Pfaff en Berger

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/10/2019 Pfaff en Berger

    1/18

    Fetishised Objects and Humanised Nature: Towards an Anthropology of Technology

    Author(s): Bryan PfaffenbergerSource: Man, New Series, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Jun., 1988), pp. 236-252Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and IrelandStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2802804.

    Accessed: 12/09/2011 09:22

    Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

    JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

    content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

    of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

    Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Irelandis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

    and extend access toMan.

    http://www.jstor.org

    http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=raihttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2802804?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2802804?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rai
  • 8/10/2019 Pfaff en Berger

    2/18

    FETISHISED OBJECTS AND HUMANISED NATURE:

    TOWARDS AN ANTHROPOLOGY OF TECHNOLOGY

    BRYAN PFAFFENBERGER

    UniversityfVirginia

    The conceptftechnologyecomesseful nlywhen ts acit reconceptionsreunpacked.

    Linkedwith

    he

    erm

    n

    Western

    iscourse

    re two

    poles

    of

    mythichinking:echnological

    determinismnd echnologicalomnambulism.he formerepicts echnologys the ause f

    social ormations;he atter enies causal ink. oth, owever, isguisehe ocial hoices nd

    social elationshat igurenany echnologicalystem. o counteruchnotions,echnology

    s

    redefined ere

    as a

    total

    ocial

    phenomenon

    n

    the

    sense used

    by Mauss;

    it

    is

    simultaneously

    material,ocial nd ymbolic.o createnduse technology,hen,isohumaniseature;t

    s

    to

    express

    social

    ision,

    reate

    powerfulymbol

    nd

    ngage

    urselves

    n

    form f

    ife.

    he

    tudy

    of echnology,herefore,

    s

    well uited

    o

    the

    nterpretive

    ools f

    ymbolicnthropology.

    his

    pointS llustratedn

    brief

    nalysis

    f

    ri

    anka's

    rrigation-basedolonisation

    chemes.

    The studyof technology,

    Marx

    wrote, s of paramount mportance or the

    human

    ciences: t

    disclosesman's mode of dealingwithnature,

    he

    processby

    which

    he

    sustains is

    ife'

    Marx 1938).

    Few

    anthropologists

    ould

    dispute

    his

    view. Yet social

    and

    cultural

    nthropologistsarely

    urn hefullforce

    f

    their

    theoretical

    oolson the

    ubject.That,

    wish to

    argue,

    s

    a

    pity,

    ince he

    unique

    field

    methods

    nd holistic

    rientation

    f

    anthropology

    ituate hefield dvan-

    tageously

    or he

    tudy

    f

    technology.

    Social

    and

    cultural

    nthropologists,

    o

    be

    sure,

    have made valuable contri-

    butions o the

    study

    f

    subsistence nd

    extractive

    trategies

    uch as

    irrigation

    (Beardsley

    964;

    Downing & Gibson

    974;

    Geertz

    1972;

    Gray

    973;

    Hunt&

    Hunt

    1976;

    Leach

    I959),

    fishingAcheson 98I), mining Godoy

    I985;J.

    Nash

    1979; Taussig 980), industryHolzberg&

    Giovannini

    98I),

    and the

    mpact f

    technological hange especially ndustrialisation)

    n

    traditional

    ocieties

    e.g.

    Bodley 982;

    Mitchell

    973;

    Nash

    I967;

    Pelto

    973;

    Sharp 952;

    Wallace

    1978).

    Without

    elittling

    he ontributionshese tudies

    ave

    made,however,

    ne

    can

    observe

    n

    mostof them curious

    versight. echnology

    s

    onlyrarely

    een

    n

    these tudies s

    a

    subject

    hat s

    itselfntrinsically

    f

    nterest. n the

    contrary,

    anthropologistsrequentlyquatetechnology

    ithmaterial ulture

    nd

    see

    t as

    a

    given. Technology

    s

    portrayed

    s

    something undamentally

    xtraneous o

    human ife

    nd

    a force o which

    ommunitiesnd

    beliefs re

    obliged

    to

    adapt.

    n

    the

    nthropology

    f

    mining,

    or

    xample,

    here s

    an

    evident lack of

    nterest

    n

    theproductive rocessand workplace tself',which

    n a

    book-lengthmono-

    graph n miningmaybe treatedna 'page or two' (Godoy 985: 21 ). One can

    Man

    N

    S

    ) 23, 236-252

  • 8/10/2019 Pfaff en Berger

    3/18

    BRYAN PFAFFENBERGER 237

    onlyconclude hat, n the yesofmost nthropologists,echnologyies

    beyond

    thebounds

    of

    disciplinarynterest.

