Techn 14:1 Winter 2010 Ihde, Philosophy of Technology...

/26
Philosophy of Technology (nd/or Technoscience!": 1##6$2010
%on Ihde
&tte 'ni(ersity of )e* +or,, &tony -roo,
When the Techn .ditoril /ffice contcted 0e *ith n in(ittion to do ne* 1stte$of$the$rt2
piece for this lso ne* print (ersion of o3r 4o3rnl, I *s delighted5ltho3gh t the s0e ti0e
this posed 0i6ed feeling since 0y originl, first (ol30e rticle, 1Philosophy of Technology:
1#78$1##82 hs no* lredy 9een follo*ed 9y fo3r 0ore genre re(ie* rticles, l0ost n
(oction for 0e. Tht first rticle *s pro0pted 9y the p39liction of :rl ;itch0<s still 0ost
co0prehensi(e history of the philosophy of technology, Thinking Through Technology (1##4".
;y o*n first prticiption in the &ociety for Philosophy nd Technology hd 9een t %el*re,
1#78, 93t I did not then reli=e tht this *s the first 0eeting of the society. It *ill 9e seen shortly
tht 0y first prticiption in 4/&, the &ociety for &ocil &t3dies of &cience, *s not long fter,
1#7#, nd this prllel prticiption *ill ply 9c,gro3nd role in this 3pdted re(ie*. >s it t3rns
o3t, 4/& lso first 0et in 1#78, 93t *s 9oth highly interdisciplinry nd do0inted 9y the socil
sciences fro0 its 9eginnings. It, li,e &PT, lterntes '& nd interntionl sites, 93t 0eets
nn3lly.
?ro0 the 9eginning there hs 9een tension 9et*een and or of for &PT. :rl ;itch0 nd P3l
%3r9in, originl godfthers re still cti(e nd 9oth *ere defenders of the philosophy and
technology title *hich resisted 0ore cde0ic nd s39$disciplinry philosophy of technology in
prllel *ith the philosophy of science. I5nd I dre lso cli05@oe Pitt, f(ored the other side.
>nd the 9oth of 3s hd connections to the lso then firly ne* nd gro*ing &T& (science
technology st3dies" 0o(e0ents *hich *ere to for0 (rint 9c,drop to *ht I *ill trce o3t
here. -3t first 9rief chrcteri=tion of the fo3r post$Techn genre re(ie*s. These 9oth trce 0y
o*n concerns o(er the inter(ening ti0e, nd since 0ost of these pieces *ere in(ited, e(idence for
*ht others regrd s e6perientil e6pertise: The first *s n rticle, 1Technoscience nd the
A/ther< :ontinentl Philosophy,2 in Continental Philosophy Review, Bol. CC, &pring, 2000.
:oncerned tht 0ost of the )orth >0ericn continentl philosophies hd drifted into rts nd
h30nities interests, nd those pri0rily tied to ?rncophone thin,ers, to the neglect of science
nd technology, I tried to sho* tht 0ny of the dyn0ic nd yo3nger set of ct3lly p39lishing
.3ropens *ere interested in science nd technology, prtic3lrly fro0 0ny interdisciplinry
progr0s nd often locted in the northern .3ropen co3ntries. These ne*er philosophers *ere
9oth in tone nd pproch D3ite different fro0 the erlier genertion of 0ore gloo0y nd
trnscendentl first genertion philosophers of technology. These interests *ill sho* 3p soon
9elo*.
The ne6t to 9e p39lished *ere t*o in(ited philosophy of technology genre re(ie*s, one in the '&
the other in .3rope. Philosophy of Science hd in(ited 0e to do genre re(ie* rticle on the
ppernce of the 0ssi(e Eo9ert &chrff nd Bl %3se,, Philosophy of Technology: The
Technological Condition (-lc,*ell, 200C". ;y 1Fs the Philosophy of Technology >rri(ed! >
&tte$of$the$>rt Ee(ie*2 ppered in Bol. 71, &pring 2004 Philosophy of Science. The other,
1Philosophy of Technology,2 originlly presented t the :entre for .thics nd G* in
:openhgen, *s p39lished in .3ropen p39liction, World and Worldhood, edited 9y Peter
He0p (&pringer, 2004" nd *s ddressed to 0ore specificlly .3ropen scene. Then, lter, s
0y tr(els 9egn to 0o(e 0ore freD3ently to >si, *ith to3rs in 2004, 2006 nd 2007 in :hin,
repeted reD3est there *s to do s3r(ey re(ie*s of *ht *s 0ost 3p to dte in 9oth the
GeneratedforEBSCOinc.2011/9/272011PhilosophyDocumentationCenterhttp://www.pdcnet.org
Techn 14:1 Winter 2010 Ihde, Philosophy of Technology.../27
philosophies of science nd technology. This *s so0e*ht s3rprising 9ec3se se(erl of 0y
erlier trips relted to .3ro$'&$>sin co0prti(e philosophy nd 0ny of the older scholrs
*ere f0ilir s e6perts in Hnt, F3sserl, Feiddegger nd echoed scholrly style long f0ilir
to 0e. -3t *ith these ne* trips *ht *s so3ght *s the conte0porry stte of philosophy. I
presented 1.3ro$>0ericn Philosophy of Technology Tody2 t &o3thern :hin 'ni(ersity of
Technology nd 1Interprettion Wrs: Who shll interpret &cience!2 t the &hnghi >cde0y of
&ocil &cienceI these lect3res h(e s39seD3ently 9een p39lished in :hinese. This ne* Techn
red36 rticle no* 0,es for the si6th s3ch re(ie* in this stte$of$the$rt tr4ectory.
Typiclly, genre re(ie*s incl3de 03ltiple 9oo, references50y Philosophy of Science rticle
referenced 84 s3ch 9oo,s. -3t tody the prolifertion of 9oo,s hs 9eco0e too (st to 3ndert,e
in single rticle, nor do I *nt to repet here *ht the pre(io3s rticles did. &o, I h(e decided
insted to loo, t so0e interesting trends, ne* tr4ectories nd e0ergent the0es *hich 0y 9e
fo3nd pri0rily since 1##8. (P3l %3r9in in this iss3e reherses so0e of the erlier fet3res s did
0y first Techn re(ie*." %3r9in reclls the erly for0tion of &PT nd its str3ggles. .(en 9y
0id$cent3ry, technology rrely plyed significnt role for )orth >0ericn philosophers.
