[Opening address by Bjarne Rogan, Chair, TMV Board]
"Democracy" as a key Western value for the research program of "Center for Technology and Human Values" (other value questions left aside because of the attached difficulties)There is a new interest in technology since late 1960's - history, sociology, philosophy, economics. Which social forces affect the form technology takes? Ideological confrontation - against technological determinism (T.D.).
Situation today? T.D. is not dead. Alive and well as a pattern of thought in public debate and in the formulation of policy - also in some layers of technology studies.
Mary Grosssmidt, Leo Marx, Does Technology Drive History. Marx dates T.D. with the Enlightenment (as is common): link between enthusiasm for technology and T.D.
What followed was a revision of the idea of progress: the technocratic ideas of technical progress replaced the idea of political progress - the means became the end.
But this subsequently feeds pessimism - of postmodernism, follows from the diminished sense of human agency.
A classical dialectical pattern - enthusiasm over liberating technology become pessimism.
A new turn-around: in the last decade has created a new optimism. T.D. does account for certain features of modern society; but the ideas on history also show it fails to fit with more general patterns and political strategies. (A model played for much more than it was worth.)
Restivo (1995) - away from sociological approaches towards more philosophical approaches. What are the implications?
A renewed interest in techno-polit-ology.
Philosophers - to develop a political theory of technological development. A new optimism - shift to social constructivism and then to outlines of a new philosophy of technology.
To reinstate technology in the general and political modern discourse.
Powerful forces still maintain that development should not be directed. John MacDermott - critique of technology as taken to be a self-correcting system; in this views, attempts to restrict technological development are self-defeating. Laissez innovati!
Principle objection: there is no reason to believe that those who created the problems are best suited to solve them. Runaway technology has unambiguously proved that technology does not lead to the common good.
Technocratic vs. democratic control.
The technocratic position goes further - they are the guardians of rationality per se, which the people as such do not hold, or at least to the same degree.
We have little reason to assume that if technologists are left to themselves they would come up with anything other than T.D.
Attempts made to adopt democratic procedures to control technology - consensus conferences, Canadian roundtables. The idea is not to exclude experts.
Critical points:
The same criticism can be made of such efforts as has been made re. controversy research. These procedures are brought into the process too late. The problem thus goes deeper.Also: arrangements of this kind are really a subtle form of technocratic use of procedures. Who are the social engineers who decide this is the stage to initiate the so-called democratic process and lay down the rules for the discussion? (Difficulties of this kind may be impossible to avoid - but they need to be recognized.)
The technocratic problem of democracy - i.e., use of democratic procedures. The established solution for representative democracy is to confront the problem by developing general rules ahead of time - i.e., constitutionally. Winner compares Founding Fathers of constitution with F.F. of technology. One premise: liberal skepticism on human nature - what man might do if given power. But social/technocrat: the concern of human nature was not discussed - but focused on profit, entrepreneurship, etc. People believed in technology's liberating potential.
Skepticism re. technology should open the door to new discussion - as old skepticism towards power makes constitutional discussion necessary. **
A considerable development is taking place regarding control of technology. E.g. in 1992 protection of environment given its own article in the Norwegian constitution. "Every person has a right to an environment conducive..."
But it will be difficult to find ways to counter technological risks within the system. Where does responsibility lie?
We're also losing confidence in repeated assurances by public institutions that everything's under control.
Development towards strict liability - we should seek to place liability not with whatever triggers the damage, but who introduces the risk (and not at the cost of abandoning the current focus on limited liability and negligence). (- name - )
Principle of internal control in the example of the Norwegian oil company. It now became the responsibility of corporate management to manipulate people into behaving responsibility - but why should they be responsible if under the new paradigm they are _not_ directly liable?
A great deal is being done to define trajectories for technology.
The resources of liberal democracy are not yet exhausted. In order to build up a theory of technology - move beyond questions of procedure into micropolitics, conceptions of technology.