Mythinformation (1986)By Langdon WinnerPresented by Waleed ManzoulAbout the author.• Professor of PoliticalScience in theDepartment of Scienceand TechnologyStudies at RensselaerPolytechnic Institute• Known for his work inthe philosophy oftechnologyBackground.• At the time of writing (1986), technophileswere hailing the emergence of the“computer revolution”, describing howcomputers would fundamentally altermodern life.• In Mythinformation, Winner takes a critical(and rather acerbic) perspective on this“revolution”.What is a revolution, really?• What are its goals?• Will there be a shift of power? Where?• Will the revolutionaries seek to uphold a set of social ideals?• Will it change class structures?Through questions such as these, Winnerattacks the lack of thought put into the socialand political ramifications of computing bywhat he calls ‘computer romantics’.The great (un)equalizer.• Technology will bring about innumerable positivesocial change, according to these ‘romantics’.• He argues that social changes will occur, but notthe good kind.– Technology will replace people’s office and factory jobsand new jobs will come from “menial serviceoccupations paying relatively low wages” (592).– Technology will only benefit those already capable oftaking advantage of it, such as transnational corporations,public bureaucracies, and intelligence agencies.No utopia without a fight.• Technology can elicit powerful positive socialchange, but it won’t just happen as a by-product of its presence.• The institutions of the information age mustbe constructed “in ways that maximizehuman freedom while placing limits uponconcentrations of power” (593).Participatory Democracy.• The ‘computer romantics’ are particularly enticedby the idea of electronic information accessfacilitating participatory democracy.• Winner argues that this notion is based on faultyassumptions:– People are bereft of knowledge.– Information is knowledge.– Knowledge is power.– Increasing access to information enhances democracyand equalizes social power.Point & Counterpoint. (1/2)• “People are bereft of knowledge.” /“Information is knowledge.”– Incorrectly posits that the abundance ofinformation equals the ability to gain and useknowledge.• “Knowledge is power.”– …only if you have the means to act on it.– “At times, knowledge brings merely anenlightened impotence or paralysis” (594).Point & Counterpoint. (2/2)• “Increasing access to information enhancesdemocracy and equalizes social power.”– Democracy isn’t based on information access; it’sbased on the capabilities of citizens to self-govern.Is all this even necessary?• Winner doesn’t completely hate technology;he agrees that there are some domains inwhich quick information access is quitenecessary.– Stock market prices, military intelligence, etc.• He does question whether it needs topervade all aspects of life.– Education, politics, sports, the arts, etc.Everywhere and Nowhere.• Lastly, he brings up three areas of concern ascomputers and technology begin to pervadeour lives.– Surveillance and privacy.– De-socialization.– Transcendence of space and time.Food for thought (and discussion).• The use of technology in Obama’spresidential campaign?• The role of technology in the arts?• Internet regulation?– Is this a good idea?– Who should be doing it?• Technology and de-socialization? Onlinesocial
View Full Document
Unlocking...