    The lackof nterestntechnologys pairedwith nequallymarked nattention

    to the

    erm's

    efinition.

    n

    the

    , 25 5 pagesofHonigmann's

    Handbook

    f

    ocial

    nd

    cultural

    nthropology,

    or

    nstance,

    he term s

    used, peripherallynd

    without

    definition,

    n

    only

    ix

    pages.

    A

    computer

    earch f

    Sociological

    bstracts

    evealed

    that,of the8,355 articles etrieved y

    a free-textearch

    for

    nthropologynd

    cognate terms,only thirty-eight

    ontainedthe word

    'technology'

    n

    their

    abstracts r subjectdescriptors nd onlyfour ontained t

    n

    their

    itles;none

    defined he

    erm.

    The inattentiono definitions surprising,o say the east,

    n

    a discipline

    concerned

    with cross-cultural ranslation nd

    the

    critique

    of

    ethnocentric

    constructs. ndherewehavea term hat tands, rguably, t thevery entre f

    whatWesterners

    and Westernisedeople)

    tend

    o celebrate boutthemselves.t

    would be surprising

    ndeed

    f

    t were not suffused

    hroughout

    ith

    whatMills

    (i963: 435) called

    the

    ethnocentricitiesf meaning'.

    The first

    tep towards

    n

    anthropology

    f

    technology, hen,

    s to

    unpack

    the

    cultural

    aggage

    or

    pre-

    understandings

    hat re

    tacitly aired

    with

    the term

    echnology. aking

    this

    step, as will

    be

    seen,

    illuminates he

    unreliability

    f the

    culturally-supplied

    Western otion

    f

    technology nd,

    n

    addition,

    mandates he erm's

    edefinition

    foruse

    by anthropologists.

    t also

    demonstrates hy technology

    s

    in

    itself

    subject f nterestosymbolic nd nterpretiventhropology.

    TechnologyndWesterndeology

    Textbook definitionsf

    technology aise erious oubts bout the erm's tility

    in

    anthropologicaliscourse. echnologysfrequentlyefined, ornstance,s

    the sum totalof man's rational'

    nd

    efficacious'

    ways

    of

    enhancing

    control

    over nature'

    alternatives:

    command

    over

    nature',

    domination ver

    nature',

    etc.); e.g., technology

    s

    'any

    tool

    or

    technique, ny physical quipment

    or

    method

    of

    doing

    or

    making,bywhich

    human

    capabilitys extended' Schon

    I

    967).

    The historian ynnWhite I967) notes the mplicit inkage between such

    definitions

    nd

    the roots of

    Christian

    metaphysics,

    which

    dictate

    human

    domination

    f thenatural

    world.

    According

    o

    White,

    his

    radition

    as ed the

    West o the hreshold fa serious nd

    self-destructive

    cological

    risis.

    Whether

    or

    not

    one

    agrees

    with

    White's

    analysis

    of the

    origins

    of this

    inherently

    ideologicalnotion

    f

    technology,

    e

    supplies ufficient

    eason

    o treat heterm

    with

    suspicion.

    At the

    minimum,

    t must be

    recognised

    hat he

    concept

    of

    technology

    s normative.

    Yet even greater erilsawait beneath he surface.The culturally-supplied

    notion

    of

    technology' arrieswith t two tacitmeanings, wo implicit nd

    mythic

    iews oftheworld

    n

    relation o

    technology,

    hat

    rofoundly

    ffect ow

    we

    understand

    echnology

    nd

    how we view ts

    relationship

    o our ives.

    As

    will

    be

    seen,

    hese wo tacit

    meanings

    tand

    n

    apparent

    ontradiction

    o one another.

