Feenburg (Department of Philosophy, San Diego State University) begins with need to change prevailing conception of technology. Sees connection between an essentialist view of technology and technological determinism (T.D.). It is thus important to break with the essentialist view. But he also rejects a single technological rationality.
A return to Leo Marx - reintroducing technology into moral and political discourse. Can be a basis for shifting the costs of development -
Feenburg claims we can see change - we are discovering how we perform as interactives in our technological system. It sees technology as a "soft machine," loosely organized and open to public control.
The activists have not made an impact through the processes of representative democracy - but NIMBYs, etc. are the avenue of those outside the system, which is seen as powerfully biased in favor of technological development. Analogously to civil rights movement, Vietnam protest movements - the idea of technological control is not seen as a mainstream, but as a revolutionary movement.
Giddings
In social interaction/reflexivity - everyday life acquires an experimental character. Perceptions and realities are developed in a reciprocal process.
Feenburg has faith in communicative processes. Philosophical reflection and democratic reflection should play a larger role in shaping technological development.
Three problems for control of technology:
system inertiaignorance
indifference
But there are historical examples to show that these can be overcome.
(Against extreme methodological individualism - which stresses too much "unintended consequences")
new optimism: politics are possible, based on consensus or compromise.
Still major problem - tendency to choose short term over long term (Carl Mitchum). Addressable through education - and perhaps through restructuring society.
"Eschatalogical eco-fatalism" / indifference. Originally a major problem, now appears to play only a minor role. People are apparently prepared to take more responsiblity.
Is that all it takes? Clearing our minds of T.D. and methodological individualism? Largely, yes?
An optimist.
But no sooner do we get rid of T.D. that economic determinism rears its head - calls for "efficiency" favoring short-term goals becomes deterministic - and, very often, inefficient at creating the good society, creating sustainable development.
System inertia has been exaggerated. "Free market" is an illusion; market is dependent on non-economic factors.
Technology studies are increasingly focusing on developing a political theory of technology. In harmony with a relatively new optimism. A great deal is also being done on the practical and political level - ethics committees, etc. But philosophical reflection and democratic discussion are equally important. Lewis Mumford's "mega-machine" has been dissolved.