:ontrrily, erly to 0id$20
th
cent3ry .3ropens, incl3ding ;rtin Feidegger, @cD3es .ll3l, nd
of specil interest to erly &PT fol,, Fns @ons, *ere first genertion philosophy nd technology
thin,ers. These philosophers, to *hich one 0ight dd hlf do=en other 0ostly .3ropen
thin,ers, *ere5s 0ost recogni=e tody5(ery high le(el 9strcters 9o3t Technology nd, in
tone, often do0inntly dystopin. %3r9in, s the leding orgni=er of &PT, does refer to the
lrgely helpf3l reltions *ith &F/T personnel (&ociety for the Fistory of Technology", 93t fo3nd
P&> (Philosophy of &cience >ssocition" philosophers lrgely 3nhelpf3l. >nd ltho3gh 4/& nd
.>&&T (.3ropen >ssocition for the &t3dy of &cience nd Technology" gro3ps h(e not s
societies hd 03ch to do *ith &PT, indi(id3ls5prtic3lrly 0ong *ht I shll cll the .3ro$
>0ericn yo3nger set5often prticipte in 9oth societies. >nd, s I shll contend, the Astyle< of
nlysis co00on to &T& concerns hs, in recent yers, hd significnt recent i0pct 3pon &PT s
*ell. It 0ight 9e noted in pssing tht 03ch philosophy of technology re0ined 0rginli=ed
e(en thro3gh the J0<s nd #0<s *hen the ne* sociologies of science, science st3dies nd &T&
0o(e0ents *ere gining 0o0ent30. >nd then, too, this *s the period in *hich e(en
0instre0 (0ostly nlytic" philosophy of science lso 9ec0e 0ore nd 0ore seprted fro0
the lrgely socil science perspecti(es of the 9o(e noted 0o(e0ents.
The 04ority of philosophers of science 4oined rn,s *ith the 1science *rriors2 ginst the
ne*co0ers fro0 sociology, nthropology nd lter fe0inis0 nd ended 3p often dropping o3t of
&T& progr0s s *ell. >n interesting perspecti(e on this period is pro(ided 9y P3l ?or0n in
specil iss3e of History and Technology, Bol 2C, )o. 1$2, 2007. Fe rg3es there tht *heres
science *s si0ply ss30ed to 9e prior to technology 9y 0odernists, 9y 1#J0 trnsfor0tion
hd t,en shpe in *hich, for post0oderns, technology hs priority o(er science. Philosophers of
technology *ill recogni=e tht this position hd 9een t,en 9y ;rtin Feidegger s erly s eing
and Ti!e (1#27" nd gin reffir0ed 9y his 1K3estion concerning Technology,2 (1#84". +et, I
*o3ld ssert, philosophers of technology *ere not 0ong *idely red 0instre0 3thors,
prtic3lrly in >nglophone res.
There is lso n instit3tionl infrstr3ct3re pro9le0 *hich hs 9een contri93ting fctor for 03ch
of the pst 0rginlity of philosophy of technology. If one s,s, *ho re nd *ho 9eco0e
philosophers of technology, one cn find cl3es to this *e,ness. .(en tody, one cnnot point to
single philosophy of technology, 03lti$fc3lty foc3sed grd3te progr0 in )orth >0eric.
This is in (st contrst to 9oth the philosophy of science nd the interdisciplinry history nd
philosophy of science, or e(en science st3dies nd &T& progr0s for *hich 0ny 3ni(ersities re
GeneratedforEBSCOinc.2011/9/272011PhilosophyDocumentationCenterhttp://www.pdcnet.org
Techn 14:1 Winter 2010 Ihde, Philosophy of Technology.../2J
,no*n. This 0ens tht Ph.%. prod3ction re0ins s0ll, nd flo*s fro0 n eD3lly s0ll n309er
of fc3lty *ith the fort3nes to 9e in Ph.%. grd3te deprt0ents. If, for e60ple, *e t,e the Fns
>chterh3is<s "!erican Philosophy of Technology: The #!pirical Turn (Indin, 2001" *hich
dels *ith si6 pro0inent >0ericn philosophers, those *ith philosophy Ph.%. progr0s incl3de
only F39ert %reyf3s, -er,eleyI nd 0yself, &tony -roo,. ;ore recently, >ndre* ?een9erg,
:ndin reserch professor t &i0on ?r=ier lso no* hs doctorl nd post$doctorl st3dents,
so0e of *ho0 re plced in co003nictions nd infor0tion technology centers. /f the others
on the >chterh3is list, %onn Fr*y is in the history of conscio3sness progr0 t &nt :r3=
nd Gngdon Winner in Politicl &cience nd &T& t Eenissler Polytechnic Instit3te. )one of
these progr0s re dedicted philosophy of technology progr0s s s3ch. >l9ert -org0nn hs
9een 04or fig3re thro3gho3t &PT<s history nd those *ho h(e cited nd follo*ed 0ny of his
ides re pro0inent in the philosophy of technology, ltho3gh ;ontn does not h(e Ph.%.
progr0. /f co3rse, one cn e6pnd 3pon the >chterh3is list nd find s0ll 93t significnt
n309er of other indi(id3ls *ho re in Ph.%. deprt0ents nd *ho cn ser(e s Ph.%. d(isors:
Hristen &hrder$?rechette is t )otre %0eI @oesph Pitt is in &T& nd Philosophy t Birgini
TechI Eo9ert Eosen9erger is t Leorgi Tech p39lic policyI %(is -ird t the 'ni(ersity of
&o3th :rolinI nd P3l Tho0pson nd no* Hyle Whyte re in progr0s t ;ichign &tte.
