TEC 154 2014S, Class 03: More Foundational Perspectives
- Note takers.
- Work to do.
- Florman, continued.
- On the schedule (so you can look ahead), but may change slightly
as we have adds and drops.
- Today: FC and AL (okay?)
- Monday: TD and DP (okay?)
- No need to re-summarize the administrivia, unless you hear something
other than what I have posted.
- Please make a summary of the main points of the day's class.
- Class question: Should the daily notes include names? Initials?
- Yes, all of the reading questions will eventually be posted.
- Remember: Goal is questions that might advance our discussion.
- I will continue to take attendance this week.
- Please say "Yes" or "Here" when I call your name.
- Please preface any comment you make in class with your name.
- Some of you have noted that these readings are dense. Feel free to start
each discussion with clarification questions. (I'll try to grab those
from your emails, but I won't always succeed.)
- I got an email that asked "What's the protocol for missed classes?"
- Email me to explain why. (I don't need a note. I trust you as
- Make sure to do the readings and send the questions, on time if
- Review the notes when you can, for your own benefit.
- Are you okay that I don't credit you for the questions, or do you want
me to put your name/initials by them?
- Extra credit:
- CS Table, Friday, noon, Day PDR: 3D printing (including body parts).
- Theatre Gigante, Friday night
- Basketball, Saturday, 1pm.
- For extra credit, email paragraph about event (I prefer some reaction
and not just summary)
- For Monday, read Whittaker chapters 1 and 2. (Distributed today.)
- For Wednesday, two other anthropological readings. (Distributed today.)
Happy 30th anniversary of the Mac!
Notes from FC
[Sam notes that these are a bit brief and need a better summary.]
Today marks the 30th Anniversary of the Mac
* Review: Goal was to break down the readings from the authors.
* Power: People don't answer when asked questions.
As a class, we defined Pool, Winner, and Marx. After defining each author's claim, we discussed the implications of their claims and what is possible with technology
Review: What does Weinberg say?
- Sadhannah: Weinberg: Generally social problems are created via technology; when referencing Mac's, how did they benefit society?
- Ty: How can you use something technological and change society?
- Emma; Our goals & intentions change with society and time.
- Ethan: What problems could be solved with the current technology we have?
- Lexy: Summarized: Weinberg asks if temporary technological fixes can
make it easier to solve social problems.
Review: What does Berry say?
- Pierce: What resources are utilized when dealing with a new technology and are these contributing to the problem of technology such as the use of rare metals, environment items, etc.
- Q: What does politics mean when we talk about Winner? When dealing
with politics, Winner was referencing the mere use of power.
- Artifacts contain political properties.
- Debate between Chi and Ty regarding what is a better example of the use of technology.
- Chi: Combines preference a particular political group. Combines
- Ty: Winner looks at three versions of the relationship between
technology and policy. We should also pay attention to the
Long Island bridges example
- Chi: Bridges are not technology. You just build them to cross
something or get from here to there.
- [Sam: Whether you want to call it technology or not, the author
calls it technology. So see what you can get from the author first.]
- And more that did not get recorded.
- Lexy resolves conflict.
- Summary: *Multiple interactions between politics/power and technology.
Those in power can choose technologies that reinforce power.
But even without planning, technologies can prioritize particular
- Danielle: There are negative consequences through technology.
- Amy: How do we fix something already broken through technology?
We discussed the differences between the three authors assigned for
today. Winner's focus was on the politics of technology. Winner mentioned
that artifacts contain political properties that ultimately benefit a
group while limiting the benefits of other's. An example provided in
this article was an engineer building bridges no more than 9 feet tall
in order to discourage public transportation and their riders (typically
working class minorities) from entering Long Island.
Pool's argument revolved around the idea that society shapes a certain
technology. The class agreed that there are negative (or in some
instances positive) consequences due to technology, but, that the idea
of constant innovation will allow new technology to solve the burden the
last technology did not fix. This idea was questioned by Amy, stating
the question, "How do we fix something already broken?" Alluding to the
school systems, she noted that they were already screwed, and that no
matter what technology is used, that will not even out the inequalities
existing in the system.
Highlights of the class
There was discussion between Chi and Ty (and other members peppered
in). The debate was about whether artifacts do in fact contain political
properties. Are the politics associated with an artifact a cause of
the technological engineering, or are they political because they are
With the constant rebuttals for each stand, Lexy finally resolved the
conflict by adding that Technology is inherently political although
sometimes it may not be seen as such.