Abstract
New technologies change the world and make people react. When a new technology emerges and starts to spread – if you look at cultural history – it is both welcomed as visionary and feared as a threat to culture. Is this justified? Does technology really shape culture and society? Or is it actually the other way around: does technological development depend on the culture, politics and economics of a society? This either/or controversy has now more or less been settled. There are close mutual influences between technological and cultural developments within society. It is only once a certain level of cultural development has been reached, that certain technological processes which lead to innovations are enabled. And vice versa: developments in technology influence the politics, economics and culture of a society. What does this recognition mean for the law? As an important part of culture, the law is involved in this mutual influencing – simultaneously as both a subject and an object. It influences technological developments and at the same time is itself shaped by them.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
At length also Thompson/Selle (2000), P. 155 ff. inter alia.
- 4.
- 5.
Dicken (1998), P. 146.
- 6.
Rammert (2006), P. 11 inter alia.
- 7.
On this Dicken (1998), P. 172 ff. inter alia.
- 8.
Argued very strongly by social constructivism. At length on this Rammert (2006), P. 24 ff. inter alia.
- 9.
Mokyr (1990), P. 209 ff. outlines China’s extremely advanced technology at that time.
- 10.
Mokyr (1990), P. 218 f.
- 11.
This is the seminal statement by Mokyr (1990), P. 232 ff.
- 12.
Perrin (1996), P. 20 ff.
- 13.
On the reasons in detail Perrin (1996), P. 60 ff.
- 14.
In detail on this development Perrin (1996), P. 96 ff.
- 15.
Castells (2001), P. 11 ff.
- 16.
Radkau (2008), P. 113 ff.
- 17.
Details on this from Radkau (2008), P. 117 f.
- 18.
At length on this Radkau (2008), P. 355 ff.
- 19.
- 20.
In detail on the opportunities and boundaries of state promotion of technologies Hilpert (2001), P. 74 ff. With empirical material.
- 21.
On the detail Rammert disagrees (2006), P. 26, believing that the influence of the state and the military on technological development is over-stated. Empirical examples to support this theory are, however, not provided.
- 22.
In detail on European research and technology policies Grande (2001), P. 368 ff.
- 23.
Very tendentiously on this Rammert (2006), P. 25.
- 24.
At length and sophistaicated Mayntz (2001), P. 11 ff.
- 25.
Rammert (2006), P. 26 f.
- 26.
Genesis 1, 28.
- 27.
Very critically White (1967), P. 1203 ff. However justified the basic criticism may be: its global nature and single causality are definitely exaggerated.
- 28.
But Heilbroner sees it differently (1994a), P. 71 f., seeing technical progress as primarily exogenous, driven by the economy.
- 29.
At length on the complex origins of technology Ropohl (1999), P. 296 ff.
- 30.
Roßnagel (1993), P. 67.
- 31.
Roßnagel (1993), P. 68 f., who does concede that even in these phases of technology external influences (can) exist.
- 32.
Roßnagel (1993), P. 70 ff.
- 33.
Thompson/Selle are very emphatic (2000), P. 156, talking of a “mesh of society and technology”. Unlike technological determinism, which stresses – too – one-sidedly the dependence of culture on technological advance. One spokesman for this is Ellul (1965), P. 79 ff. Norris is critical (2001), P. 106.
- 34.
Rammert (2006), P. 12 ff. Shows how naturally – and often largely unnoticed – technology forms a part of (everyday) culture.
- 35.
- 36.
- 37.
Rosa illustrates this (2005), P. 243 ff. This complexity is not found in strict technological determinism, which stresses the one-sided influence of technology on culture. A prominent defender of this approach is Ellul (1965), P. 133 f. and passim.
- 38.
- 39.
Rapp (1994), P. 68.
- 40.
- 41.
Stehr (2000), P. 85.
- 42.
For a thorough and detailed view of the technification of society see Ropohl (1999), P. 183 ff.
- 43.
Roßnagel (1993), P. 75; Mainzer (1995), P. 511, using the example of computers. Rapp (1994), P. 69, stresses correctly that you cannot talk about the social neutrality of technology. Eriksen (2001), P. 38 ff., notably illustrates this with the example of the mechanical clock, whose invention not only introduced time measurement but also time awareness, and changed the structures of society, thought and actions.
- 44.
- 45.
- 46.
