Summary Of The Whale And The Reactor

According to Langdon Winner, “Our society needs to establish forms and limits for a technological change that derive from a positively articulated idea of what society ought to be. (p.52)” With this powerful thought, Winner has presented an alternate route to evaluate the ethics of technology and practice of engineering. It is important that individuals develop technology that is compatible with the kind of society they want to build (p.52). Thus, it is significant to scrutinize three constituents of philosophy of technology namely political, social and ethical.
In The Whale and the Reactor, Winner discusses technology as a form of life. He emphasizes that the traditional view of technology is misleading; it is based on the theory of creation
and usage. It states that the creation of technology is neutral and only its user is value laden. He further defines the term technological somnambulism, which means that individuals sleepwalk through the process of reconstituting condition of human existence. In other words, technology redefines and brings significant alteration into patterns of human activity and causes reconstruction of social roles and relationship (p. 10). For example, in the 1970s, television found its new role as universal babysitter in American households and individuals wasted almost seven hours a day watching television.
Furthermore, Winner introduces the concept of technological determinism which states that technology has been predetermined by old technological foundations and it cannot be controlled by humans (p. 9). According to this principle, technology controls society and individuals have to adopt these mutations. On the contrary to this theory, social determinism of technology upholds that society in some form controls the development of technology. This theory fits well into the traditional view and it is optimistic from the point of view of society. Winner on the other hand, endorses the theory of social construction of technology; it states that society and technology are modifying each other. In fact, he advocates that society is creating reality. Moreover, Winner states that technology is always created with political, social and ethical intentions, thus, technology itself cannot be neutral. In recent times, the notion of ethics of technology is limited to environmental concerns, public safety, possible exhaustion of resources or species and possibility of social stress (p. 50). The concepts of political and social values in this regard are often ignored. For example, Goodrich Aircraft Brake Scandal, which is narrated by Vandivier, effectively illustrates Winner’s view of ‘Politics of Technology’.
In 1967, Goodrich, a major manufacturer of aircraft brakes, received an order of 202 air craft brake assemblies from LTV Aerospace Corporation. The chief engineer, Warren created a light-weighing four disk brake design that was accepted by other engineers without criticism because of his exploding temper. Later, Lawson a novice engineer, performed preliminary prototype tests and found that the brakes would fail. He drew a conclusion that the basic design of the brake was faulty. Lawson brought the issue to Warren and his manager’s attention. However, the issue was ignored because Lawson was inexperienced and the production of the brakes was already in progress. Later, the tests on brakes were performed with manipulated procedures which were contrary to the prescribed specifications. The data analyst was also instructed to adjust the technical graphs and data to comply with the requirements. The data analyst and the engineers including both Lawson and Warren refused to sign the report due to data falsification in the report. Eventually, the data analyst and Lawson ended up resigning from their posts. Later on, Goodrich Corporation was compelled to change the brake designs and manufacture new brakes.
In ‘The Constitution of Technology of Society’, Winner claims that the rational arrangement of socio-technical system has tended to form its own distinctive form of hierarchical authority (p.48).
He emphasized that the technical decisions are based on political decisions as well as profound choices about power and order. In the Goodrich case, a key reason for the corporation to move ahead with their break design was because the production of break has already begun. A change in a brake design at that stage might have cause them economic loss and inconvenience. Winner also lays an emphasis on development of technology. He argues that the new form of technology should be compatible with the kind of society we want to build. In Goodrich case, the engineers should have paid more attention on building brakes that would have been compatible with military requirements rather than adjusting data and manipulating testing procedures to meet the requirements. Additionally, the decisions were mostly taken by the hierarchical authority like Warren and Line despite Lawson’s resistance. Others like manager Van Horn were silent as they followed ‘don’t know- won’t hurt’ philosophy (p.63). This example supports argument made by Winner that the interpretation of social and political order (authority) varies and applies differently in distinct circumstances (p.39). In this case, a democratic power structure could have worked better in order to take decision to change the brake
design.
In conclusion, Winner’s claims about value of technology and practice of engineering is valid and is well supported by the Goodrich case. The traditional view of the philosophy of technology needs to be altered. Winner’s idea of politics in technology suggests that there are a number of voids in the traditional view of philosophy of technology; these are that of social, political and ethical perspective. The traditional view can be changed if the technological and ethical decision about the artifact outweighs political decision and economic advantage. At last as Winner says, it is important that individuals admit their responsibility for what they are making (p.18).