University College Maastricht

Course HUM2046
2022/2023

LIVING IN A TECHNOLOGICAL CULTURE

Introduction in Science and Technology Studies Part 1

1
CONTENTS

1. COURSE INFORMATION 3
COURSE CONTENT 3
COURSE OBJECTIVES 4
INSTRUCTIONAL FORMAT 4
READINGS 5
PRACTICAL INFORMATION 5

2. EXAMINATION 7
CLASS PARTICIPATION AND ATTENDANCE 7
GRADING POLICY & MIDTERM EXAM 7
FINAL EXAM 8
GRADING 8

3. COURSE SCHEDULE 11
COURSE STRUCTURE 11

4. TASK DESCRIPTION 13
LIVING IN A TECHNOLOGICAL CULTURE 14
TECHNOLOGY SHAPING SOCIETY 16
SOCIETY SHAPING TECHNOLOGY 19
INTERRELATIONS BETWEEN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND SOCIETY 21
TECHNOLOGICAL DETERMINISM IN ACTION 23
THE POLITICS OF ARTEFACTS 26
THE MORAL DIMENSIONS OF TECHNOLOGY 34
ACTOR NETWORK THEORY 31
BIG DATA 34
PEER REVIEW 37

2
 1. COURSE INFORMATION

COURSE CONTENT

“We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”

These words of Albert Einstein are more than ever, valid today. The complexities of today’s
societies and the relations among them are multiple and not easy to deal with. Einstein’s plea
to look at them in a different way is exactly what this course is about. It aims to transform
your perspective on the world so that you notice that the ‘stuff of the world’ can be reflected
on in new ways, which offer opportunities for interventions and passageways for
improvement. After all, making a difference requires more than the power to act: it requires
to think in new ways, to think out of the box. And that is exactly what we want to teach you
in this course.

This course offers an introduction to Science and Technology Studies (STS). It will introduce
you to the multiple ways in which science and technology, individuals and institutions
mutually shape one another to the benefit and sometimes detriment of society. In this course,
we take a “critical” approach to science and engineering. By this, we don’t mean being
negative about science nor technology. But similar to the balanced viewpoints we expect from
good movie critics, we will focus on developing your ability to judge the good and bad aspects
of science and technology.

While modern culture relies heavily on sophisticated instruments, techniques, and systems,
most people think that the actual making of science and technology is the exclusive domain
of scientists, inventors, engineers, and technicians, people who are fascinated by “how things
work” and “making things work”. Those not directly involved in the design or development of
science and technology (“users” or “consumers”) are thought to have little interest in the
facts, materials, principles, or procedures found in the world of scientists and technicians. The
only thing they seem to care about is the use of the scientific output and technology. However,
people who do not spend much thought on the making of science and technology commonly
do not merit its use serious reflection either. Once things have been made or discovered, our
interaction with them is understood to be a straightforward matter. We pick up our mobile
phone, make some funny pictures with it, listen to music, twitter some details about what we
do and where we are and chat with our friends. We board an airplane, fly from point A to
point B, and then we get off the airplane. Although we are surrounded by the results of
scientific endeavour and technologies of various kinds, they have become almost invisible,
and we take them for granted.

In this course we challenge “common sense” views of the relationship between science and
technology, and society. Science and technology shape culture. The shaping influence of
science, for example, ranges from its inspiration for 20th century avant-garde movements to
its impact on our dominant values and metaphors (our brain as our internal ‘memory stick’).
Technology and science shape society, from the shaping of mobility patterns and gender and
sexual identities, to the standardisation of practices in health care. Mobile phones have
changed what it means ‘to be alone’; organ transplantation has redefined our understanding
of life; ‘scientific planning’ has reshaped our policy-making practices. Technologies do not
merely assist us in our everyday lives; they are also powerful forces acting to reshape our
activities and their meanings. The introduction of a robot in an industrial workplace not only

3
increases productivity, but, often, radically changes the process of production, redefining
what “work” means in that setting. When a sophisticated new technique or instrument is
adopted in medical practice, it transforms not only what doctors do, but also the way people
think about health, illness and medical care.

There is, vice versa, a cultural influence on science and technology too. Thus we can only hope
to understand science and technology when we acknowledge their socio-cultural base.
Historical and comparative studies have shown how different socio-cultural circumstances
yield very different forms and contents of science and technology. This applies at the highest
level of aggregation, when we compare, for example, Chinese with western science and
technology. It also applies at the level of scientific statements, technological systems, and
artefacts. Facts and artefacts are, for example, gendered like all other phenomena. And the
conception of causality in quantum theory has been shown to mirror the cultural atmosphere
in Weimar Germany, while the high-wheeled bicycle was shaped by the macho culture of
‘young men of means and nerve.’
Science and technology are, finally, also cultures themselves. Recent work in the history and
sociology of science and technology has shown how fruitful it can be to look at scientific
experimentation, technical workshops, laboratories, and international scientific cooperation
as cultural phenomena. The analysis of dominant norms and values, of main and secondary
goals, of practices, and of tacit knowledge has yielded insight into characteristics of both the
content and the production process of scientific knowledge and technical artefacts.

Besides different ways to reflect on the relationship between society, science and technology,
this course will also provide you with some applications of STS-reasoning in different domains:
human enhancement, our digital environment, developments studies, and risk studies as well
as some examples of STS-methodology.

COURSE OBJECTIVES

After completion of this course students are able:

- to explain different perspectives on the relationship between society, science and
technology
- to explain the differences between technological determinism and the Science and
Technology Studies (STS) approach
- to recognize, explain and apply the basic principles of STS-reasoning to today’s
societal concerns.

INSTRUCTIONAL FORMAT

The course aims to introduce you to central conceptualizations of the relationship between
society, technology and science. To achieve these aims the core teaching of the course is done
in three types of activities: perspective lectures, reflective sessions and student presentations:

Lectures: The lectures provide essential background information on the topics discussed
during the tutorial meetings. This year some lectures will be provided live online, while others
are pre-recorded. Although the last set of lectures does not allow for interaction, you are

4
encouraged to engage actively by jotting down questions or comments to be addressed in the
subsequent tutorial meeting.

Tutorial meetings: During the tutorial meetings we will ensure to meet the learning objectives
by discussing theoretical approaches and their application to our lifeworld. Besides the
compulsory readings, the course book also provides additional readings that can be helpful
for further research into the topic.
In addition to your preparation and participation in the course, you will chair, in pairs, at least
one tutorial meeting of the course. Besides facilitating the group dynamics in the tutorial
meeting you are also responsible to develop a didactic format of your tutorial session, To
ensure that your preferred didactic format allows the group to meet the learning objectives,
you discuss your didactic ideas with your tutor by mail one day before the meeting. Maastricht
University has all kind of handy tools that you can use for the tutorial groups. The university
has both free as well as licensed tools. Check out:
[Link]

READINGS

Beware: as the amount of compulsory reading is not evenly distributed over the meetings,
you are advised to carefully plan your work from week to week. All compulsory readings can
be found in the Module sections and Resource section.

