RESPONSE PAPER

April 23rd, 2014

Wellington Rafael Soares Silva
Paper no. 1

Winner, Langdon (1980): Do Artifacts Have Politics? In: Daedalus, Vol. 109, No. 1, Modern
Technology: Problem or Opportunity? (Winter, 1980), pp. 121-136.
SUMMARY
Langdon Winner discusses the social contexts of adoption of new technologies. The main question
discussed by author throughout the text is: do objects themselves have political qualities?
There are, mainly, two different current points of view on this subject. A group of thinkers
(represented by Lewis Mumford), believe that the answer to the question is Yes. Not only objects
would have politics, in his theory, but technologies throughout history would either be authoritarian
(system-centered and powerful, yet unstable) or democratic (man centered, relatively weak, but
resourceful and durable).
A different group believes that objects do not have political characteristics in themselves. The
humans who use those objects are the ones who are capable of thinking and acting politically.
Winner follows a different thinking way, in which both points of view are critically considered. The
author decides to think over questions, such as: where, in the nature of the technologies, its political
characteristics are set? Are the political and sociological consequences of the adoption of certain
technology set beforehand?
One of the most important considerations made in the text is about the thinking of Plato in the
Republic similar to the one of Frederic Engels in On Authority: a ship in the sea requires that a
strong captain in command and obedient crew. It is a necessary condition to the ship to navigate.
The same way, in the Industrial Revolution context, it is impossible for a factory to work without
someone or something that makes sure the whole process is being done properly. Thus, it is
important to notice that technology itself demands a proper political scenario in some occasions.
And, most of the times, even when not intended by the creator of such objects, there is a political
and sociological impact on the community where the devices start being used.

That said, Winner describes two categories of objects, according to the political results of their
characteristics. The first one is composed by the artifacts, which might have controlled political
consequences. The adoption of an automatic harvester, for example, could have different impacts
according to the ways that its adoption would be done. In this situation, the political consequences
could either be softened or hardened, depending on the decision of how implement a technology, or
which features should be used, etc.
The other category analyzed by Winner is the one where the technologies have inherent political
consequences. This happens, for example, with the development of new methods of producing
nuclear energy. It is required, in this case, the concentration of power to make sure that the risk of
creating nuclear weapons is controlled.
Other key moment of Winners text is the reflection upon the internal politics of technology
which concerns only the functioning of a certain technology and the politics of the whole
community. Many of the political consequences concerning determined technology refer only to
the microuniverse where it is applied, i.e. in a factory. Other consequences happen to the whole
community, i.e. the concentration of power to protect nuclear plants. Even though these two
different kinds of consequences seem to be different, they are extremely connected, since the
political views of the citizens involved in the internal politics cannot be separated from their
political views for the whole community.
The final paragraphs of the text are dedicated to clear that these models are not completely
separated. Indeed, it can happen that within a particular complex of technology [] some aspects
may be flexible in their possibilities for society, while other aspects may be (for better or worse)
completely intractable. The two varieties of interpretation I have examined here can overlap and
intersect at many positions, says Winner.
KEY CONCEPTS/EXPLANATION OF KEY TERMS
1) Technologies = In the text, it refers to smaller or larger pieces or systems of hardware of a
specific kind
2) Political characteristics = Certain aspects defined by the interaction between man and
machine, which can modify the dynamic on power either within an specific community or in
the whole society
3) Political and sociological consequences = changes in the arrangement of a group concerning
the social functions of the individual who are part of it and their relations to the authority
(that may or may not be concentrated in one person).

4) Internal politics of technology = the power dynamic between the people directly related
with the functioning of one specific piece of hardware.
5) Politics of the community = the power dynamic in a group in which new technologies are
implemented, even concerning the people who is not directly related to the new artifact.
QUESTIONS THAT COME UP WHILE READING
1) The text focuses on the point of view of the characteristics of the objects. How different
would the analysis be if it was focused on the use of the machines by humans?
2) The political forces concerning ICTs are the same as the ones used as example? If not, in
which terms is it different?
3) In the perspective of technologies made for individual use (such as Personal Computers,
Smartphones, tablets, etc), how do the concepts explained by Mr. Winner apply?