¿Cómo y por qué es importante la tecnología?

Wiebe E. Bijker

doi:10.48160/18517072re21.429

Autores/as

Wiebe E. Bijker Profesor en la Universidad de Maastricht

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.48160/18517072re21.429

Palabras clave:

constructivismo, tecnología, cambio tecnológico, política y tecnología

Resumen

La tecnología es importante para la elaboración de políticas y para los políticos, y debería por tanto, importarle a quienes realizan estudios políticos. En este artículo, argumentaré por qué esto es así, y qué consecuencias podría tener para los estudios políticos.

El argumento central en este artículo será que ni la tecnología ni la política pueden ser definidas de manera simple y nítida: ambas pueden ser cosas muy distintas en diferentes contextos. Más aun, sus “definiciones” son interdependientes: la tecnología y la política se constituyen mutuamente en un grado importante. La implicación de este argumento es que las respuestas a las preguntas sobre “cómo” y “por qué” la tecnología influye sobre la política están estrechamente conectadas; y que estas respuestas también están vinculadas con el modo en que se responde la pregunta sobre la influencia de la política en la tecnología. Sólo tiene sentido discutir la relación entre tecnología y política de un modo contextual, relacionándolas en circunstancias específicas.

Citas

Abbate, J. (1999), Inventing the Internet, Cambridge, MIT Press.

Aibar, E. y Bijker, W. E. (1997), “Constructing a city: The Cerdà Plan for the extension of Barcelona”, Science, Technology & Human Values, vol. 22, N° 1, pp. 3-30.

Alder, K. (1997), Engineering the Revolution: arms and Enlightenment in France, 1763-1815, Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Asselt, M.B.A.v. (2000), Perspectives on Uncertainty and Risk. The PRIMA Approach to Decision Support, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Bal, R., Bijker, W. E., y Hendriks, R. (2002), Paradox van wetenschappelijk gezag. Over de maatschappelijke invloed van adviezen van de Gezondheidsraad, 1985- 2001, La Haya, Gezondheidsraad.

Bal, R., y Halffman, W. (eds.) (1998), The Politics of Chemical Risk: Scenarios for a regulatory future, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Barber, B. R. (1990 [1984]), Strong Democracy. Participatory Politics for a New Age, Berkeley, University of California Press.

Beck, U. (1986), Risikogesellschaft: Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp Verlag.

Beck, U. (1992), Risk society: towards a new modernity, Londres, SAGE.

Beck, U. (1993), Die Erfindung des Politischen. Zu einer Theorie reflexiver Modernisierung, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp Verlag.

Beck, U. (1997), The Reinvention of Politics: Rethinking Modernity in the Global Social Order, Cambridge, Polity Press.

Bijker, W. E. (1995), Of Bicycles, Bakelites and Bulbs. Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change, Inside Technology, Cambridge, MIT Press.

Bijker, W. E. (1997), “Demokratisierung der Technik-Wer sind die Experten?”, en Kerner, M. (ed.), Aufstand der Laien. Expertentum und Demokratie in der technisierten Welt, Aachen, Thouet Verlag, pp. 133-155.

Bijker, W. E. (2002), “The Oosterschelde storm surge barrier. A test case for dutch water technology, management, and politics”, Technology & Culture, vol. 43, N° 3, pp. 569- 584.

Bijker, W. E., y Bijsterveld, K. (2000), “Women walking through plans-Technology, democracy and gender identity”, Technology & Culture, vol. 41, N° 3, pp.485- 515.

Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., y Pinch, T. (eds.) (1987), The Social Construction of Technological Systems. New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, Cambridge, MIT Press.

Bijker, W. E., y Law, J. (eds.) (1992), Shaping Technology / Building Society. Studies in Sociotechnical Change, Cambridge, MIT Press.

Bimber, B. (1996), The Politics of Expertise in Congress. The Rise and Fall of the Office of Technology Assessment, Albany, State University of New York Press.

Bimber, B. A. (2003), Information and American democracy: technology in the evolution of political power, Communication, society, and politics, Cambridge (GB) y Nueva York, Cambridge University Press.

