The new civilization of postmodern age, which brings with it a new economy, new political order and a new lifestyle in the ever-accelerating flow of historical time is accompanied by our terms of radical transformation of society to overcome one-sided and narrow rational-scientific and technological world view. At present, technology, social, economics, ethics and other areas do not develop independently of each other, but their relationships grows.
It is necessary to understand the technical and social organizational creations does not exist in a vacuum, but must be adapted to the new context of complex social, cultural and environmental impacts of technological change. Major social institutions of modern societies are constantly becoming more and more technical forming a new complex mutual interactions in complex social technical systems that increase their risk of side effects and untameableness of technological change . “Good” and “bad” to offset their impacts.
The distribution of wealth is accompanied by the distribution of risks will cease, that modern man is free to choose the risks, hazards as socio-technical systems are involuntary, and often more than individual and imperceptible. The situation is also complicated due to the continued globalization of social activities, social space and mainly due to increasing global interdependence. Technology was seen in the history of mankind largely positive but ambivalence of technology in recent years has brought legitimate concerns. The contradictory nature in some cases causes that the effect is not always positive.
That negative side, any abuse or technology now afflict humanity most. However, go to the essence of the problem. That is the following. Technology itself is neither good or bad, neither beneficial or harmful. Its functioning, effects, symptoms, and ultimately its existence still depends on the person. Therefore it is necessary to note that for all of this responsibility on people. Man is the creator of art and technology and costs over a technosphere as an overarching principle. Determines objectives and purpose of art, and therefore has the opportunity to influence, but mainly change its nature and effect.
Therefore, if we want to get rid of any unwanted symptoms and effects that technology brings, we must first start with ourselves. The idiom of Co-production – The idea of STS ‘’ Co-production, at is core, is “the proposition that the ways in which we know and represent the world (both nature and society) are inseparable from the ways in which we choose to live in it. ” (Jasanoff ; 2004. ) Scientific knowledge and technology are being produced by people who usually has political motives, and generally doesn’t need to have perfect understanding.
At the same time, science and technology modify the power of the state and other institutions in critical ways. With the idea of co-production is possible to design frameworks through the analysis of social science practices and furthermore explain individual practices through scientific background and social conditions. It is crucial to understand the concept of “co-production” in the context of science and society. Co-production in this sense is the co-evolution, co-dependency, and co-production of science and society.
Importance of this understanding should be on an excellent level if we wan to study science, technology, and society because it refuses technological or social determinism that is present in other social sciences. There is the need for a brand new synthesis in and as the field of science and technologies grows. Science takes places in the society and its tight to technology and power. This may not be visible as power is always about hiding the operation , separation of concerns and relevancies. There is different type of relevancies. What is co-production ? It is about making identisites, institutions etc. But who is making them ? Is there a difference between relevancies of actors, member of societies versus analysts ? If we have this difference collapse ,what do we gain ? It is necessary to remember that technology and science is a human work. Man is one who “brought it into this world. ” Now, however, science and technology gained a position that brings man again to the ,,new world ‘’. It opens up for him new possibilities, new ways of thinking and showing how it can be all different. Technology has acquired a position almost like it is the top priority of the society.
Not for nothing is called the current period as “the technical era” . The status of science and technology is so powerful and sovereign and scary. Is this fear justified? Certainly. Yet we know the number of cases where the technology or science exploited. Not only that, we also have a fear of its negative effects on human beings, society and humanity in general. The exists ambiguous relationship in which not only science and technology changes a man , but also man changes science and technology. That wouldn’t be nothing so special.
It depends on how in particular the extent to which technology has the power to modify people. This is the greatest danger that threatens mankind from its sides. It’s almost paradoxical, given that just one technique enabled as a result at all. And it should be noted in particular that the technique is not without human technology, but only a summary of inanimate things. It is also important not to let it dominate or submit to it. This draws attention to the problem of finding the classical nature of technology in the ontological sense (ie what is the technique) to philosophical – History question: where technology goes ?
