Theories of Technology and Communication

Theories of Theories of Technology and Technology and CommunicationCommunication

A lightning tour of heavy A lightning tour of heavy theorytheory

Public SpherePublic Sphere

Habermas (1929- )Habermas (1929- ) Rational-critical debate: The Rational-critical debate: The public usepublic use

of reason of reason Based on interpersonal linguistic Based on interpersonal linguistic

communicationcommunication Arguments judged on their validity, Arguments judged on their validity,

their their rationalityrationality (good arguments (good arguments naturally win)naturally win)

An idealized constructAn idealized construct


Criticisms:Criticisms:– Elite or bourgeois perspectiveElite or bourgeois perspective– Western and European biasWestern and European bias– Excludes working-class rationalityExcludes working-class rationality– Excludes women and feminismExcludes women and feminism

Homogenous: Easy to agree when Homogenous: Easy to agree when there is not much diversity among there is not much diversity among the people making the argumentsthe people making the arguments


How does discourse become How does discourse become democratic?democratic?

Is democracy achieved through Is democracy achieved through discourse?discourse?

Can democracy be achieved in any Can democracy be achieved in any other way?other way?

Is democracy actually possible or Is democracy actually possible or practical in non-homogenous societies?practical in non-homogenous societies?

How is consensus reached?How is consensus reached?

PhenomenologyPhenomenology

Phenomenology: Analyzing people’s Phenomenology: Analyzing people’s (subjects’) relationships with the (subjects’) relationships with the worldworld

Classical phenomenologists:Classical phenomenologists:– Husserl (1859-1938) Husserl (1859-1938) – Heidegger (1889-1976) Heidegger (1889-1976) – Merleau-Ponty (1908-1961) Merleau-Ponty (1908-1961)

Terms they commonly used: Terms they commonly used: – ““Consciousness”Consciousness”– ““Being-in-the-world”Being-in-the-world”– ““Perception”Perception”


Within these human-world Within these human-world relationships, relationships, bothboth of these are of these are constituted:constituted:

– The The objectivityobjectivity of the world of the world – The The subjectivitysubjectivity of those who are of those who are

experiencing and existing in the worldexperiencing and existing in the world

(A short break for (A short break for epistemology)epistemology)

Subject:Subject: The active, thinking individual The active, thinking individual (or social group), who has consciousness (or social group), who has consciousness and/or (free) will.and/or (free) will.

Object:Object: What the subject’s cognitive or What the subject’s cognitive or other activity is directed toward. other activity is directed toward.

Dialectics:Dialectics: You can’t have one without You can’t have one without the other.the other.

There is an inescapable relationship There is an inescapable relationship between the activity of the between the activity of the subjectsubject and the and the independent existence of the independent existence of the worldworld the the subject is part ofsubject is part of


Our world is Our world is interpretedinterpreted reality reality – We cannot empirically define the world We cannot empirically define the world – We objectify a thing we call “the world”We objectify a thing we call “the world”

Our existence is “Our existence is “situatedsituated subjectivity” subjectivity”– What we perceive is always What we perceive is always relativerelative to our to our

situation situation What the world “is” and what subjects What the world “is” and what subjects

“are”—both arise from the “are”—both arise from the interplay interplay betweenbetween humans and reality. humans and reality.

Lifeworld vs. SystemLifeworld vs. System

““Lifeworld” originally comes from Lifeworld” originally comes from HusserlHusserl

Emphasizes the centrality of Emphasizes the centrality of perceptionperception for human experience for human experience

The The embodiedembodied nature of consciousness nature of consciousness LifeworldLifeworld structures are so structures are so familiarfamiliar to to

us, they are practically us, they are practically invisibleinvisible SystemSystem structures are obvious, structures are obvious,

intrusive, external to ourselves intrusive, external to ourselves


HabermasHabermas sees the sees the systemsystem “colonizing” the “colonizing” the lifeworldlifeworld (erasing it, (erasing it, replacing it, taking it over)replacing it, taking it over)

Today’s societies are in Today’s societies are in crisiscrisis; ; Habermas sees doom and gloom Habermas sees doom and gloom everywhereeverywhere

