A Political (Re-)Turn in the Philosophy of Engineering and Technology - Power and domination
Chair(s): Glenn Miller (Texas A&M University)
Technological and engineering choices increasingly determine our world. Presently, this affects not only our individual well-being and autonomy but also our political and collective self-constitution. Think of digital technologies like social media and their combination with AI, the corresponding echo chambers and filter bubbles, deep fakes and the current state of liberal democracy and the rise of authoritarian governments. Despite nation states having to reframe sovereignty in a globalised world (Miller, 2022), there is the potential for impactful collective action with regard to technological choices and practices of engineering, so that a simple form of technological determinism is to be discarded. In this light, the current focus of ethically normative philosophy of technology on individual action and character is alarmingly narrow (Mitcham, 2024). We urgently need a political (re-)turn in the philosophy of engineering and technology and, correspondingly, a turn towards engineering and technology in disciplines that reflect on the political sphere (Coeckelbergh, 2022).
To foster such a political (re-)turn in the philosophy of engineering and technology, we propose a panel at the SPT 2025 conference that brings together different theoretical perspectives and approaches that reflect the necessary diversity of such a political (re-)turn. We aim to both examine the contribution of applied political philosophy (e.g. political liberalism; Straussian political philosophy) to the question of technological disruption, as well as offer a roadmap for an explicitly political philosophy of technology that engages, for example, with the ways that AI will change the nature of political concepts (e.g. democracy, rights) (Coeckelbergh, 2022; Lazar, 2024). With global AI frameworks already shaping the global political horizon, it is pertinent to acknowledge and assess the current relationship between engineering, technology and politics. The panel might also be the first meeting of a newly forming SPT SIG on the Political Philosophy of engineering and technology, which will be proposed to the SPT steering committee.
References
Coeckelbergh, M. (2022). The Political Philosophy of AI: An Introduction (1. Aufl.). Polity.
Lazar, S. (2024). Power and AI: Nature and Justification. In J. B. Bullock, Y.-C. Chen, J. Himmelreich, V. M. Hudson, A. Korinek, M. M. Young, & B. Zhang (Hrsg.), The Oxford Handbook of AI Governance (S. 0). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197579329.013.12
Miller, G. (2022). Toward a More Expansive Political Philosophy of Technology. NanoEthics, 16(3), 347–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-022-00433-y
Mitcham, C. (2024). Brief for Political Philosophy of Engineering and Technology. NanoEthics, 18(3), 14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-024-00463-8
Presentations of the Symposium
Why Representations of the Future (Should) Matter for Political Philosophy of Technology? ‘Modal Power’ and Socio-Technical Directionality
Sergio Urueña
University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU
Over the past three decades, there has been a growing interest in how representations of the future co-configure technological and sociotechnical practices. Concepts such as “visions” (Schneider & Lösch, 2019), “expectations” (Konrad & Alvial Palavicino, 2017; Pollock & Williams, 2010), “promises” (Parandian et al., 2012), “hype cycles” (van Lente et al., 2013), “sociotechnical imaginaries” (Jasanoff & Kim, 2015), or “hermeneutic circles” (Grunwald, 2017) reveal diverse ways in which technological production is intertwined with, and shaped by, future-oriented representations. This attention has primarily emerged within fields such as Science and Technology Studies (STS) and normative approaches like various forms of Technology Assessment. Yet, it remains an underexplored niche within philosophical inquiry. What critical and/or interventive commitments, then, should a political philosophy of technology have toward these future-oriented phenomena?
This paper argues that any political philosophy of technology aiming to address the socio-material and discursive mechanisms underpinning the co-production of technology must include among its objects of analysis the ways in which representations of the future shape, perform, and sustain the development of technologies (and their associated socio-political orders). This focus is warranted, I will contend, because such future-oriented representations—embedded within the present—play a pivotal role in modulating “modal power,” understood as the capacity, whether explicit or subtle, to set the spaces of possibility deemed (im)plausible and (un)desirable in guiding (technological) praxis (Urueña, 2022). If a central task of a political philosophy of technology is to discern how technology co-configures sociopolitical orders and engages with power—creating, reinforcing, or redistributing it—then attention to modal power, and its influence on sociotechnical trajectories, should be considered a fundamental dimension of such a philosophy. This is especially critical for political philosophy of technology focused on “socially disruptive” new and emerging technologies, which are the primary (though not the sole) catalysts and capitalizers of future temporality.
