Essay About Philosophy Of Technology And Robert Moses

The Whale and the Reactor
Essay Preview: The Whale and the Reactor
Report this essay
Winner states implicitly that he wishes to add his book to a surprisingly short list of works that can be
characterized as “philosophy of technology” (which includes Marx and Heidegger). His book will deal
primarily with the political and social aspects of this philosophy, pertinent since as he notes the world is
changing because of tech., no longer comprised of national entities–a global economy, etc. In this
context he will also look at language and determine how adequate it is presently for handling the state of
the art high tech world. His ultimate and ever present question being asked throughout his book is,
“How can we limit modern technology to match our best sense of who we are and the kind of world we
would like to build?” (xi), since the “basic task for a philosophy of technology is to examine critically the
nature and significance of artificial aids to human activity” (4). Winner makes a crucial distinction:
“technologies are not merely aids to human activity, but also powerful forces acting to reshape that
activity and its meaning” (6). Of course, the social arena is directly and profoundly influenced by tech.
W cites a recent court case from San Diego where, as in Los Angeles, virtually everyone travels
everywhere by car, of “a young man who enjoyed taking long walks at night through the streets of San
Diego and was repeatedly arrested by police as a suspicious character.” A criminal court ruled,
however, that “Merely traveling by foot is not yet a crime” (9). Yet it is important not simply to see tech
as the “cause” of all world “effects.” Rather, “as technologies are being built and put to use, significant
alterations in patterns of human activity and human institutions are already taking place” (11). All the
same, tech developments are absorbed into the ever mutating process of human activity so that they
some to be taken for granted and are integrated into our view of what is natural and/or inherent in the
world–they become “second nature,” as Winner, taking after Wittgenstein, terms it, they become part
of our “forms of life” (11).
In this context we can best appreciate certain crossroads or perhaps better to say thresholds we are
facing, such as genetic engineering and the possibility of founding human settlements in outer space.
These “call into question what it means to be human and what constitutes the human condition” (13).
How do such developments change the fabric of everyday existence?
Chapter 2: “Do Artifacts Have Politics
W asks, Can technology “embody specific forms of power and authority” (19). He reviews the ideas
of Kropotikin, Morris Hayes, Lillienthal, Boorstein and Mumford on his way to answering his question.
For example, Hayes states that “deployment of nuclear power facilities must lead society toward
authoritarianism” because of safety concerns (19-20). W believes “that technical systems of various
kinds are deeply interwoven in the conditions of modern politics [and further, that the] physical
arrangements of industrial production, warfare, communications, and the like have fundamentally
changed the exercise of power and the experience of citizenship” (20). Indeed, “human ends are
powerfully transformed as they are adapted to technical means” (21).
Artifacts “contain political properties” in two ways: 1) via “invention, design, or arrangement of a
specific technical device or system that becomes a way of settling an issue in the affairs of a particular
community.” 2) via “inherently political technologies, man-made systems that appear to require or to
be strongly compatible with particular kinds of political relationships.” Here W means the term politics
to stand for “arrangements of power and authority in human associations as well as the activities that
take place within those arrangements”; while the term technology is meant to stand for “all of modern
practical artifices” (22).
Examples cited in the above regard include the highway overpasses at Jones Beach, designed by
Robert Moses, which are “extraordinarily low” so that poor people cannot gain access to the beach
because their only method of transportation there would have to be by bus yet a bus cannot
get under the overpasses. Moses wanted to “build a particular social effect” (22-23). And in fact he
made sure that a rail line would not be built to go to the beach.
Similarly, Baron Haussmann engineered broad Parisian thoroughfares to make sure that there could be
not street fighting of the sort that occurred in 1848. This was an early version of the kinds of planning
that informed the construction of college campuses in the 1970s after the trauma of student rioting that
began in the 1960s.
Another example is that of McCormicks reaper manufacturing plant in Chicago in the 1880s, when he