Why? Because Why? Because we do not believewe do not believe our our institutions (structures of the institutions (structures of the systemsystem):):– Are just, or benevolent, or operating in our Are just, or benevolent, or operating in our

best interestbest interest– Deserve our support or loyaltyDeserve our support or loyalty


This is what Habermas calls a “crisis of This is what Habermas calls a “crisis of legitimation”legitimation”

It is also a crisis in communication: It is also a crisis in communication: Our communicative efficacy (or Our communicative efficacy (or agency) has been “colonized” tooagency) has been “colonized” too

““Consumer” vs. “citizen”: Which one Consumer” vs. “citizen”: Which one of these are you?of these are you?

(Or instead of “consumer”: (Or instead of “consumer”: “Taxpayer”)“Taxpayer”)

LifeworldLifeworld Adaptation:Adaptation: the the

problem of acquiring problem of acquiring sufficient sufficient resourcesresources (food, clothing, (food, clothing, shelter, health)shelter, health)

Goal Attainment:Goal Attainment: the problem of settling the problem of settling and implementing and implementing goalsgoals (comfort, (comfort, protection/ safety for protection/ safety for family, better life)family, better life)

SystemSystem Integration:Integration: the the

problem of problem of maintaining maintaining solidaritysolidarity or coordination (buy-or coordination (buy-in, docility) among the in, docility) among the subunits of the systemsubunits of the system

Latency: Latency: the problem the problem of creating, preserving of creating, preserving and transmitting the and transmitting the system’s distinctive system’s distinctive cultureculture and and valuesvalues

System vs. LifeworldSystem vs. Lifeworld

In the colonization of the lifeworld by In the colonization of the lifeworld by the system, Habermas sees the the system, Habermas sees the priorities of the priorities of the marketmarket overriding overriding the priorities (interests) of the the priorities (interests) of the individualindividual and the and the community community

MarketMarket (system/quantitative): (system/quantitative): economics, money, power, and voteseconomics, money, power, and votes

PeoplePeople (lifeworld/qualitative): (lifeworld/qualitative): influence (e.g. rational argument) influence (e.g. rational argument) and value-commitmentsand value-commitments

System vs. LifeworldSystem vs. Lifeworld

In other words, we only vote.In other words, we only vote. We do not We do not deliberatedeliberate.. We do not We do not discussdiscuss.. There is no There is no discoursediscourse.. There is no real democracy.There is no real democracy. The power of communication is The power of communication is

displaceddisplaced ( (colonizedcolonized) by a bottom-) by a bottom-line quantitative view: How many line quantitative view: How many points? How much profit? Who wins? points? How much profit? Who wins?

““By the By the lifeworldlifeworld, Habermas means the , Habermas means the shared common understandings, including shared common understandings, including values, that develop through face-to-face values, that develop through face-to-face contacts over time in various social groups, contacts over time in various social groups, from families to communities. The lifeworld from families to communities. The lifeworld carries all sorts of assumptions about carries all sorts of assumptions about who who we arewe are as people and as people and what we valuewhat we value about ourselves: what we believe, what about ourselves: what we believe, what shocks and offends us, shocks and offends us, what we aspire to, what we aspire to, what we desire,what we desire, what we are willing to what we are willing to sacrifice to which ends, and so forth.”sacrifice to which ends, and so forth.”

—Arthur W. Frank, Department of Sociology, University of Calgary

Speech ActsSpeech Acts

Habermas’s “Theory of Habermas’s “Theory of Communicative Action” owes much Communicative Action” owes much to to thisthis theory theory

Principal philosophers:Principal philosophers:– Wittgenstein (1889-1951) Wittgenstein (1889-1951) – J. L. Austin (1911-1960)J. L. Austin (1911-1960)– John Searle (1932- )John Searle (1932- )

Speech ActsSpeech Acts

Performative utterancesPerformative utterances are spoken are spoken words or sentences that do not state words or sentences that do not state a fact but rather are actually the a fact but rather are actually the performanceperformance of some of some actionaction (Austin)(Austin)

Examples:Examples:– ““I name this ship the I name this ship the Queen Elizabeth.Queen Elizabeth.” ” – ““I take this man as my lawfully wedded I take this man as my lawfully wedded

husband.”husband.”– ““I hereby disown you.”I hereby disown you.”– ““I bequeath this watch to my brother.” I bequeath this watch to my brother.”

