Techne 14:1 Winter 2010 Feenberg,Ten Paradoxes of Technology/3 Ten paradoxes of Technology Andrew Feenberg Canada Research Chair in Philosophy of Technology,School of Communication Simon Fraser University Note:This paper was presented at the 2009 Biennial Meeting of the Society for Philosophy and Technology as a keynote address. Abstract Though we may be competent at using many technologies,most of what we think we know about technology in general is false.Our error stems from the everyday conception of things as separate from each other and from us.In reality technologies belong to an interconnected network the nodes of which cannot exist independently gua technologies.What is more we tend to see technologies as quasi-natural objects,but they are just as much social as natural,just as much determined by the meanings we give them as by the causal laws that rule over their powers.The errors of common sense have political consequences in domains such as,development,medicine and environmental policy.In this paper I summarize many of the conclusions philosophy of technology has reached reflecting on the reality of our technological world.These conclusions appear as paradoxes judged from our everyday perspective. This paper presents a philosophy of technology.It draws on what we have learnt in the last 30 years as we abandoned old Heideggerian and positivist notions and faced the real world of technology.It turns out that most of our common sense ideas about technology are wrong.This is why I have put my ten propositions in the form of paradoxes,although I use the word loosely here to refer to the counter-intuitive nature of much of what we know about technology. 1.The paradox of the parts and the whole. Martin Heidegger,once asked whether birds fly because they have wings or have wings because they fly.The question seems silly but it offers an original point of entry for reflection on technology and development. Birds appear to be equipped with wings and it is this that explains their ability to fly.This is the obvious common sense answer to Heidegger's question.But this answer has implications that are less than obvious.Although our intuitions tell us birds belong in the air,our language seems to say that they are separate from the environment on which they act and even separate from the "equipment"they use to cope with that environment.Birds use wings to fly in something like the way in which we humans use airplanes. Pursuing the analogy we could say that if birds did not have wings they would be just as earthbound as were humans before the Wright brothers-or was it Santos Dumont?-invented the airplane.But this makes no sense.Although there are a few species of flightless birds,most birds could not survive without flying.Flying is not just something birds do;it is their very being. A better analogy to birds'flight would be human speech.Although speechless humans do exist, they lack an essential aspect of what it is to be human.Speech is not properly understood as a tool humans use to communicate because without it they are not fully human.Speech,like flight forTechné 14:1 Winter 2010 Feenberg, Ten Paradoxes of Technology/3 Ten paradoxes of Technology Andrew Feenberg Canada Research Chair in Philosophy of Technology, School of Communication Simon Fraser University Note: This paper was presented at the 2009 Biennial Meeting of the Society for Philosophy and Technology as a keynote address. Abstract Though we may be competent at using many technologies, most of what we think we know about technology in general is false. Our error stems from the everyday conception of things as separate from each other and from us. In reality technologies belong to an interconnected network the nodes of which cannot exist independently qua technologies. What is more we tend to see technologies as quasi-natural objects, but they are just as much social as natural, just as much determined by the meanings we give them as by the causal laws that rule over their powers. The errors of common sense have political consequences in domains such as, development, medicine and environmental policy. In this paper I summarize many of the conclusions philosophy of technology has reached reflecting on the reality of our technological world. These conclusions appear as paradoxes judged from our everyday perspective. This paper presents a philosophy of technology. It draws on what we have learnt in the last 30 years as we abandoned old Heideggerian and positivist notions and faced the real world of technology. It turns out that most of our common sense ideas about technology are wrong. This is why I have put my ten propositions in the form of paradoxes, although I use the word loosely here to refer to the counter-intuitive nature of much of what we know about technology. 1. The paradox of the parts and the whole. Martin Heidegger, once asked whether birds fly because they have wings or have wings because they fly. The question seems silly but it offers an original point of entry for reflection on technology and development. Birds appear to be equipped with wings and it is this that explains their ability to fly. This is the obvious common sense answer to Heidegger's question. But this answer has implications that are less than obvious. Although our intuitions tell us birds belong in the air, our language seems to say that they are separate from the environment on which they act and even separate from the "equipment" they use to cope with that environment. Birds use wings to fly in something like the way in which we humans use airplanes. Pursuing the analogy we could say that if birds did not have wings they would be just as earthbound as were humans before the Wright brothers—or was it Santos Dumont? —invented the airplane. But this makes no sense. Although there are a few species of flightless birds, most birds could not survive without flying. Flying is not just something birds do; it is their very being. A better analogy to birds' flight would be human speech. Although speechless humans do exist, they lack an essential aspect of what it is to be human. Speech is not properly understood as a tool humans use to communicate because without it they are not fully human. Speech, like flight for