In detail on the effects of technological advance on products and their lifecycle, Dicken (1998), P. 161 ff.
- 47.
Similarly Dicken (1998), P. 145, although specifically related to economics. The impact of new technology on social organisation is shown by White (1968), P. 32 ff. using a small but telling example: The invention of the stirrup in the 7th Century revolutionised war techniques, organisation of fighting units and the social strata of society. Similarly wide-ranging impacts came from developments to the plough in the early Middle Ages. See White (1968), P. 39 ff.
- 48.
Rammert (2006), P. 23 f.
- 49.
- 50.
Friedman (2002), P. 501. Dicken (1998), P. 145, describes technology clearly as the “great growling engine of change”. Similarly Roßnagel (1993), P. 75, who sees technical innovations as “perhaps the most important drivers of social change”. A very illuminating example of this is given by Eriksen (2001), P. 23: The later, very aphoristic and very terse style of Friedrich Nietzsche is often said to derive from the fact that in his later days Nietzsche used the newly invented “writing machine” (typewriter).
- 51.
Preda (2006), P. 110 ff.
- 52.
A notable example of the unexpected repercussions of IC-Technology is given by Dommering (2006), P. 6. On the cultural effects of computers see Mainzer (1995), P. 511 ff. inter alia. On the political effects of the “Information revolution” see Nye (2001), P. 8 ff. inter alia. Early on Weizenbaum (1976), P. 337 ff., was warning about the “imperialism of machine understanding”, whose driver is the advances in computer technology.
- 53.
In detail see Boehme-Neßler (2009), P. 175 ff.
- 54.
McLuhan (1992), P. 17.
- 55.
- 56.
Ellul argues strongly in this direction (1965), P. 133 f., and derives technical determinism from the autonomy of technology.
- 57.
Stated clearly by Ellul (1965), P. 133
- 58.
Roßnagel (1993), P. 75. Roßnagel (2005b), P. 27, refers to the fact that not every new technical advance actually has to be used. This is not totally unchallenged. Schelsky (1965), P. 453 ff. stresses the factual constraints of technology, to which everything else must yield. Eriksen (2001), P. 25 represents a moderate determinism. Similarly and earlier Heilbroner (1994), P. 54 ff. inter alia. On the phenomenon of factual constraints as such, Haar (2004), P. 139 ff.
- 59.
Castells (2001), P. 5, who regards the problem of technological determinism as a false problem.
- 60.
Very fundamentally on this see Roßnagel (1993), P. 267 ff., who correctly talks of the reshaping capability and reshaping necessity of technology via the law. But Schelsky sees it differently (1965), P. 455 ff., seeing the State as being compelled by technological factual constraints. He sees human actions playing only a minor role in technical-social developments. Ellul puts it even more strongly (1965), P. 133 ff. He regards technology as an autonomous power, which no human activity can now escape. Technology therefore determines everything, including the developments of society and culture.
- 61.
On the limited predictability of technical impacts using the example of media technology see Leib (1998), P. 88 inter alia.
- 62.
Beautifully concisely see Roßnagel (1993), P. 75 inter alia.
- 63.
Roßnagel (2007a), P. 18.
- 64.
- 65.
Summers (1996), P. 66. Thoroughly on the technical consequences for society and law Roßnagel (1993), P. 74 ff. What consequences technology has on the organisation and form of the state is shown by Ellul (1965), P. 229 ff. with striking historical examples. This alone shows the theory of the neutrality of technology is wrong. On this thoroughly Rapp (1994), P. 68 ff.
- 66.
Friedman (2002), P. 502, introduces this distinction.
- 67.
A current burning issue is neuro-imaging which creates new legal issues, which are only just beginning to become evident today. On this Hüsing/Jäncke/Tag (2006), P. 195 ff. Other instructive examples from recent and current legal history are quoted by Summers (1996), P. 66 and Berg (1985), P. 401 f.
- 68.
- 69.
- 70.
- 71.
A systematic overview of the state of research from Hüsing/Jäncke/Tag (2006), P. 27 ff. inter alia
- 72.
- 73.
Although Mishler stresses (2007), P. 36 that in the near future it will not yet be possible to make people’s thoughts and feelings visible using neuro-imaging.
- 74.
Highly critical on the impact of technology-oriented thinking on legal thinking Summers (1996), P. 72 f.
- 75.
At length on this Roßnagel (o. J.), P. 3 ff. with instructive examples.