    Yet underlying

    hem

    s a deeplyhidden nity.

  • 8/10/2019 Pfaff en Berger

    4/18

    238 BRYAN PFAFFENBERGER

    Technologicalomnambulism

    The first fthese acit otions scalled echnologicalomnambulismy thepolitical

    scientist angdon

    Winner

    I986).

    In the

    somnambulistic iew

    of

    technology

    providedby Western ulture, he humanrelationshipo

    technology s simply

    'too

    obvious

    to merit erious

    reflection'.

    his

    relationship

    onsistsmerely f

    'making',

    which

    s of nterest

    nly

    o

    engineers ndtechnicians,nd use',

    which

    amounts nly to

    an

    occasional, nnocuous, and]

    nonstructuringccurrence'.

    Use isunderstoodo be a straightforwardatter: ou pick

    up

    a

    tool, use t,and

    put

    t

    down. The meaning

    f

    theuse

    of

    technologys,

    in

    thismistaken iew,

    'nothingmore complicated han n occasional, imited,

    nd nonproblematic

    interaction'5-6). In thisview, technologys morally ndethicallyneutral'. t

    is neither ood norbad, and ts impact'depends n how it s used.

    What

    is

    wrong

    with

    this dream-like rientation o

    technology,Winner

    argues,

    s

    its denialof the

    manyways

    n

    which

    technology

    rovides

    tructure

    and meaning

    orhuman

    ife.

    This

    point

    was

    madepowerfully yMarx

    in

    the

    German

    deologyMarx

    &

    Engels 1976:3 ):

    Theway

    n whichmen

    produce heirmeans

    f

    subsistence epends irst f

    all

    on thenature

    f

    the

    means of subsistence

    hey actually

    find n existence

    nd

    have to

    reproduce.

    This mode of

    production

    mustnot be

    considered imply

    s

    being

    he

    reproduction

    f the

    physical

    xistence

    f

    these ndividuals.Rather

    t

    is a

    definite

    orm f

    activity

    f these

    ndividuals,

    definite orm

    of

    expressing

    heir

    ife,

    definite

    mode f ife

    n their

    art.

    As

    individuals

    xpress

    heir

    ife,

    o

    they re.

    Technologies, hen,

    re not

    merelyways

    of

    making'

    and

    using'.

    As

    tech-

    nologies are created nd put to use, Winner

    I986: 6)

    argues, hey ring bout

    'significantlterations

    n

    patterns f human activity nd

    human

    nstitutions'.

    What

    mustbe

    recognised,

    Winner

    nsists,

    s that:

    Individuals

    re

    actively

    nvolved

    n

    the

    daily

    creation

    nd

    recreation, roduction

    nd

    reproduc-

    tion,

    of theworld n which

    hey

    ive.

    Thus,

    as

    they mploy

    ools

    and

    techniques,

    work

    n social

    labor

    arrangements,

    make

    and consume

    products,

    nd

    adapt

    theirbehavior to the material

    conditions

    hey

    ncounter

    n their atural nd artificial

    nvironment,

    ndividuals ealize

    possi-

    bilities orhumanexistence.

    .

    . Social activitys an ongoing activityfworld-making

    I986:

    I4-I

    5).

    Winner oes

    not

    mean to

    suggest simplistic echnological eterminism,

    he

    idea that echnological

    nnovations re the

    major driving

    orces

    f

    human ife

    suchthat ocial nd cultural

    orms

    re

    nevitablyhapedby

    them.To

    take uch

    view, Winner I986: io) suggests,

    would

    be like

    describing

    all

    instances

    f

    sexual

    intercourse ased

    only

    on the

    concept

    of

    rape'.

    Choices exist

    n

    the

    process

    of

    technological

    eployment/and

    onsequent

    ocietal transformation

    (e.g.,

    Noble

    I986).

    Yet

    technological

    omnambulism

    eads

    us to

    ignore

    them

    while, in a trance-liketate,we blindly cceptwhatevermplementationf

    technology

    hose

    n

    power

    choose

    to

    foist

    upon

    us. Once

    entrenched

    n

    our

    lives,however,

    he

    echnology

    makes new world

    for s. We

    weave it ntothe

    fabric f

    daily

    ife

    Winner 986).