PRACTICAL INFORMATION

Course coordinator and tutor

Jessica Mesman
FASoS/Department of Society Studies
Email: [Link]@[Link]

Tutor Mirko Reithler

FASoS/Department of Society Studies
Email: [Link]@[Link]

5
 2. EXAMINATION

CLASS PARTICIPATION AND ATTENDANCE

Rules considering participation in this course:

Social knowledge differs from technical knowledge in that it requires active engagement and
participation. You are expected to be well prepared (meaning: read all the compulsory
readings and prepare all assignments) and contribute actively to the discussions in the
tutorials in a relevant way. It goes without saying that you do not disturb the tutorials by
coming in late.

Rules considering attendance in this course

As a matter of policy, attendance is required in all meetings. UCM has a compulsory
attendance requirement for all courses, skills, and projects. The minimum attendance
requirement is 85%. Meaning you can miss two meetings without any consequences. For each
additional meeting you miss, you have to submit an additional assignment. Missing four
meetings results in a fail.
Exams have a 100% attendance requirement. If you do not show up for your midterm exam
without notifying the course coordinator and the Examination Committee beforehand, you
will automatically fail the course.

Additional assignment
If you do not meet the attendance requirement, but have not missed more than
three meetings, you will be given a provisional overall grade, but will not receive credits for
the course until you have successfully completed an additional assignment.
To qualify for an additional assignment, you must submit a completed request form
‘additional assignment because of insufficient attendance’ to the Office of Student Affairs,
within 10 working days after completion of the course. After collecting and checking all the
forms, the Office of Student Affairs will send the request forms to the coordinator of this
course. The coordinator of the course will decide on the validity of the reason(s) given. It is up
to the coordinator to decide if any absence is justified by the reason given. If the coordinator
decides that you had a valid reason for not complying with the attendance requirement, you
will be given an additional assignment.

You must complete and submit the assignment within 20 working days. If you receive a pass
for the additional assignment, it will be regarded as having met the attendance requirement
and your provisional final grade will be declared valid. If the coordinator decides that the
reasons for absence were not valid, and/or if additional meetings have been missed, no
additional assignment will be given and the provisional grade given for the course will be
annulled, which will result in a fail for the course. The coordinator will inform the Examination
Committee about your successful completion of the extra assignment or your failure to
successfully complete the extra assignment.

Make sure to be on time for attending tutorial meetings. It is up to the tutor to allow you to
join, but whatever decision will be taken, according to the UCM rules the tutor has to register
you as absent when you do come in late.

Sickness or Absence:
According to the UCM rules you are required to inform the Office of Student Affairs via e-mail

6
in cases of sickness or absence lasting longer than 8 consecutive days. See for details: UCM
Student Handbook.

GRADING POLICY

This course will be evaluated on basis of two parts:

1. Midterm- exam: 25% of your final grade
2. Final exam: 70% of your final grade.

MIDTERM EXAM (October 4, 2022)

You will act as a team of 3 or 4 students and present a thorough analysis of one of the episodes
of Black Mirror, a British television anthology series that shows the dark side of life and
technology. The series taps into our contemporary unease about our modern world", with the
stories having a "techno-paranoia" feel. Each episode has a different cast, a different setting,
even a different reality. But they're all about the way we live now – and the way we might be
living in 10 minutes' time if we're clumsy.

Use the episode to reflect on, for example, a particular issue, a particular debate or ideology,
a particular shaping process on society, science and technology. Use your own experience,
interests, knowledge and creativity to come up with an thorough reflection on the episode
while using an STS perspective. As a group you should be able to explain and link your topic
to a number of STS theoretical concepts, approaches or principles.

The presentation takes 20 minutes. This is not that much time to make your point, so serious
preparation is advised, as time management will be a part of the grading. Since you might
have to present your analysis online (up to date information will follow), the use of
PowerPoint (or another presentation tool) is strongly recommended. Each presentation will
be followed by a 10 minutes discussion.

Beware:
Inform your tutor/examiner about the episode you have chosen before Friday the 30th of
September.

Each of you need to upload individually the PowerPoint of your group presentation in PDF-
format before 9AM on the day of the presentation (4th of October). The Canvas upload option
will close at 9AM (not at 09.05).

In addition, one member of each group will send a summary of the argument of the
presentation to the examiner/tutor by email before 9AM on the day of the presentation (4th
of October). This summary is:

• a one-pager (half a page - max one page)

• indicates the names of all group members
• handed in by email by one member of the group
• send to your tutor: see for contact details the coursebook
• handed in before 9AM on the day of your exam
• includes a list of references

Evaluation criteria:

7
 • interesting research question and clearly answered
• clear relation between theoretical concepts and topic
• good representation of the literature
• relevancy of the topic in relation to the theme of the course
• attractive presentation
• well-structured presentation
• clear messages and conclusions
• time management
• clear (PowerPoint) slides
• clear summary of the analysis (send prior to the presentation)

FINAL EXAM (Deadline October 21, 2021, 5PM)

You have to submit a paper of 3000 words (plus/minus 10%) - (excluding literature list and
footnotes); line spacing 1,5, APA referencing style. You are free to choose a topic yourself.
This topic should be clearly related to the issues that are discussed in class and firmly
intertwined with the theoretical concepts that are dealt with in the literature/lectures.

Guidelines for writing the paper

Your paper should at least include the following information:

1. UCM Integrity Statement (see 'Home/Resources/Other resources)

2. An introduction
3. Your main argument
4. Conclusions
5. List of references

The essay will be assessed on basis of the following criteria:

• Demonstration of your understanding of the themes and theories discussed in the

course.
• Evidence of critical reflection.
• Your ability to structure and present your thoughts clearly.
• Your ability to integrate texts and issues, which are discussed during the course with
your topic.
• Your ability to explain your argument.
• Use of academic papers

GRADING
The assessment is reflected in the following grading

10-8.0 Excellent: An outstanding answer. The paper is well written, logical, and clear. It
contains evidence of a wide knowledge of the subject matter. It combines a good
understanding of theoretical issues and empirical applications, with some originality of
approach. The paper presents ideas that are logically developed and carefully formulated. Its
arguments are clear and accurate. The use of concepts, theories or research findings is precise
and accurate. The paper builds from current theory and empirical work to reflect originality
and insight in the student’s thinking and analysis.

8
7.9-7.0 Good: A reasonably comprehensive and well-organized answer. The argument
presented is clear and logical, with evidence of having understood the issues and an ability to
think about them effectively. The paper states ideas and develops its topic clearly, logically
and adequately. Its ideas are supported with arguments that are clear and accurate. Its use of
concepts, theories or research findings is largely precise, although there may be a few minor
factual errors or inaccuracies.

6.9-6.0 Satisfactory: This mark reflects a paper that is adequately organized and a full answer
to the question. It is mostly accurate but limited in scope and does not express any real
development of argument. The paper is a satisfactory response to the assignment. Its central
ideas are expressed and developed clearly enough to be understood by the reader. Although
the paper may seem correct, it lacks the originality and clarity of thought that would entitle it
to an above average grade. The use of concepts, theories or research findings may reflect
more than minor inaccuracies, such as basic factual errors or errors of omission. It shows some
grasp of theory and its relation to empirical data, but with little insight or grasp of wider issues.

5.9-5.5 Pass: This paper shows evidence of course reading, but it is deficient in organization
and scope. The information it contains is insufficient. The paper indicates below average
achievement in the development of its ideas, which may be unclear or supported illogically or
inconsistently. Its use of concepts, theories or research may contain errors, omissions and
irrelevancies. It shows no grasp of theory and its relation to empirical data, and it has little
insight or grasp of wider issues.

5.4-0.0 Fail: This paper shows little evidence of course reading, it is deficient in organization
and scope. Its ideas are poorly developed and are not sufficiently supported. It may also
contain numerous errors, omissions and irrelevancies.

Submission: Deadline October 21, 2022 5PM

You have to upload your soft copy in the Assignment section of this course in the Student
Portal. Do not forget to use the UCM cover page as well as the statement of integrity.

Re-sit
If your average grade is insufficient (lower than 5.5), you have a second opportunity in the re-
examination period. In order to be eligible for a re-sit examination, you must have met the
attendance requirement for this course or be allowed to make up for it by means of an
additional assignment. You must also have made a fair attempt to do all the parts of the
assessment for the course, unless there are pressing reasons that prevented you from doing
so and you have notified the course coordinator and Examination beforehand.
If you fail the midterm, you have no possibility to re-present your project. In other words,
there is no re-sit for the midterm. If you fail the final exam and your average grade is
insufficient, you have to revise your paper and resubmit it within the allowed timeframe. If
you pass the course, you are not allowed to take a re-sit to improve your grade.

Plagiarism
The UCM Student Handbook provides detailed rules on plagiarism. Plagiarism is defined as
fraud (Article 5.7 of chapter 4.1). Article 11 provides a Directive on Fraud (contained in chapter
4.2 of the UCM Student Handbook). In case it is suspected that you have committed
plagiarism, the course coordinator will inform the Examination Committee. It is up to the

9
Examination Committee to decide whether you have indeed plagiarized, in which case there
will be consequences for you (See Academic Rules and Regulations, Chapter 4.2, Section 5 of
the UCM Student Handbook). See for further details: the Student Handbook on plagiarism.

Feedback
The examiner will provide feedback on both exams electronically in the Assessment section
on the Student portal. In regard to other activities, such as participation, it is the tutor and
your fellow-students who can or will provide you with feedback.

10
 3. COURSE SCHE DULE

COURSE STRUCTURE

Task 1: Living in a technological culture

Task 2: Technology shaping Society: Techno-Utopia or Techno-Dystopia
Task 3: Society shaping technology
Task 4: Interrelations between Science, Technology and Society
Task 5: Technological determinism in action: The AI Revolution
Task 6: The Politics of Artifacts
Task 7: The Moral dimensions of Technology
Task 8: Actor Network Theory
Task 9: Big Data: promise, peril, or something else?
Task 10: Peer review

Lecture: Introduction to the course – Dr. Jessica Mesman (Society Studies)

Lecture: Basic principles of STS – Dr. Jessica Mesman (Society Studies)
Lecture: NEST ethics – Prof. Tjalling Swierstra (Philosophy)
Lecture: Actor Network Theory – Dr. Darryl Cressman (Philosophy)

Week Type of meeting Topic / objective Assignments

Week 1: Lecture - Introduction to the course J. Mesman

Sept 6 - 9 - Living in a technological

2 tutor group meetings culture task 1

- Technology shaping
Society: Techno-Utopia or task 2
Techno-Dystopia

Week 2: Lecture - The basic principles of J. Mesman

Science and Technology
Sept. Studies
13– 16
2 tutor group meetings - Society shaping task 3
technology

- Interrelations between task 4

Science, Technology and
Society
Week 3:
- Technological task 5
Sept. 2 tutor group meetings determinism in action: The
20 - 23 AI Revolution

- The politics of artefacts task 6

Week 4: Lecture - NEST ethics T. Swierstra

11
Sept. tutor group meeting - The Moral dimensions of task 7
27 (on Tuesday) Technology

Week 5:
Midterm exam - Presentations Midterm
Oct. 4 -7 (on Tuesday)

Lecture (pre-recorded) - Actor Network Theory D. Cressman

1 tutor group meeting - Actor Network Theory task 8

(on Friday)

Week 6:
2 tutor group meetings - Big Data task 9
Oct.
11 - 14 - Peer review task 10

Week 7:
Oct.12-15 No meetings - Preparation exam Exam

Week 8: Reflection week

12
4. TASK DE SCRIPTION

13
 TASK 1

LIVING IN A TECHNOLOGICAL CULTURE

Technology is a powerful component of the modern world. Without technology many of the
most significant feats of the 20th century could not have been achieved such as sending people
to the moon, erecting skyscrapers, damming enormous rivers, and destroying entire cities.
But the most significant, though less often recognized power of technology is its permeation
of so many aspects of our everyday lives. We use technology to house, clothe, feed, entertain,
and transport ourselves. Technology is a crucial component of our work, play, education and
communication. Technologies have become a central part of our identities and they shape our
daily lives. In short, we live in a technological culture. But what are we actually talking about
when we say we live in a technological culture? What is technology? What is science? And
how are they related to society?

Before opening the idea of ‘Technological Culture’ we will be spent time on your current
understanding of science and technology and society. This first meeting takes the form of a
World Café in which you as students will think and work on what you know about progress,
science and technology, and their relation to society. We will have 4 posters tables:

1. What is ‘technology’?
2. What is ‘progress’?

14
 3. What is according to you the impact of science and technology on our daily life.
[choose your own examples]
4. Describe the impact of society on the development of science and technology [choose
your own examples of societal influences]

Ideally this first meeting will function as a kind of baseline against which you may, as the
course ends, see what you have learned and unlearned about the topic through the ways in
which we approach it during this course. This implies that no preparation is needed for our
first tutorial meeting. Yet, we expect a very active contribution in the collection and mapping
of ideas about the meaning and role of progress, science and technology and their relation to
society. During this first meeting, you will work in shifting groups (four rounds) to talk about
your knowledge and views and questions related to the themes. The tutor will provide
additional information to structure the conversation at the start of the tutorial session.

At the end of this first meeting we will also organize the responsibility of chairing the
remaining tutorial meetings.

15
 TASK 2

TECHNOLOGY SHAPING SOCIETY: TECHNO-UTOPIA OR TECHNO-DYSTOPIA

Utopias are set in the future, when it is believed that advanced science and technology will
allow utopian living standards; for example, the absence of death and suffering; changes in
human nature and the human condition. These utopian societies tend to change what
"human" is all about. Technology has affected the way humans have lived to such an extent
that normal functions, like sleep, eating or even reproduction, has been replaced by an
artificial means. Other kinds of this utopia envisioned, include a society where humans have
struck a balance with technology and it is merely used to enhance the human living condition
(e.g. Star Trek).

