Lit Review Memo Example: (please do not publish in any way without author’s permission, ), 8/25/2016. For educational purposes only.

Tech and Society Memo

In order from human agency to tech agency, how does each author describe or understand the relationship between humans and technology? Who has the power in these relationships? What does each theory stress (politics, economics, psychology etc)? What are advantages and disadvantages of each theory?

Human Agency as Primary (Social Construction of Technology, user-)

TRANSLATION AND BOUNDARY OBJECTS

Star and Griesemer, 1989: boundary objects are objects that intersect multiple social worlds (393) and satisfy “informational requirements” of each world (393) weakly structures in common use but strong structure in individual use, have diff meanings in each world but a small thread of common meaning across worlds (393) in other words, they are objects that can be interpreted by different social groups while concurrently connecting these social groups into coherent (although perhaps ideologically thin) whole.

Uses ex of museums and diff social groups between naturalists, prof. biologists, philanthropists, conservationaists, university admins, taxidermists, animals of research (395)- types of boundary objs. In this case are repositories, ideal types, standardized methods (411)

Here objects are not actors or agents, but have meaning impressed upon them by relations of different social groups. Their meaning is flexible.

SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF TECHNOLOGY (SCOT)

Kline and Pinch, 1996 (766): artifacts have interpretive flexibility (766) : meanings can be embedded in artifacts or traced throughout their development (766) SCOT developed by Pinch and Bijker in 1980s (765)

SCOT is different from other soc. Constructionist approaches because it highlights the multiple interpretations that can occur surrounding an artifact (766). SCOT’s limitations are that it does not look at social structures or power relationships in which interpretation takes place- no context (767)

Authors use SCOT but deal with weaknesses in looking at how inter. Flex. Can reappear in objevt (the context of this reappearance), looks at how social relationships are related to shaping of an artifact (their example is about gender) (767) and how both are shaped by process (768)

Their example is farm gender identities and motor car, where gender not only shapes motor car but are also shaped by motor car (780)- which appears to give the motor car itself a certain amount of power in the shaping process. Reinterpretation of car through car dealers etc (788-791)

ACTIVITY THEORY (founded by Leontiv- disciple of Vygotsky): Katelinen and Nardi (read Foot’s work below)- comes out of sociocultural psychology in Russia in 20s and 30s, therefore has a psychological edge, basis for interaction where “mental processes are mediated by culturally developed means” (42):

"It was claimed that individuals and their social environments are not separated by an impenetrable border. Instead, they were to be understood as two poles of a single individual-collective dimension. Mental processes transform along this dimension of the

dynamics of mental processes over the course of their development." (p. 46)

Kaptelinen and Nardi, 2006, interested in HCI Design- p. 10-11: Tenants (human intentionality, asymmetry of people and things- do not ascribe artifacts with agency- people act with tech and construct desires as objects, importance of human development –sociocultural process with interaction between internalization or human psychological processes and externalization of these processes within interactions between others and society- idea of culture and society as shaping human activity- shaping is a back and forth btw human, culture and society)

Of basic principles of activity: #6 mediation has two roles- “tools shape the way humans interact with reality” and 2) reflect experiences of others who try to solve similar problems (70) in human-computer interaction, one needs to consider the computer or technology “as a mediator between human beings and the world, rather than a pole of interaction” (78)

Agency (p.33): agency defined as ability to produce effects can be ascribed to both subject and object of activity- interactive and has mutual effects. Agency of subject of activity is defined as ability and need to act”

CULTURAL-HISTORICAL ACTIVITY THEORY (CHAT)

Foot, 2001: action ethnography to help a virtual community better understand their collaborative work and to develop a better network (EAWARN) (57)- unit of analysis is EAWARN as activity system (58)

What’s similar to Kaptilenin and Nardi: the activity unit, realized thorugh tool-mediated actions by which actors collectively engage. (61)acknowledges contradictions, conflict as tools for analysis in which new opportunities for development are revealed (62-63) what Foot calls “illuminative hinges” where reflection occurs (psychological component) (63); activities are realized through interlinked tool-mediated actions by which actors engage, pursue etc an evolving object” (61)

Both Nardi and Foot follows Ergstrom’s expansion to unit of activity: explicate social structures of activities- 1)rules regulating actions towards object and relations with other actors, 2) community of people involved in object, 3)division of labor including horizontal division of tasks and vertical division of power (61) (N and K, p 73)

What’s different btw Foot and Nardi?Answer, not much: CHAT includes both Activity theory (Leontiev) and cultural historical psychology (Vygotsky)- cultural historical psychology premise that culture and society are generative force shaping the nature of the human mind” (50 Nardi), subjective world not external to objective reality where people are the ones transforming reality into a “meaningful picture”, but people appropriate meanings and values from social-cultural world. (50, Nardi) People do not just “see” reality but must be able to “relate” to reality (50, Nardi). Activity Theory is processes of interaction not just with external world of society and culture, but with a community or collective of individuals that have object-oriented goals (66), hierarchichal structure of activity, the psychological processes between individual actors and social-cultural world, their external behavior in world, and btw the learner and others, mediation of actions using tools, and the need to contextualize development within the social, cultural, historical context.(66-71, Nardi- basically adopts psychological aspect and places it within context of human-human, human-object interaction)

Equal Agency

ACTOR NETWORK THEORY (ANT)

Miettinen, 1999: From French philosophy and semiotics, principle of generalized symmetry where same treatment is given to both humans and “non human elements” in a network (172)- actor networks are heterogenous (173)culture and production of ANT is parallel to concept of work and object-oriented activity of AT) (175?)

