Technology and utopia

This book-review has been written as an assignment to my reading seminar, for further context see L. Winner’s ‘Technology today: Utopia or dystopia?’ (1997) and C. F. Hofacker and D. Corsaro’s ‘Dystopia and utopia in digital
services’ (2020).

I have very purposefully chosen for this assignment to read two texts with a notable time gap. There are nearly 23 years in between the Winner’s and Hofacker’s and Corsaro’s text and I hoped that I could find a notable gap in their views. I really liked that in some notions the both texts might complement each other, the older text by Winner brought topics which are important in the future and Hofacker and Corsaro further speak about them in contemporary context.

Both texts are mentioning both issues and pessimistic views of technology as well as techno-optimism, which might be a sign that authors are aware of naive techno positivism and the critiqueless celebrations of new technology.

Winner could recognize the enormous impact of technology on the most (if not every) aspect of life, from career to personal life.This thought was also recognised by Hofacker and Corsaro. The newer text has ended with the idea of slowness being the biggest luxury in the changing fastening world, but the debate over world changing in unexpected ways have been in both texts.

For the last reading of this semester I have tried to see some overlapping patterns and once again I have found in Winner’s text a mention of technology which personalised it. I believe nearly all the texts we were supposed to read this semester have been talking of technology in personalised matters, mostly describing it as patient, kind or self-conscious. Winner mentioned that technology helps to bring individual and collective redemption, which seems particularly strange to me, besides other qualities attributed to technology.

This idea also lead me to the discussion of technology neutrality, which has been presented in both texts. I personally do not believe in neutrality of technology, thus I believe that all technology has a humane layer which can not be removed from technology, because it is made by a person who made it with a purpose, purpose which may either directly or indirectly serve to people.

Hofacker and Corsaro mentioned that all technology presents paradoxes, in its core the use of technology is the concerning issue. There exists a philosophical debate about the inventor or designer of a tool and its users using the tool for other than designated purposes. Because I do not believe in technology neutrality or “innocence” of tools, even though I can admit that some tools and technology are not used by its users for the sole purpose which was explicitly intended by the inventor. There was also mentioned that human input in technology might be hidden in digital exchange, but as I already explained people tend to personalise technology because they might feel like there is something human behind the technology, it is the person’s touch which makes technology feel humanised.

Winner also brought the idea of how the technology is designed, unfortunately not thinking deeper about this issue.

In both texts there has been brought the issue of control, which I see as especially pressing when few large corporations rule over everything from information channels to entertainment. Winner mentioned an idea of reduction of possible barriers to create a collaborative environment for large corporations (the idea of creation of a huge, commercial, interactive, multimedia network); this sounds to me quite disturbing and dystopical. If we look at the large digital/technology companies like Microsoft, Apple, Alphabet, with their power to step into the ground any small prospective innovative company that may try to push a new product/service, sounds to me like a scenario from a dystopian novel, but it is a reality. I did not cherish this idea of collaboration because of this modern context we are surrounded with. It is very frustrating that modern digital services tend to be strictly separated, because we users would love to grab our content and use it anywhere without any problems. But the modern services are not connected. We are happy when we can use our content from our cloud storage in a creative tool for making digital posters, as well as we are happy when we can connect from our website creator from a photo bank. But that connectability is very rare.

The contemporary issue of compatibility of apps or services was also brought by Hofacker and Corsaro. I would like to read some articles that go deeper into this problem and the whole phenomenon, because I believe that the main problem might be located in the economical level.

Winner is talking about shared rights and responsibilities of people in cyberspace, which might have once been true, but I can not see it the same in the present day. The responsibilities often lie heavily on service providers and its users have to consent to the rules the providers chose to furnish. The idea of responsibility of the user is to listen to the rules, but in the case of breaking the rules there might be no punishment or ban from service.

The idea which both texts recognised was the idea of communication. Winner mentioned the changing soul of communication, people sitting alone with technology and not communicating to each other. This view is nothing new, I remember seeing an old article where its author complained about people on trains reading newspapers instead of socialising. I believe this trend or pattern of new technology bringing changes that some might see as problematic might be interesting to map. It would be interesting to look at current new technology and especially computing technology and its perception by the public and how the public reacted to new technology that was invented in 1950' and 1960'. Afterall, the whole progress-oriented mindset of the modernist movement in the first half of twentieth century was highly pro-technology in its orientation.

There has also been mention of technology and mechanical work which suppress creativity, which was one of the patterns I would like to see mapped.

The Winner’s contemporary society stressed the economic dimension, which is a social trend which has not changed at all. Economic growth, increase in incomes, profits, prices, living standards is still stressed over all the other important things.Some young people tend to drag down capitalism, but there is a huge difference between capitalism and consumerism with the society of absurd surplus. Also the progress in technology has not only been seen for its economical advancement, but also a social, cultural and political impact. All technology is more or less reshaping the society, the newest ICT and changes that goes with it are especially clear to everyone.

I also liked that Winner mentioned the surrounding nature of technology, which I have found very thought provoking.

In the topic of communication the lack of “true” or “analogue” conversation was not the only issue brought here. The next issue is the contemporary problem of lack of human interaction in services. I personally like to choose if I like to have human interaction, there are some cases I can not stand a person helping me and other times I can not go without guidance. I like to have this choice, thus I support both lack of human contact and warm experience with professionals.

Winner on the other hand mentioned the issue of non-coherent communities, because communities are no longer bound to a specific geographical location (and the culture as well). The huge issue connected to the communication is the possibility to share disinformation and technology being a vessel for all sorts of bizarre beliefs, groups of interest or even cult-like communities. Hofacker and Corsaro mentioned the trust gap, also connected to the digital services, which is a problem, which must be reflected more in the future.

I also praised the technology for its democratic nature Winner mentioned, broadening options and increasing inclusivity. The idea of inclusivity was presented in the Winner’s text, which was surprising because of its age.

Beside the trends both texts touched, Winner has spoken about how digital technology is creating a realm in which one may achieve wealth, power and sensual pleasure. In this sense, we can clearly see technology as a dystopian tool (as we saw in many science fiction literature and artwork). On the other hand I do not believe that either of the texts would be unrealistic or unfair. They could see the technology with its advantages and limitations and possible risks, wondering what will come next.

Even in its most wild descriptions of modern technology being unpredictable, I have been wondering, if it really is, and we who have been surrounded by it can not see its chaotic nature anymore.

One thought I had to wonder about after I finished my reading was the idea about the future. I believe I have come to one possible answer. Future of digital technology lies in the awareness of context. The current artificial intelligence is able to work with personalisation and some level of context, but when we use it as for example a chatbot, it is very often not able to work with further context as a person does, it usually can react to the information in the last message and not with the information from the previous ones.

At the end of my reading, I have been wondering if the contemporary world can be seen as utopia or dystopia. I believe it can be seen as both and also as none of those options. In some ways, the naive techno optimists are right, but in other issues, the pessimistic view of the dystopian world might be closer to reality. We can not be sure about the future, but I highly believe that through education we can prepare for ourselves the best possible one.