Technology is also considered as the way forward for human enhancement. For example,
Artist Neil Harbisson is the world’s first legally recognised human-cyborg. He was born
completely colour blind. But with the help of a camera-antenna surgically fitted to his skull,
he’s able to identify colours through sound frequencies. Neil’s device, called an Eyeborg, also
has an Internet connection which means he can receive any type of information directly into
his head. He actually explains it himself in this short videoclip:
[Link]

Whether or not Harbisson is to be the first cyborg, can be disputed, but he is definitely not
the only cyborg. Check out some cyborgs who are changing their brains by enhancing their
bodies (source Quartz)): [Link]
brains-by-enhancing-their-bodies/ or these body-hackers:
[Link]
hackers-the-people-who-turn-themselves-into-cyborgs

A cyborg is clearly no SF-fantasy anymore. Meanwhile, philosophers working alongside the

researchers say it's time to find out more about how the public feels about such bionic
research, which in some cases is being used to enhance human memory, physical abilities,
and perception. Researchers are also working towards repairing damaged tissue by, for
example, extending bionic ear technology. The bionics program at the ARC Centre of
Excellence for Electromaterials Science is developing flexible conducting polymers that can
be implanted in the body and interact directly with living cells. The polymers can deliver
electrical, mechanical, or chemical messages to cells, such as nerve and muscle cells, and

16
receive signals back. Dr Michael Higgins and colleagues are packing the polymers with cell
growth factors and using them to encourage nerve cells to grow in the lab. When an electrical
stimulus is applied to the polymers they pulsate and slowly release the chemicals. Both the
mechanical movement itself and the chemicals it releases can help cells to grow but it's not
yet clear how exactly this works. To explore this, Higgins has been using an atomic force
microscope to take a nanoscale look at what's happening. This means he can look in
unprecedented detail at the real-time interaction between the polymer and the proteins and
receptors on the surface of nerve cell to understand how best to make them communicate
with each other. Higgins says the polymers could be used as a generic interface for a range
of bionic applications.

Human enhancement research is not only related to health care, but also to university
practices (especially during exam periods), sports and warfare. While, in the Atlantic
(February 16, 2012), Patrick Lin worries about our ability to "upgrade" the bodies of soldiers
through drugs, implants, and exoskeletons may be upending the ethical norms of war as
we've understood them.

‘If we can engineer a soldier who can resist torture, would it still be wrong to torture this
person with the usual methods? Starvation and sleep deprivation won't affect a super-
soldier who doesn't need to sleep or eat. Beatings and electric shocks won't break
someone who can't feel pain or fear like we do. This isn't a comic-book story, but
plausible scenarios based on actual military projects today. In the next generation, our
warfighters may be able to eat grass, communicate telepathically, resist stress, climb
walls like a lizard to and much more. Impossible? We only need to look at nature for
proofs of concept. For instance, dolphins don't sleep (or they'd drown); Alaskan sled-
dogs can run for days without rest or food; bats navigate with echolocation; and goats
will eat pretty much anything. Find out how they work, and maybe we can replicate that
in humans.’
(source: [Link]
human-the-ethics-of-biologically-enhancingsoldiers/253217/

One name that stand out in the field of human enhancement is Ray Kurzweil. Kurzweil
predicts that with the ever-accelerating rate of technological change, humanity is fast
approaching an era in which our intelligence will become increasingly non-biological and
millions of times more powerful. This will be the dawning of a new civilization enabling us to
transcend our biological limitations.

For people like Kurzweil technological development is a process animated by an inherent

force. It seems to feed on it self, growing ever larger and gathering increasing momentum.
Moreover, that growth and impetus seem unstoppable and irreversible. People can agree or
disagree whether technology develops autonomously. But even if they agree on this, people
can also disagree about the appreciation of the developments. Whereas Kurzweil presents a
positive perspective on science and technology, writers like Aldous Huxley (Brave New
World), philosophers like Jacque Ellul, and scientist Kaczynski (The Unabomber) are examples
of those who foreground the negative impacts of it. In this meeting we will discuss different
visions on progress and how to define progress (normatively and conceptually) on basis of the
postion of Kurzweil and Eckersley and the report of the Rathenau Institute.

Preparation
Besides the compulsory readings also watch the video about Ray Kurzweil (it is up to you if
you watch the summary (20 minutes) or the entire documentary (1.5 hour).

17
Learning objectives
1. You are able to summarize and relate the positions Kurzweil and Eckersley.
2. You are able to explain the line of argument of the Rathenau Institute report.
3. You are able to identify the implicit assumption about science, technology and
progress in the position of Kurzweil and Eckersley.
4. On basis of comparison, you can defend your own position in relation to the different
ideas on human enhancement progress.

Compulsary readings:
Eckersley, R. (2006). Techno-Utopia and Human Values. The Futurist, 40(2): 48.

Est, R. van, Klaassen, P., Schuijff, M., and Smit, M. (2008). Future Man – No Future Man:
connecting the technological, cultural and political dots of human enhancement. The Hague,
Rathenau Institute.
([Link]

Video
Ray Kurzweil’s Transcendent Man:
Shortened version: [Link]
Entire documentary: [Link]

Additional sources
van Est, R. et al., (2014) From Bio to NBIC convergence – From Medical Practice to Daily Life.
Report written for the Council of Europe, Committee on Bioethics, The Hague, Rathenau
Institute [Link]
practicedaily-life

Petta Gomes da Costa, L. (2019). Reviewing the Concept of Technological Singularities: How
Can It Explain Human Evolution? Nanoethics, 13:119–130.

Upchurch, M. (2018) Robots and AI at work: the prospects for Singularity. New Technology,
Work and Employment, 33(3): 205-218.

Ted Talk by Ray Kurzweil: ‘The acceleration power of technology’ (2005)

[Link]

Ted Talk by Ray Kurzweil: ‘Get ready for hybrid thinking’

[Link]

18
 TASK 3

SOCIETY SHAPING TECHNOLOGY

“Forget spaceships, washing machines and fridges are where stories of the revolutionary
possibilities of innovation lie.” This is the heading of an article in The Guardian written by Alice
Bell. She refers to the work of Ruth Schwarz Cowan who “(…) traced the early history of
domestic fridges. In 1920s USA, there were two types of fridges on the market; electrically
powered ones which used a (humming) motorised compressor to work their refrigerants, and
gas ones. All mechanical fridges work by controlling the vaporisation and condensation of a
liquid called a refrigerant. Most fridges today do this control with a special electric-power
pump called a compressor, but there’s also the technique of absorption, which is kicked off
by a gas-fulled flame. The fridge’s hum wasn’t inevitable. In her study on the development of
domestic technologies Schwarz Cowan explains how we have ended up with our humming
fridge.

(…) In many respects, the history of technology is a history of failed machines; of routes we
didn’t take, not the ones we did. There have never been a shortage of new inventions, what
‘shapes us’ is what we choose to pick up on. David Edgerton (2006) puts this very well in his
book The Shock of the Old” which calls for a focus on thinking about technology we use, rather
than new technology: ‘The history of invention is not the history of a necessary future to which
we must adapt or die, but rather of failed futures, and of futures firmly fixed in the past. We
do not have a history of invention, but instead histories of the invention of only some of the
technologies which were later successful (Edgerton, 2006: 184. Emphasis as original).”

“Since the mid 1980s, feminist historians have pointed to the neglect of women’s role in the
development of technology. Because women were historically underrepresented as
innovators of technology, and because historians of technology often focused exclusively on
the design and production of technologies, the history of technology came to be dominated
by stories about men and their machines. Moreover, these stories represented a discourse in
which gender was invisible. Historians did not consider it relevant in settings where women
were absent, thus reinforcing the view that men had no gender. Feminist historians suggested

19
that focusing on users and use rather than on engineers and design would enable historians
to go beyond histories of men inventing and mastering technologyA lot of historical studies
on the development of domestic technologies used a feminist perspective. also popular in
feminist studies

(…) In the 1990s, feminist scholars extended the script approach to include the gender aspects
of technological innovation. Adopting the view that technological innovation requires a
renegotiation of gender relations, and an articulation and performance of gender identities,
Dutch and Norwegian feminists introduced the concept of genderscript to capture all the work
involved in the inscription and de-inscription of representations of masculinities and
femininities in technological artifacts” (Source: Oudshoorn & Pinch, 2003)

In this meeting we will take a closer look at the development of two domestic technologies:
the refrigerator and the shaver. These studies are a clear critique on the tenets of the
technological deterministic framing of technological development and its relation to society.

Learning objectives
1. You are able to present the way Heilbroner explains the historical developments by
using technological determinism as explanatory framework
2. Refrigerator case: You are able to explain why Ruth Schwartz Cowan’s analysis of the
development of the refrigerator does not fit in the explanatory frame of technological
determinism.
3. Refrigerator case: You are able to explain the idea of ‘Profit Motive’.
4. Shaver case: you are able to argue why the analysis of van Oost doesn’t fit the
technological deterministic framework.
5. Shaver case: You are able to explain on basis of the study of Ellen van Oost what a
genderscript is and what its impact is.

To provide some contexts read the article of Heilbroner first. Heilbroner’s text is a classic and
tests and positions the perspective of technological determinism. Next chose one of the
empirical examples: the refrigerator or the shaver (of course feel free to read both studies).

Compulsory readings
Heilbroner, R.L. (1967). Do Machines Make History? Technology and Culture, 8(3), 335-345.

Schwartz Cowan, R. (1985). How the refrigerator got its hum. In: D. Mackenzie & J. Wajcman
(eds.) The Social Shaping of Technology. How the refrigerator got its hum. (pp. 202-219) Open
Univ. Press. 1ST edition.

or

Oost van, E. (2003) Materialized gender: how shaver configure the user’s femininity and
masculinity. In: N. Oudshoorn & T. Pinch (2003). How users matter : the co-construction of
users and technologies, (pp. 193-209) The MIT Press.

20
 TASK 4

INTERRELATIONS BETWEEN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY

(Source: Kline and Pinch, 1996: 776)

The technological determinist image of technology and science was replaced by another form
of determinism: “social determinism”, in which technology is seen as just a instrument in the
hands of the user and technological innovation is seen as socially determined, shaped by
political, economical, and cultural values. Emerging as a critique of the technological
deterministic approach, this view have often gone too far: science and technology appeared
as mere social products, simply neutral tools subject to manipulation and control by social
actors.

In this sense, both approaches are reductionist in their own way. Nowadays, research in the
field of science and technology has moved towards a different interpretation of the science-
technology-society relationship. This third perspective, a ‘constructivist approach, can be
considered the result of the search for a new, more adequate image of the science-
technology-society relationship. It asserts that science and technology are socio-technical
systems. It is not the impact of science and technology on society, nor the impact of society
on science and technology that is underlined, but the rich linkages and interrelations between
them.

As an example, consider the safety air bag in our cars. “It can be seen as a system of sensors,
an inflator, and a bag, but this tells one very little about why it was created, what it does, or
even how it works. The sociotechnical system of an air bag includes the numerous
relationships the device has with people and other devices. For instance, the modern air bag
is meaningless if not viewed in the context of modern transportation, automobiles, and care
collisions. Its purpose cannot be understood without looking at how insurance companies
encouraged its development, how government regulations shaped its design, and how
engineers had certain users in mind when they build it. The air bag can work only when there
are automobile manufacturers and distributors, a road system, and drivers with certain habits.
The device itself is not without meaning, but its purpose, value, and implications are best
understood in the broader sociotechnical context.” (Johnson & Wetmore, 2009 p.94)

21
Learning objectives
1. You can explain the explanatory frameworks as explained in the lecture: determinism,
instrumentalism, constructivism.
2. You are able to describe how society shapes technology and how to avoid the trap of
social determinism
3. You are able to explain the following SCOT concepts: ‘social relevant group’ and
‘interpretative flexibility’.
4. You are able to explain the argument of Kline and Pinch in relation to technological
determinism and in relation to the SCOT approach.
5. You are able to describe the mutual construction of technology (the automobile) and
society (gender roles).

Compulsary readings
Kline, R., & Pinch, T. (1996). Users as agents of technological change: the social construction
of the automobile in the rural united states. Technology and Culture, 37(4), 763–795.

Mackenzie, D. & Wajcman J. (eds.) (1999). Introductory Essay: The social shaping of
technology. In: D. Mackenzie & J. Wajcman (eds.) The Social Shaping of Technology. Open
Univ. Press, 2nd ed.

Additional sources:
Bijker, W.E. (2001) Understanding Technological Culture through a Constructivist View of
Science, Technology, and Society. In: S. Cutcliffe & C. Mitcham (eds.), Visions of STS;
Counterpoints in Science, Technology and Society Studies. (pp. 19-34). State University of New
York Press.

Est van, R. et al., (2014) From Bio to NBIC convergence – From Medical Practice to Daily Life.
Report written for the Council of Europe, Committee on Bioethics, The Hague,
Rathenau Instituut.
[Link]

Johnson, D. & J.M. Wetmore (2009). The relation between technology and society. In:
Technology and Society: Building our sociotechnical future. (pp. 93-95) The MIT Press.

Kleinman, D. L. (2005). Science is political/ technology is social: concerns, concepts and

questions. In: Science and Technology in Society: From Biotechnology to the Internet. (pp 1-
14), Blackwell Publishing.

Michael, M. (2006) Between technoscience and everyday life. In: Technoscience and everyday
life. (pp.1-15), Open University Press.

Wyatt, S. (1998). Technology and Society- a false dichotomy. In: Technology’s Arrow:
Developing Information Networks for Public Administration in Britain and the United States.
(pp 9-24), Maastricht: UPM.

Additional Video
All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace, by Adam Curtis, BBC; episode 1 ‘Love and
Power’ (see Resources)

22
 TASK 5

TECHNOLOGICAL DETERMINISM IN ACTION: THE AI REVOLUTION

In the executive summary of a recent OECD report on the position of artificial intelligence (AI)
in society, the report states the following:

“Machine learning, big data and computing power have enabled recent AI progress

The artificial intelligence (AI) technical landscape has evolved significantly from 1950
when Alan Turing first posed the question of whether machines can think. Coined as a
term in 1956, AI has evolved from symbolic AI where humans build logic-based systems,
through the AI winter of the 1970s to the chess-playing computer Deep Blue in the
1990s. Since 2011, breakthroughs in machine learning (ML), an AI subset that uses a
statistical approach, have been improving machine’s ability to make predictions from
historical data. The maturity of a ML modelling technique called neural networks, along
with large datasets and computing power, is behind the expansion in AI development.

