Langdon Winner

Langdon Winner begins by talking about "The Whale and the Reactor" essay in which he was overwhelmed by the contrast between the two powerful symbols in which they were in such close quarters of each other. The first of which was the power of nature while second was the power of human artiface. When he saw these two images it truely hit him that the moral and political dilemmas of technology were closer to his itellectual roots than he ever imagined. Winner was often uncomfortable with the uncritical acceptance accorded all the latest technologie sand devices. I feel the same way as Winner on a lot of issues because I often wonder if the new technologies are in fact a mixed blessing rather than gifts sent from God. I questoin whether certain things are better the way they are now much like Winner questioned the milk in the reading. I like the part where Winner talks about technologies and how they often affect not only everyday behavior but also norms and values, our self-understanding, our perception, and our ideas about space and time. As we were discussing in class on Monday we would not know how or when to end class without the technology of the watch, we wouldn't know what type of clothes to wear to school if the thermometer was never created. As Typhun mentioned in class we would not even be able to discuss anything without the English language. So many things came from technology that are necessary that we could not even begin to dig ourselves out of technology. An example that Winner uses is medical practice and the fact that technology has not only changed medical practice, but also the very definaition of medical care and human health. We are much healthier with the new vaccines that have been created, and some pills have been a goodthing, but others have just caused more damage. I think one of the best lines in the chapter in the book is "we must avoid the depths wothout direction and details without meaning. A lot of times philosophers will make a pretty good point and you question them on it and they really have nothing to go along with what they had just said. People like to make general statements without having to be held accountable for the repercussions of the statement. The prestige of technical activities has risen through the belief of progress through reason; while politics has fallen because of the things it has caused like wars and social disruption. Many times people fight when there is an idea that is thrown out there without anything behind it because people read different things into what is said. The best argument is one that has a lot of support because then the opposing person knows exactly what is being said so nothing has to be read into the statement.
Winner goes into the topic of Frankenstein and how if technology is not carefully and completely supervised, technology can lead to harmful and horrible outcomes. There is a moment in Frankenstein where Victor Frankenstein realizes that the monster has come to life and he flees in fear realizing what he has done. The reason that the horrible deeds are committed by Frankenstein are because Victor did not carefully watch over his creation. By Frankenstein Winner does not mean that technology is monstrous; but that the monster became what he is by unnurture by his creator. A great point that has to be pointed out is the fact that when a new technology is introduced people immediately take the technology and run with it without completely finishing it to see what could come of the new idea. It happens all too often that people are on to something and then they forget about trying to continue their technology because they are in such a hurry to use it. I compare this to getting a new toy that needs assembly. I mean as soon as yo get what you essentially need for the toy to function you begin playing with and you forget about putting the final touches on it. Although if you wait and finish the directions the toy would be significantly better you cannot wait and the toy ends up falling apart at an early age because it wasn't put together properly in the beginning. Winner wants to dismantle former technologies in an approach called "epistemological Luddism". Not a literal smashing, but a deconstruction of social and political conditions of technological systems. He would like to see what happens when we do without different modes of technolgy such as the automobile and television, and telephone. This would allow people to understand the way we use technology in the way of communicating with each other and the dependency that we have on technology.