“Behind every machine is a face.” (Kranzberg) History about humans has been dated back ever since man can remember, but why hasn't it always included science and technology? Even the small amount of research of science and technology did not appear in our history until the 18th century. This is of interest to me because it depicts what was of importance to the general public during that time period. During that time period the general public was interested in literature and romance; science and technology was very far from that. They did not focus on science and technology possibly because they believed there was no future for it to come. This I believe is because it depends on the importance of a subject matter in the context that it is being introduced. Who then ultimately decides whether it will be included or erased from history? “What counted was the latest discovery; nothing useful could be gained from a study of science which had already been superseded.” It was the idea of, why study something that has already be done, thats wasting time. It is as though everything new has to prove itself to society before it can even be thought of as something legitimate. Throughout “Science-Technology-Society: It's as Simple as XYZ!,"Kranzberg spoke on how technology is a "prime factor in shaping our values, institutions, and other elements of society." For example, if our government officials were to use the same frame of mind about not looking at history, then there would be no improvements in our government. The same problems would occur over and over again because we refused to think history as an important entity to our future. By not looking at the progression of something, it hinders the ability for improvement.
Who decides when something is relevant enough to included in history? That is where science and technology fell through the cracks. Science innovated ideas that were so beyond what was typical that it could have been hard for society to even fathom for such ideas to be true. Because of such large ideas science and technology presented, they pushed the limits of what is “normal” or and how we distinguish what is “normal.” Science and technology have in a way teamed up together as if they were the two underdogs that decided to push the limits to come out on top. Science and technology have both allowed countries that were once considered to have low expectation such as China, to rise to their full potential and become a leader of the pack. Much like how technology can be shaped by individuals on the purpose that it needs to be used, the ways in which engineering has been trained is different to each area in the world. For example, the deciding factor of whether you are a trained engineer in Britain is based on the experience in the work place. Compared to the United States who considers trained engineers to have degrees and accreditation. This makes me question whether our level of engineering in the United States is equal/below/above engineering in other countries. Individuals in the class spoke about how engineering in the world is very similar in the way that they use the same math and arithmetic. But I question this idea because if every country has different qualifications as to what an engineer is, then that would not make them homogenous in the qualifications to become an engineer. It would make each country diverse in the teachings and understanding of what an engineer does. This causes competition between countries when it comes down to who can make the better product.
I believe that the diversity of what it means to be an engineer causes the engineering field to constantly re-innovate products that consequently aid society. For example, once we buy that new iPhone on sale, we all know that Apple is already in the lab making a new version. This is a modern day example of what happened in Britain at the Paris Exhibition of 1867. In "Making the Modern World: Inventing Engineering,” it was stated that, “influential people began to argue Britain’s position as the principal industrialized nation would become unsustainable if she did nothing to improve the technical education of her people.” With that said, all engineering companies know that in order to stay afloat in this economy, innovation of technology, science, and education are key for engineers. Will these innovations continue to help society or will they hurt our environment and harm our health? It seems as though the public does not control that answer, only engineers and industries can decide.
I think that you are really onto something here. I like that you use critical analysis to critique the pieces we read for class, yet you also offer new questions to think about that I have also been intrigued in. The first is, why was science and technology not studied back in the 18th century? I agree that this is a very thought-provoking question and it is an interesting idea to probe. I would like to add more to this though because yes the study of science and technology was not in place yet but that does not mean that science and technology wasn't of interest to society at the time. Science and technology was of interest to the people however they were stuck thinking about science/tech based on a linear model of progression created under a patriarchal framework. It is not until more recently that researchers have started to look at science/tech from a more ethnic studies perspective, which has offered new insight to the field. I think it is so interesting to examine what our society considers "good" and/or "productive" technology and why it is labeled this way. By looking at history we are better able to understand why science/technology may be labeled good or bad and how this is a social construction.
ReplyDelete