alleged
truth that comes directly from the expeditions of
reality via measurements and instruments of percep-
tion. Truth in reason has been articulated as an ap-
proximation of the thought of the other and its dis-
tinction with the thought of self (Loon, 2002). In the
information age, where information is disembodied,
(information may exist without any context) the
ambivalence characterizes the incapability of central-
ity of reason and formation of rationality in the con-
temporary urban spaces to sufficiently provide an
understanding of technologies.
A psychoanalytic research shows that human be-
ings perceive only what they are ready to see. This
phenomenon is called unattentional blindness, where
the notion of a natural perception is devastated
through the detailed ecological study (Nardi and
O'Day, 1999). So, the market of technology sustains
due to two important factors. First, the realization of
technology as a market by the designers of the tech-
nology world. Second, the unpreparedness of the
urban population to look at technology as a market
rather than seeing it as a supplement to the intensified
visual representation of the urban space. The notable
change towards the technological awareness and
perception since the advent of the information age
has produced a proliferation of technological advance-
ment. With modernization as the key to the urban,
the developments in technology have seeped in
through different classes of the society (Wynne, Lash
and Szerszynski, 1996). Every technology has its
own interpretation, which in the world today has
become very individualistic to a great extent. This
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY, KNOWLEDGE AND SOCIETY, VOLUME 3

transition from a societal reflection of technology to
the enormously varied individual reflections has been
a result of instances of upgraded urban consumption
of technology in the form of tools and techniques
they are represented. Technology has provided an
incoherent assimilation of each new introduction into
the society which sometimes surfaces to add to the
visual representations of the urban space. Incoher-
ence in interpretations of technology regularly sur-
face in our society as instances of confusion. The
ambivalence produced by these varied interpretations
could be attributed to the existence of urban chaos
(Bauman, 2003).
Conclusion
Using classification of space and time, the urban
spaces constitute of a capitalist idea of an opportunity
based marketplace with foundations of sociopolitical
administrative structures, communication backbone
and symbolic architecture. In the contemporary vis-
ion of urban spaces, there stands a clear dominance
of visual culture which is supported by the technolo-
gical dependence of existence in this space. This
technological dependence is also a result of an evol-
utionary change in purpose, thought, and choice of
urban population with the advent of information so-
ciety. The conformity towards an uncertain behavior
in every existence in an urban space is the change
that has been brought by better understanding of risk
along with notions of risk aversion and risk manage-
ment. Today risks are seen as opportunities to ad-
vance technology to prevent a particular possible
future, inturn creating newer and newer risks.
When technologies are introduced with visions of
development and modernization, an alternate ra-
tionale can be produced from the nature and work-
ings of this market. With the manufacturing of tech-
nology, the designers also manufacture the needs for
most technologies. These needs are first transformed
into various interpretations of development and
modernization in the popular visual culture which
creates a platform for the related technology to fol-
low. In essence it is the focus on commoditization
of entities in this market. Abstraction at the level of
reasoning and rationalizing the everydayness of
urban survival, in terms of the commoditization and
objectification, is attributed to the market parameters
of profit and opportunity maximization, which clearly
run at the level of human thought and choice. The
introduction of technologies into our present urban
spaces has been based on manipulatively forced in-
terests of the innovators and marketers of technology.
Often, free choices to be exercised by consumers are
presupposed by designers of a particular technology
rather than anticipating the actual free choice of the
consumers for innovations in technology.
A future study in the field of social implications
of innovation and development of technology with
perspectives that integrate the free choice exercised
by the population of such spaces is unavoidable.
Also, the vision of technological change and risk
aversion has to be studied under the light of purpose
and relevance of certain technological advancements
pertaining to avoiding risks to seek a safer and im-
proved life. Risks have to be seen as awareness to-
wards an unknown outcome of any given circum-
stance and activity, where the awareness of the un-
known is the result of the assessment of risk rather
than enframing new opportunities for creating value
for every risk that comes to light.
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank Professor Aditi Nath Sarkar for
his criticism and valuable comments during the initial
stages of this paper and for his ingenious inputs
throughout the rest. We would also like to thank the
anonymous referees for their comments that helped
make the final manuscript better readable.

References
Bauman, Z. (1998). Modernity and Ambivalence. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bauman, Z. (2003). Wasted Lives: Modernity and its Outcasts. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beck, U. (1992). World Risk Society. London: Sage Publishing.
Beck, U., & Beck-Grensheim, E. (2002). Individualization. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Franklin, J., & Beck, U. (1998). The Politics of Risk Society. Oxfordshire: Polity Press.
Hughes, T. P. (2004). Human Built World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lash, S. (2002). Critique of Information. London: SAGE Publication Ltd.
Loon, J. V. (2002). Risk and Technological Culture. New York: Routledge.
Nardi, A. B., & O'Day, L. V. (1999). Information Ecologies. London: The MIT Press.
Nye, D. (2006). Technology Matters. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Orum, M. A., & Xiangming, C. (2003). The World of Cities. Cornwall: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Skinner, D., McLaughlin, J., & Rosen, P. (1999). Valuing Technology. Oxford: Routledge.
Susser, I. (2002). Castles Reader on city and social theory. Cornwall: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. .
Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and Social Inclusion. London: The MIT Press.
Weber, Max: Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London. Routledge, 2001.
Winner, L. (2001). Autonomous Technology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Wynne, B., Lash, S., & Szerszynski, B. (1996). Risk, Environment and Modernity. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
 VENKATA KRISHNA NADELLA, SAUMIL SHARMA

About the Authors

Venkata Krishna Nadella
DA-IICT, India

Saumil Sharma
DA-IICT, India
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY, KNOWLEDGE AND SOCIETY

EDITORS
Bill Cope, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA.
Mary Kalantzis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA.
Amareswar Galla, Australian National University, Australia.

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD

Darin Barney, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Marcus Breen, Northeastern University, Boston, USA.
G.K. Chadha, Jawahrlal Nehru University, India.
Simon Cooper, Monash University, Australia.
Bill Dutton, University of Oxford, United Kingdom.
David Hakken, University of Indiana, Bloomington, Indiana, USA.
Michele Knobel, Montclair State University, New Jersey, USA.
Jeannette Shaffer, Edtech Leaders, VA, USA.
Ravi S. Sharma, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
Robin Stanton, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Telle Whitney, Anita Borg Institute for Women and Technology.
Monica Zuccarini, Università di Napoli, Italy.

Please visit the Journal website at http://www.Technology-Journal.com for further

information:
- ABOUT the Journal including Scope and Concerns, Editors, Advisory Board,
Associate Editors and Journal Profile
- FOR AUTHORS including Publishing Policy, Submission Guidelines,
Peer Review Process and Publishing Agreement

SUBSCRIPTIONS
The Journal offers individual and institutional subscriptions. For further information please
visit http://ijt.cgpublisher.com/subscriptions.html. Inquiries can be directed to
subscriptions@commongroundpublishing.com

INQUIRIES
Email: cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com