While there may not be a clear distinction between technology and non-technology, the first definition is useful for giving us guidelines to help identify what technology is. The second definition is useful for helping us think about technology in different ways. Both definitions shows technology to be multifaceted. The first definition sees technology primarily as an activity (Mitcham’s #2) that results in practical ends and purposes (Mitcham’s #1 and #4). The first definition speaks of "exercising freedom and responsibility," which implies the making of choices (Mitcham’s #2 and #4) and also speaks of "tools and procedures" (Mitcham’s #1 and #3). So while on the surface the two definitions may not look that similar, they do end up corresponding rather well with each other.

The first definition does help us make some distinctions between technological activity and non-technological activity. Technology is for practical ends and purposes, as opposed to things like art or sports. Technology also forms and transforms the natural creation, as opposed to things like writing a blog entry or passing a law.

Neither of these definitions is meant to be a complete definition nor a final one. Indeed, there have been numerous, often conflicting, attempts to describe what technology is. Various other descriptions of technology include:

• practical implementations of intelligence
• a mode of revealing
• applied science
• pursuit of efficiency
• a means for controlling nature
• the key to progress
• modernity’s characteristic approach to reality

This list shows that not everybody who has thought about technology has thought about it in terms of artifacts, activities, and knowledge. Some feel that a complete understanding of what technology is requires placing it in its fuller, social context.

Technology - A Larger Picture

Albert Borgmann identifies at least two theories of technology - the instrumentalist and the substantive. The instrumental theory sees technology as a value-neutral tool that is a "mere means." Technology is neither good nor bad in itself, but depends on how it is used. Under this view, technology’s neutrality is a result of its instrumentality. According to Andrew Feenberg, instrumentalists see technology as "indifferent to the variety of ends it can be employed to achieve." Technology, if anything, allows us to reach our desired ends in an easier, more efficient or quicker way. In addition to its neutrality from specific ends, technology is socially and politically neutral as well. Instrumentalists view technology as having a rational character that is "based on verifiable causal propositions." This rational character means that technologies are socially universal in that if they work in one society, they will work in every society.

The instrumentalist view is a common one that reflects our intuitions about technology. A chair, for example, can be used for a variety of ends - sitting, reaching a light bulb, keeping somebody from opening a door, etc. The instrumentalist theory also gains some force because it relies on the connection between the "rational character" of technology and that of science.

Critics of the instrumentalist view say that the means of technology are not (or should not be) "mere." They say that even if much of modern technology separates the means from the ends, it has not always been that way and it does not have to be that way. Thus, they say, instrumentalism is not an adequate theory of technology. This is the view of the substantive approach to technology. In this view, technology is not a mere means, but is a driving force or power in its own right. Technology is not a neutral way of arriving at some desired end, but rather it shapes all of society. In this way, the means cannot be separated from the ends. Feenberg writes that people who hold this view believe that "[h]ow we do things determines who and what we are. Technological development transforms what it is to be human." People who hold this view often see technology as autonomous force.

Substantivists also see a rational character to modern technology. Whereas for instrumentalists this technical rationality serves as the basis for the neutrality of technology, for substantivists rationality is the essence of technology and modernity has unleashed this autonomous force from its pre-modern restraints.

A popular example (used by Borgmann, Feenberg, and Don Ihde) that highlights the differences between the substantive and instrumental approaches is that of comparing fast food to a traditional, prepared family meal. Fast food can be seen as a technological approach to the consumption of food. The purpose of fast food is to supply nourishment. In this way, the instrumentalist treats both eating fast food as well as preparing and eating a family meal as different, neutral means to the same end - nourishment. Substantivists claim that the traditional family meal and fast food may have the same ends, but the technological approach of fast food does not have the same meaning as a family meal. This meaning is found in the rituals and practices surrounding eating that have value in themselves. Because of this, they are not "mere" means, but make up the larger social context of the activity.

Feenberg argues that what both approaches have in common is that they both have a "take it or leave it" attitude towards technology,

"On the one hand, if technology is a mere instrumentality, indifferent to values, then its design and structure is not at issue in political debate, only the range and efficiency of its application. On the other hand, if technology is the vehicle for a culture of domination, then we are condemned either to pursue its advance toward dystopia or to regress to a more primitive way of life. In neither case can we change it: in both theories, technology is destiny. Reason, in its technological form, is beyond human intervention or repair."

So, with these two theories, the choices seem to be between a full speed ahead pursuit of technological progress or reverting back to a simpler time where technology doesn't have the autonomous force that it does in our society. Whereas the instrumentalists see the control of nature through technology as our hope for the future, substantivists believe our hope lies in freeing ourselves from the control of technology itself. Clearly this take it or leave it attitude is problematic, so the question of how to navigate our way between technological pessimism and technological optimism arises.

What is needed, says Borgmann, is a view that emulates

"the boldness and incisiveness of the substantive version without leaving the character of technology obscure. It should reflect our common intuitions and exhibit the lucidity of the instrumentalist theory while overcoming the latter’s superficiality."

Various attempts have been made to form a theory that successfully takes into account the best of the above views. I will not explore whether or not any of these attempts have been successful, but I will look at a few of the key issues involved. These issues include the value-neutrality of technology, the idea of technological progress, and the relationship between science and technology.

The Neutrality of Technology

While it is true that a technological artifact can be used for different ends and that different technological artifacts can be used for the same ends, this does not imply that technology is neutral. The authors of Responsible Technology argue that technology is "value-laden." Their argument relies on two basic characteristics of technological artifacts - their uniqueness and their intertwined-ness with their environment.