In 9oth 0y first &PT 1#78$1##8 re(ie*, nd gin in 0y Philosophy of Science rticle, I noted
tht &PT, 3nli,e the conte0porry relted 0o(e0ents in continentl philosophies, fe0inis0 nd
science nd c3lt3rl st3dies, hd not gro*n nd e6pnded *ith nything li,e the 0o0ent30 of
the other 0o(e0ents. Fo*e(er, there re no* signs tht this is chnging. P3l %3r9in recently
e0iled 0e the f3ll list of &PT 0eetings *hich typiclly 0eet 9iennilly *ith lterntions
9et*een '& nd interntionl sites. The first, t the 'ni(ersity of %el*re, I h(e lredy
0entioned. -3t if one follo*s the list 9y co3ntries it is interesting to note tht the )etherlnds
pl3s Ler0ny co0e in *ith the lrgest n309ers of non$'& (en3es5to those f0ilir *ith the
history of philosophy of technology, this sho3ld not 9e s3rprising since these t*o co3ntries h(e
9oth the oldest nd the 0ost concentrted interests in this s39$discipline. I h(e so0eti0es 4o,ed
tht 1Follnd hs 0ore philosophers of technology, per cpit, thn ny other co3ntry.2 Indeed,
1#J1, *s the first Ler0n$>0ericn conference t -d Fo093rg *here the entire proceedings
*ere tele(ised nd se(erl of 3s *ere inter(ie*ed for regionl TB. Then T*ente in the
)etherlnds hosted in 1#J8, nd repeted in 200#. In 9et*een, %3sseldorf nd %elft hosted. In the
period 43st 9efore 0y first re(ie* ended, &PT s* fo3r &pnish spe,ing (en3es5;yg3e=,
P3erto Eico, ;drid nd Peniscol, &pin, nd P3e9l ;e6ico,$$ the lst in 1##6. )o do39t this
coincided *ith the connections nd deep interests of %3r9in nd ;itch0, 9oth of *ho0 h(e
&pnish s their second lng3ges. ?ro0 1##6 on, ho*e(er, the non$'& (en3es h(e shifted to
.3rope *ith no* the )etherlnds s the .3ropen do0innt fctor in tody<s &PT, incl3ding
progr00ing, editoril 0e09ership for Techn nd ne* series on philosophy nd engineering
*ith &pringer 3nder the editorship of Pieter Ber0s. ;y o*n perception is tht *ith this shift
there hs lso co0e 9oth signs of 9elted gro*th for &PT nd 0r,ed shift in style of
progr00ing.
>t this point, I *nt no* to shift to nother trend *hich I *ill descri9e s con(ergence 9et*een
&PT nd 4/& on the instit3tionl le(el, nd to*rds *ht >chterh3is nd others h(e clled the
1e0piricl t3rn2 on stylistic le(el. In 0y references 9o(e, I h(e lredy noted tht
chronologiclly &PT nd 4/& hd their first 0eetings in 1#78, *ith &PT disciplinrily 0ore
foc3sed 3pon philosophy, 4/& disciplinrily 0ore on the socil sciences, so it sho3ld not 9e
s3rprising to note tht 4/& *s clerly li,ely to 9e the lrger society5there re, si0ply, lot 0ore
socil scientists thn philosophers. While 9oth societies h(e 9een in recent gro*th 0ode, *ith
e(er lrger ttendnces nd gro*th of progr0 si=e, it re0ins the cse tht 4/& is ro3ghly fo3r
GeneratedforEBSCOinc.2011/9/272011PhilosophyDocumentationCenterhttp://www.pdcnet.org
Techn 14:1 Winter 2010 Ihde, Philosophy of Technology.../2#
ti0es the si=e of &PT. ?or e60ple, *or,ing 9c,*rds, &PT hs cli0ed tht its lrgest e(er
0eeting *s the 200# 0eeting t 'ni(ersity of T*ente in the )etherlnds *ith ttendnce t 280.
The :rystl :ity, 4/& 200#, 0eeting this lst /cto9er hd 1000. >nd since 9oth societies lternte
0eetings, *ith 4/& so0eti0es doing co$0eetings *ith .>&&T (0entioned 9o(e" *ith these
lrger thn *hen 4/& 0eets lone, so the 200J 4/&$.>&&T Eotterd0 0eeting hd 1200
ttendees. &i0ilrly, &PT 200#, T*ente *s lrger thn :hrleston &: in 2007. -efore le(ing
0y o9ser(tions concerning professionl societies, I *nt to 0ention three other relted societies:
The >0ericn Philosophicl >ssocition (>P>" is the lrgest nd oldest of 309rell philosophy
gro3ps. &PT, first *ith the .stern %i(ision, lter *ith the :entrl nd Pcific %i(isions, did hold
stellite society 0eetings *ithin the >P>. These *ere ne(er terri9ly *ell ttended, pro99ly
9ec3se of the generl lc, of philosophicl interest in technology, nd lso 9ec3se of lc, of
interest on the prt of the do0innt >nglophone nlytic style of philosophy *hich e(en tody
constit3tes the 04ority of >P> philosophers. In 0y erliest 9oo, on the philosophy of
technology, Technics and Pra$is (1#7#", I re0r,ed 3pon the different trditions *hich
do0inted philosophy of science on one side, nd philosophy of technology on the other.
Philosophy of technology hs 0ostly risen fro0 *ht I cll the pr6is trditions (;r6is0,
:riticl Theory, Prg0tis0, Pheno0enology 0ong the0". With ne*er e6ceptions to 9e noted
9elo*, tht re0ins the cse. Th3s, *hen 9y 0id$cent3ry ne* society, &P.P, the &ociety for
Pheno0enology nd .6istentil Philosophy, *s for0ed nd no* the second lrgest )orth
>0ericn philosophicl society, follo*ed (ery shortly 9y socil sciences (ersion lrgely
co0ing o3t of the >lfred &ch3t= trdition, &PF&, the &ociety for Pheno0enology nd F30n
&ciences. /nce gin I *s chrter 0e09er of the first, nd n erly 0e09er of the second nd
h(e prticipted reg3lrly in 9oth these societies, s h(e 0ore occsionlly, >ndre* ?een9erg,
>l9ert -org0nn, nd F39ert %reyf3s.