- 76.
Friedman (2002), P. 503.
- 77.
- 78.
On this group of problems BGHZ (German Court of Appeal Civil Division) 124, 128 ff.; BVerfGE (Federal Constitutional Court Rulings) 88, 203 (295 f., 358); Federal Constitutional Court, NJW 1998, 519 ff.
- 79.
Friedman (2002), P. 503.
- 80.
- 81.
BVerfGE (Federal Constitutional Court Rulings) 34, 165, 192 f.; 45, 400, 417 f.; 47, 46, 79 f.; standing jurisdiction. Roßnagel (1989), P. 14 stresses, that in practice this requires better information processes and an effective judgement of the consequences of technology.
- 82.
Spinner (2002), P. 41 creates for this the useful phrase defining force of technology.
- 83.
Impressive examples from the early 20th century are given by Vec (2002), P. 117 ff.
- 84.
At length on this Kloepfer (2002), P. 86 ff.
- 85.
- 86.
- 87.
- 88.
Kloepfer (2002), P. 18 f. inter alia.
- 89.
So Kloepfer believes (2002), P. 18.
- 90.
Kloepfer (2002), P. 17.
- 91.
Details on this Landes (1969), P. 197 ff., and ibid, P. 199, where he talks in summary of “reciprocal adaptation of the law and industrial capitalism”
- 92.
Schmidt-Preuß (2002), P. 178
- 93.
Schmidt-Preuß (2002), P. 180.
- 94.
Kloepfer (2002), P. 83 inter alia.
- 95.
Hoffmann-Riem (2007), P. 389, who points out that patent law not only promotes innovation but also limits it.
- 96.
Schmidt-Preuß (2002), P. 180
- 97.
Hoffmann-Riem (2007), P. 392.
- 98.
Roßnagel (2007a), P. 13.
- 99.
At length on the legal organisation with relation to innovation of the German scientific system Trute (1998), P. 216 ff. inter alia.
- 100.
Roßnagel (2007a), P. 14, who talks of “Market shaping by administration”.
- 101.
Roßnagel (2007a), P. 13 f.
- 102.
- 103.
Roßnagel (2007a), P. 16.
- 104.
On this problem area Appel (2004), P. 329 inter alia, who, ibid, P. 352 f. talks ominously of a Futurisation of the law.
- 105.
- 106.
Thoroughly on various methods for avoiding uncertainty, Appel (2004), P. 336 ff.
- 107.
Berg (1985), P. 401 inter alia.
- 108.
Spinner (2002), P. 15, stresses the “highly dynamic, accelerating development, which seems to be unstoppable.”
- 109.
The cause of this lies with the inner logic of technical creation. The first phases of technical development – cognition and invention – are scarcely or not at all – influenced by external factors, such as the law. At length on this Roßnagel (1993), P. 68 ff.
- 110.
Scherzberg (2002), P. 122 reduces this to the statement: the law is fundamentally always “catching up”. This problem is heightened by a recent development. Basic scientific concepts and issues and technological/practical applications are ever more tightly intertwined. The rate of technical innovation is increasing quite considerably – yet again - in the area of “technoscience”. On this Bora (2006), P. 32 inter alia. Vec (2002), P. 1133 talks in this context of a “cultural lag” in the theory of law, but explicitly excludes practice of law from his diagnosis of a time-lag.
- 111.
- 112.
- 113.
Roßnagel (1993), P. 27 inter alia. In the 19th century there was still widespread belief in the cybernetic ability of the law to control technology. At length on this Kloepfer (2002), P. 82 inter alia. Although at that time both the technological structures and the social processes were clearly less complex than today.
- 114.
Similarly Ellul (1965), P. 79 ff., who talks about an “Automatism of Technical Choice”.
- 115.
Roßnagel (1993), P. 27, who in ibid, P. 256 ff. inter alia, explains in detail.
- 116.
Roßnagel (1993), P. 256.
- 117.
Not least public procurement rules can be used to shape technology. By pinpointing awards of contracts the state can promote specific technologies in a focussed way. At length on this Boehme-Neßler (2006), P. 1257 ff.
- 118.
Roßnagel coined both this phrase and this concept(1993), P. 27, 256 ff. inter alia
- 119.
- 120.
On this much earlier Roßnagel (1993), P. 259 ff. inter alia.
- 121.