Technological DeterminismTechnological Determinism

How much does technology cause, or How much does technology cause, or lead to, or facilitate lead to, or facilitate social changesocial change??

T.D. is a T.D. is a theorytheory of the relationship of the relationship between technology and society.between technology and society.

Counter-argumentCounter-argument to T.D. is that to T.D. is that technology is technology is neutralneutral or “value-free.” or “value-free.”

That is, technologies are That is, technologies are neitherneither good good nornor bad in themselves. It bad in themselves. It depends on how they are depends on how they are usedused. .


T.D. says technologies are T.D. says technologies are NOTNOT neutral.neutral.

Technologies ARE good or bad, Technologies ARE good or bad, inherently.inherently.

Do you believe this?Do you believe this?– Is the Internet good … or bad?Is the Internet good … or bad?– What about a cell phone?What about a cell phone?– What about a gun?What about a gun?


““To a hammer, everything looks like To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”a nail.”

Heidegger (he was a Heidegger (he was a phenomenologist, remember?) told phenomenologist, remember?) told us: us: – A hammer is a hammer A hammer is a hammer notnot because it because it

has the properties of a hammer has the properties of a hammer (whatever those are).(whatever those are).

– A hammer is a hammer because it is A hammer is a hammer because it is used forused for hammering. hammering.


Does the Internet have Does the Internet have inherentinherent characteristics?characteristics?

Lawrence Lessig: “Code is law.”Lawrence Lessig: “Code is law.” People say the Internet is People say the Internet is inherentlyinherently: :

– DemocraticDemocratic– FragmentedFragmented– Self-regulatingSelf-regulating

(This is a T.D. view of the Internet.)(This is a T.D. view of the Internet.)


Lee Salter, in “Democracy, New Lee Salter, in “Democracy, New Social Movements, and the Social Movements, and the Internet: A Habermasian Internet: A Habermasian Analysis”:Analysis”:

– WrongWrong: A new technology has a : A new technology has a necessarynecessary impact impact on society. on society.

– Also wrongAlso wrong: A technology has : A technology has NO NO intrinsic qualitiesintrinsic qualities..


Salter says we need to hold “a Salter says we need to hold “a cautious balance” between:cautious balance” between:

1.1. The transformative capacity of a The transformative capacity of a technologytechnology

2.2. The capacity of The capacity of social agentssocial agents (people, groups) to use and shape (people, groups) to use and shape that technologythat technology


Are these “intrinsic” to the Internet?Are these “intrinsic” to the Internet?– AnonymityAnonymity– Irresponsibility (no commitment)Irresponsibility (no commitment)– Freedom of speechFreedom of speech– A shared lifeworldA shared lifeworld– A shared culture (meaning of “speech A shared culture (meaning of “speech

acts”)acts”)– Two-way exchange of informationTwo-way exchange of information– Global governanceGlobal governance

Philosophy of TechnologyPhilosophy of Technology

Don Ihde, professor of philosophy at SUNY Don Ihde, professor of philosophy at SUNY Stony Brook: Stony Brook: – Technology and the Lifeworld: From Garden to Technology and the Lifeworld: From Garden to

Earth, Earth, Indiana University Press, 1990Indiana University Press, 1990– Philosophy of Technology: An Introduction,Philosophy of Technology: An Introduction,

Paragon House, 1993Paragon House, 1993

Jacques Ellul, Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society,The Technological Society, 19671967

Lewis Mumford, Lewis Mumford, Technics and Civilization,Technics and Civilization, 19631963

Whew!Whew!

Thank you.Thank you.

Mindy McAdamsMindy McAdams

[email protected]@jou.ufl.edu

University of FloridaUniversity of Florida

Documents

Theories of Technology and Communication