AI systems predict, recommend, or decide an outcome to influence the environment

AI can improve productivity and help solve complex problems (…)
AI investment and business development are growing rapidly (…)
AI applications abound, from transport to science to health (…)
Trustworthy AI is key to reaping AI benefits (…)
AI is a growing policy priority for all stakeholders

In view of the transformative benefits of AI as well as its risks, AI is a growing policy

priority for all stakeholders. Many countries have dedicated AI strategies that consider
AI as an engine of growth and well-being, seek to educate and recruit the next

23
 generation of researchers, and consider how best to address AI challenges. Non-
governmental stakeholders – business, technical organisations, academia, civil society
and trade unions – and international bodies including the G7, G20, OECD, European
Commission and United Nations and are also taking action. In May 2019 the OECD
adopted its Principles on Artificial Intelligence, the first international standards agreed
by governments for the responsible stewardship of trustworthy AI, with guidance from
a multi-stakeholder expert group.” (Source: OECD (2019). Executive summary. In:
Artificial Intelligence in Society, OECD Publishing, Paris. DOI:
[Link]

Like bioengineering, nanotechnology and quantum computing, AI is another emergent high-

potential technology. Although “systems using artificial intelligence match or surpass human
level performance in more and more domains, leveraging rapid advances in other
technologies and driving soaring stock prices. Yet measured productivity growth has declined
by half over the past decade, and real income has stagnated since the late 1990s for a majority
of Americans.” (Brynjolfsson, Rock & Syverson, 2017). Yet, despite these disappointing
outcomes a large part of the world still has high hopes in AI.

In this meeting we will study the idea of co-shaping of technology and society with the help
of the concept ‘sociotechnical imaginaries’ and Wyatt’s typology of justificatory technological
determinism. Sally Wyatt (2008) studied the way new emerging technologies are marketed.
She shows that the perspective of technological determinism plays an important role in this
process. On basis of careful analysis, she explains the necessity to take technological
determinism seriously as it is still very dominant in society’s way of framing newly emerging
technologies. She distinguishes different types of technological determinism. One of them is
justificatory technological determinism, which is ‘(…) deployed largely by actors. It is all
around us. It is the type of technological determinism used by employers to justify downsizing
and reorganization. It is the technological determinism we are all susceptible to when we
consider how people’s lives have changed in the past 200 years. It is the technological
determinism (and frustration) we feel when confronted with an automated call response
system. It can be found in policy documents. (Wyatt, 2008: 175)

Jasha Bareis and Christian Katzenbach (2021) provide an example of the use of a technological
deterministic way of reasoning by governments by analysing policy papers on AI from
different countries. By analysing contemporary politics and public debates, they investigate
national AI strategies as a peculiar form of co-shaping.

Learning objectives
1. You are able to explain the concept of sociotechnical imaginaries and the role of
metaphors, myths, and expectations.
2. You are able to identify instances of technological deterministic reasoning being used
by governments and others in order to legitimize specific decisions and actions
concerning AI, on basis of the analysis of Bareis and Katzenbach and Wyatt’s concept
of justificatory technological determinism.
3. You are able to identify the use of metaphors, myths, and expectations in Ray
Kurzweil’s plea for AI.

Compulsory readings

24
Bareis, J. & Katzenbach, C. (2021). Talking AI into Being: The narratives and imaginaries of
national AI strategies and their performative politics. Science, Technology & Human Values.
p.1-27. DOI: 10.1177/01622439211030007

Video:
Ted Talk by Ray Kurzweil: ‘Get ready for hybrid thinking’:
[Link]

Additional sources:
OECD (2019). Executive summary. In: Artificial Intelligence in Society, OECD Publishing, Paris.
DOI: [Link]

Brynjolfsson, E., Rock, D., & Syverson, C. (2017). Artificial Intelligence and the modern
productivity paradox a clash of expectations and statistics. Working Paper 24001, National
Bureau of Economic Research. DOI 10.3386/w24001

Jasanoff: S., (2015). Future Imperfect: Science, Technology, and the Imaginations of
Modernity. In: S. Jasanoff & SH Kim (eds.) Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical
Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power, (pp.1-33). University of Chicago Press,
[Link]

Wyatt, S. (2008). Technological determinism is dead: long live technological determinism. In:
Hackett et al. (Eds.). The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. 3rdedition. (pp: 165-
180). The MIT Press.

25
 TASK 6

THE POLITICS OF ARTEFACTS

“No idea is more provocative in controversies about technology and society than the
notion that technical things have political qualities. At issue is the claim that
machines, structures, and systems of modem material culture can be accurately
judged not only for their contributions to efficiency and productivity, but also for the
ways in which they can embody specific forms of power and authority.” Winner, 1986,
p.19.

“(Winner) suggested that bridges leading from New York to the beaches of Long Island
were intentionally designed so low as to keep poorer people (many of them Afro-
Americans) out: they would use public transportation, but buses could not pass under
the bridges (Winner, 1980). Although Winner’s interpretation turned out to be
counterfactual (Joerges, 1999), the story illustrates that artifacts can have political
consequences, whether or not such consequences are intended. As Verbeek puts it,
things do things (Verbeek 2005). In this sense, there can be something like political
studies of artifacts: empirical studies of the political consequences artifacts have.”
(Source: Coeckelbergh, M. (2009). The Public Thing: On the Idea of a Politics of
Artefacts. Techné 13(3), p.175.)

This meeting aims to introduce you to the political dimensions of technology. Until recently,
science and technology used to be perceived as neutral instruments of cultural, social, and
economic progress. The development of science and technology was a political aim in its own
right, around which some kind of ideological consensus prevailed. Much effort in Science and
Technology Studies has been spent on debunking this myth of science and technology as the
apolitical benefactor of mankind. Scholars in this area now seem to agree that knowledge-
claims and artefacts ‘have politics’ and as such shape and are shaped by selective and context-
bounded practices, values, and interests.

26
The North American philosopher Langdon Winner has been one of the first scholars who
argued that “artefacts having politics”. He used -- among other cases -- the Long Island Bridge
in New York to illustrate how modern technologies have helped maintaining social power
relations. His notion of ‘politics’ does not refer to political institutions like governments, but
to power relations. His kind of politics is about inclusion and exclusion, about being more or
less entitled, about having more or less rights. Winner shows how particular technologies
bring along their more or less democratic or hierarchical orderings. This meeting takes
Winner’s idea on the politics of artefacts as a starting point to discuss the intricate connection
between technology and politics.

Learning objectives
1. You are able to explain the notion of ‘secondary agency’ and how this relates to
‘technological fix’.
2. You are able to explain the forms in which, according to Winner, technology can be
political.
3. You are able to explain the example of deep learning as described by Lazovich.
4. You can bring in examples from within the public space in the direct vicinity of your
house and explain what kind of politics these artefacts in public space have and how
they enact these political qualities?
5. What does the build-in politics of your examples tell us about the power relations of
the world we live in? Are they intentional or a side-effect? What are their
consequences?
6. You are able to suggest adjustments to the research/design process in order to deal
with the political nature of things.

Compulsory readings
Mitcham, C. (2014) Agency in humans and in artifacts : a contested discourse. In: [Link] &
P.P. Verbeek, The Moral Status of Technical Artefacts. [ONLY section 2.2, pp.16-19]

Lazovich, T. (2020, December). Does Deep Learning Have Politics? (pp. 1-4). In: Conference
Paper from the Resistance AI Workshop at the 34th Conference on Neural Information
Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2020), Vancouver, Canada.