References
Grunwald, A. (2017). Assigning meaning to NEST by technology futures: extended responsibility of technology assessment in RRI. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 4(2), 100–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2017.1360719
Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S.-H. (Eds.). (2015). Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power. University of Chicago Press.
Konrad, K., & Alvial Palavicino, C. (2017). Evolving Patterns of Governance of, and by, Expectations: The Graphene Hype Wave. In D. M. Bowman, E. Stokes, & A. Rip (Eds.), Embedding New Technologies into Society: A Regulatory, Ethical and Societal Perspective (pp. 187–217). Pan Stanford Publishing.
Parandian, A., Rip, A., & Te Kulve, H. (2012). Dual dynamics of promises, and waiting games around emerging nanotechnologies. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(6), 565–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2012.693668
Pollock, N., & Williams, R. (2010). The business of expectations: How promissory organizations shape technology and innovation. Social Studies of Science, 40(4), 525–548. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312710362275
Schneider, C., & Lösch, A. (2019). Visions in assemblages: Future-making and governance in FabLabs. Futures, 109, 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2018.08.003
Urueña, S. (2022). Anticipation and modal power: Opening up and closing down the momentum of sociotechnical systems. Social Studies of Science, 52(5), 783–805. https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127221111469
van Lente, H., Spitters, C., & Peine, A. (2013). Comparing technological hype cycles: Towards a theory. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(8), 1615–1628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.12.004
Gadgets, gimmicks, garbage: domination and irresponsible innovation
Lukas Fuchs
University of Stirling
This presentation sketches a political economic critique of irresponsible innovations. Despite diverse research on technological innovations and their impact (ultra-processed foods, automobiles, cushioned running shoes, social media, nonstick cookware), we lack systematic understanding of why societies develop, disseminate, adopt and retain useless and harmful products. The presentation first presents cases of irresponsible innovations and investigates the mechanisms that propel them. Second, drawing on the normative notion of freedom as non-domination, it studies to which extent the market-led influx of innovations has made societies unfree to decide their own fate and individual consumers unable to make autonomous lifestyle choices.
Energy, war, power: political philosophy of engineering and technology during armed conflict
Giovanni Frigo
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
The context of warfare provides unique conditions for thinking radically about political philosophy of engineering and technology. This paper focuses on two crucial issues that connect energy and war – energy interdependence and the weaponization of energy systems. Ethics (understood in individualistic terms) appears insufficient for dealing with these problems, which seem to require collective political solutions instead. Concrete energy projects that aim to contribute to the energy transition from fossil fuel-based energy systems to more sustainable and renewable ones usually take place within the borders of national-states. Here, issues related to energy autonomy, security, safety, and sovereignty play a major role. Although these projects depend on national public policies, they are often connected to broader policy agreement at the union, federal or international level. This interconnectedness, along with the interdependencies created by inter-state energy markets, imply issues related to international law, international relations, and transboundary political equilibria. The emergence of warfare may pose unique challenges to both intra- and inter-state political relations. What is the role of political philosophy of engineering and technology in understanding (energy) engineering and (energy) technologies during warfare? To sketch a provisional answer and discuss the two issues of energy interdependence and weaponization of energy systems, we present the case of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) located in South-Eastern Ukraine. The ZNPP is Europe's largest nuclear facility and, at the moment of writing, a highly contested and weaponized socio-technical system that is currently under Russian military occupation. The aim of the article is twofold. On the one hand, we propose to realistically consider the (im)possibility of advancing energy transition during armed conflicts. On the other hand, we offer a reflection about the geopolitics of energy from the standpoint of political philosophy of engineering and technology.
|