Bowker, G. C., y Star, S. L. (1999), Sorting Things Out. Classification and its Consequences, Cambridge, MIT Press.

Branscomb, L. M. (2001), “Technological innovation”, en N. Smelser, N, y Baltes, P. B. (eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Amsterdam, Elsevier, pp. 15498-15502.

Branscomb, L. M. (ed.) (1993), Empowering Technology. Implementing a U.S. Strategy, Cambridge, MIT Press.

Collingridge, D. (1980), The Social Control of Technology, Londres, Frances Pinter.

Collins, H. M. (1985), Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice, Londres, SAGE.

Collins, H. M., y Evans, R. (2002), “The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience”, Social Studies of Science, vol. 32, N° 2, pp. 235-296.

Collins, H. M., y Pinch, T. J. (1998), The Golem: What You Should Know About Science, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2a edición.

Cowan, R. S. (1983), More Work for Mother: The Ironies of Household Technology from the Open Hearth to the Microwave, Nueva York, Basic Books.

David, P. (1985), “Clio and the economics of QWERTY”, American Economic Review, vol. 75, N° 2, pp. 332-337.

Dewey, J. (1991 [1927]), The public and its problems, Athens, Swallow Press.

Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Nelson, R., Silverberg, G., y Soete, L., (eds.) (1988), Technical Change and Economic Theory, Londres, Pinter Publishers, 2a edición.

Dunlavy, C. A. (1994), Politics and Industrialization. Early railroads in the United States and Prussia, Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Eden, L. (2004), Whole World on Fire. Organizations, Knowledge, & Nuclear Weapons Devastation, Ithaca, Cornell University Press.

Edwards, P. N. (1996), The Closed World. Computers and the politics of discourse in cold war America, Cambridge, MIT Press.

EEA. (2001), Late Lessons from Early Warnings: The Precautionary Principle 1896- 2000, Copenhague, European Environment Agency.

Elzinga, A. (2004), “Metaphors, Models and Reification in Science and Technology Policy Discourse”, Science as Culture, vol. 13, N° 1, pp. 105-121.

Epstein, S. (1996), Impure Science. AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge, Berkeley, University of California Press.

Ezrahi, Y. (1995), “Technology and the civil epistemology of democracy”, en Feenberg, A. y Hannay, A.(eds.), Technology and the Politics of Knowledge, Bloomington e Indianapolis, Indiana University Press, pp. 159-171.

Feenberg, A. (1995), “Subversive rationalization. Technology, power, and democracy”, en Feenberg, A. y Hannay, A. (eds.), Technology and the Politics of Knowledge, Bloomington e Indianapolis, Indiana University Press, pp. 3-24.

Feenberg, A. (2001), “Looking backward, looking forward: Reflections on the twentieth century”, Hitotsubashi Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 33, N° 1, pp. 135-142.

Fijnaut, C., y Marx, G. T. (1995), Undercover: police surveillance in comparative perspective, La Haya y Boston, Kluwer Law International.

Freeman, C., y Soete, L. (1997), The economics of industrial innovation, Cambridge, MIT Press, 3a edición.

Funtowicz, S. y Ravetz, J. (1989), “Managing the uncertainties of statistical information”, en Brown, J. (ed.), Environmental Threats: Perception, Analysis and Management, Londres y Nueva York, Belhaven Press, pp. 95-117.

Funtowicz, S. y Ravetz, J. (2001), “Post-Normal science. Science and governance under conditions of complexity”, en Decker, M. (ed.), Interdisciplinarity in Technology Assessment. Implementation and its Chances and Limits, Berlin, primavera, pp. 15-24.

Gerrard, M. B. (1994), Whose backyard, whose risk: Fear and fairness in toxic and nuclear waste siting, Cambridge, MIT Press.

Gieryn, T. F. (1983), “Boundary work and the demarcation of science from non science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists”, American Sociological Review, vol. 48, N° 6, pp. 781-795.