Every technological artifact is unique in that each is designed for a specific purpose. A technological artifact is a combination of "specific resources - know-how, materials, and energy - into unique entities with unique sets of properties and capabilities." This unique combination is a result of the designers' choices

"to develop one kind of knowledge and not another, to use certain resources and not others, to use energy in a certain form and quantity. There is no purely neutral or technical justification for all these decisions."

Rather, all of these choices involve human valuing, whether it is the economic valuing of a certain method of production or the aesthetic valuing of a particular design or the environmental valuing of one material over another.

Likewise, as I suggested above, people have some freedom in how they use an artifact. A chair can be used for a variety of purposes. But this freedom is not unconstrained. A chair cannot be used for any end I may dream up. The decisions made by the designers of an artifact both enable it to function as it does, but also limit it. In this way, we can say that an artifact "embodies" the values of the decisions of its designers. An artifact's shape, structure, material makeup, etc. both enable it to function as its designers envisioned (and usually in ways that the designers didn't envision), but also limit it to functioning in certain ways.

In addition to being unique, technological artifacts are also intertwined with their environments.

"[E]ach technological object, given its properties and capabilities, opens up certain possibilities for interaction with both its cultural and its natural environment, and correspondingly closes down other possibilites."

The desire of easy, personal transportation led to the mass production of automobiles. One of the ways automobiles interact with their natural environments is by emitting various pollutants into the environment. One way they interact with their cultural environment is their need for highways and gas stations and service shops and law enforcement. All of these are things that have been "opened up" by the decisions and values of both designers and society.

Technological Progress

A common view of technological progress holds that we are increasingly becoming more technologically sophisticated. The combination of scientific advances and technological ingenuity leads to improved conditions for human beings and future problems will similarly be met by technological solutions. Progress, then, is the meeting of desired goals through the most efficient, technical means possible.

There are problems with this view of technological progress, however. Historical studies show that technology does not follow this path of progress. Decisions in technology are often based not on technical reasons, but on social, aesthetic, safety, and other factors. This idea parallels the idea of the underdetermination of theories found in the philosophy of science. Underdetermination in science is the idea that empirical data alone cannot determine a choice between two or more competing theories. The empirical data cannot force us to choose one theory over another. Technological underdetermination, then, is the idea that technical reason alone is not enough to determine the success of two or more competing technologies. Feenberg describes another way of looking at this principle: "[U]nderdetermination means that technical principles alone are insufficient to determine the design of actual devices."

In many ways, this view is akin to a religious belief in that it offers a solution to what's "wrong" with the world. This solution is efficient, technical control over nature. Technology is seen as the way in which we will curie diseases, end world hunger, create world peace, and even gain immortality. Faith in technological progress, then, resembles the faith found in many religions in that it offers hope.

Technology and Science

Virtually everybody agrees that science and modern technology are closely related. Indeed, in many instances (e.g., biotechnology) it is difficult to determine where the technology begins and where the science ends. There are, however, disagreements about how science and technology are related.

The most popular view today is that technology is merely applied science. Scientists make discoveries about nature and develop general theories and knowledge about reality. Technology is the process of applying these theories and knowledge towards useful purposes.

Others have taken the opposite stance, saying that science is actually "theoretical technology." They have looked at the history of technology and have noted that very often technological advances actually precede the scientific explanations for how they work.

Besides the historical approach just mentioned, there have been two other types of arguments against the technology as applied science view. The first argues that technological knowledge is distinct from and not reducible to scientific knowledge. As an example of this approach, Edwin Layton points out,

"[E]ngineering theory often deals with idealizations of machines, beams, heat engines, or similar devices. And the results of engineering science are often statements about such devices rather than statements about nature. ... By its very nature, therefore, engineering science is less abstracted and idealized; it is much closer to the "real" world of engineering. Thus, engineering science often differs from basic science in both style and substance. Generalizations about "science" based on one will not necessarily apply to the other."

The other argument tries to dissolve the sharp distinction between science and technology. In essence, this argument challenges the technology as applied science's implicit assumptions about what science and technology are. It relies on the difficulties in distinguishing scientific knowledge from other forms of knowledge. Because of these problems, it is difficult to even talk about one being an application of the other. We could just as easily speak of science as applied technology as we do of technology as applied science. The fact that scientific advances generally rely on technology just as much as technological advances rely on science also adds support to this view. In addition, throughout its history, science has used technological metaphors as guiding principles. The machine has served as a metaphor for things ranging from the entire universe to animals to parts of animals.

Conclusion

We have really only touched the surface of the subject of technology. There are many other topics including the difference between natural and artificial, technology and politics, technology and ethics, sustainable/appropriate/intermediate technologies, and others. The two views of technology that I discussed - instrumentalism and substantivism - each have nuggets of truth to them. Neither is an adequate theory, however. The betterment of humanity will not come through faith in technical control or through the rejection of modern technology. Technology is neither savior nor the scapegoat for what's wrong with this world.

Macht is a Systems Engineer and specializes in statistical signal processing and communication systems. His interests lie in the areas of philosophy of technology, philosophy of science, and neocalvinism. He blogs at prosthesis.

Other posts in the series:

• Bill Wallo on Graphic Novels


• Kevin T. Keith on Consequentialist Ethics


• Nick Troester on Deontological Ethics


• Greg Forster on Political Thought


• JB Doubtless on Country Music