Advertisement

Human Studies

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 241–250 | Cite as

From Assigning to Designing Technological Agency

  • Katinka Waelbers
Book Review Essay

Abstract

In What Things Do, Verbeek (What things do: philosophical reflections on technology, agency and design. Penn State University Press, University Park, 2005a) develops a vocabulary for understanding the social role of technological artifacts in our culture and in our daily lives. He understands this role in terms of the technological mediation of human behavior and perception. To explain mediation, he levels out the modernist separation of subjects and objects by decreasing the autonomy of humans and increasing the activity of things. His approach consists primarily within a clever integration of the theories of Latour and Ihde, which provides a comprehensive understanding of the social role of technological artifacts. Despite the fact that Verbeek’s book is carefully thought out and already quite influential in the field of philosophy of technology, his approach raises some conceptual and pragmatic questions. The conceptual questions concern (a) the precise meaning of the concept of mediation and the possibility of distinguishing between different forms of mediation, and (b) the differences and similarities between human and technological agency and intentionality. The pragmatic questions concern the application of his theory to the realm of engineering ethics. Particularly pressing is the question of how to assign (moral) responsibility to humans when technological artifacts are mediating the outcomes of human actions. With this article, I will raise these issues, and look forward to Verbeek’s reply.

Keywords

Mediation Technological agency Responsibility 

References

  1. Collins, H., & Yearley, S. (1992). Epistemological chicken. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture (pp. 301–326). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Floridi, J., & Sanders, J. W. (2004). On the morality of artificial agents. Minds and Machines, 14, 349–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ihde, D., & Selinger, E. (2003). Chasing technoscience: Matrix for materiality. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern (C. Porter, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Latour, B. (1994). On technical mediation: Philosophy, sociology, genealogy. Common Knowledge, 3, 29–64.Google Scholar
  6. Latour, B. (1996). Aramis or the love of technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Laurier, E., & Philo, C. (1999). X-morphising: Review essay of Bruno Latour’s Aramis or the love of technology. Environment and Planning A, 13, 1047–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lenk, H. (1993). Uber Verantwortungsbegriffe und das Verantwortungsproblem in der Ethik. (The concept of responsibility and the problem of responsibility in ethics). In H. Lenk & G. Rophol. Technik und Ethik. Reclam , 8395, 112–148.Google Scholar
  10. Smith, A. (2003). Do you believe in ethics? Latour and Ihde in the trenches of the science wars (or: watch out, Latour, Ihde’s got a gun). In D. Ihde & E. Selinger (Eds.), Chasing technoscience: Matrix for materiality. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Verbeek, P. (2004). Stimuleer gedragsbeïnvloedende technologie (Stimulate behaviour changing technology). Den Hague: CDV.Google Scholar
  12. Verbeek, P. (2005a). What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency and design. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Verbeek, P. (2005b). The morality of design: Some notes on the moral agency of artifacts, users and designers. Paper for SPT 2005 conference technology and designing. Delft: Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
  14. Verbeek, P. (2006). Materializing morality. Science, Technology and Human Values, 31, 361–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Behavioural SciencesUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations