Abstract
Philosophical discourse on agency and artifacts is part of a long effort to assess the complexities of human making and using. Appreciation of some historico-philosophical aspects of the discussion begins with a sketch of pre-philosophical appraisals; then, given common assumptions about the importance of intentionality in agency, ventures a brief review of the debate about intentions in recent analytic philosophy. Against this dual background, contemporary reflection more specifically on agency and artifacts is distinguished into three waves. A first wave is exemplified by the work of Alvin Weinberg and Langdon Winner, both of whom argue that artifacts can extend human political agency. A second wave is led by Bruno Latour, who contests the implicit primacy of the human and argues instead for the primacy of a network in which humans and artifacts behave as ontological equals. A third wave is initiated in critical works by Albert Borgmann and by Braden Allenby and Daniel Sarewitz, who argue for deploying first and second wave insights to reaffirm human ethical agency interacting with agent-like artifacts. A conclusion considers how these three waves of discourse might benefit from engagement with such historico-philosophical studies of human agency as found in the work of Hannah Arendt.
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
References
Adam, A. (2005). Delegating and distributing morality: Can we inscribe privacy protection in a machine? Ethics and Information Technology, 7, 233–242.
Akrich, M. (1992). The description of technical objects. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 205–224). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Akrich, M., & Latour, B. (1992). A summary of a convenient vocabulary for the semiotics of human and nonhuman assemblies. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 259–264). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Alexander, J. K. (2008). The mantra of efficiency: From waterwheel to social control. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Allenby, B., & Sarewitz, D. (2011). The techno-human condition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Pres.
Anders, G., & Eartherly, C. (1961). Burning conscience. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Anscombe, G. E. M. (1957). Intention. Oxford: Blackwell.
Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Arthur, W. B. (2009). The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves. New York: Free Press.
Averill, M. (2005). Unintended consequences. In C. Mitcham (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science, technology, and ethics (Vol. 4, pp. 1995–1999). Detroit: Macmillan Reference.
Bijker, W., & Law, J. (Eds.). (1992). Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bimber, B. (1994). The three faces of technological determinism. In M. Roe Smith & L. Marx (Eds.), Does technology drive history? (pp. 79–100). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Borgmann, A. (1984). Technology and the character of contemporary life: A philosophical inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Borgmann, A. (2005). Real American ethics: Taking responsibility for our country. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Brand, S. (1994). How buildings learn: What happens after they’re built. New York: Viking.
Bratman, M. E. (1987). Intention, plans, and practical reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bratman, M. E. (2007). Structures of agency: Essays. New York: Oxford University Press.
Brown, M. B. (2009). Science in democracy: Expertise, institutions, and representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Collins, H., & Kusch, M. (1998). The shape of actions: What machines and humans can do. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Collins, H., & Yearley, S. (1992). Epistemological chicken. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture (pp. 301–326). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cooper, B. (1991). Action into nature: An essay on the meaning of technology. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Davidson, D. (1980). Intending. In D. Davidson (Ed.), Essays on actions and events (pp. 83–102). New York: Oxford University Press.
De Certeau, M. (1980). L’invention du quotidian. Vol. 1, Arts de faire. Paris: Gallimard. English version: The practice of everyday life (trans: Rendall, S.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1984.
Dennett, D. C. (1987). The intentional stance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dreyfus, H. L. (1972). What computer’s can’t do: A critique of artificial reason. New York: Harper & Row.
Ellul, J. (1954). La Technique ou l’enjeu du siècle. Paris: A. Colin. English version: The technological society (trans: Wilkinson, J.). New York: Knopf, 1964.
Etzioni, A. (1968). ‘Shortcuts’ to social change? The Public Interest, 12(Summer), 40–51.
Etzioni, A., & Remp, R. (1973). Technological shortcuts to social change. New York: Russell Sage.
Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning technology. New York: Routledge.
Floridi, L., & Sanders, J. W. (2004). On the morality of artificial agents. Minds and Machine, 14, 349–379.
Harbers, H. (Ed.). (2005). Inside the politics of technology: Agency and normativity in the co-production of technology and society. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Hughes, T. P. (2004). Human-built world: How to think about technology and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Illich, I. (1973). Tools for conviviality. New York: Pantheon.
Jerónimo, H., Garcia, J. L., & Mitcham, C. (2012). Jacques Ellul and the Technological Society in the 21st century. Dordrecht: Springer.
Johnson, D. G., & Powers, T. M. (2005). Ethics and technology: A program for future research. In C. Mitcham (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science, technology, and ethics (Vol. 1, pp. xxvii–xxxv). Detroit: Macmillan Reference.
Kelly, K. (2010). What technology wants. New York: Viking.
Latour, B. (1984). Les microbes: guerre et paix suivi de irréductions. Paris edition: Métailié, A.M. English version: The pasteurization of France (trans: Sheridan, A. & Law, J.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (1991). Technology is society made durable. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 103–131). London: Routledge.
Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 225–258). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Latour, B. (1999a). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (1999b). Politiques de la nature. Paris: Découverte. English version: Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy (trans: Porter, C.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004.
Law, J. (Ed.). (1991). A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination. London: Routledge.
Malle, B. F., Moses, L. J., & Baldwin, D. A. (Eds.). (2001). Intentions and intentionality: Foundations of social cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mazlish, B. (1993). The fourth discontinuity: The co-evolution of humans and machines. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mitcham, C., & Waelbers, K. (2010). Technology and ethics: An overview. In J. K. B. Olsen, S. A. Pedersen, & V. F. Hendricks (Eds.), A companion to the philosophy of technology (pp. 367–383). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Mumford, L. (1964). Authoritarian and democratic technics. Technology and Culture, 5(1 Winter), 1–8.
Nader, R. (1965). Unsafe at any speed: The designed-in dangers of the American automobile. New York: Grossman.
Noble, D. (1977). America by design: Science, technology, and the rise of corporate capitalism. New York: Knopf.
Rosner, L. (Ed.). (2004). The technological fix: How people use technology to create and solve problems. New York: Routledge.
Searle, J. R. (1983). Intentionality: An essay in the philosophy of mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1985). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Shaw, J. (2006, June). Intention in ethics. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 36(2), 187–223.
Simondon, G. (1958). Du mode d’existence des objets techniques. Paris: Méot. Second ed., Paris: Aubier, 1989.
Verbeek, P.-P. (2005). What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Verbeek, P.-P. (2011). Moralizing technology: Understanding and designing the morality of things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Weinberg, A. (1966, December). Can technology replace social engineering? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 22(10), 4–8.
Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121–136. Included with slight edits in Winner’s The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in an age of high technology (pp. 19–39). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986.
Wittfogel, K. (1957). Oriental despotism: A comparative study of total power. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mitcham, C. (2014). Agency in Humans and in Artifacts: A Contested Discourse. In: Kroes, P., Verbeek, PP. (eds) The Moral Status of Technical Artefacts. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, vol 17. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7914-3_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7914-3_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-7913-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-7914-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)