Technological Change. Clotilde Coron

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ were born, still transposed from mechanography.

       1960–1970: development of management applications

Scientific applications began to develop with the progress of numerical analysis and simulation (science, engineering, economics, etc.). At the same time, applications began to multiply in banking, insurance and finance. Cobol, a modern programming language dedicated to business applications, was created in 1959. The birth of the concept of an information system gave a global view of the company: processes and information flows.

       1975–1990: computing for all

      With the development of computers in terms of power and reliability, computers took over all social practices of research, design, manufacturing, marketing and communication. Microcomputing has enabled the wide diffusion of microprocessor-based computer components in technical systems and the creation of microcomputers. Networks allow computers to communicate and allow machines to be decentralized as close as possible to workstations.

       1990: integration into business

      Computing began to penetrate all sectors of the company: the business world became digital. In the mid-1990s, with the Internet and electronic mail, inter-individual and inter-organizational exchanges were organized via IT support. Information technology was no longer separable from other fields of human activity. Information and communication technologies began to be adopted by the majority of the population in their daily lives.

      Without departing from the anthropotechnical posture, we will avoid as much as possible a partisan posture, striving to reflect the diversity of points of view.

      I.2 Technology, a social science

      I.2.1. Three pillars

      If, as we have written, technology is the social science that takes techniques as its object, on which pillars should such knowledge be based? We can see three of them in particular.

      I.2.1.1 First pillar: the acceptance of plural points of view

      The first pillar is the acceptance of plural points of view in the way the technical object and technological change as a whole are viewed.

The same technical object can be approached from different points of view, each with its own value, which is not intrinsic, but depends on the identities and cultures of the actors who mobilize them. In the study of the object, each point of view, whether disciplinary, doctrinal or utilitarian, reveals facts and mobilizes specific methods. Let us take the example of a smartphone. It can be studied from a purely physical point of view; we are interested in its weight, the definition and size of its screen, the shock resistance of its shell, its processor and its storage capacities. From the point of view of its manufacture, it is considered as a product consisting of thousands of small components (resistors, transistors) placed between the main chips of the device that must be soldered automatically, all in a production system in which machines and operators must be integrated. From an economic point of view, as a commodity, we are concerned in particular with its price with or without an associated subscription, its value in a summation system. From the point of view of its uses, we will focus on its functions (work, play, checking emails, watching videos, using social networks), their diversity and performance, battery life, and the quality of after-sales service. From an artistic point of view, we will be curious about its more or less attractive design (plastic material, glass or metal, color), the appeal of its brand and model, etc.

      These plural points of view are obviously also reflected in the course of technological change and in the perception of the various actors: the designer of the technical object, the promoter of change, the pilot of the project or a simple user. In its simplified form, the consideration of this reality finds its expression in the duality of project manager/developer. When a product is being created, the project manager is the person or company (design office, architect, etc.) responsible for the design. They ensure the follow-up of the work and the co-ordination of the various tasks. The contracting authority is quite simply the user, the customer and the person for whom the product is intended.

      I.2.1.2 Second pillar: the contextualization of the technical object

The second pillar is based on the contextualization of the technical object, i.e. the renunciation of the simplicity of isolating the envisaged object from situations in which it plays a specific role and from the time in which it evolves. For each object’s ecosystem there is a coherent set of structures dependent on each other; this is what Bertrand Gilles (1978) called a technical system. The technical object only exists because someone has designed it; others have produced it, because there are individuals who feel the need or desire to seize it. To achieve this, it is necessary to extract raw materials, process them, transport the products at different stages of production, market the manufactured object, distribute it, allow its use (private or public) – and, increasingly pertinent given its ecological dimension, its destruction and/or recycling. All this requires multiple resources: materials, energy, money and human resources to mobilize other resources.

      I.2.1.3 Third pillar: taking into account the interaction between the human system and the technical system

      The third pillar of this anthropotechnical approach is to take into account the interaction of the human and technical systems. In this context, let us take the history of computer science as an illustration. It has several dimensions, technical, of course, but also economic and social. In this regard, it should be noted that the computer, like the Internet, was born of a convergence of scientific and military interests. Or, as Breton (1987) explained, the orientation of industrial groups towards large systems was in line with the centralized functioning of these groups. Breton showed that the birth and diffusion of the microcomputer in the 1980s owed as much to the social project of North American radicals, calling for the democratization of access to information, and to the willingness of the individual user to appropriate this technology, as to microprocessor technology.

      I.2.2. Contributions of the human and social sciences (HSS)

      The HSS cover a range of disciplines studying human reality, both individually and collectively. Technologies are one of the elements of this reality. Understanding technological change is based on this diversity, whose contributions are complementary. We will review the disciplines with the most important contributions by citing some of their classic authors and publications. We will come back to some of them in more detail later in the book.

      I.2.2.1 History

History focuses on the study of technical achievements in relation to their context of appearance. More broadly, it is interested in all historical forms of conception and insertion of technologies in human societies. It is a resource for the development of reflections on the technique of other disciplines, particularly philosophy, anthropology and sociology. Among the most eminent personalities in the history of technology are Lewis Mumford, critical author of The Myth of the Machine (1966), and Bertrand Gille (1978) who, affirming that a technology does not exist if it is not included in a system, proposed to see history as a succession of technical systems.

      I.2.2.2 Philosophy

      The philosophy of technology is the part of philosophy that is concerned with the meaning of technologies, i.e. their nature and value for humanity. Let us begin by mentioning Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels who, in their Communist Manifesto (1999 (1848)), considered СКАЧАТЬ