Gieryn, T. F. (1999), Cultural Boundaries of Science. Credibility on the line, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

Golding, D. (2001), “Precautionary principle”. en N. Smelser, N, y Baltes, P. B. (eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Amsterdam, Elsevier, pp. 11961-11963.

Gomart, E. y Hajer, M. A. (2003), “Is that politics? For an inquiry into forms in contemporaneous politics”, en B. Joerges y H. Nowotny (eds.), Social Studies of Science and Technology. Looking back ahead, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 33-61.

Gottweis, H. (1998), Governing Molecules. The Discursive Politics of Genetic Engineering in Europe and the United States, Cambridge, MIT Press.

Graham, L. S. (2001), “Political modernization: Development of the concept, en N. Smelser, N, y Baltes, P. B. (eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Amsterdam, Elsevier, pp. 9963-9965.

Guston, D. (2000), Between Politics and Science: Assuring the Productivity and Integrity of Research, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Guston, D. H. (2001), “Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science”, Science, Technology & Human Values, vol. 26, N° 4, pp. 399-500.

Guston, D. H. y Keniston, K. (eds.) (1994), The Fragile Contract. University Science and the Federal Government, Cambridge y Londres, MIT Press.

Hacker, K.L. y Van Dijk, J. (eds.) (2000), Digital democracy: issues of theory and practice, Londres y Thousand Oaks, SAGE.

Hagen, M. (2000), “Digital democracy and political systems”, en Hacker, K. L. y Van Dijk, J. (eds.), Digital democracy: issues of theory and practice, Londres y Thousand Oaks, SAGE, pp. 54-69

Hague, B. N. y Loader, B. (1999), Digital democracy: discourse and decision making in the Information Age, Londres y Nueva York, Routledge.

Halffman, W. (2002), Boundaries of Regulatory Science. Eco/toxicology and aquatic hazards of chemicals in the US, England, and the Netherlands, 1970-1995, Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.

Hecht, G. (1998), The Radiance of France. Nuclear Power and National Identity after World War II, Cambridge, MIT Press.

Held, D. (1996), Models of Democracy, Cambridge, Polity Press, 2a edición.

Hilgartner, S. (2000), Science on stage: expert advice as public drama, Writing science, Stanford, Stanford University Press.

Hommels, A. M. (en prensa), Unbuilding Cities. Obduracy in Urban Sociotechnical Change, Cambridge, MIT Press.

Hughes, A. C. y Hughes, T. P. (eds.) (2000), Systems, Experts, and Computers. The Systems Aproach in Management and Engineering, World War II and After, Cambridge, MIT Press.

Hughes, T. P. (1983), Networks of Power. Electrification in Western Society, 1880- 1930, Baltimore y Londres, The John Hopkins University Press.

Hughes, T. P., Hughes, A. C., Allen, M. T., y Hecht, G. (2001), Technologies of power: essays in honor of Thomas Parke Hughes and Agatha Chipley Hughes, Cambridge, MIT Press.

Inglehart, R. (2001), “Sociological theories of modernization, en N. Smelser, N, y Baltes, P.B. (eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Amsterdam, Elsevier, pp. 9965-9971.

Jasanoff, S. (1990), The Fifth Branch. Science Advisers as Policymaker, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

Jasanoff, S. (ed.) (2004), States of knowledge: the co-production of science and social order, International library of sociology, Nueva York, Routledge.

Klinke, A. y Renn, O. (2002), “A new approach to risk evaluation and management: Risk-based, precautionn based, and discourse-based strategies”, Risk Analysis, vol. 22, N° 6, pp. 1071-1094.

Lyon, D. (2003), “Surveillance technology and surveillance society”, en Misa, T. J., Brey, P. y Feenberg, A. (eds.), Modernity and Technology, Cambridge, MIT Press, pp. 161-183.

MacKenzie, D. (1990), Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance, Inside Technology, Cambridge, MIT Press.

MacKenzie, D., y Wajcman, J. (eds.) (1999), The Social Shaping of Technology, Buckingham, Open University Press, 2a edición.

