From politics of technology

to sociotechnical transitions

Celebrating Stewart Russell’s contribution to STIS

Fred Steward,

Edinburgh, 30 March 2012

Stewart Russell

joined the Technology Policy Unit in 1979.

this paper is focused mainly on his theoretical

writings of his time there until1986 – context:

the politics of technology

includes published articles & chapters,

postgraduate theses and conference

presentations

concludes with social shaping of technology

writings from late 1990s – context:

emergence of sociotechnical transitions

Stewart Russell – writings on the political shaping of technology

Autonomy, Determinism, Imperatives: a Review of Thought on the Loss

of Social Control of Technology1980

MSc dissertation, Aston University

Technology: Some myths and some Marxist alternatives

Communist University of London, New Technology Course1981

Risk Assessment as a Political Activity

2nd Conference on Science, Society and Education, Risk and Participation,

Leusden, Netherlands1982

Denial of Choice: Technological Determinism and Its Ideological Role

EASST/STSA Conference, Choice in Science and Technology, London1983

The Social Construction of Artefacts

Social Studies of Science 16(2), May, 331-346 1986

The Political Shaping of Energy Technology

PhD thesis, Aston University 1986

Social Shaping of Technology: Frameworks, Findings & Implications for

Policy

(with R.Williams) in R Williams (ed.), Concepts, Spaces and Tools: Recent

Developments in Social Shaping Research, COST-STY-98-40181983 2000

Personal

1979 - 1986 a period that I shared most

closely with him – personally, intellectually,

and politically

intense and important time for both of us

writings were all produced in specific

moments of this joint experience

our academic institution, an emerging STIS

community and a critical political constituency

Stewart’s style

a meticulous respect for the complexity and

subtlety of the ideas of those that he sought

to criticise

a visceral commitment to ‘modest theory’

extraordinarily cautious about erecting any

new personally branded edifice in academic

or political theory

not due to any anxieties about being criticised

by others – in fact, of course, he relished

such exchanges

To be celebrated

reluctance grounded in a deeper scepticism

of over confident knowledge claims

expressed some traditional academic virtues

to an extreme degree

deserve celebrating in these times of too-

hasty academic self-aggrandisement

a consequence is that much of his creative

commitment has received less visibility than it

merits.

The new politics of technology

Action and knowledge in the 1960s/70s:

The critique of technocratic modernism

1. Authority of expertise

2. Materialistic consumerism

A more democratic mode for using

knowledge in decisions

An interest in alternative technological

choices

Ideas and movements

Environmentalism, feminism, ‘radical science

movement’

Dickson: Alternative technology and the

politics of technological change1974

Elliot, Roy OU Politics of Technology

collection 1976

Endurance of socialism, marxism as the

critical alternative

Stewart’s foundational critiques

Risk assessment

‘transcending the impasse between “facts is

facts” and “anything goes” must relate current

practices to particular conflicts of interest and

power relations’ (1982)

Technological determinism

‘don’t start from technology...any theory

which takes technology as its starting point is

in danger of obscuring the human relations

behind it’ (1980)

Constructing a theory of technological

politics Dissatisfaction with mainstream sociology

and politics

Drawn to marxist approach but critical of the

prevalent technocratic determinism

Interested in plurality and experiment

Ploughed the terrain of organisational theory,

policy studies, political theory and sociology

Political shaping of technology 1986

A unified theory is questionable

theoretical tools for analysing specific

arrangements and outcomes

avoid advocacy of a technical solution

explain existing arrangements &

demonstration of the possibilities of

progressive change

technical arguments – institutional context as

mediated by situated social practice

The general project

how technology is socially shaped

different levels of abstraction

understanding the bulk of accepted

inconspicuous technology, as well as the

dynamics of its more exciting parts (public,

infrastructure

roles of technology as encountered in

individual and collective consumption, in

homes, communities, public services

Conceptual resources & challenges

Interorganisational ‘fields’ (di Maggio)

