Technology and Human Needs

  • David Kipnis


Psychologists have accounted for human behavior in many ways since the late 19th century. At first, behavior was seen as driven by instincts, then later by unconscious drives, and still later by needs and motives. Most recently, behavior has been explained by higher order mental processes involving intellectual activity, such as cognitions and expectations. What all of these explanations have in common is that they are based on social forces within the individual that cannot be seen or touched. These ghosts have such names as dissonance, id, and creativity, to name but a few. Each lives for a brief moment and then is forgotten as new explanations arise. Despite their being short-lived, psychology needs its ghosts, perhaps even more than the church needs the notion of a soul. How else are we to capture the richness and complexity of human beings? Surely not by behavior alone.


Late 19th Century Metamorphic Effect Technological Perspective Intellectual Activity Early Writing 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Perrow, C. (1967). A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations. American Sociological Review, 32, 194–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ortega y Gasset, José (1972). Thoughts on technology. In C. Mitcham & R. Mackey (Eds.), Philosophy and technology, (Chapter 23 ). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dickson, D. (1974). Alternative technology and the politics of technical change. Glasgow: Fontana/Collins.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Florman, S.C. (1981). Blaming technology: The irrational search for scapegoats. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weinberg, A. (1966). Can technology replace social engineering? University of Chicago Magazine, 59, 6–10.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clarke, N.W. (1972). Technology and man: A Christian view. In C. Mitcham & R. Mackey (Eds.), Philosophy and technology, (Chapter 10 ). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mumford, L. (1967). The myth of the machine. London: Secker & Warburg.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Easton, L., & Guddat, K.H. (Eds). (1967). Writings of the young Marx on philosophy and society. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kipnis, D. (1981). The Powerholders ( 2nd ed. ). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kelman, H.C. (1972). Assignment of responsibility in the case of Lt. Calley. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 177–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goodman, P. (1969). Can technology be humane? In C. Mitcham & R. Mackey (Eds.), Philosophy and Technology (pp. 335–354 ). New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cooley, M. (1980). Architect or bee? Boston: South End Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Kipnis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations