I really appreciate these thoughts - especially the notion that we are often asking the question "What is to be done?' as if there is some single, correct answer to this question. You point out that we tend to think of technology as an end instead of a means, or that we are often looking for some ultimate solution that will solve our problems forever. Of course it is human to think that way, as there is no end to the problems we find ourselves in. Of course we would like to think that something will stop the never ending roll of inconveniences and problems that bombard us everyday. But that's just not how troubleshooting works. Very rarely does one solution apply broadly across the board to every other circumstance. Not every solution can be cookie cutter, nor should it, unless we are willing to give up individual innovation. I am reminded of Illich's Tools for Conviviality here, as this mindset of a single solution - which can be implemented broadly - is in direct conflict with the mindset of conviviality and individual innovation.
I also appreciate what you write in here about how we approach the term "technology." What does it mean to be an expert or a critic of technology, when the definition itself has so many interpretations? What is it that we are being a critic *of* when we talk about these things? (The technology itself? The way society uses it? The way it came into being? Where it is going? What it does? What it doesn't do? It is all up to interpretation.)
One thing that was coming to mind when I was listening to this is the field of Assistive Technology. This is something I studied and is now a big part of my current job. I always thought the term "assistive technology" was confusing because most people assume it has something to do with high technology, like computers. But it does not - or not necessarily, anyway. Assistive Technology basically means anything that assists a person in being able to do something that they are not otherwise able to do. That's it. It could involve something high-tech, like a computer to help someone communicate. Or it could be an alphabet board where people point to letters to accomplish the same basic thing. It could be something that helps someone grip a spoon or fork, or put on their shoes more easily, or decodes text or images for ease of access of information.
Listening to these thoughts puts the term "assistive technology" in a different light to me. I used to think it was unnecessarily confusing for people, and therefore a lot of people misunderstand it immediately and maybe don't even explore the term any further if they are not "tech" people, assuming it does not apply to them. And that is still true. But I do appreciate the fact that the term "assistive technology" basically means "tools for conviviality" at its core. That's pretty cool to think about.
I really appreciate these thoughts - especially the notion that we are often asking the question "What is to be done?' as if there is some single, correct answer to this question. You point out that we tend to think of technology as an end instead of a means, or that we are often looking for some ultimate solution that will solve our problems forever. Of course it is human to think that way, as there is no end to the problems we find ourselves in. Of course we would like to think that something will stop the never ending roll of inconveniences and problems that bombard us everyday. But that's just not how troubleshooting works. Very rarely does one solution apply broadly across the board to every other circumstance. Not every solution can be cookie cutter, nor should it, unless we are willing to give up individual innovation. I am reminded of Illich's Tools for Conviviality here, as this mindset of a single solution - which can be implemented broadly - is in direct conflict with the mindset of conviviality and individual innovation.
I also appreciate what you write in here about how we approach the term "technology." What does it mean to be an expert or a critic of technology, when the definition itself has so many interpretations? What is it that we are being a critic *of* when we talk about these things? (The technology itself? The way society uses it? The way it came into being? Where it is going? What it does? What it doesn't do? It is all up to interpretation.)
One thing that was coming to mind when I was listening to this is the field of Assistive Technology. This is something I studied and is now a big part of my current job. I always thought the term "assistive technology" was confusing because most people assume it has something to do with high technology, like computers. But it does not - or not necessarily, anyway. Assistive Technology basically means anything that assists a person in being able to do something that they are not otherwise able to do. That's it. It could involve something high-tech, like a computer to help someone communicate. Or it could be an alphabet board where people point to letters to accomplish the same basic thing. It could be something that helps someone grip a spoon or fork, or put on their shoes more easily, or decodes text or images for ease of access of information.
Listening to these thoughts puts the term "assistive technology" in a different light to me. I used to think it was unnecessarily confusing for people, and therefore a lot of people misunderstand it immediately and maybe don't even explore the term any further if they are not "tech" people, assuming it does not apply to them. And that is still true. But I do appreciate the fact that the term "assistive technology" basically means "tools for conviviality" at its core. That's pretty cool to think about.