Jassanof sketches two kind of approaches :constitutive and interactional . Constitutive is simply, what we consider nature and society, and why ? In the lecture was asked a question : Which one we would choose ? :I personally would choose ,,Interactional ’’ because is not that metaphysical and its not about what things are but how we get to know about them . Its more interaction as name says – more stability more epistemological as Jasanoff says . Another important aspect is the analysis of modernity of Bruno Latour.
In the book, We have never been modern with Introducing a distinction between “nature” and “culture” as the main character of modernity, which also delimits the scope of the natural and social sciences. Latour criticizes this division. Such modernity is not achieved, because it is itself the boundaries between “natural” and “cultural” due to the linkage of nature and culture, and consequently, science and society, problematic. It is more than interesting try to go back and rethink Bruno Latours Essay : ,, We have never Been modern ‘’ or his ‘’ Critique out of steam ‘’ : via Jassanof essay.
If we would take it to seriously we could ask a question : ,, Should metapsychics replace politics ” ? Theory of Jassanof also leads to criteria which would be presumably associated with the idea of theories in physics such as ,, prediction ‘’ . One aspect of the quality of theory in STS which is sketched by jasanof is if ,, Does the theory predicts correctly or not ? That’s idea that social theories including STS should resemble those of physics. Jasanoff lead to that criteria of prediction. One can argue quite easily that there is major distinction between world of theory and world of STS.
Performativity character of theories in the sense of they become actors and what they do in the form of co-production. In terms of economics we can compare this to question: how come the world is organized as we know it in terms of financial markets etc, ? We can also see with the framework that she sketches potential law of the theory in the fact that it avoids that we are allowed to use scientific principles. Principles of separation of concerns. If we look on any random thing it firstly appears as a complex system. If we want to understand how it works how it is build we need to take it peace by peace.
If we would look on the same random thing firstly as a whole object it would be for us as a blackbox. If you would look on everything a whole ,everything would be blackbox. Separation between culture and technology is crucial . If one would write a history about something ,and he would write it in a single story which is grounded in his perspective what happened. If it would be written in one chapter or one book, who would understand it ? All these point can be related to one question : namely if the relationship of the field of STS and traditional disciplines and how that relationship is casts and on what basis .
One one hand jasanof criticizes sociology for not making the connections between various orders of existence. On the other hand she reproduces the sociology itself in a very classic mode, which discipline if not sociology has always or often offered ground synthesis of different aspects of social reality All these point can be related to one question : namely if the relationship of the field of sts and traditional disciplines and how that relationship is casts and on what absis. In one hand jasanof criticizes sociology for not making the connections between various orders of existence.
On the other hand she reproduces the sociology itself in a very classic mode, which discipline if not sociology has always or often ground synthesis of different aspects of social reality . ‘’ For the rest , research on science and technology has not sought to build systematic connections between the micro-worlds of scientific practice and the macro-categories of political and social thought. Sociology an political theory, for their part, have tended on the whole to leave science , and only slightly less so technology, out of their analytic programs – again with notable exceptions. ‘’ (Boourdie 1980 ; Habermas 1975 ; Merton 1973. I am finding : ,,Jasanoff’s States of knowledge ”; Latour’s: ,, We have never Been modern ‘’ or ‘’ Critique out of steam ” and Steve Woolgar’s ,, Does sts mean business ? ” ambivalent and highly interesting for the summary of the synthesis of the short essay and STS as a whole, because this idiom allows to do a lot of work in kind of relate do different aspects or approaches in the field to each other but on the other hand the is still kind of typical danger . These real and ambivalent implications of technological transformations have a number of social, environmental, cultural and political consequences of the by.
There is of purely technical solution, the problem is more a by a modern social forms and institutions in the global age ancillary consequences and issues dehumani-achievers. Global information culture is still less human and increasingly technical. ‘’ I think that in the ne era of the innovation in the 21st century equal attention has to be given to the social and material sources of changing the ways in which we live. Global Bodies are in the position to bring about different possibly more productive linkages between the technical ant the social. ‘’ (Jasanoff 24 September 2009)