Texts that Influenced and was Influenced by Technology and Culture Reading

Title
Your name
Subject and Section
Professor’s name
Date
Opening an empty box is quite disappointing, and, in this article, social constructivists have opened a box but found nothing inside. Winner stated, “…although the social constructivists have opened the black box and shown a colorful array of social actors, processes, and images therein, the box they reveal is still a remarkably hollow one.” Moreover, this is a very remarkable statement from the author. Winner commended these social constructivists for the new ideas and stuff. However, he also contends that these social constructivists are competing for primacy with more traditional technological considerations, such as those made by Marx, Ellul, Heidegger, Mumford, and Illich. He argues that the social constructivists missed a significant thing in line with this. Winner also warns the people by saying, “…notice what one gives up and what one gains in choosing this intellectual path to the study of technology and human affairs.” Before we praise and adopt social constructivism, we must consider if the approach is better than the other existing approaches and if it will truly benefit us. This paper examines three texts that have influenced the article and three texts that have been influenced by it. This paper will also prove that Winner’s Upon Opening the Black Box and Finding it Empty: Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Technology prompts discussions and questions from other scholars. This paper will also prove that Winner’s ideas were used as a foundation in scholarly texts. Lastly, it will also prove that Winner’s ideas were relevant and beneficial.
To start with, Steven Woolgar argued Winner’s statement regarding the politics of technology, so the article concluded with the author’s reply to Woolgar. Woolgar’s “The turn to technology in social studies of science” has influenced the article. The author used Woolgar’s work as an example of how the constructivist orientation avoids questions that may include moral and political arguments. Winner’s argument is about the bridges built by Robert Moses. “I see this as an expression of Moses’ desire to separate different social class and racial groups in New York City. Blacks and poor tended not to have cars and would have to take buses if they wanted to get to places like Jones Beach on Long Island. Thus the height of the bridge was a political statement-inequality in built for” (Winner, 1993). Winner believes that the bridge symbolizes a political statement and symbolizes inequality. On the flip side, Woolgar believes that the bridges may be interpreted differently. The two authors imply opposing ideas. In this way, in his article, Winner tried to prove that his ideas were more precise, although he also agreed with some points made by Woolgar. He added, “…I believe it is necessary for social theorists to go beyond what positivists used to call value neutrality and what social constructivists resurrect as interpretive flexibility” (Winner, 1993). He also explained that constructivism has no solid core of moral concerns, and it does not have the will and the capacity t...