Detailed Analysis of Technology and Culture Reading Influences

This report analyzes Langdon Winner's article "Upon Opening the Black Box and Finding It Empty: Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Technology." It examines the influences on Winner's work, identifying key sources such as the works of Trevor Pinch and Wiebe E. Bijker, and other articles. The report also explores the influence of Winner's article on subsequent studies, including those by Felt et al., Williams and Edge, and Sovacool and Hess. The analysis focuses on the core concepts of social construction of technology, political influence, and the broader implications for understanding the relationship between technology, society, and culture. The report highlights the diverse theoretical perspectives that have emerged from Winner's work, including Social Practice Theory and Actor-Network Theory, among others. The conclusion emphasizes the enduring significance of Winner's contributions to the field of technology and culture and the diverse interpretations of his work.

Running head: TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE
TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE
Chosen article:
Winner, L. (1993). Upon opening the black box and finding it empty: Social constructivism
and the philosophy of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 18(3), 362-378.
Introduction:
Social construction of technology refers the theory within the science and technology
studies that advocates the social constructivism philosophies. The social constructivism
argues that instead of human action influences by the technology, the human action shapes
the technological advancement. The philosophy of technology which is available in Science,
Equipment of technology, and Human Ethics, Langdon Winner's article is adjusted from an
executive exchange of ideas agreed at the argument in lieu of the Society designed for morals
and Values along with the Technology. Along with this article, this paper has taken other 6
articles into consideration. Three of those additional six articles are the literatures that
influenced the content of the chosen article and other three articles are the literatures that
have been influenced by the reading of this article. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate
the key concepts emerged from this chosen articles and the other six articles in a cohesive
format.
Articles that influenced the chosen study
The philosophy of technology, which is available in Science, Equipment of
technology, and Human Ethics, Langdon Winner's article is adjusted from an executive
exchange of ideas agreed at the argument in lieu of the Society designed for morals and
Values along with the Technology. The dialogue of the article is a prolonged analysis of
communal constructiveness in technology initiating the viewpoint of philosophy on the whole
and principles or morals in certain. The piece of the article is encouraged by the members of
the individuals of sociologists reviewing science and technology and the progression of STS

2TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE
in general. He has quoted the name of Trevor Pinch and Wiebe E. Bijker specifically. Winner
acclaims the sociological learning skills along with the study of Science for conveying
pragmatic consistency by the education of science and the earnings over and done through
which this one is produced. Even still he discusses the constructivists of the communal group
have remunerated fewer responsiveness towards technology, on the other hand he claims that
on condition a beneficial amenity in profession interested in queries which involves the
highly illogical disunions between the societal scope and the technical domain. Nevertheless
Winner also points out the fact that the collective constructivists are basically aggressive for
the importance in contradiction of additional deep-rooted thoughts of equipment similar to
those by the eminent personalities like Trevor Pinch and Wiebe E. Bijker. Winner gives a
special treatment to all the readers that they must be known about what one capitulates in
addition to what an individual achieve by selecting this scholarly track in the direction of the
learning of technology and social activities. In this article Winner claims, that the societal
implications of methodological excellent are practically missing out from its standpoint by
the additional logic which is a disapproving method. On the other hand his emphases on
"related social performers" which trimmings up disregarding the knowledge or principles of
"immaterial" crowds who are actually affected by the technology noticing that evacuating the
black boxes which will finish up covering as abundantly as it exposes. This article also
influenced by another article on the social construction namely ‘DO ARTIFACTS HAVE
POLITICS?’, which examined the provocative in controversies about technology and society
than the notion that technical things while considering political qualities. The study of
Winner (1986), highly influence the chosen literature of Winner. Winner (1986), emphasizes
the principles of the Technical Arrangements and Social Order on the Inherently Political
Technologies, that has made an upsetting method to evaluate technological varieties. The
chosen study of Winner is heavily influenced by the core concept of technological progress as

3TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE
a result of political influence as discussed by the older study of Winner ‘DO ARTIFACTS
HAVE POLITICS?’. In Winner's expression it is the operational link of interrogations among
the benefits and explanations spread to a radical standpoint that concerns the state in which it
relies and its tribulations along with the inequalities with the accuracy. Staying away from the
earlier radical surrounding of the climate change argument, researchers have strained to
illustrate that methodical or the technical exercise is created on the purpose of politically
important methods of social structure. Whereas identifying through this challenge, this article
enquiries the practices of this particular word that is ‘political’. Illustrating on supporting
introductory political theory as well as concentrating on the instance of climate refutations, it
discusses about the link between the knowledge and the dogmatic methods, which establishes
a twofold dilemma. Even though this article has maintained a unique division, concerning
with the science along with political method is unsustainable. Demonstrating the relation
between Science in political is very much impossible, due to the fixed technique of the
scientific arena, which is emblematically introduced. In the study of MacKenzie and
Wajcman (2012) various conventional statements related to science and the shaping of
technology are examined under the light of the idea ‘technological paradigm. Similar concept
has been found in the study of winner where the statements concern with the climate change,
are humanized, as per they display without coercion or techno-scientific reason which
inclines to create main political proportions of the climate emergency or disaster
imperceptible. MacKenzie and Wajcman (2012), has introduced the constructivism as well as
the connectedness in technology in order to discuss about how constructivist related
philosophies or models of studying can be used in the learning of education technology. The
key purposes of this article are to introduce a plan of certain constructivist related educational
theories and discover how they can be effectively used in education technology. As stated by
MacKenzie and Wajcman (2012), the economic shaping of technology is a true relation

4TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE
where the separation is imposable. Inspired by this critical constructivist view point, Winner
has emphasized in his article on the principles of ‘the political’ clashes of power associations
as well as the environmental transformation with the economical environment.
Articles that have been influenced by the chosen study
Some studies have been directly or indirectly influenced by the concept of
connectivism presented by Winner (1993). Influenced by the Winner, in their study Felt et al.,
(2017), clearly mentioned that it positioning the connectivism is possible to position
considering the development of constructivism to the technological developmental scenario
which can allow the usage of new technology in education while functioning though the
implementation of philosophy of education. Similarly Williams and Edge (1996), discusses
the limitations of constructivism, behaviourism and cognitivism, as the conceptualisations of
learning while avoiding to address the learning process that a person can pursue even outside
of social structure. The author mentioned this type of learning sometimes is stored and
manipulated by the technological intervention, which can easily found within a organizational
work process. In this paper, Distributed learning structure or Connectivism is portrayed as a
theory, which is more compatible for this digital age. This theory uses the examples of
situations when a person has to act without depending on the personal learning , whereas
information outside of our primary knowledge are used. Sovacool and Hess (2017), however
focused on the constructivism philosophy from a broader angle concerning Social Practice
Theory, Values Beliefs Norms Theory, Sociotechnical Transitions, Sociotechnical
Imaginaries, Social Justice Theory, Discourse Theory, Lifestyle Theory, Domestication
Theory, Sustainable Development, Large Technical Systems, Actor-Network Theory, Social
Construction of Technology, Sociology of Expectations, and the Unified Theory of
Acceptance and Use of Technology. Inspired by the conceptual paradigm of the study of
Winner, the author of this article gave some ideas of research methodology for the

5TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE
technological conceptualization followed by the in-depth interpretation of technology as well
as the associated analytical processes with technology that helps framing and communicating
the research outcomes. Subsequently a momentary overview, constructivism is referred as a
broad instructive idea, encircling numerous diverse theories of learning. This article presents
and deliberates the subsequent theories: situated understanding or learning, action theory or
dynamic process of learning, experimental way of learning, fastened education and learning,
and at last reliable learning. Connective procedure of education or distributed method of
knowledge has correspondingly been reflected, to establish for instance an inventive in
addition to significant philosophy of giving education and the process of learning. All these
philosophies are at that point prearranged in a comprehensible technique, categorized
underneath the constructivist viewpoint of learning education, along with the symptom of the
foremost resemblances and the modifications amid them.
Conclusion
From the above discussion it can be said that the concept of Social construction of
technology has been adopted by many authors, from the core political and social integration
theory presented in Winner (1993). However, along with the diverse perceptual deductions
the theoretical view has been diverged considerably. At the same time, the core concept from
which the study Winner (1993), is influenced clearly the communal constructiveness in
technology initiating the viewpoint of philosophy on the whole and principles or morals.
From the analysis it can be said that that the societal implications of methodological excellent
are practically missing out from its standpoint by the additional logic which is a disapproving
method. From this analysis the major theoretical cardinalities that have been found out are
Social Practice Theory, Values Beliefs Norms Theory, Sociotechnical Transitions,
Sociotechnical Imaginaries, Social Justice Theory, Discourse Theory , Lifestyle Theory,
Domestication Theory, Sustainable Development, Large Technical Systems, Actor-Network

6TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE
Theory, Social Construction of Technology, Sociology of Expectations, and the Unified
Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology.

7TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE
Reference
Feenberg, A. (2017). Critical theory of technology Handbook of Science and Technology
Studies . Ulrike Felt, Rayvon Fouché, Clark A. Miller, Laurel Smith-Doerr, eds., MIT
Press,, 635-663
MacKenzie, D., & Wajcman, J. (1999). Introductory essay: the social shaping of
technology. The social shaping of technology, 2, 3-27.
Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1984). The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how
the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each
other. Social studies of science, 14(3), 399-441.
Sovacool, B. K., & Hess, D. J. (2017). Ordering theories: Typologies and conceptual
frameworks for sociotechnical change. Social studies of science, 47(5), 703-750.
Williams, R., & Edge, D. (1996). The social shaping of technology. Research policy, 25(6),
865-899.
Winner, L. (1986). The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in an age of high
technology. University of Chicago Press. 6(3), 19-39
Winner, L. (1993). Upon opening the black box and finding it empty: Social constructivism
and the philosophy of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 18(3), 362-
378.