Winner, Langdon. (1980), Do Artifacts have Politics? Deadalus 109(1), 121 - 136.

Additional sources:
Brand, R. (2005). Urban Infrastructures and Sustainable Social Practices. Journal of Urban
Technology, 12/2, pp. 1-25.

Joerges, B. (1999). Do Politics Have Artifacts? Social Studies of Science 29/2, pp. 411– 43.

Woolgar, S. & Cooper, G. (1999) Do artifacts have ambivalence? Moses' Bridges, Winner's
Bridges and Other Urban Legends in S&TS. Social Studies of Science, 29 433-449.

Additional Videos
Why we need to understand the politics inherent in technology – Evan Barba (9 min.)
[Link]

Do artifacts have politics?

[Link]

27
 TASK 7

THE MORAL DIMENSIONS OF TECHNOLOGY

In this meeting we take both Dyer’s study on photography and film, and the study of Google
Glass by Kudina and Verbeek as a starting point to discuss the intricate connection between
technology and moral values. In this way we aim to get a clearer picture on the way values are
inherent in technological decisions and its usage.

Dyer argues on basis of the history of the development of photography and film, how, besides
mechanical and aesthetic functionalities, technologies also have social values related to class,
gender and race. Put differently, Dyer shows the racial characteristics of film technology.
Analyzing technological development shows the how values like respect, dignity, privacy,
equality play a role in the decision-making process ((in)direct and (un)intentional). Values do
not only play a role in the development stage. During the implementation stage values play a
role as well. Moreover, they can make or break the working of a technology, as the example
of Google Glass shows us.

"(…) apart from the clear beneficial and increasing possibilities of ICT, technological
development could also create complete new ways of life. For example, the immense
growing possibilities of the smartphone makes it a central device in our interaction with
others; its communication functions like WhattsApp and Twitter, as well its capability
to film and record everything and its continuous presence and use during a friends’
night out. Not only does it make our life easier and provides a better connection to the
world, simultaneously it changes our ideological, cultural, and ethical framework. A
fundamental aspect here is that ICT has the capability, as a lot of technologies, to
influence and change human behavior and morality.” (Source: Bats, J., Valkenburg, R.
& Verbeek, P. (2013). Mediating Technology: how ICT influences the morality of the
digital generation, conference paper.)

28
Whereas the previous meeting has its focus on the political dimensions of things, this meeting
aims to introduce you to the moral dimensions of technology. Philosophers of technology, like
Peter-Paul Verbeek, investigate the relationship between humans and technology, and the
co-shaping between technology and morality in particular. As we will see on basis of Kudina
and Verbeek's work a technology like Google Glass comes with all kinds of ethical concerns:

“Google Glass can be used to record everything its user is looking at. This has raised a
notable controversy, as it could mean an intrusion of privacy if the wearer decides to
record strangers without their prior consent.

A face-recognition app could be used to identify people by just pointing the device’s
camera at them. This further violates personal privacy.

As much as other pieces of modern technology, Google Glass can be distracting to the
user, effectively isolating him or her from the surroundings. This has raised concerns
about whether the device should be allowed whilst driving. Similar concerns have been
raised in the cases of riding a bike or walking. While navigation included in Google Glass
could help users with directions, the device distracts them at the same time.

These controversies have caused the creation of reactionary movements for and
against the device alike. The 'Stop The Cyborgs' campaign calls for limits on which
situations Glass can be used and encourages people to think about the impact of new
technologies. Sergey Brin, the co-founder of Google, defends the device as something
that is actually meant to free the user from distractions that smart phones bring. A
woman has claimed to be assaulted in a San Francisco bar while wearing the device.
The word 'glasshole' was created to describe people who act unethically or abusively
while using/wearing the device. There is even an ‘Etiquette Guide’ for a Google Glass
wearer.

Concerns regarding advertising come to mind as well. Google’s revenue is created

mostly from advertisement. There might be the possibility for Google, or any other
advertisement company, to place virtual advertisements into what users see through
the smart glasses.” (Source: [Link]

Learning objectives

1. You are able to explain how established, functioning technologies affect social values?
2. You are able to distinguish the notion of technological progress from that of social
change. What are the values involved in each?
3. You can describe how can race and gender bias be reinforced (or countered) in
sociotechnical systems?
4. You are able to explain the difference between techno-moral change, sociotechnical
experiments, and technological mediation
5. You are able to explain how google glass redefines privacy.
6. You are able to give examples of other artefacts and their morality-shaping effects.

29
Compulsory readings

Dyer, R. (1997/2009). White. In: D.G. Johnson & J.M. Wetmore, Technology and Society:
building our Sociotechnical Future, (pp.257-264). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

Kudina, O., and Verbeek, P.-P. (2019). Ethics from Within: google glass, the Collingridge
dilemma, and the mediated value of privacy. Science, Technology & Human Values, 44(2),
291–314.

Additional sources:

Kleinman, Daniel Lee., (2005) Rethinking Information Technology: Caught in the World Wide
Web. In: Science and Technology in Society: From Biotechnology to the Internet. Blackwell
Publishing.

Verbeek, P.-P., & Floridi, L. (2015). The onlife Manifesto: being human in a hyperconnected
era. In: Designing the public sphere: information technologies and the politics of mediation
(pp. 217–227). Springer International Publishing. [Link]
6_21

30
 TASK 8

ACTOR NETWORK THEORY

Bruno Latour

In the previous meeting we discussed the text of Kudina and Verbeek. Both are inspired by
Bruno Latour’s perspective on the relation between artefacts and morality. Therefore, we
will use this meeting to take a closer look at Latour’s classic texts Where Are the Missing
Masses? The Sociology of a Few Mundane Artifacts.

One of the most popular and powerful ways of resolving the technological determinism social
constructivism dichotomy in technology studies is the actor network approach. Those
advocating the actor network approach agree with the social constructivist claim that
sociotechnical systems are developed through negotiations between people, institutions, and
organizations. But they make the additional interesting argument that artifacts are part of
these negotiations as well. This is not to say that machines think like people do and decide
how they will act, but their behaviour or nature often has a comparable role. Actor network
theorists argue that the material world pushes back on people because of its physical
structure and design. People are free to interpret the precise meaning of an artifact, but they
can’t simply tell an automobile engine that it should get 100 miles per gallon. The laws of
nature and the capacities of a particular design limit the ways in which artifacts can be
integrated into a sociotechnical system. In this chapter, one of the foremost contributors to
the actor network approach, Bruno Latour, explores how artifacts can be deliberately
designed to both replace human action and constrain and shape the actions of other humans.
His study demonstrates how people can ‘‘act at a distance’’ through the technologies they
create and implement and how, from a user’s perspective, a technology can appear to
determine or compel certain actions. He argues that even technologies that are so
commonplace that we don’t even think about them can shape the decisions we make, the
effects our actions have, and the way we move through the world. Technologies play such an
important role in mediating human relationships, Latour argues, that we cannot understand
how societies work without an understanding of how technologies shape our everyday lives.
Latour’s study of the relationship between producers, machines, and users demonstrates how

31
certain values and political goals can be achieved through the construction and employment
of technologies.

