Suchergebnisse

This is the first monograph devoted to the work of one of the foremost contemporary advocates of contemporary critical theory, Andrew Feenberg. It focuses on Feenberg's central concept, technical politics, and explores his suggestion that democratising technology design is key to a strategic understanding of the process of civilisational change. In this way, it presents Feenberg's intervention as the necessary bridge between various species of critical constructivism and wider visions of the kind of change that are urgently needed to move human society onto a more sustainable footing. The book describes the development of Feenberg's thought out of the tradition of Marx and Marcuse, and presents critical analyses of his main ideas: the theory of formal bias, technology's ambivalence, progressive rationalisation, and the theory of primary and secondary instrumentalisation. Technical politics identifies a limitation of Feenberg's work associated with his attachment to critique, as the opposite pole to a negative kind of rationality (instrumentalism). It concludes by offering a utopian corrective to the theory that can provide a fuller account of the process of willed technological transformation and of the author's own idea of a technologically authorised socialism.

Cover -- Half Title -- Dedication -- Title -- Copyright -- Contents -- Acknowledgements -- Preface -- 1 What Does Critical Theory Criticise About Technology? -- 2 Hacking the First Personal Computers -- 3 The Aesthetics of Personal Computing -- 4 The Cynicism of the Computer Gamer -- 5 Hacking as 'Thwarted Vocation' -- 6 Gaming Publics and Technical Politics -- Bibliography -- Index.

Cover -- Half Title -- Title -- Copyright -- Dedication -- Contents -- Acknowledgements -- 1 Technology and Social Power -- Technology and Human Nature -- Social Power -- Overview of Chapters -- 2 The Meaning of Technology -- Between Language and Instrumentalism -- The Substantivist View -- Culture and Meaning -- Constructionism and the Meaning of Technology -- Hermeneutics of Technology -- Dual Aspect Theory -- 3 Modernity Theory -- Enlightenment Mythology -- Production -- Rationalization -- Communication -- Instrumentalization Theory -- 4 Social Domination -- Industrial Capitalism and the Domination of Labour -- Management Science and the Labour Process -- Hegemonic Technological Rationality -- Gender and Hegemony -- Technology as Discourse -- 5 The Limits of Social Constructionism -- Constructionism and Digital Technology -- Cyborgs and Post-humans -- The Agency of Things -- The Limits of Constructionism -- 6 Technology as Culture -- Enlightenment and Technology's Aesthetic -- Capitalist De-Aestheticization -- Capitalist Re-Aestheticization -- Digital Aesthetics -- Neo-Baroque Entertainment Culture -- 7 Digital Technical Politics -- Information and Power -- Hegemony and Web-Searching -- The Digital-Global -- Beyond Technocracy? -- Notes -- References -- Index.

This is the first monograph devoted to the work of one of the foremost contemporary advocates of contemporary critical theory, Andrew Feenberg. It focuses on Feenberg's central concept, technical politics, and explores his suggestion that democratising technology design is key to a strategic understanding of the process of civilisational change. In this way, it presents Feenberg's intervention as the necessary bridge between various species of critical constructivism and wider visions of the kind of change that are urgently needed to move human society onto a more sustainable footing. The book describes the development of Feenberg's thought out of the tradition of Marx and Marcuse, and presents critical analyses of his main ideas: the theory of formal bias, technology's ambivalence, progressive rationalisation, and the theory of primary and secondary instrumentalisation. Technical politics identifies a limitation of Feenberg's work associated with his attachment to critique, as the opposite pole to a negative kind of rationality (instrumentalism). It concludes by offering a utopian corrective to the theory that can provide a fuller account of the process of willed technological transformation and of the author's own idea of a technologically authorised socialism.

This article interrogates Andrew Feenberg's thesis that modern technology is in need of 're-aestheticization'. The notion that modern technology requires aesthetic critique connects his political analysis of micro-contexts of social shaping to his wider concern with civilization change. The former involves a modified constructionism, in which the motives, values and beliefs of proximal agents are understood in terms of their wider sociological significance. This remedies a widely acknowledged blind-spot of conventional constructionism, enabling Feenberg to identify democratic potential in progressive agency at the scene of technology design. Feenberg argues that the aesthetics of naturalistic modernism may serve as a bridge between such interventions and cultural transformation. Referring to developments in design culture, especially as this relates to the human-machine interface on digital artefacts, the article suggests that this part of Feenberg's argument has been falsified. This kind of aesthetic modernism is hegemonic in contemporary design and it has not brought about significant progressive advance. In conclusion, the article suggests a different approach to aesthetic critique that is based on difference rather than wholeness, and on the principle that there is no inherent correspondence of aesthetic standards and ethics in technology design.

This article interrogates Andrew Feenberg's thesis that modern technology is in need of 're-aestheticization'. The notion that modern technology requires aesthetic critique connects his political analysis of micro-contexts of social shaping to his wider concern with civilization change. The former involves a modified constructionism, in which the motives, values and beliefs of proximal agents are understood in terms of their wider sociological significance. This remedies a widely acknowledged blind-spot of conventional constructionism, enabling Feenberg to identify democratic potential in progressive agency at the scene of technology design. Feenberg argues that the aesthetics of naturalistic modernism may serve as a bridge between such interventions and cultural transformation. Referring to developments in design culture, especially as this relates to the human-machine interface on digital artefacts, the article suggests that this part of Feenberg's argument has been falsified. This kind of aesthetic modernism is hegemonic in contemporary design and it has not brought about significant progressive advance. In conclusion, the article suggests a different approach to aesthetic critique that is based on difference rather than wholeness, and on the principle that there is no inherent correspondence of aesthetic standards and ethics in technology design.

Based on a study of 1980s UK computer and gaming magazines, this article argues that a gaming discourse emerges in the middle of the decade with the strategic goal of normalizing the activity. It succeeds – gaming spreads – but fails in that to present gaming effectively as an attractive leisure pursuit, gaming discourse has to absorb accusations of abnormality that were levelled at computer culture from the outset. Hence, 'addictive' gameplay becomes a good thing; the gamer is distinguished from the computer obsessive but is still defined as a 'freak', and gaming, having been presented as a realm of creative self-expression within the computer culture, becomes subject to the discourse of normal and correct computational practice. Gaming cannot escape the logic of its field, which determines that it will always try to be something more and better than gaming.

Computer gaming was not born sexist but was codified as an exclusively male practice as it peeled itself away from the rest of the burgeoning computer culture in the mid- 1980s. This article traces the development of gaming's gender bias through a discourse analysis of gaming magazines published in the United Kingdom between 1981 and 1995. In their early years (1981–1985), these publications present a milieu that was reflective on gender issues and concerned to include female participants. However, from 1987, the rhetorical framing of computer games, gaming and gamer performance was increasingly gender-exclusive and focused on the re-enforcement of stereotypically masculine values, albeit that much of this discourse had a humorous and ironic inflection. The article presents this as the gender-biased articulation of gaming discourse. Instead of viewing the gendering of computer games as something they inherited from previous kinds of games and activities, the article argues that the specific political economy of the gaming industry in the second half of the 1980s created specific conditions under which games and gaming were coded as exclusively masculine.