I ret3rn no* to &PT: The 200# T*ente 0eeting *s *idely re0r,ed to h(e 9een *tershed
&PT 0eeting5I report here co00ents 0de t the 93siness 0eeting, t the lrge session on P3l
%3r9in<s history of &PT Techn p39lished 0n3script, nd in re0r,s t the conference 9y
present nd pst presidents. ?irst, not only *s 200# the lrgest 0eeting, 93t it *s the 0ost
di(erse *ith 0ny 0ore co3ntries represented, 0ny yo3nger scholrs, long *ith highly
di(erse progr0 incl3ding 14 the0e trc,s. &econdly, *hile the trend to*rds 1e0piricl t3rn2
style e60intions of prtic3lr technologies nd their i0pcts co3ld 9e seen to h(e 9eg3n
se(erl yers 9efore, it *s highly o9(io3s tht this style of nlysis no* chrcteri=ed the
04ority of presenttions nd *s re0r,ed 3pon in T*ente. -3t finlly, it *s lso decided t
the 93siness 0eeting nd reported in the ne*sletter, tht &PT hd fo3nd its di(isionl sessions
3nder the '& >0ericn Philosophicl >ssocition 0eetings hd not 9een doing *ell, *heres the
tonl nd con(ergent interests of 4/& *ere percei(ed to 9e 0ore congenil, nd tht henceforth
&PT *o3ld see, to h(e sections 3nder this society<s 309rell. >ll of this e(idences *ht I 0
clling n &PT$4/& con(ergence *hich I t,e to 9e helthy 0o(e. This con(ergence ct3lly
enco0psses 0ore s39tle spects s *ell.
To this point I h(e t,en note of instit3tionl nd style iss3es 0ostly in reltion to &PT. I no*
*nt to t3rn to the0es of interest to &PT prticipnts, 9oth o(er longer historicl tr4ectory nd
*ith foc3s 3pon recent e0ergent the0es. ?irst, it *s D3ite co00on d3ring the erly 0eetings
of &PT tht Agodfthers< 9e cited nd co00ented 3pon, incl3ding @cD3es .ll3l, ;rtin
Feidegger, @ohn %e*ey, Ge*is ;30ford, Fns @ons nd Hrl ;r6. ?or e60ple s lte s
(ol30e 7 of Research in Philosophy and Technology, one co3ld find section on >nti$
Technology (ie*s nd e(en n rticle, 1Technology s .(il: ?er or G0enttion.2 Tht the0e
hs 0ostly disppered nd *ith it the so0e*ht gloo0y trnscendentl nd dystopin fl(or of
the erliest period. -3t t*o iss3es h(e re0ined constnt ltho3gh *ith strongly 0odified roles
GeneratedforEBSCOinc.2011/9/272011PhilosophyDocumentationCenterhttp://www.pdcnet.org
Techn 14:1 Winter 2010 Ihde, Philosophy of Technology.../C0
tody: one reltes to en(iron0entl concerns, the other to technology trnsfer. These the0es, too,
sho* the chnge of tone. ;ny of the erly en(iron0entl concerns *ere o(er (rio3s iss3es
concerning poll3tion, technologicl ccidents, nd *orries 9o3t 0eg$technologies, so0eti0es
lin,ed to nti$corporte nd nti$cpitlis0 *orries. In tone, these e0phses re0ined consonnt
*ith (ie*s of the dystopin godfthers. /f co3rse, this *s prior to the conte0porry concern
*ith glo9l *r0ing nd ho0ogenic c3ses no* pre(lent. >dd to this, the ne* technologies of
9io, nno, info, co003niction nd i0ging technologies, nd one cn see tht the type of
technologies hs chnged. Indeed, e0piricl t3rn nlyses relted to ech of these ne*
technologies 3s3lly entil en(iron0entl concerns s *ell. Wht re the pro0ises, the threts,
the (3lner9ilities inherent in these technologies! )o* *hile so0e sense of possi9le
en(iron0entl ctstrophe re0ins, it is 0y i0pression tht the gro3nds h(e shifted to strtegies
of s3r(i(l nd/or refor0, freD3ently incl3ded in the replce0ent of older *ith ne*er interests in
sustaina%ility& >nd here, too, one cn see so0e*ht of shift of ttention to .3ro$>0ericn
ledership in philosophy of technology circles. With the l0ost totl de0ise of technology
ssess0ent 3nder the '& pst Eep39licn go(ern0entl trditions, the 03ch 0ore citi=en nd
for0ed$gro3p ssess0ent policies 0ost de(eloped in the )etherlnds nd the &cndin(in
co3ntries re 9eing e60ined s 0odels. I *o3ld point to P3l Tho0pson *hose concern *ith
9iotechnology, genetic 0odifiction nd ll for0s of food prod3ction, s pro0inent &PT fig3re
in this disc3ssion of ne* technologies. Were I to t3rn to the the0e of s3stin9ility nd
s3stin9ility ethics, persons list *o3ld 9e too lrge for n rticle of this si=e, 93t I *ill point 3p
good ne* so3rce for identifying the 0ost pro0inent thin,ers on this nd other the0es. Bincent
Fendric,s, %nish philosopher no* t :openhgen nd :ol309i 'ni(ersities, hs pioneered
set of 18 K3estions2 9oo,s in *hich 3s3lly 20$28 pro0inent fig3res re inter(ie*ed 9o3t field
or the0e. These incl3de (ol30es on Philosophy of Technology, forthco0ing (ol30es on the
Philosophy of Science, nd (ol30e on Sustaina%ility #thics& (&ee BIP, >3to0tic Press". >nd
9efore le(ing the &cndin(in role, I *nt to lso point o3t tht the ne* -lc,*ell :o0pnion
&eries, " Co!panion to the Philosophy of Technology (200#", *s lso edited 9y three
&cnin(ins: @n Hyrre -erg /lesen ()or*y", &tig >nd3r Pedersen nd Bincent ?. Fendric,s
(%en0r,". >nd, finlly, the .3ro$>0ericn editoril 0i6 sho*s 3p in 'ew Waves in the
Philosophy of Technology (Plgr(e, 200#", this ti0e *ith @n Hyrre -erg /lesen, .(n &elinger
('&" nd &oren Eiis (%H". These echo the 9ord str3ct3re of Techn itself *ith its .3ro$
>0ericn pri0ry editors, @oe Pitt ('&", Peter P3l Ber9ee, nd %ine ;ichelfelder. Plese 9e
*re tht I do not intend to ignore the ntionl p39lictions here *hich 9y no* incl3de lrge
9i9liogrphies in .nglish ('H nd '&", %3tch, Ler0n, &pnish nd other .3ropen lng3ge
p39lictions, rther I 0 foc3sing 3pon the coll9orti(e con(ergence 9et*een .3ro$>0ericn
philosophers nd their instit3tions.
