HISA02 Lecture 2: What is Technology? Notes

Professor Matt Price welcomes students to HISA02, Lecture 02, Summer 2025.
The topic of the lecture is "What is Technology?"
TAs are introduced: Asana Farschi, Hongyun Liu, Ling Ding, and Andi Giller, along with their respective tutorial sections.

Technology is a ubiquitous term, yet its meaning is slippery and hard to define precisely.
Everyday terms often resist precise definition, similar to "gravity."
Using a word does not equate to fully understanding the underlying concept.

The word "technology" entered the English language around 1620 via Neo-Latin.
It is rooted in the Greek words τέχνη (techne), meaning skill, art, or practice, and λόγος (logos), meaning study or word.
The original sense of technology was the "study of human skill" or the "mechanical/useful arts."
Widespread, everyday use of the term only began in the late 19th to early 20th century.

The sudden popularity of the word "technology" signals a deep cultural change.
Tracing the history of a keyword can serve as a chronological signpost.
Leo Marx suggests that the emergence of a keyword in public discourse can be an illuminating historical event.
Quote from Leo Marx (2010, pp. 562-63): "…the emergence of a keyword in public discourse… may prove to be an illuminating historical event."

The rapid rise of "technology" as a dominant term reflects significant societal changes.
The term's popularity arose from its ability to describe these changes.
However, this has led to some problematic and inaccurate ideas.
Marx argues that the concept of technology has become reified.
- Reification, as explained by philosopher George Lukacs, occurs when a human activity is treated as a thing, obscuring the human relations at its core.

Marx critiques how technology is often imbued with agency, obscuring the underlying human factors.
Example: "The cotton machine transformed the southern agricultural economy…"
This phrasing implies that the machine itself initiated change, diverting attention from the socioeconomic and political relations that were actually responsible.

Machines are often presented as causal agents, but the real drivers are socioeconomic relations.
This misplaced agency obscures the role of politics and power in shaping technological change.

Technology, in itself, does not cause anything to happen.
The concept has been given a thing-like autonomy and a seemingly magical power of historical agency.
Technology has become an all-purpose agent of change.
Compared to other means of reaching social goals, the technological has come to seem the most feasible, practical, and economically viable.
This over-reliance on technology relieves citizens of decision-making obligations and intensifies their sense of political impotence.
The belief in technology as the primary force shaping the future is matched by an increasing reliance on instrumental standards of judgment and a neglect of moral and political standards.

Over-reliance on technological explanations can undermine democratic decision-making.
Re-examining the history of technology is therefore politically urgent.

Ursula Franklin was a German-Canadian physicist, Holocaust survivor, and peace activist.
She pioneered archaeometry and exposed fallout from nuclear tests.
Her 1989 Massey Lectures were titled The Real World of Technology.

Technology is not merely an addition to culture (“icing on the cake”) but an integral part of it.
Franklin contrasts her approach to examining bronze fragments with that of art historians and museum people to illustrate the connection between practice and insight.
Different practices yield different insights, even when examining the same artifact.
Technology defined as a practice reveals its deep cultural links.

Holistic Technologies:
- The craftsperson controls the entire process.
- Promotes creativity and individual skill.
Prescriptive Technologies:
- Detailed scripts and procedures control workers.
- Designed for compliance and efficiency (e.g., assembly line).
The rise of prescriptive technology can foster social passivity.

Technology has built the house in which we all live.
This house is continually being extended and remodeled.
More and more of human life takes place within its walls.
Virtually no human activity is untouched by technology.
All are affected by the design of the house, the division of space, and the location of its doors and walls.
Compared to people in earlier times, we rarely have a chance to live outside this house.

Technology is the system by which we attempt to solve real-world problems.
It is a complex web of knowledge, social connections, and behavior that enables us to solve problems.
Technology often includes a material object, but not all technologies require a physical artifact (Ede, p. 2).

Technology opens or closes possibilities but does not dictate outcomes.
This echoes Leo Marx's emphasis on human agency.
It critiques Karl Marx's "hand-mill / steam-mill" aphorism.
Human agency remains central; we must make conscious, ethical choices.
Karl Marx's quote from The Poverty of Philosophy, 1847: "The handmill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill, society with the industrial capitalist."

The word "technology" itself provides a historical clue.
Definitions matter because vague terms can blind us to social complexity.
We should treat technology as a practice or system involving people, power, and values.
It is important to question deterministic narratives and reclaim agency in shaping technological futures.