Techne 14:1 Winter 2010 Feenberg,Ten Paradoxes of Technology/7 pages of the book,the stump of the branch that broke from the tree in the last storm.In such cases,the presence of the past in the present seems to us unremarkable. But technologies seem disconnected from their past.We usually have no idea where they came from,how they developed,the conditions under which the decisions were made that determined their features.They seem self-sufficient in their rational functioning.An adequate explanation of any given device appears to consist in tracing the causal connections between its parts. In reality there is just as much history to an electric toaster or a nuclear power plant as there is to persons,books,and trees.No device emerged full blown from the logic of its functioning.Every process of development is fraught with contingencies,choices,alternative possibilities.The perfecting of the technical object obliterates the traces of the labor of its construction and the social forces that were in play as its design was fixed.It is this process that adjusts the object to its niche and so the occlusion of its history contributes to the forgetfulness of the whole to which it belongs.I call this the paradox of the origin:behind everything rational there lies a forgotten history Here is an example with which we are all familiar.What could be more rational than lighted exit signs and outward opening doors in theatres?Yet in the United States these simple life saving devices were not mandated by any law or regulation until the famous Iroquois Theatre fire in Chicago in 1903.Some 600 people died trying to find and open the exits.Thereafter cities all over the country introduced strict safety regulations.Today we do not take much notice of exit signs and doors and certainly few theatre goers have an idea of their origin.We think,if we think at all,that they are surely there as useful precautions.But the history shows that this is not the full explanation.A contingent fact,a particular incident,lies behind the logic of theatre design. 4.The paradox of the frame. There is a corollary of the paradox of the origin.I call this fourth paradox,the paradox of the frame and formulate it as follows:efficiency does not explain success,success explains efficiency. This is counter-intuitive.Our common sense tells us that technologies succeed because they are good at doing their job.Efficiency is the measure of their worth and explains why they are chosen from among the many possible alternatives.But the history of technology tells a different story Often at the beginning of a line of development none of the alternatives work very well by the standards of a later time when one of them has enjoyed many generations of innovation and improvement.When we look back from the standpoint of the improved device we are fooled into thinking its obvious superiority explains its success.But that superiority results from the original choice that privileged the successful technology over the alternatives and not vice versa.So what does explain that choice? Again,the history of technology helps.It shows that many different criteria are applied by the social actors who have the power to make the choice.Sometimes economic criteria prevail, sometimes technical criteria such as the "fit"of the device with other technologies in the environment,sometimes social or political requirements of one sort or another.In other words, there is no general rule under which paths of development can be explained.Explanation by efficiency is a little like explaining the presence of pictures in a museum by the fact that they all have frames.Of course all technologies must be more or less efficient,but that does not explain why they are present in our technical environment.In each case only a study of the contingent circumstances of success and failure tells the true story.Techné 14:1 Winter 2010 Feenberg, Ten Paradoxes of Technology/7 pages of the book, the stump of the branch that broke from the tree in the last storm. In such cases, the presence of the past in the present seems to us unremarkable. But technologies seem disconnected from their past. We usually have no idea where they came from, how they developed, the conditions under which the decisions were made that determined their features. They seem self-sufficient in their rational functioning. An adequate explanation of any given device appears to consist in tracing the causal connections between its parts. In reality there is just as much history to an electric toaster or a nuclear power plant as there is to persons, books, and trees. No device emerged full blown from the logic of its functioning. Every process of development is fraught with contingencies, choices, alternative possibilities. The perfecting of the technical object obliterates the traces of the labor of its construction and the social forces that were in play as its design was fixed. It is this process that adjusts the object to its niche and so the occlusion of its history contributes to the forgetfulness of the whole to which it belongs. I call this the paradox of the origin: behind everything rational there lies a forgotten history. Here is an example with which we are all familiar. What could be more rational than lighted exit signs and outward opening doors in theatres? Yet in the United States these simple life saving devices were not mandated by any law or regulation until the famous Iroquois Theatre fire in Chicago in 1903. Some 600 people died trying to find and open the exits. Thereafter cities all over the country introduced strict safety regulations. Today we do not take much notice of exit signs and doors and certainly few theatre goers have an idea of their origin. We think, if we think at all, that they are surely there as useful precautions. But the history shows that this is not the full explanation. A contingent fact, a particular incident, lies behind the logic of theatre design. 4. The paradox of the frame. There is a corollary of the paradox of the origin. I call this fourth paradox, the paradox of the frame and formulate it as follows: efficiency does not explain success, success explains efficiency. This is counter-intuitive. Our common sense tells us that technologies succeed because they are good at doing their job. Efficiency is the measure of their worth and explains why they are chosen from among the many possible alternatives. But the history of technology tells a different story. Often at the beginning of a line of development none of the alternatives work very well by the standards of a later time when one of them has enjoyed many generations of innovation and improvement. When we look back from the standpoint of the improved device we are fooled into thinking its obvious superiority explains its success. But that superiority results from the original choice that privileged the successful technology over the alternatives and not vice versa. So what does explain that choice? Again, the history of technology helps. It shows that many different criteria are applied by the social actors who have the power to make the choice. Sometimes economic criteria prevail, sometimes technical criteria such as the “fit” of the device with other technologies in the environment, sometimes social or political requirements of one sort or another. In other words, there is no general rule under which paths of development can be explained. Explanation by efficiency is a little like explaining the presence of pictures in a museum by the fact that they all have frames. Of course all technologies must be more or less efficient, but that does not explain why they are present in our technical environment. In each case only a study of the contingent circumstances of success and failure tells the true story