I *o3ld lso rg3e tht si0ilr shift in tone nd e(en types of technologies of interest occ3rs
*ithin the lrger the0e of technology trnsfer. In the erlier dys of &PT, one freD3ent the0e *s
tht of appropriate technologies. P3t cr3dely, 0ny philosophers then rg3ed tht it *s for0
of Western hege0ony nd e(en neo$colonilis0 to tte0pt to trnsfer especilly hi$tech rtifcts,
or 0eg ind3stril technologies to de(eloping co3ntries. Wht de(eloping co3ntries needed *ere
pproprite technologies5*hich to this 0o(e0ent 0ent si0pler nd s0ller technologies. I,
0yself, *s 3nhppy *ith this perspecti(e since I 9elie(ed the s3pporters of pproprite
technologies co3ld eD3lly 9e seen s condescending to*rds the c3lt3res of de(eloping
co3ntries. The shift tody cn 9e dr0ticlly ill3strted 9y *ht co3ld 9e clled leapfrog
technologies of *hich the cell phone is one prdig0 e60ple. Tody its dpttion is (ery rpid
in l0ost ll de(eloping co3ntries. Gc,ing the Aind3stril< infrstr3ct3re of *ire signl
con(eynce (telephone lines, c9le nd the li,e", *ireless 9rod9nd pro4ection (i to*ers hs
pro(en fster nd si0pler for the 03ltits,ing electronic 1&*iss r0y ,nife2 *hich is the
GeneratedforEBSCOinc.2011/9/272011PhilosophyDocumentationCenterhttp://www.pdcnet.org
Techn 14:1 Winter 2010 Ihde, Philosophy of Technology.../C1
cellphone. >nd, here gin, philosophers of technology t,ing e0piricl t3rn pproches re
deling *ith this pheno0enon5see .(n &elinger<s 1%oes ;icrocredit .0po*er! Eeflections on
the Lr0een -n, %e9te2 in Hu!an Studies C1 (200J" *hich nlyses the 3se of cell phones 9y
*o0en in -ngldesh. /r, *ith co003niction technologies in online ed3ction, see .d*rd
F0ilton nd >ndre* ?een9erg, 1The Technicl :odes of /nline .d3ction,2 Techn, #, 1
(2008". >s it t3rns o3t, 0ny of the lepfrog technologies re electronic, erlier the rdio, then
tele(ision, nd the internet, 93t ll re hi$tech. &3ch e60ples cn 9e gretly 03ltiplied 93t re
here e60ples of the conte0porry penchnt for cse st3dies in specific technologies in reltion
to h30n nd societl, ethicl nd politicl i0plictions. )ote tht 0y e60ples co0e fro0
deli9ertely post$2000 cittions.
Eecll ?or0n<s cli0 tht there *s shift fro0 science to technology pri0cy, for *hich he
cli0s 1#J0 *tershed dte. I no* *nt to t3rn to relted shift of e0phsis *hich I *ill
rther cll technology(technoscience shift. -eginning in the J0<s, series of 3thors, t first
0ostly ssocited *ith science st3dies, 9egn to 3se the hy9rid ter0, technoscience, to descri9e
the conte0porry close reltionship 9et*een science nd technology. Fere the pro0inent n0es
incl3ded %onn Fr*y, -r3no Gto3r, >ndre* Pic,ering, Tre(or Pinch, &te(e ?3ller, nd lter
Peter Llison, 0yself nd others. I rther li,ed this ter0inology since it reflected 0y erly cli0
tht science is e09odied in its (instr30ents" technologies MTechnics and Pra$is, 1#7#N nd lter
el9orted 3pon conte0porry gro3p of philosophers nd sociologists of science *ho
forefronted concerns 9o3t instr30ents nd l9ortories, incl3ding In Fc,ing, -r3no Gto3r,
Peter Llison nd others M)nstru!ental Realis!, 1##1N. I *s lter to 3se this ter0 to descri9e the
reserch gro3p for0ed t &tony -roo,, the Technoscience Eeserch Lro3p, officilly for0ed in
1##J, to *hich I *ill t3rn gin 9elo*.
I do not deny tht 1technologies2 cn nd do e6tend fr 9eyond the reltionship *ith the sciences,
tht is 9sis for the 9redth of philosophy of technology. Fo*e(er, it re0ins the cse tht the
incresingly close reltionship 9et*een conte0porry sciences nd technologies is 9oth *ider nd
0ore condensed thn in its erlier dys. Wht did de(elop s so0ething of co00on gro3nd
*ithin technoscience in(estigtions is *ht I shll cll n e0ergent f0ily of interrelational
ontologies& Tht is, 3nli,e the older 0odernist trditions *hich seprted s394ect nd o94ect,
nt3re nd c3lt3re, interreltionl ontologies opted for 03t3l or co$constit3iti(e processes. -oth
science nd technology *ere to 9e loo,ed t s prctices, often in non$representtionlist 0odes
*hich gin strongly reflect the prg0tist, pheno0enologicl nd dilecticl style of nlysis
0ongst the pr6is philosophies. ;oreo(er, this f0ily of pr6is ontologies hd distinct interest
in 0terility, 9oth *ith respect for h30n e09odi0ent nd for technologicl 0terility. The
erliest prod3ct of the &tony -roo, technoscience reserch progr0 *s, in fct, the p39liction
of Chasing Technoscience: *atri$ for *ateriality (Indin, 200C", co0prti(e st3dy of
>ndre* Pic,ering, -r3no Gto3r, %onn Fr*y nd %on Ihde.