Details on this striking story from Perrin (1996), P. 96 ff., also ibid, P. 123 ff. where he describes a further example for a deliberate choice to influence technology by technology selection.
- 122.
Roßnagel (1993), P. 267, who goes into technology’s need of guidance and its ability to guide. Using the practical example of the data-protection law’s principle of relevance to purpose in Electronic Government Roßnagel/Laue (2007), P. 548 f., outline how technology could be guided by law, and how it should be.
- 123.
Examples from recent US IT-law are provided and analysed by Kesan/Shah (2005), P. 332 ff. inter alia
- 124.
Thus quite correctly Groß (2004), P. 416 f. inter alia.
- 125.
Kloepfer (2004), P. 1722, talks correctly of a change of paradigm to an effective and resource saving circulation and supply chain economy which the law has successfully accomplished.
- 126.
At length on this Kesan/Shah (2005), P. 351 ff. inter alia.
- 127.
Roßnagel (1993), P. 245 f. Talks in this context about restrictive guidance of technology. Kloepfer (2002), P. 86 believes that the limitation of technology – as well as enabling of technology – is a prime function of technical law. That the law can actually prevent technical development is something he vehemently doubts, however, ibid, P. 99 f.
- 128.
At length on this Kesan/Shah (2005), P. 328 inter alia.
- 129.
- 130.
- 131.
Perrin (1996), P. 96 ff. and P. 123 ff., sets out two striking examples.
- 132.
Bibliography
Abel, Ralf-Bernd (2003): 2.7. Geschichte des Datenschutzrechts, in: Alexander Roßnagel (Ed.): Handbuch Datenschutzrecht. Die neuen Grundlagen für Wirtschaft und Verwaltung. Munich.
Appel, Ivo (2004): Methodik des Umgangs mit Ungewissheit, in: Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem/Eberhard Schmidt-Aßmann (Ed.): Methoden der Verwaltungsrechtswissenschaft. Baden-Baden, P. 327 ff.
Berg, Wilfried (1985): Vom Wettlauf zwischen Recht und Technik - Am Beispiel neuer Regelungsversuche im Bereich der Informationstechnologie -, in: Juristenzeitung, P. 401 ff.
Boehme-Neßler, Volker (2006): Öffentliche Auftragsvergabe in Public-Private-Netzwerken, in: Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt, P. 1257 ff.
Boehme-Neßler, Volker (2009): Das Ende des Staates? Zu den Auswirkungen der Digitalisierung auf den Staat, in: Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht 64, P. 145 ff.
Bora, Alfons (2006): Im Schatten von Normen und Fakten - Die Kolonisierung der Politik durch technowissenschaftliche Normativität, in: Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie 27/1, P. 31 ff.
Castells, Manuel (2001): Der Aufstieg der Netzwerkgesellschaft. Das Informationszeitalter Teil 1. Opladen.
Dicken, Peter (1998): Global shift: Transforming the world economy. 3rd Edition, New York.
Dommering, Egbert (2006): Regulating Technology: Code is not Law, in: Egbert Dommering/Lodewijk Asscher (Ed.): Coding Regulation. Essays on the Normative Role of Information Technology. The Hague, P. 1 ff.
Eigner, Swantje/Kruse, Lenelis (2001): Wahrnehmung und Bewertung von Technik - was ist psychologisch relevant?, in: Günter Ropohl (Ed.): Erträge der interdisziplinären Technikforschung. Eine Bilanz nach 20 Jahren. Berlin, P. 97 ff.
Ellul, Jacques (1965): The Technological Society. London.
Eriksen, Thomas Hylland (2001): Tyranny of the Moment. Fast and Slow Time in the Information Age. London/Sterling, Virginia.
Friedman, Lawrence M. (1989): Law, Lawyers and Popular Culture, in: Yale Law Journal, 98, P. 1579 ff.
Friedman, Lawrence M. (2002): Changing Times: Technology and Law in the modern Era, in: Jürgen Becker a.o., Commemorative publication for Manfred Rehbinder. Munich/Bern, P. 501 ff.
Geißler, Karlheinz A. (1997): Die Orientierung am Rhythmus - Das rechte Zeitmaß in der Zeit der Flexibilisierung, in: Peter Rusterholz/Rupert Moser (Ed.): Zeit. Zeitverständnis in Wissenschaft und Lebenswelt. Bern, P. 111 ff.
Grande, Edgar (2001): Von der Technologie- zur Innovationspolitik - Europäische Forschungs- und Technologiepolitik im Zeitalter der Globalisierung, in: Georg Simonis/Renate Martinsen/Thomas Saretzki (Ed.): Politik und Technik. Analysen zum Verhältnis von technologischem, politischem und staatlichem Wandel am Anfang des 21. Jahrhunderts. Wiesbaden, P. 368 ff.
Groß, Thomas (2004): Die Informatisierung der Verwaltung. Eine Zwischenbilanz auf dem Weg von der Verwaltungsautomation zum E-Government, in: Verwaltungsarchiv 95, P. 400 ff.
Grunwald, Armin/Banse, Gerhard/Coenen, Christopher/Hennen, Leonhard (2006): Netzöffentlichkeit und digitale Demokratie. Tendenzen politischer Kommunikation im Internet. Berlin.
Haar, Tilmann (2004): Sachzwang. Technik zwischen natürlichen und institutionellen Tatsachen, in: Nicole C. Karafyllis/Tilmann Haar (Ed.): Technikphilosophie im Aufbruch. Commenorative Publication for Günter Ropohl. Berlin, P. 139 ff.
Heckmann, Dirk (2006): Rechtliche Grenzen (quasi-) verbindlicher Technologievorgaben. Der Übergang von interner Beratung und Koordination zur Standardsetzung durch Empfehlungen für die IT-Beschaffung der öffentlichen Hand, in: Computer und Recht, P. 1 ff.
Heilbroner, Robert L. (1994): Do Machines make History?, in: Merritt Roe Smith/Leo Marx (Ed.): Does Technology Drive History? The Dilemma of Technological Determinism. Cambridge, Massachusetts, P. 53 ff.
Heilbroner, Robert L. (1994a): Technological Determinism Revisited, in: Merritt Roe Smith/Leo Marx (Ed.): Does Technology Drive History? The Dilemma of Technological Determinism. Cambridge, Massachusetts, P. 67 ff.
Hilpert, Ulrich (2001): Zwischen Kompetenz und Umsetzung. Zu den Möglichkeiten und Grenzen befähigender staatlicher Politik. Das Beispiel Deutschlands nach der Wiedervereinigung, in: Georg Simonis/Renate Martinsen/Thomas Saretzki (Ed.): Politik und Technik. Analysen zum Verhältnis von technologischem, politischem und staatlichem Wandel am Anfang des 21. Jahrhunderts. Wiesbaden, P. 71 ff.
Hoffmann-Riem, Wolfgang (2007): Recht als Instrument der Innovationsoffenheit und der Innovationsverantwortung, in: Hagen Hof/Ulrich Wengenroth (Ed.): Innovationsforschung. Ansätze, Methoden, Grenzen und Perspektiven. Hamburg, P. 387 ff.
Hüsing, Bärbel/Jäncke, Lutz/Tag, Brigitte (2006): Impact Assessment of Neuro-Imaging. Zurich/Singen.
Innis, Harold Adams (1951): The bias of communication. Toronto (quoted here from the 2003 reprint).
Kesan, Jay P./Shah, Rajiv C. (2005): Shaping Code, in: Harvard Journal of Law & technology, Vol. 18, P. 319 ff.
Kloepfer, Michael (2002): Technik und Recht im wechselseitigen Werden. Kommunikationsrecht in der Technikgeschichte. Berlin.
Kloepfer, Michael (2004): Umweltrecht. 3rd Edition Munich.
Landes, David P. (1969): The unbound Prometheus. Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present. Cambridge/Massachusetts.
Leib, Volker (1998): Wissenschaftsnetze und Bürgernetze. Vom selbstgesteuerten Internet zur elektronischen Demokratie?, in: Wienand Gellner/Fritz von Korff (Ed.): Demokratie und Internet. Baden-Baden, P. 81 ff.
Mainzer, Klaus (1995): Computer - Neue Flügel des Geistes? Die Evolution computergestützter Technik, Wissenschaft, Kultur und Philosophie. Berlin/New York.
Mayntz, Renate (2001): Triebkräfte der Technikentwicklung und die Rolle des Staates, in: Georg Simonis/Renate Martinsen/Thomas Saretzki (Ed.): Politik und Technik. Analysen zum Verhältnis von technologischem, politischem und staatlichem Wandel am Anfang des 21. Jahrhunderts. Wiesbaden, P. 3 ff.
