on the first page of chapter 2, in seeming seriousness, Bijker asks a question regarding how long it took for the world to settle on a stable, workable design for a modern bicycle, despite the composite technologies having been available for ages. "What strange detour was this from the sure path of technological progress?" (19). I raised an eyebrow at this question, not sure if the author meant to invoke all that determinism as real and meaningful. since I've finished the book, I now know (and should have known) that Bijker of course didn't. he is poking fun at the idea of any "sure path" and showing us the constructed nature not only of so-called "progress," but of long-term design processes and concrete empiricism too.
the main characters in Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs are members of relevant social groups surrounding each of three technological developments:
-from about 1860 to 1890, various bicycle-esque vehicles
-from 1880 to 1920 or so, moldable/plastic/synthetic resins like Bakelite
-and over 1930-1945, high-efficiency vs. high-intensity florescent lightbulbs
this is quite a span of industrial/not-quite-post-industrial time. through Bijker's research, we get to peek into various workshops (and a sewing factory, even) where bicycle enthusiasts tinker with new ideas, new approaches to the various social issues of bicycling. we get to follow the extravagant investments and chemical projects of Baekland the inventor. we get a closer look at the corporate dealings of lightbulb and energy companies in the early 20th century. Bijker casts a wide net of relevance, including what does seem like plenty of social and historical context for all these adventures--but I can't help wondering how he decided where to draw the line and where to cut off all the detail he surely could have included. throughout his book, Bijker is very transparent about his process and his goals for each section, but this was something he didn't make explicit. I think I wonder about it so much because if I were in his place, I would not know where to stop.
two or three World's Fairs play roles in this book as big, showy, social presentation tools where various inventions are exhibited and explained to the public. whatever happened to World's Fairs? do they still happen anymore? I did a little bit of research and discovered that they're called Universal Expositions now. maybe the term "World's Fair" got to be too quaint? maybe they're expecting interplanetary visitors any time now? I'm not sure. but the next Expo is in Milan next year. anyone want to plan a trip to Italy for 2015? nutrition, food and sustainability, all seem to be themes. I could justify all of those as research interests, couldn't I? easy.
anyway. Bijker. now that I've joined Dr. Salvo's professional writing and post-industrial Scotland class in the flesh, I'm thinking about professional writing more, noticing connections not only with this reading but with all the readings I've done so far. some potential new goals and project ideas are emerging as I go. Bijker in particular foregrounds some of the tools used to exhibit and explain new technology for the public. there are so many complicated ways this happens: business meetings, publicity stunts, marketing materials, testimonials, fairs. big showy events aren't always the most important parts, but sometimes they are. behind the scenes there are patents and licenses and contracts. plenty of paperwork and decision-making that the public doesn't see, but that supports and directs (controls?) what the public does see. I'm getting more and more interested in how these institutions and processes create witnesses vs. juries vs. customers, and how all those roles overlap.
access to information about technology and willingness to access (and then assess and evaluate or use) that information aren't the same. one of Bijker's stories includes a few notes on the actual physics of lightbulbs. for however long, the physics wasn't clear, but manufacturers made lightbulbs anyway. we didn't seem to need to know how it worked. it was a black box, like so many others, and the world and lightbulbs worked anyway. but at some point it did become known how light and light-emission worked. physicists could now explain it just wonderfully. but that knowledge wasn't necessarily important or available to everyone. it wasn't something even lightbulb manufacturers or marketers needed to know, or needed responsibility over.
but one of Bijker's overarching goals is to make way for more democratic methods of developing technology. he wants to encourage processes where more relevant social groups have more awareness and more input. this is very ambitious and ever so earnest of him. I am tempted to smirk cynically at such idealism, despite how much I do relate to wanting a better world. Bijker admits that his is a dream, and that no single suggestion will go very far toward engendering the democracy he hopes for. the larger first step seems to be thoroughly recognizing the social construction of these processes in the first place, and resisting the biases of linear progress, oversimplified causality, and the deterministic weight of "successful" technology.
it was 1997 when Bijker published this book with this dream in it. I think we've come some way in the direction he was pushing us, but I'm not totally sure. and from here... if we want responsibility and agency to be shared across as many relevant social groups as possible, that means a whole lot of unblackboxing. will it always (or even often) be worth it to spend the time and resources to un-blackbox things? (I asked similar questions last time, with King.) we seem awfully content to leave lightbulbs and electrical outlets and plenty of other common (and less benign) technology in their black boxes. I am reminded of the Danish jury from Haraway's book. (I asked similar questions about that two posts back.) we seem awfully content to leave technology to do its thing, and ascribe to it all sorts of magic. Bijker's dream means making more of that transparent. but how much transparency before it gets overwhelming? and if we try to temper the overwhelmingness, won't we just be building new black boxes?
some similar dreams and quandaries are being wrestled with by this ambitious, earnest, impressive group of people. from their Indie Tech manifesto:
"To tackle this societal problem, we must have a diverse, interdisciplinary base. We must be politically and socially active. We must avoid the pitfalls of technological determinism. We must be critical in our approach. And we must be accessible to a mainstream audience."
is Indie Tech a space where Bijker's dreams are slowly (partially?) starting to come true? I'll keep watching, and keep thinking.
No comments:
Post a Comment