Concept of mediation: LaTour: mediation is event or process that gives birth to or explains nature or culture (177)

LaTour, 1991 (Durable article: social relations include non-human actants (103), example of room key with speakers and listeners (104-105) 9see below for definition of figuration, actant, agency) also in durable article

Actant is from study of literature- can have different figurations of same actions (from intro ANT book, 54)

Agencies are always in account of doing something (52 intro book), figuration of agency is actant figuration not just people, can be tech, ideas etc (53)

Objects often left out of role in society by sociologists due to their definition of social, actors and agencies based on intentionality(71 intro) not normative symmetry between object and people where both are “equal” to one another (76 intro)

OBJECT CENTERED SOCIALITY IN POSTSOCIAL SOCIETY

Knorr, 1997 (read by Kaptellinen and Nardi): breaks from concept of individualization (often seen by sociologists in negative terms, (2-3)which ignores human-object relations (which can include technology) ; says humans relate to objects in a state of objectualization, where objects displace humans as relationship partners or increasingly mediate human relationships (1)

Objects are not commodities (a part of economic trade where objects hold monetary value) or instruments (not just things-to-be-used, but things-in-process- development -10). Thus tech can be an object because in continous source of development, like neff’s Permanently beta.

Psychological approach in relations to objects as “notion of lack” and “corresponding structure of wanting” (similar to Activity Theory, p12), not through positive feelings. Based on mutuality, or continuous chain of wanting through signs they give off to subjects(14) and this dynamic empashizes a chain of reasons rather than isolated reasons 914), look of wanting from person to object and back to person, object in turn provides for continuation of wanting chain through its lack of completeness (16), person becomes the object, situated within subject’s internal environment- a part of their psyche (18)

Here objects appear to have agency, or power to act upon the user as the user’s psychological needs act upon the object in an eternal cycle of needs and wants. While these process appears to begin with the subject or user, the object becomes a part of the relationship as equal partner.

MUTUAL SHAPING THEORY

Boczkowski, 1999: users and technology mutual shape one another as needs arise. Example of Argentine mailing list. Adds social psychological component of relationship through focus on banal nationalism (93), implicit nationalism.

Tech features and relationship to user’s practices and discourses(103)- seems similar to activity theory except method does not allow for face-to-face observation of activity process, can only see results of that process and online dialogue of process

Technology Agency Primary (Technological Determinism)

THEORY OF TECHNOLOGICAL POLITICS

Winner, 2003: technology can have politics ("arrangements of power and authority in human associations as well as the activities that take place within those arrangements." (p. 30)

Politics can be placed upon tech in a socially constructionist way as with the tunnels and bus situation (30-31) where technical arrangement becomes form of order, or where tech is inherently political, such as the nuclear power plant (36). Yet politics can be flexible, not inherently “egalitarian”, “democratic” etc, (33), although certain forms of tech are strongly compatible with certain forms of government” (33)

Both/and position

PROTOLOGICAL CONTROL

Galloway, 2004: demonstrates how control exists in a distributed network and how control is in tension between distributed and centralized power (DNS). I have put this towards the equal aspect in that Galloway states that technology has no inherent meaning (53 a circuit not a sentence”)

There are material aspects to technology that inherently determine certain structures (protocols have certain inherent qualities: robustness, contingency, inter-operability, flexibility, heterogeneity, and pantheism which operate outside of institutional, government and corporate power (p. 2 of 4 conclusion), different layers of Internet dictate certain aspects of Internet’s structure (41), distributed networks move away from centralized hierarchical bureaucracies and towards distributed network of social actors (33), but the very nature of protocols, that which sets the rules of internet’s functions, are created by human beings through the creation of RFCs (request for comments (38)

NETWORK SOCIETY

Castells, 1996: (329-330)influence of new com, distributed and decentralized, mediated by social interests , gov policies and bus strategies, a new culture is emerging. Thus (my own voice here), culture is created primarily through new tech developments that are mediated/regulated through governments, social interests, and businesses. Strong economic view. Tech has primary agency through and its shape is transmitted through social/political/economic factors.

Creates a new way of experiencing space and time: space of flows from space of places- has three layers, the content of space of flows: 1) material support layer (hardware), nodes andhubs, spatial organization of dominant managerial elites (412); “space is the material support of time-sharing social practices”(411) (thus when space is rearranged by a tech, time is rearranged and the very characteristics of our society and our social practices) , thus space of flows is time-shared social practices that “work through flows” (412)

New media absorbs traditional cultures (370), multimedia “supports social/cultural patterns characterized by widespread social and cultural differentiation, increasing social stratification and integration of messages in common cognitive pattern (psychological- tech effects psychological here) (370-371)

Transforming urban forms into megacities (378) with few urban cores but globally networked (everyone can be a hub idea) (380)

While technologicall deterministic in attitude, there is some room for other factors such as political, social and business although these only act as mediators.

MEDIUM THEORY

Diebert, 1997: takes on McLuhan (Medium Theory)and makes it more appropriate- drops elements heavily criticized but takes core parts of medium theory (2)

Goal to do this is as International relations theorist- to see relationship btw large-scale com changes and world-order transformation (2). Two elements of interest, structure of political authority(world order)(8) and communication structures. Authority relates to spatial units of organization and values that underpin and sustain them (9)

Describes new world order of new tech as “planetary central nervous system” composed of web of webs (likeCastell’s network of networks(355) and Galloway’s network of networks 38)