Instit3tionlly, for 9oth &PT nd 4/& the res3lt *s ,ind of f0ily rese09lnce of pr6is
pl3rlis0. /ne co3ld sy tht, negti(ely, the 1science *rs2 hd res3lted in so0ething of flight
of the pri0rily positi(ist nd nlytic philosophers of science fro0 &T& st3dies, *hile this
trdition re0ined clerly 0inoritrin *ithin philosophy of technology. (/ne interesting
e6ception is @oe Pitt, of co3rse, thoro3ghly trined in 0instre0 philosophy of science, 93t lso
prg0tist, @oe hs plyed n i0portnt role tho3gh 0ost of &PT history. There re other
e6ceptions s *ell. ?or e60ple, Eonld Liere<s recent Scientific Perspectivis!, 2006, hs
dpted in his o*n 3niD3e *y, lessons fro0 science st3dies perspecti(is0." Interestingly,
tho3gh, I *o3ld cli0 tht *ith the e0ergence of the e0piricl t3rn, there hs lso 9een re9irth
nd re$entry of nlytic styles of philosophy into 9oth &TP nd so0e*ht less so in 4/&. -3t I *ill
GeneratedforEBSCOinc.2011/9/272011PhilosophyDocumentationCenterhttp://www.pdcnet.org
Techn 14:1 Winter 2010 Ihde, Philosophy of Technology.../C2
lso cli0 tht the re$e0ergence of nlytic styles of philosophy tody hopef3lly t,e 03ch
0ore tolernt nd open$0inded stnce thn fo3nd in 0id$cent3ry lst. Precisely the co09ined
.3ro$>0ericn stffingof editoril roles, conference plnning nd co$edited nd co$3thored
p39lictions e(idences this pl3rlis0. >nd I hope I *ill 9e forgi(en if I cli0 tht this 0y 9e, in
prt, d3e to the longer nd 0ore tolernt %3tch trditions 9oth *ithin their *ider c3lt3re nd
regrding philosophicl ideology thn hd 9een e(idenced in the 0igr positi(ist nd do0inntly
>nglophone for0s of nlytic philosophy heretofore. This is hope rther thn n est9lished
piece of e(idence.
I h(e hinted tht recent interest in 9oth &PT nd 4/& conferences, hs res3lted in lrger nd lrger
progr0s nd ttendnces *hich 0y indicte longer gro*th tr4ectory. &o in 0y concl3ding
re0r,s I *nt to t3rn to se(erl of these recent de(elop0ents *hich re 9eginning to i0pct
3pon 9oth &PT nd 4/& f3t3res. Fere I *ill D3ite e6plicitly dr* fro0 0y o*n e6perience *ith
one foc3s 3pon the history of the Technoscience Eeserch Lro3p t &tony -roo, nd the other
3pon e6periences nd o9ser(tions 0de fro0 0y post$1##8 .3ropen nd >sin tr(els relted
to philosophy of technology nd technoscience ende(ors.
?irst, technoscience t &tony -roo,: >s erly s 1##4$8 there 9egn to 9e tric,le of interntionl
scholrs *ho *nted to co0e to &tony -roo, to do reserch in philosophy of technology.
;oniD3e Eiphgen fro0 the )etherlnds nd &3ng %ong Hi0 fro0 Hore *ere the first, *ith
Hi0 doing s99ticl *ith the pro4ect of trnslting Technics and Pra$is into Horen (no*
p39lished". We for0ed reding gro3p to *hich se(erl of o3r philosophy doctorl st3dents lso
9ec0e ttched5lter to 9eco0e the Technoscience Eeserch &e0inr. The tric,le of Bisiting
&cholrs contin3ed nd the se0inr 9egn to dr* 0ore doctorl st3dents, not only fro0
philosophy, 93t fro0 other disciplines. Then, in 1##J, the se0inr 9ec0e per0nent prt of
o3r philosophy interfce progr0, dedicted to the st3dy of philosophy of technology, philosophy
of science nd science st3dies. While I contin3ed s the director of the reserch gro3p nd its
se0inr, there *s close coll9ortion *ith Eo9ert :rese, Ptric, Lri0 nd Goren=o &i0pson,
colleg3es in the %eprt0ent. >t one point, :rese nd I tte0pted to for0 n interdisciplinry
gro3p *hich *e hoped *o3ld 9eco0e the 9sis for s0ll &cience$Technology &t3dies progr0
(&T&", *hich &tony -roo, did not h(e 93t, gi(en its he(y science orienttion, *e tho3ght 0ight
9e pproprite. -3t the *ider gro3p ne(er gelled, ltho3gh the no*$flo* of Bisiting &cholrs
9ec0e reg3lr nd incresed, nd so0e philosophy doctorl st3dents 9ec0e interested eno3gh
to pln disserttions in o3r (ersion of &T&$Technoscience st3diesI *e contin3ed *ith the reserch
se0inr. We re no* in the 12
th
yer nd the shpe nd trditions of the gro3p nd se0inr h(e
distinct shpe. In ddition to the s394ect 0tter noted 9o(e, *ith fe* e6ceptions the se0inr
reds only li(ing 3thors nd of these *e reg3lrly 1rost2 so0e *ell ,no*n person ech yer.
This spring *ill 9e o3r fo3rteenth rostee, Peter$P3l Ber9ee,, nd *e h(e lredy rosted (*ith
the e6ception of 0e5I *ill 9e rosted in 2012" ll of the >0ericn philosophers of technology
noted in the >chterh3is 9oo,, pl3s noted philosophers of science, @oseph Eo3se, Peter Llison,
sociologists of science Frry :ollins, Tre(or Pinch, >ndre* Pic,ering, fe0inists .(elyn ?o6$
Heller, &ndr Frding (nd %onn Fr*y *ho *s in the >chterh3is list" nd others. In short,
the se0inr, *ith different the0e ech se0ester, rnges o(er the f3ll spectr30 of technoscience
relted disciplines nd thin,ers. In ddition, ech prticipnt de(elops his or her o*n reserch
pro4ect nd is enco3rged to co0pete for conference presenttions nd e(ent3l p39liction.
Ees3lts no* pper in (irt3lly e(ery 0instre0 &T& 4o3rnl nd in specil
postpheno0enology iss3e of Hu!an Studies (C1, 200J".
Then, *ith respect to the prticipnts, short (less thn se0ester" nd long ter0 (fro0 one to fo3r
se0esters" (isitors h(e co0e fro0 >si, >3strlsi, &o3th >0eric nd .3rope. &o0e re
GeneratedforEBSCOinc.2011/9/272011PhilosophyDocumentationCenterhttp://www.pdcnet.org
Techn 14:1 Winter 2010 Ihde, Philosophy of Technology.../CC
fc3lty, significnt n309er re post$docs *ho re f3nded 9y their ho0e 3ni(ersities, nd others
re doing disserttions *ithin the reserch rnge of the gro3p. Those co0pleting e6ternl
doctortes h(e 9een fro0 )or*y (2", &*eden (1", Lreece (1", Ler0ny (1", Follnd (2" nd
fo3r h(e co0pleted &tony -roo, technoscience ;>s, fro0 %en0r, (C" nd Bene=3el (1".