McLuhan, Marshall (1992): Die magischen Kanäle: “Understanding Media”. Duesseldorf, Vienna.
Mishler, Carl F. (2007): How Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) will change the Legal Profession - A View from the United States of America, in: European Journal of Law Reform, IX, P. 17 ff.
Mokyr, Joel (1990): The Lever of Riches. Technological Creativity and Economic Progress. New York/Oxford.
Norris, Pippa (2001): Digital divide. Cambridge/Mass.
Nye, Joseph P. jr. (2001): Globalization's democratic deficit, in: Foreign Affairs Juli/August 2001, P. 2 ff.
Perrin, Noel (1996): Keine Feuerwaffen mehr. Japans Rückkehr zum Schwert 1543-1879. Stuttgart.
Preda, Alex (2006): Wie Techniken Finanzmärkte erschaffen: Der Fall des Börsentickers, in: Werner Rammert/Cornelius Schubert (Ed.): Technografie. Zur Mikrosoziologie der Technik. Frankfurt am Main, P. 101 ff.
Radkau, Joachim (2008): Technik in Deutschland. Vom 18. Jahrhundert bis heute. Frankfurt/Main.
Rammert, Werner (2006): Technik – Handeln – Wissen. Zu einer pragmatistischen Technik- und Sozialtheorie. Wiesbaden.
Rapp, Friedrich (1994): Die Dynamik der modernen Welt. Eine Einführung in die Technikphilosophie. Hamburg.
Ropohl, Günter (1999): Allgemeine Technologie. Eine Systemtheorie der Technik. 2nd Edition. Munich/Vienna.
Ropohl, Günter (1999a): Technologische Aufklärung. Beiträge zur Technikphilosophie. 2nd Edition Frankfurt am Main.
Ropohl, Günter (2003): Vom Wert der Technik. Stuttgart/Zurich.
Rosa, Hartmut (2005): Beschleunigung. Die Veränderung der Zeitstruktur in der Moderne. Frankfurt am Main.
Roßnagel, Alexander (1983): Bedroht die Kernenergie unsere Freiheit? 2nd Edition Munich.
Roßnagel, Alexander (1984): Radioaktiver Zerfall der Grundrechte? Munich.
Roßnagel, Alexander (1989): Technik und Recht – Wer beeinflusst wen?, in: Alexander Roßnagel (Ed.): Freiheit im Griff. Informationsgesellschaft und Grundgesetz. Stuttgart, P. 9 ff.
Roßnagel, Alexander (1989a): Möglichkeiten verfassungsverträglicher Technikgestaltung, in: Alexander Roßnagel (Ed.): Freiheit im Griff. Informationsgesellschaft und Grundgesetz. Stuttgart, P. 177 ff.
Roßnagel, Alexander (1993): Rechtswissenschaftliche Technikfolgenforschung. Umrisse einer Forschungsdisziplin. Baden-Baden.
Roßnagel, Alexander (2001): Rechtswissenschaft, in: Günter Ropohl (Ed.): Erträge der interdisziplinären Technikforschung. Eine Bilanz nach 20 Jahren. Berlin, P. 195 ff.
Roßnagel, Alexander (2005b): Modernisierung des Datenschutzrechts für eine Welt allgegenwärtiger Datenverarbeitung, in: Multimedia und Recht 2, P. 71 ff.
Roßnagel, Alexander (2007): Atomausstieg und Restlaufzeiten, in: Andreas Hänlein/Alexander Roßnagel (Ed.): Wirtschaftsverfassung in Deutschland und Europa. Festschrift für Bernhard Nagel. Kassel, P. 155ff.
Roßnagel, Alexander (2007a): Innovation als Gegenstand der Rechtswissenschaft, in: Hagen Hof/Ulrich Wengenroth (Ed.): Innovationsforschung. Ansätze, Methoden, Grenzen und Perspektiven. Hamburg, P. 9 ff.
Roßnagel, Alexander (o.J.): Papier - die unbekannte Grundlage unserer Rechtsordnung. Unpublished manuscript.
Roßnagel, Alexander/Laue, Philip (2007): Zweckbindung im Electronic Government, in: Die Öffentliche Verwaltung, P. 543 ff.
