The History of the Philosophy of Technology: the French Tradition
Chair(s): Federica Buongiorno (University of Florence)
The History of the Philosophy of Technology posits the philosophy of technology as a wide-ranging and comprehensive field of study that includes both the philosophical study of particular technologies and the different ways that technology, more broadly, has been considered philosophically. Influenced by the history of the philosophy of science, the history of ideas, and the history of the humanities, our aim is to examine how different individuals and traditions have thought about technology historically. This includes, but is not limited to: the work of different thinkers throughout history, both well-known and overlooked figures and narratives, including non-western traditions and narratives that engage with technology; analyzing the cultural, social, political, and sociotechnical contexts that have shaped philosophical responses to technology, including historical responses to new and emerging technologies; exploring the disciplines and intellectual traditions whose impacts can be traced across different philosophies of technology, including Science and Technology Studies (STS), the history of technology, critical theory, phenomenology, feminist philosophy, hermeneutics, and ecology, to name only a few; histories of different "schools" of philosophical thought about technology, for example French philosophy of technology, Japanese philosophy of technology, and Dutch philosophy of technology; mapping the hidden philosophies of technology in the work of philosophers (e.g. Foucault, Arendt, Sloterdijk) and traditions whose work is not often associated with technology (e.g. German idealism, logical empiricism, existentialism, lebensphilosophie); and, exploring the contributions of literature, art, design theory, architecture, and media theory/history towards a philosophy of technology.
This panel focuses on the French tradition within the philosophy of technology. Referred to by some as a "biological" philosophy of technology, the French tradition refers to work by writers including Gilbert Simondon, Georges Canguilhem, and Bernard Stiegler, to name only a few, each of whom present a unique approach to technology.
Presentations of the Symposium
Huamans, Technique, and Machine in Canguilhem's philosophy
Emanuele Clarizio
Catholic University Lille
Canguilhem’s reflection on technique permeates his entire philosophy from its very beginnings (i.e. the late 1930s) and is generally configured as a ‘biological philosophy of technique’, where technique is understood in continuity with life. However, whenever Canguilhem attempts to think of the machine - which happens in a recurring manner from the essay on Machine and Organism (1947) up to The Question of Ecology (1974) - he offers an extremely negative view of it from a moral point of view (as an instrument of normalization and rationalization) and a reductionist one from an epistemological point of view (as an assemblage of juxtaposed parts and not as an individual with a specific mode of existence). Whereas technique, understood as technical activity, is an act of the living, the machine is an intellectualist fabrication that serves to inscribe an external purpose in matter. From this point of view, the machine has less to do with vital creation than with an act of social normalization, and should be understood against the backdrop of a reflection of the human being with society, rather than the human being with life.
In fact, the organism, the machine and society represent three different types of organization for Canguilhem, of which only the former deserves to be qualified as autonomous, while the machine and society tend towards automatism. If, therefore, there is in Canguilhem a ‘biological philosophy of technology’, this does not include his reflection on the machine, for which we should perhaps speak of a ‘social philosophy of the machine’. There is, in short, a discontinuity between Canguilhem’s thought of ‘technique’ and his thought of the ‘machine’, which is also rooted in a sort of duality in his anthropology: the human being is understood by Canguilhem in some respects as a living being (whose inventive actions serve to interact with the environment), and in others as a cultural and social being, without these two points of view ever coming together completely. The distance between the concept of technique and the concept of machine thus refers to an anthropology that could be described as dualist, at once biological and socio-cultural.
A History of Vitalism in French Philosophers of Technology
Hannes van Engeland
Maastricht University
The French tradition in the philosophy of technology has been the object of a renewed interest and has received significant attention in recent years, especially so for the work of for example Bernard Stiegler, Georges Canguilhem and Jacques Ellul. Rather interestingly, I believe that many philosophers in this tradition were heavily influenced by Vitalism- the claim that not all aspects of reality, especially living organisms, can be explained by mechanistic processes alone.
In this presentation I therefore want to propose the hypothesis that within French philosophy of technology there is a tradition of vitalism and that the combination of vitalism and philosophy of technology leads to a political stake in the philosophies of vitalist thinkers.
I will do this by succinctly introducing the thought of three thinkers, namely: Henri Bergson, Raymond Ruyer and Gilbert Simondon. Bergson was a very influential thinker and heavily influenced the whole tradition of French philosophy. Ruyer is a philosopher that was heavily influenced by him and, though very influential in his time, has fallen into obscurity but recently is being rediscovered and even translated into English. Simondon is perhaps the most well-known figure in contemporary philosophy of technology and was influenced by both previous thinkers.
Each of them developed a philosophy of technology and made normative claims about how technology should relate itself towards humans and society and vice versa. For every thinker I will first briefly introduce their philosophy and in doing so underline the vitalism that is present in their thought. I will then, secondly, go on to discuss how they were normative and political in their own time and how they thought the living and non-living should relate to one another by focussing on a specific discussion they had or a specific term they introduced.
In the final part of my presentation I will then elaborate how each of these thinkers can be interesting to think about technology in our own time, exemplifying the enduring significance of French philosophy of technology and its potential contributions to contemporary discussions on the ethical and societal implications of technological development.
Pharmacology of plasticity: bridging stiegler and malabou
Pietro Prunotto
University of Turin
This paper explores the intersection of Bernard Stiegler’s epiphylogenesis and Catherine Malabou’s concept of plasticity, two frameworks rooted in Jacques Derrida’s deconstructive legacy yet rarely brought into dialogue. By proposing a “pharmacology of plasticity,” the paper bridges Stiegler’s focus on technics and externalized memory with Malabou’s emphasis on the transformative potential of neuronal plasticity, extending their relevance to contemporary challenges in philosophy and technology.
Malabou’s plasticity—defined as the capacity to give, receive, and destroy form—resonates with Stiegler’s pharmakon, which conceptualizes technics as both a remedy and a threat. Both philosophers address the interplay between life, technology, and transformation, shedding light on how these dynamics shape subjectivity in an era of cognitive capitalism and algorithmic governance. Stiegler’s theory of epiphylogenesis situates technical objects as co-constitutive of human individuation, while Malabou underscores the biological and philosophical implications of trauma, adaptability, and materiality.
Despite shared themes, significant divergences emerge. Malabou critiques Stiegler’s perceived dualism between the human and the machinic, while Stiegler highlights gaps in Malabou’s engagement with technics, particularly her reading of Hegel. To reconcile these perspectives, the paper argues that plasticity itself operates pharmacologically, embodying both creative and disruptive potentials. This duality offers a critical framework for addressing socio-political and ecological challenges in technologically mediated societies, where the boundaries between biology and technology are increasingly blurred.
By synthesizing Stiegler’s organology and Malabou’s materialist turn, the “pharmacology of plasticity” illuminates the interaction between externalized memory and cerebral plasticity, proposing new ways to understand the politics of individuation and disindividuation. Engaging Derrida’s notions of trace and différance, the paper reaffirms the relevance of deconstruction for contemporary debates on technics, life, and transformation.
Ultimately, this synthesis provides critical tools for rethinking the relationship between technology and subjectivity, demonstrating how the “pharmacology of plasticity” can inform resistance and critique in an age defined by cognitive capitalism and technological governance. By exploring the intersections of technics and life, the paper extends the scope of deconstruction to address urgent questions about the Anthropocene, fostering a nuanced understanding of transformation and its implications for ethics and politics.
|