?inlly, *e h(e lso grd3ted fo3r &tony -roo, Philosophy Ph.%.s nd one :3lt3rl &t3dies
Ph.%. *ho re no* plced t Eochester Instit3te of Technology, Leorgi Tech, :')+, ;ichign
&tte nd :se Western Eeser(e.
?inlly, 9efore le(ing the &tony -roo, opertion, I *o3ld note tht since 2006 the gro3p hs
incresingly de(eloped 3niD3e style of nlysis *hich is tody identified s
postpheno!enological& It co09ines ele0ents of >0ericn prg0tis0 *ith pheno0enologicl
3tili=tion of (ritionl theory nd e6perientil description *ith Ae0pricl t3rn< concrete st3dies.
(The 0ost e6tensi(e introd3ction to this pproch is 0y Postpheno!enology and Technoscience:
The Peking +niversity ,ectures (&')+, 200#"". We h(e no* presented series of
postpheno0enology reserch pnels t 9oth 4/& (7 pnels to dte" nd &PF& (8 pnels to dte"
nd s *e hed for 4/& sched3led to 0eet in To,yo, >3g3st 2010, *e re gin proposing
do39le pnel of 10 indi(id3ls representing 7 co3ntries. To dte pnels s s3ch h(e not 9een
proposed for &PT, ltho3gh se(erl technoscience prticipnts presented ppers t :hrleston,
2007, nd 7 reserch gro3p 0e09ers gin g(e indi(id3l presenttions t the T*ente 200#
0eeting.
Were I to cli0 postpheno0enology for the technoscience progr0 t &tony -roo, lone, I *o3ld
9e 0isrepresenting its origins nd loctions. Peter$P3l Ber9ee, fro0 T*ente hs, s 03ch s
nyone, lso de(eloped postpheno0enology s distinct fro0 clssicl pheno0enology in
n309er of 9oo,s, ppers nd presenttions5for e60ple, his contri93tion to the >chterh3is,
"!erican Philosophy of Technology, lredy 0entions it, nd he el9ortes postpheno0enology
0ore e6tensi(ely in What Things -o (2008" nd gin in his forthco0ing *orali.ing Technology
(forthco0ing, :hicgo, 2010". Ber9ee, lso sees close reltionship 9et*een ctor net*or,
theory, 0ost often ssocited *ith the ?rench science st3dies pproch of -r3no Gto3r nd
;ichel :llon (lso *ith @ohn G* of the 'H nd >nn ;ri ;ol of the )etherlnds " nd
0o3nted pnel co0pring >)T nd Postpheno0enology t the Eotterd0 4/& 0eeting of 200J.
&39seD3ently, there h(e 9een independently, si0ilr *or,shops *hich occ3rred in Lhent,
-elgi30 nd ;nchester 'H in 200#.
I no* t3rn fro0 )orth >0ericn foc3s to 9oth >si nd .3rope. >ltho3gh the period I 0
co(ering fro0 0y o*n e6perience, since the originl Techn rticle *hich co(ered 1#78$1##8,
no* co(ers 1##6$2010, s* 0ostly .3ro$>0ericn (en3es, it lso 9egn *ht hs incresingly
9eco0e period of >sin (en3es s *ell. ?or e60ple, the @pnese co3nterprt of 4/& 0et in
;,hr3 in 1##J, nd I h(e lredy 0entioned tht this ti0e the @pnese &T& ssocition *ill
0eet in con43nction *ith 4/& in To,yo in 2010. In 9et*een these e(ents, @3nichi ;3rt nd
colleg3es sponsored 9ig prg0tis0 nd philosophy of technology conference t the
'ni(ersity of To,yo, 200C, *hich incl3ded >ndre* ?een9erg, Grry Fic,0n nd 0e. I lso
spent *ee, in 200J in si6 @pnese (en3es 3nder the sponsorship of @pnese
pheno0enology$ro9otics grnt directed 9y &ho4i )gt,i. The yo3nger genertion of @pnese
thin,ers, 0ny of *ho0 h(e *or,ed *ith F39ert %reyf3s in -er,eley, is (ery 3nli,e the older
genertion of continentlly inspired philosophers *ho re0in 0ore te6t$fig3re oriented. >
n309er of @pnese h(e prticipted in recent &PT conferences, lrgely co0ing fro0 %reyf3s,
?een9erg nd Ihde connections. >nd 0ny lso prticipte in 4/& progr0s *hich lso enroll in
&T& grd3te progr0s s3ch s &T& t :ornell.
GeneratedforEBSCOinc.2011/9/272011PhilosophyDocumentationCenterhttp://www.pdcnet.org
Techn 14:1 Winter 2010 Ihde, Philosophy of Technology.../C4
:hin co0es to the philosophy of technology scene so0e*ht 0ore recently. In 2004,
)orthestern 'ni(ersity sponsored 04or conference nd triple se0inr occsion *ith >ndre*
?een9erg, Gngdon Winner nd 0e, d3ring *hich ech of 3s presented fo3r sessions of se0inrs,
s39seD3ently p39lished in :hinese. I ret3rned to gi(e n in(ited series of lect3res t Pe,ing
'ni(ersity in 2006, those p39lished in :hinese s ,et Things Speak: Postpheno!enology and
Technology (Pe,ing, 200J" nd lter in .nglish, cited 9o(e (200#", nd then gin in 2007 to
lect3re series t the &hnghi >cde0y of &ocil &cience nd the &o3th :hin 'ni(ersity of
Technology. This spring I 0 hosting the third nd fo3rth Bisiting &cholrs fro0 :hin in the
technoscience gro3p. It is cler tht the dyn0is0 nd energy going into conte0porry science
nd technology in >si *ill contin3e to 9e 04or fctor for the f3t3re of 9oth philosophy of
technology nd technoscience st3dies.
