Comments on: Bureaucracy and Conservation Don’t Mix?

By: merle

merle — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:03:13 +0000

I think that there is an interesting connection between technological optimism and technical reasoning, but that they are not identical. Technical reasoning is, as the term implies, a kind of reasoning that (at least) purports to be neutral about the 'power' of reason to solve problems, while technological optimism is not. The latter state that whatever problems we got ourselves into can be solved by developing new technology, even if new problems arise with every new technology. The belief, in a sense, is that the innovations will always be a step ahead of the problems they cause. Thus, if we don't stop innovating, we will never be caught into unsolvable problems and we will never really have to face (or suffer form) these problems. Where technological optimism cross technical reasoning in its hegemonic form is if it does not reflect on the ends for which it provides the means. Why do we develop technology? Do we think that developing technology is good in itself or do we develop it for some other ends? If so, which ends are these and are we still moving toward these ends with the kind of technology we are now developing or are we in fact regressing? Are we to a point where we develop technology just to try to solve or diminish the problems created by earlier technology? If so, is technology the right â€˜toolâ€ for achieving these ends? Those are the kind of questions, I think, a technological optimist merely technically reasoning will not be asking. The other way around, it could well be the case that technical reasoning, to become hegemonic by suppressing the reasoning about ends/value (as being, for instance, subjective, not scientific, not rigorous, not quantifiable, not relevant, etc.), needs or presupposes technological optimism. If we think that technological innovations are the key to solve all problems, then pursuing technological innovations for innovations sake can be seen is an end in itself. But even there, the reasoning misses one premise, that, for instance, a life without problem is an end in itself: life without problems is the end, technological innovations are the mean, therefore we should seek technological innovations. In other words, technological optimism can hide the need for reasoning about ends and hence promote the illusion that technical reasoning is only kind of reasoning we need, but, I think, it does remain an illusion.

By: Culture Kid

Culture Kid — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:52:01 +0000

Is the technical reasoning you outline synonymous with technological optimism? It seems technological optimism has spread its hegemonic wings from developed countries to developing, from the global North to the global South, and to transnational or global civil society institutions, as the only kind of reasoning there is to use when looking at ideas of conservation and sustainability or sustainable development. In a world of depleting non-renewable resources, technology thus becomes the means to the end, and, by extension, the end itself, to saving and encompassing the world. Over-reliance on innovation reminds me of Homer-Dixon’s cynical comment that “innovation is becoming the new sustainability.” Technical reason, as far as I understand it (and I may be missing an important piece of the puzzle here) is strongly reminiscent or essentially equal to technological determinism. Thus I wonder how Weber would respond to the ways in which his paradigm of modernity and critique of its characteristics have entered into the realm of national and international environmental policy-making. Any ideas?

By: merle

merle — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:38:35 +0000

The reference to Weber is quite interesting in this context, since Weber is also the precursor of what is now known as the critique of the technical reason. Basically, technical reason is the ability to categorize different things, to quantify them and most importantly to find the most efficient means to attain an end. The problem Weber, which was later on diagnosed in more depth by the thinkers of the Frankfurt School, is that in our societies the technical reason is more and more seen as the only kind of reasoning there is. The problem is hence not with technical reason per se, but with its hegemony. Since it reasons within a means-ends framework without reasoning about ends (aside as being themselves means toward something else), it tends to take its own efficiency as an end in itself. It therefore strives toward more efficiency for more efficiency, without ever asking itself where it is going, what is efficiency for. Against a purely bureaucratic process managing this striving toward efficiency, one might wonder where the discussion about “ends” (or values?) will take place and how it can compete with a global system aiming at efficiency for efficiency, growth for growth, etc.?