Learning objectives
1. You are able to explain the title of the chapter that acts as point of departure for this
text.
2. You can explain these central concepts in the text: displacement or translation or
delegation or shifting; prescription; distribution of competences; anthropomorphism;
(non)figurative characters; re-inscription; antiprogram; translation.
3. You are able to explain the overall argument of Bruno Latour about non-humans in
relation to morality by using the central concepts.
4. You are able to explain on the basis of three examples (not yet mentioned in the text)
of how artifacts have agency.

Compulsory reading
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). The MIT Press.

Video
Watch the Lecture of Derryl Cressman on Actor-Network Theory as part of the preparation of
this meeting. [see Media on Canvas)

Additional sources
A brief explanation of actor network theory – Aditi Monga
[Link]

ANT Resources: [Link] &

[Link]

Callon, M. (1986) Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops

and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In: J. Law, Power, action and belief: a new sociology of
knowledge? (pp.196-223) Routledge.

Callon, M. (1987). Society in the making: The study of technology as a tool for sociological
analysis. In W.E. Bijker, T.P. Hughes & T. Pinch, The Social Construction of Technological
Systems. New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology (pp. 83-103). MIT Press.

Jasanoff, S (ed.) (2004) The Idiom of Co-production. In: States of Knowledge: the co-production
of science and social order. (pp.22-25). Routledge.

Latour, B. On Actor Network Theory: A few clarifications.

[Link]

Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: how to follow engineers and scientists through society.
Cambridge University Press.

Latour, B. (2005) Re-assembling the Social: an introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford

University Press.

32
Law, J. (1992). Notes on the Theory of the Actor-Network: Ordering, Strategy, and
Heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5, 379-393.

Law, J. Traduction/Trahison: notes on ANT. Published by the Centre for Science Studies,
Lancaster University at
[Link]
[Link]

Law, J. (2009). Actor Network Theory and Material Semiotics, In B. S. Turner, B. S. (ed.) The
New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory , pp. 141-158.

Sismondo, S. (2010). Actor-Network Theory. In An Introduction in Science and Technology

Studies. 2nd revised edition, (pp. 81-92). Wiley-Blackwell Publishing,

33
 TASK 9

BIG DATA: PROMISE, PERIL OR SOMETHING ELSE?

“Everyone knows that the Internet has changed how businesses operate, governments
function, and people live. But a new, less visible technological trend is just as transformative:
"big data." Big data starts with the fact that there is a lot more information floating around
these days than ever before, and it is being put to extraordinary new uses. Big data is distinct
from the Internet, although the Web makes it much easier to collect and share data. Big data
is about more than just communication: the idea is that we can learn from a large body of
information things that we could not comprehend when we used only smaller amounts”
(Cukier & Mayer-Schoenberger, 2013, p. 28).

Since the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic we live an extensive part of our lives online,
whether we want to or not. Moreover, many countries put their hopes on coronavirus apps
in order to keep the spreading of the virus under control. For the advocates of ‘big data’, this
unforeseen situation cannot but prove they were right in their belief in the gains society could
reap from big data. For others, however, the flood of Covid-19 apps may be seen as the latest
gadget of ‘Big Brother’ who is watching us. So, as the title of this tutorial suggests, we can ask
the question whether ‘big data ‘is a promise, a peril or something else?

Parallel to the Covid-19 pandemic, the ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement sparked worldwide
attention and action. This systemic inequality is also linked to technology and ‘big data’. In her
book Race after Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code (2019) Ruha Benjamin
coins the concept of ‘New Jim Code’ which refers to “the employment of new technologies
that reflect and reproduce existing inequities but that are promoted and perceived as more
objective or progressive than discriminatory systems of a previous era” (Benjamin, 2019, p.5-
6)

34
“From everyday apps to complex algorithms, Race after Technology aims to cut through the
industry hype to offer a field guide into the world of biased bots, altruistic algorithms, and
their many coded cousins” (p.7). In a similar vein, Cathy O’Neil discusses what she calls
‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ (WMDs). “By their very nature, they [WMDs] feed on data
that can be measured and counted. But fairness is squishy and hard to quantify. lt is a concept.
And computers, for all of their advances in language and logic, still struggle mightily with
concepts. (…) So fairness isn't calculated into WMDs. And the result is massive, industrial
production of unfairness. If you think of a WMD as a factory, unfairness is the black stuff
belching out of the smokestacks. It's an emission, a toxic one” (O’Neil, 2016, p.95).

In this tutorial meeting we will address the promises and perils of ‘big data’ with the help of
STS concepts. To prepare you watch Cathy O’Neil’s talk ‘Weapons of Math Destruction’ and
read the articles by Cukier & Mayer-Schoenberger and by Boyd & Crawford. The video on the
Cambridge Analytics scandal provides you another example of the issue of Big Data.

Learning objectives
1. You are able to define Big Data.
2. You are able to explain what, according to Cukier and Mayer-Schoenberger, are the
main gains that society can reap from ‘big data’?
3. You are able to identify and explain the critical statements that are central to Boyd
and Crawford’s take on ‘big data’?
4. You are able to identify and explain the central message of O’Neil’s talk?

It might be helpful to start with the Cukier and Mayer-Schoenberger article. The Cambridge
Analytics scandal provides you a ‘nice’ example of the potential consequences of Big Data.

Compulsory readings:
Boyd, d., & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data: Provocations for a cultural,
technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 662-
679.

35
Cukier, K., & Mayer-Schoenberger, V. (2013). The rise of big data: How it’s changing the way
we think about the world. Foreign Affairs, 92(3), 28-40.

Videos:
The era of blind faith in big data must end – Cathy O’Neil (7 Sept, 2017)
[Link]

What is the Cambridge Analytics Scandal?

[Link]

Additional sources:
Benjamin, R. (2019). Race after Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code. Polity
Press.

O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of Math Destruction. Penguin.

Additional video:
The human insights missing from big data – Tracia Wang (Aug 2nd, 2017)
[Link]

36
 TASK 10

PEER REVIEW

Each of you will prepare a research outline for your exam paper. The outline will be no longer
than two pages and commented on by two reviewers (fellow students). You, as the author of
the outline, will concentrate on some of the most important aspects of academic writing, that
is:
1. identify a (doable) topic
2. explain the relevance of the topic in relation to the course
3. formulate a research question
4. formulate 3 sub-questions
5. create a preliminary outline of your argument
6. a provisional conclusion
7. an initial literature list.

Make sure to send your page to your two peers and tutor one day before the meeting, so that
each of you can prepare comments of each other’s two-pager before the meeting! To provide
the comments, please use the Peer Review’ form. You will discuss each other’s work in the
meeting in your own sub-group, and report back to the rest of the group at the end of the
meeting.

For those of you who just entered the UCM programme: read the chapters of Booth &
Williams (chapter 3, 4, and 7) as this text will help you to write a research paper. Also Rawlins
provides useful advice on writing. Beware: this is a 200-level course and as such no additional
help will be provided by the tutor.

Additional sources:
Booth, W., Colomb, G., & Williams, J. (2008).The craft of research (3rd ed.). Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.

Rawlins, J. (2002). The writer’s way. (5th edition). Boston/New York: Houghton Mifflin.

37