Routines, practices, contradictions (Benson)

Hegemonic projects (Gramsci)

Organisations, arenas, interactions

Issues, evaluations. Arguments

Connecting levels of analysis

A broadly Marxist approach aiming at a

structured, dynamic and historical account:

Principles and Guidelines for analysing

the political shaping of technology

1986

Process and partially autonomous levels

To view social systems as in a continuous

process of construction, maintenance and

change, even though specific institutions may

be deeply rooted and relatively stable;

To explore the connections between levels of

social structure and areas of activity as parts

of a total social formation, even though each

has partial autonomy;

Specificity and context

To stress the specificity of social

arrangements at all levels;

To explain the similarities and differences in

phenomena by relating the contexts of their

production;

Contradiction & change To acknowledge the presence of contradictions

– the more or less temporary coexistence of

incompatible or inconsistent features of various

types – throughout social systems, within and

between levels of structure and spheres of

activity, and created, recreated, transcended or

exacerbated by action

To view change as produced by these

contradictions, providing incentive, scope and

constraints for action against the existing order;

and to expect that change rather than forming a

smooth process, to be punctuated by crises

Theoretical tools for critical practice

To eschew the notion of a general theory and instead provide the theoretical tools with which specific social arrangements and phenomena can be analysed;

To see theory and praxis as fundamentally and dialectically related, with theory not only informing praxis but arising out of and therefore reflecting practical concerns, mediated through a particular context of social relations in which theorists themselves operate

General analysis of a ‘field’

Identify, locate and characterise the collective actors in the sector, trace the network of relations between them and their connections outside, and situate the sector, all with reference to a general substantive model of the whole social formation;

Trace the historical development of the sector up to and during the period in question, in terms of internal dynamics and effects of change in the wider society.

For a specific interaction Trace the historical trajectory leading the parties to

interaction, consider the interests of the parties as derived from their location and in relation to potential outcomes;

Consider how these interests are represented in objectives and policies, and trace the internal and interorganisational procedures by which they are generated;

Identify the structural elements drawn on by actors in the process of interaction, looking for economic, political and ideological components and considering the different modes of their mobilisation: in devising conscious strategies and tactics, in following accepted procedures, in acting within existing constraints, in attempting to challenge them

For an issue

Trace its origins as the manifestation of a

contradiction, its passage through institutional

arenas, the changing form and content of the

issue as a result of interactions and the

effects of the issue on the terrain.

Two core contributions

Dialectical theory of change

alternative to the rise of the ‘evolutionary’

model of change

Politics of critical practice

alternative to statism/contingency

1999 Synthesis

Social shaping project

Amsterdam workshop – emergence of

sociotechnical transitions

Priority for an inclusive policy relevant

synthesis

Different focus to the focus on differentiation

in the mid 1980s SCOT debate

The new policy agenda

Sociotechnical, situated & systemic character

of technologies

Complexity, contingency and dynamism of

innovation processes

Stability, continuity and patterning

Focus to include appropriation and use

A wider conception of relevant actors and the

terrain of transformation

Attention to culture and knowledge in

technology

Specific tools for challenge led

innovation policy Societal goal led not technology driven

System innovation

Arenas and network building

Backcasting

User led innovation

Provides a core synthesis for an urgent and

uncompleted mission

Retrieving concepts for the current

sociotechnical transitions debate 1

More theoretical diversity needed on the

dynamics of sociotechnical transitions

Dominance of Multilevel Perspective

Overreliance on ‘evolution’ as model of

change

Van de Ven ‘4 motors of change’: evolution,

teleology, lifecycle, dialectics

Retrieving concepts for the current

sociotechnical transitions debate 2

The low profile of politics in the transitions

debate

Inaccurate reflection of founding figures

New voices – Smith, Stirling, Jorgensen

Ideas from Gramscian hegemonic political

theory, an untapped resource