Sandermann, Wilhelm (1997): Papier. Eine Kulturgeschichte. 3rd Edition Berlin/New York.
Schefe, Peter (2000): Kulturelle Wirkungen computergestützter Medien, in: Kubicek, Herbert u.a. (Ed.): Global @home. Heidelberg, P. 234 ff.
Schelsky, Helmut (1965): Der Mensch in der wissenschaftlichen Zivilisation, in: Helmut Schelsky: Auf der Suche nach Wirklichkeit. Gesammelte Aufsätze. Düsseldorf/Cologne, P. 439 ff.
Scherzberg, Arno (2002): Wissen, Nichtwissen und Ungewissheit im Recht, in: Christoph Engel/Jost Halfmann/Martin Schulte (Ed.): Wissen - Nichtwissen - Unsicheres Wissen. Baden-Baden, P. 113 ff.
Schmidt-Preuß, Matthias (2002): Technikermöglichung durch Recht, in: Michael Kloepfer (Ed.): Kommunikation - Technik - Recht. Kommunikationsrecht in der Technikgeschichte. Berlin, P. 175 ff.
Schott, Rüdiger (1970): Die Funktionen des Rechts in primitiven Gesellschaften, in: Jahrbuch für Rechtssoziologie 1, P. 107-174.
Schulze-Fielitz, Helmuth (1998): Instrumente der Innovationssteuerung durch Öffentliches Recht - insbesondere im Umweltrecht, in: Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem/Jens-Peter Schneider (Ed.): Rechtswissenschaftliche Innovationsforschung. Grundlagen, Forschungsansätze, Gegenstandsbereiche. Baden-Baden, P. 291 ff.
Spinner, Helmut F. (2002): Von der wissensgeleiteten Techniksteuerung zum technologischen Wissensregime, in: Michael Kloepfer (Ed.): Kommunikation - Technik - Recht. Kommunikationsrecht in der Technikgeschichte. Berlin, P. 11 ff.
Spur, Günter (2001): Zum Selbstverständnis der Technikwissenschaften, in: Günter Ropohl (Ed.): Erträge der interdisziplinären Technikforschung. Eine Bilanz nach 20 Jahren. Berlin, P. 43 ff.
Stehr, Nico (2000): Deciphering Information Technologies. Modern Societies as Networks, in: European Journal of Social Theory 3, P. 83 ff.
Strange, Susan (1996): The Retreat of the State. The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy. Cambridge.
Summers, Robert P. (1996): Technology, Law and Values, in: Frank Fleerackers/Evert van Leeuwen/Bert van Roermund (Ed.): Law, Life and the Images of Man. Commemorative Publication for Jan M. Broekmann. Berlin, P. 65 ff.
Teubner, Gunther (1989): Recht als autopoietisches System. Frankfurt am Main.
Thompson, Michael/Selle, Per (2000): Doing Technology (and Democracy) the Pack-Donkey’s Way: The Technomorphic Approach to ICT Policy, in: Engel, Christoph/Keller, Kenneth H., Understanding the impact of global networks on local social political and cultural values. Baden-Baden, P. 155 ff.
Trimborn, Hermann (1950): Die Privatrache und der Eingriff des Staates, in: Deutsche Landesreferate zum III. Internationalen Kongress für Rechtsvergleichung in London, P. 133 ff.
Trute, Hans-Heinrich (1998): Innovationssteuerung im Wissenschaftsrecht, in: Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem/Jens-Peter Schneider (Ed.): Rechtswissenschaftliche Innovationsforschung. Grundlagen, Forschungsansätze, Gegenstandsbereiche. Baden-Baden, P. 208 ff.
Vec, Milos (2002): Technik oder Recht? Steuerungsansprüche in der Zweiten Industriellen Revolution, in: Michael Kloepfer (Ed.): Kommunikation – Technik – Recht. Kommunikationsrecht in der Technikgeschichte. Berlin, P. 111 ff.
Weizenbaum, Joseph (1976): Computer Power and Human Reason. From Judgment to Calculation. New York.
White, Lynn (1967): The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis, in: Science 155, P. 1203 ff.
White, Lynn (1968): Die mittelalterliche Technik und der Wandel der Gesellschaft. Munich.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Boehme-Neßler, V. (2011). Caught Between Technophilia and Technophobia: Culture, Technology and the Law. In: Pictorial Law. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11889-0_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11889-0_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-11888-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-11889-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)