Dependency on technology: Technology and the Law
Citation[wikitext]
Chandler, J. (2012). “Obligatory technologies.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 32(4). 225 – 264.
Main Arguments[wikitext]
Jennifer Chandler argues that there are three main mechanisms that explain why we feel obliged to adopt technologies: competition, dependency, and ideologies/norms/values. Since technologies “extend human capacities,” those who use them gain a competitive advantage (255). Dependency can arise from two sources: our tendency to look for technological fixes, and actual dependency (as in the case of agriculture or medicine). Ideologies may oblige us to adopt technology, which is illustrated where the law forces individuals to use medical technologies (or face negligence).
Theoretical Frameworks[wikitext]
Chandler briefly examines Technological Determinism and Social Constructivism before stating that her beliefs reflect current scholarship that understands technological change to be a mixture of these models. She favors the interpretation originally put forth by Hughes (in 1994) that “social constructivists have a key to understanding the behaviors of young systems; technical determinists come into their own with the mature ones” (257).
Method[wikitext]
Chandler draws her evidence mainly from legal precedents as well as from issues in bioethics. She reports that where pharmaceuticals are available to treat conditions, “some courts will view their non-use as negligent” (260). The author gives various examples of technologies that have been normalized and enforced by law. It seems that sociology of technology has been explored in the fields of medicine and genetics (genetically modified food) providing a rich source of information on the topic.
Pitfalls[wikitext]
I have this section for all my reviews, but cannot think of anything overlooked or taken for granted in this article. If pressed the only critique stems from my skepticism that bioethics has been pursued by scholars of integrity. Part of me sees potential in appropriating bioethics into discourse about ICTs. But another part of me is skeptical of a medical industry that has often not done due diligence in testing emerging technologies, but rather debated the “moral questions about their non-use” (260).