Mathews, J. (1989), Age of Democracy. The Politics of Post-Fordism, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Mayntz, R., y Hughes, T. (eds.) (1988), The Development of Large Technical Systems. Boulder, Westview Press.

Miettinen, R. (2002), National Innovation System. Scientific Concept or Political Rhetoric, Helsinki, Edita Publishers.

Naciones Unidas (1992), Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Nueva York, Naciones Unidas.

Nelkin, D. (ed.) (1979), Controversy: Politics of Technical Decisions, Beverly Hills, SAGE.

Nelkin, D. y Brown, M.S. (1984), Workers ar Risk. Voices from the Workplace, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

Nelkin, D. y Pollak, M. (1979), “Public participation in technological decisions: Reality or grand illusion?”, Technology Review, vol. 81, N° 8, pp. 55-64.

Nelson, R. R. (ed.) (1993), National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis, Nueva York, Oxford University Press.

Nowotny, H., Scott, P. y Gibbons, M. (2001), Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty, Cambridge, Blackwell/Polity Press.

O”Riordan, T. y Jordan, A. (1995), “The precautionary principle in contemporary environmental politics”, Environmental Values, vol. 4, N° 3, pp. 191-212.

Ogburn, W. F., Adams, J. y Gilfillan, S. C. (1946), The social effects of aviation, Boston y Nueva York, Houghton Mifflin Company.

Oudshoorn, N. (2003), The male pill: a biography of a technology in the making, Durham, Duke University Press.

Piller, C. (1991), The Fail-Safe Society: Community Defiance and the End of American Technological Optimism, Berkeley, University of California Press.

Rip, A., Misa, T. J. y Schot, J. (eds.) (1995), Managing Technology in Society. The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment, Londres, Pinter Publishers.

Rosa, E. A. y Freudenburg, W. R. (2001), “Sociological study of risk”, en Smelser, N. y Baltes, P. B. (eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Amsterdam, Elsevier, pp. 13356-13360.

Rosenberg, N. y Birdzell, L. E. (1986), How the West grew rich: the economic transformation of the industrial world, Nueva York, Basic Books.

Sclove, R. E. (1995), Democracy and Technology, Nueva York, The Guilford Press. Smit, W. A. (en prensa), “Military technology and its effects”, en Goodin, R. y Tilly, C. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Summerton, J. (ed.) (1994), Changing Large Technical Systems, Boulder, Westview Press.

Tsagarousianou, R. (1998), “Electronic democracy and the public sphere. Opportunities and challenges”, en Tsagarousianou, R., Tambini, D. y Bryan, C. (eds.) (1998), Cyberdemocracy: Technology, cities, and civic networks, Londres/Nueva York, Routledge, pp. 167-178.

Tsagarousianou, R., Tambini, D. y Bryan, C. (eds.) (1998), Cyberdemocracy: Technology, cities, and civic networks, Londres y Nueva York, Routledge.

Van Dijk, J. (2000), “Models of democracy and concepts of communication”, en Hacker, K. L. y Van Dijk, J. (eds.), Digital democracy: issues of theory and practice, Londres y Thousand Oaks, SAGE, pp. 30-53.

Wajcman, J. (2004), TechnoFeminism, Cambridge (GB), Polity Press.

Wajcman, J. (en prensa), “Gender politics of technology”, en Goodin, R. y Tilly, C. (eds.) Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Winner, L. (1977), Autonomous Technology: Technics-Out-of-Control as a Theme in Political Thought, Cambridge, MIT Press.

Winner, L. (1980), “Do artifacts have politics?”, Daedalus, vol. 109, N° 1, pp. 121-136.

Winner, L. (1986), The Whale and the Reactor. A Search for the Limits in an Age of High Technology, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Winner, L. (1992), “Uncertainty and environmental learning. Reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm”, Global Environmental Change, vol. 2, N° 2, pp. 111-127.

Yearley, S. (2001), “Sociology and politics of risk”, en N. Smelser, N. y Baltes, P. B. (eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Amsterdam, Elsevier, pp. 13360-13364.