.3rope, ho*e(er, is 0y fr 0ore freD3ent (en3e, nd, d3e to the lc, of lng3ge 9rriers,
sit3tion *ith *hich I 0 03ch 0ore f0ilir. There re se(erl highly distincti(e spects to the
.3ropen opertions tht I *o3ld li,e to o3tline:
?irst, 03ch of *ht goes on in .3rope, rele(nt to philosophy of technology or technoscience
st3dies, does not fit into the 3s3l )orth >0ericn. either deprt0entl or interdisciplinry
progr0 str3ct3re *e re f0ilir *ith. Ether, 03ch interdisciplinry *or, is done *ithin fi(e
yer reserch progr0s. These re 3s3lly ffilited *ith 3ni(ersities, 93t lso *ith reserch
centers s3ch s the ;6 Plnc, Instit3tes. They re f3nded thro3gh go(ern0entl or .3ropen
'nion so3rces nd re the0tic. ?or e60ple, t*o *ith *hich I h(e 9een ffilited *ere, one,
on 1instr30ents in rt nd science2 *hich *s 0ore historiclly centered, t the ?ree 'ni(ersity
of -erlin, nd, the second, on 10odels nd si03ltions,2 centered t the Interdisciplinry Instit3te
of -ielefeld 'ni(ersity. There re, of co3rse, longer ter0 interdisciplinry progr0s s3ch s those
0edi$infor0tics$nd (irt3l progr00ing centers t >rh3s, %en0r,I '0e, &*edenI nd
-ergen, )or*y *hich I h(e lso (isited. >dd the IT 'ni(ersity, %en0r, *ith its instit3tes
*here h(e either gi(en Ph.%. se0inrs, *or,shops or ser(ed s n e6ternl Ph.%. .60iner.
The .3ropen f3nding str3ct3res re, prtic3lrly in the light of the pst eight yers of '& neglect
nd decline 3nder the -3sh presidency, highly en(i9le. The 17 %ece09er 200# iss3e of 'ature
re(ie*s the sit3tion in the 'H, 1Wtching &cience t Wor,.2 >ltho3gh s erly s ,a%oratory
,ife (1#7#", -r3no Gto3r d(ised science st3dies socil scientists to 1follo* the scientists
ro3nd,2 nd @0es Wtson s erly s 1#JJ rg3ed for socil science in(estigtion of ethicl,
legl nd socil iss3es in reltion to the h30n geno0e process, 'ature (p. J41" (nd *hich did
res3lt in ppro6i0tely 8O of )IF geno0e f3nds going to tht p3rpose", the c3rrent .3ropen
sit3tion is e(en 9etter. The 'H<s .cono0ic nd &ocil Eeserch :o3ncil c3rrently 93dgets
'&P2#0 0illion for socil science 1*tching2 of geno0ic nd 9iotech reserch. Typiclly,
philosophers re incl3ded *ithin the socil science descriptions 3sed, nd I point o3t in pssing
tht the 9o(e referenced ;nchester *or,shop on ctor net*or, theory nd postpheno0enology
(is$Q$(is science st3dies *s f3nded 9y the .&E:.
Within the .3ropen 'nion, the sit3tion is e(en 9etter *ith ro3ghly 20O of net reserch f3nding
going to the socil, politicl, ethicl, legl di0ensions of technoscience f3nding. I 0 freD3ently
n o3tside referee for these progr0s nd, *hile the /90 d0inistrtion hs 9eg3n to tl,
9o3t precisely this sort of f3nding for '& pro4ects, nothing li,e the .3ropen f3nding str3ct3re is
yet in plce. >nd *ht is do39ly positi(e 9o3t the .' sit3tion is tht 03ch of this concern is
directed t developing technologies, not t those lredy in plce. Th3s *hen the grd3te
ed3ction consorti30 9e*een T*ente, ;stricht nd %elft 'ni(ersities for ;>, Ph.%. nd Post$
GeneratedforEBSCOinc.2011/9/272011PhilosophyDocumentationCenterhttp://www.pdcnet.org
Techn 14:1 Winter 2010 Ihde, Philosophy of Technology.../C8
%oc f3nding for 1E R %2 positioning, incl3ding philosophers, *s f3nded, yo3 cn i0gine 0y
stisfction. Indeed, I sho3ld lso incl3de the highly prticiptory ssess0ent processes *hich
h(e long o9tined in the &cndin(in co3ntries s3ch tht thro3gh p39lic plnning nd
go(ern0entl ction, %en0r,, for e60ple, no* genertes 0ore thn 20O of its energy fro0
*ind0ills.
This is not to sy tht s3ch prticiption is lc,ing in the '&. I h(e lredy 0entioned P3l
Tho0pson, long in(ol(ed 9oth interntionlly nd ntionlly in gric3lt3rl nd food ethics nd
s cons3ltnt in 9iotechnology iss3es. >nother in(ol(ed *ith si0ilr cti(ity is >ndre* Gight of
the >0ericn Progress Lro3p concerned nd in(ol(ed *ith the Llo9l :li0te )et*or,. I h(e
lso 9een so in(ol(ed s n o3tside cons3ltnt prtic3lrly *ith %3tch nd %nish pro4ects, nd
recently *ith @pn s *ell. /thers h(e 9een s3ccessf3l in gining grnts fro0 9oth ).F nd
)&?, prtic3lrly creti(e e60ple is coll9ortion 9et*een the Eochester Instit3te of
Technology nd >ri=on &tte 'ni(ersity, interdisciplinry in stffing, led 9y .(n &elinger nd
f3nded 9y )&? (P400,000" for de(eloping g0es to tech s3stin9ility ethics.
In short, *ht is e0erging here is ne* pttern of in(ol(ed or prticipnt philosophers, longside
others fro0 different disciplines, ddressing the0tic pro9le0s rising fro0 ne* science$
technoscience reserch. This de(elop0ent re0ins consonnt *ith the 9o(e con(ergence of
philosophy of technology nd technoscience st3dies, nd *ith the style of e0piricl t3rn concrete
cses *hich re clled for therein. I concl3de *ith t*o o9ser(tions: first, I 0 opti0istic tht,
9eltedly, philosophy of technology (nd technoscience st3dies" see0 to 9e t,ing off. &econd,
*hile the ne* for0s of professionlis0 re 9oth interdisciplinry nd instit3tionlly differently
shped thn in the older dys of disciplinry deprt0ents, the ne* for0s stri,e 0e s 9eing 9oth
fle6i9le nd open to inno(tion *ithin the fst 0o(ing technologiclly te6t3red conte0porry
life*orld.
GeneratedforEBSCOinc.2011/9/272011PhilosophyDocumentationCenterhttp://www.pdcnet.org
Copyright of Techne: Research in Philosophy & Technology is the property of Philosophy Documentation
Center and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.