A sociotechnical future
This is a class comment for HSD 504 “Intro to sociotechnical systems” with Dr. Jameson Wetmore that I elaborate for the last class. We read Do not despair: there is life after constructivism (Bijker, 1993), Reproductive ectogenesis: The third era of human reproduction and some moral consequences (Welin, 2004) and Insurance as a key element in risky socio-technical systems (Johnson, 2016) as the basis for this last class conversation. In some way, this comment represents what I personally see as challenges in the technology studies realm in late 2010s.
The topic of the class is “the future of technology studies”. And I have mixed feelings about this title and the readings. In one side, I think that the selection illustrates a state of the art in the field, showing the past contributions and the new challenges, but also, makes me question What is missing?.
I feel that technology studies are not dealing with the complex ecosystem that different technological framings have been produced over the years. Also, in some moments even overlap previous ideas that are the same concept in another field. In some way, I have the sensation that we speak in circles when we talk about technological systems.
The paper of Bijker, in particular, is highly illustrative of this, because summarize his main contributions until that moment (1993), and also propose some questions. In other hands, the most modern piece of the collection proposes to analyze insurance as a key element of maintenance, both concepts that have a lot of analytical value themselves, but I felt barely grounded in our last week conversation about risks and failure. In some way, technology studies are still haunted by deterministic views, making me think about how well are we dealing with complexity in our models, training, and study-cases.
I think that the future of sociotechnical studies needs to overcome the “complexity plateau” that currently has. There is another piece similar to Do not despair, but from the ANT part, calling On recalling ANT (Latour, 1999), who disarm each element of Actor-network theory (even the hyphen), to propose an agenda of research in practice. The same proposal that Bijker makes in 1993 paper.
Theories of sociotechnical systems are ways to dissect the complexity on them, but at the same time, is when you´re learning to repair something, first you have a mess with all the pieces, but then you need to rebuild. This is the structure of feeling of current technology studies in my point of view, we need not only have tools for de-construction of those systems, but also for re-constitute the complexity in our analysis in more care-ful, meaning-ful and use-ful ways. A strategy in oscillation which empowers the hybrid society-technology, which is exemplary reveal in cases as the concept of reproductive ectogenesis makes for human reproduction.
For me, there is a series of steps to reconsider before continuing the collection of hi/stories which characterize the tradition of critical technology studies. First is a truly interdisciplinarian convergence from the trends which compound this concerns for the artificial, Second, a reassertion of the concept of technology (in general) which allows updating the unit of analysis (as Bijker propose) and the methods to explore it. Third, the detection of new urgent research agendas, that is globally inclusive and relevant, in times that academia needs to reassert its own privilege and revalidate the public intellectuals in a confronted world. I consider those steps elements for a re-constitution of the ways of knowing technology, as well the relevance of the problems of sociotechnical in every day, not as a footnote in natural and social studies, if not as a central element in human experience which is needed to pick attention on most of the academic problems.
Finally, I recognize that as an international Ph.D. student in the U.S. “I´m nobody” to propose large changes in an installed field, but for the same reason, I follow the example of the scholars that we read during this semester, to try to reivindicate the current and urgent “missing masses” in our tradition about sociotechnical studies.
