Antitechnology Movements: Technological Versus Social Innovation

  • Franz SeifertEmail author
Living reference work entry



Public resistance against technological change is a recurrent factor in the history of technological innovation but, today, has become increasingly important. Up to the mid twentieth century, grand technological projects were the prerogative of powerful industrial and military programs that relied on the public’s acquiescence. Today’s world has become more complex and dynamic. Promoters of technological innovations seek to mobilize support from the public, governments, and capital and, frequently, they also have to cope with public resistance. Advocates of technological innovation usually misread the ensuing controversies and regard anti-technology movements as hurdles to progress. They overlook the fact that these controversies carry both a democratic and an innovative potential in themselves as they oblige societies to negotiate choices on socio-technological issues and seek alternative technologies, alternative forms of...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Bauer M. Atoms, bytes and genes. Public resistance and techno-scientific responses. New York: Routledge; 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR. Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science. In: Krimsky S, Golding D, editors. Social theories of risk. Westport: Praeger; 1992. p. 251–74.Google Scholar
  3. Hobsbawm EJ. The machine breakers. Past Present. 1952;1:57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Jongerden J. Luddits or the politics of technology. Tail Biotechnol. 2006;2:63–7.Google Scholar
  5. Kitschelt HP. Political opportunity structures and political protest: anti-nuclear movements in four democracies. Br J Polit Sci. 1986;16:57–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Schurman R, Munro WA. Fighting for the future of food. Activists versus agribusiness in the struggle over biotechnology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; 2010.Google Scholar
  7. Scoones I. Mobilizing against GM crops in India, South Africa and Brazil. J Agrar Chang. 2008;8(2–3):315–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Seifert F. The transatlantic conflict over biotechnology and the hegemony of physical risk. In: Bammé A, Getzinger G, Wieser B, editors. Yearbook of the institute for advanced studies on science, technology & society, München, Wien: Profil. vol. 47. 2005. p 367–388.Google Scholar
  9. Seifert F. Regional GM opposition as multilevel challenge? The case of Upper Austria. Tailoring Biotechnol. 2006;2(3):11–36.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Austrian Science Fund FWF (Funding Organization)ViennaAustria

Section editors and affiliations

  • David F. J. Campbell
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Unit for Quality Enhancement (UQE)University of Applied Arts ViennaViennaAustria
  2. 2.Faculty for Interdisciplinary Studies (iff), Institute of Science Communication and Higher Education Research (WIHO)Alpen-Adria-University KlagenfurtViennaAustria
  3. 3.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  4. 4.Department for Continuing Education Research and Educational Management, Centre for Educational Management and Higher Education DevelopmentDanube University KremsKremsAustria