    Yet

    the

    human choices and decisions are

    masked,

    o the

    echnology

    eems

    o

    operate eyond

    human ontrol

    nd

    appears

    to

    embody

    heresult f

    an

    automatic,

    nevitable

    rocess Winner 977).

  • 8/10/2019 Pfaff en Berger

    5/18

    BRYAN PFAFFENBERGER 239

    Technologicaleterminism

    The second tacitnotion supplied with the term technology, he one that

    contrasts o sharply

    with the

    first,

    s

    precisely

    his notion of

    technological

    determinismhatWinner

    s

    so

    careful o

    avoid.

    Here

    we

    have no

    dismissal f

    technology s ways

    of

    making

    and

    using.

    On

    the

    contrary, echnology

    s

    viewedas a powerfulnd

    autonomous

    gent

    hat

    ictates

    he

    patterns

    fhuman

    social

    and

    cultural

    ife.

    Like technologicalomnambulism,echnologicaleterminismften perates

    as

    a

    tacit,

    unexamined

    ssumption

    n

    scholarly

    iscourse. n the

    grip

    of this

    notionall ofhistory

    eems

    to

    have been

    dictated y

    a chain of

    technological

    events

    n

    which

    people

    have been ittle

    more han

    helpless pectators.

    o

    deeply

    encoded is this notion thattechnology's utonomy s frequentlyssumed

    without comment. Indeed,

    the

    idea

    often

    operates,

    n

    scholarly writing

    about

    technology

    in the elusive manner of an unquestioned ssumption'

    (Staudenmaier985: 143).

    Some

    scholars,however,

    make this

    position

    xplicit

    nd

    defend

    t, arguing

    that

    echnology

    s

    applied

    cience. ince

    science s

    progressing apidly,

    he

    pace

    of

    technological evelopments,

    n

    this

    iew,

    so

    rapid hat echnology

    s

    out of

    control;we cannot valuate

    urown creations r

    defend

    urselves

    gainst

    hem.

    Yet there re ample grounds

    o

    doubt

    that echnology

    s

    applied

    cience

    n

    this

    simplistic,

    inear ense

    Fores 982).

    The

    relationship

    etween

    echnology

    nd

    science s complex, dynamic, ndhistoricallyecent.Many importantnven-

    tions f the

    ighteenth

    nd nineteenth

    enturies,

    uch

    as the team

    ngine,

    were

    in

    no real ense

    heresult f

    the pplication

    f science.

    ndeed,

    much

    twentieth-

    century

    cience temsfrom

    n

    attempt

    o discoverwhy certain echnologies

    work so well. New

    technologies,moreover,

    make new lines of

    scientific

    inquirypossible, and with them,new technologies.And even when a new

    technology

    oes

    ncorporate

    cientific

    indings,

    t

    s

    not

    driven y

    science lone.

    To create newtechnologys notmerelyoapply

    cience o

    technicalmatters.t

    is

    also, and simultaneously,o deal with economic

    constraints,o surmount

    legal roadblocks nd to get politicians n one's side (Hughes I983). A tech-

    nology's

    form

    derives, then,

    from the interaction f these heterogeneous

    elements s

    they

    re

    shaped

    nto a network f nterrelatedomponents Law

    I987). However

    nhuman ur

    technologymay

    eem, t s nonetheless product

    of

    human hoices nd social

    processes.

    Others

    would

    argue

    hat

    modern

    echnology

    ecomes

    an autonomousforce

    because,once adopted, tsorganisationalmperatives

    equire

    he

    scendance

    f

    technical

    ormsof

    efficiency

    nd

    profitability

    ver alternative

    orms, uch as

    worker health and

    safety,

    nvironmental

    reservation,

    nd aesthetic alues

    (Ellul

    962).

    Thus,

    n

    Chapple's arly

    iew

    I94I),

    the

    ery

    act hat

    ndustrial

    production requiresrationalorganisationdictatesthe ascendancyof such

    norms.

    And

    further:

    alz

    (I955)

    argued that he technical

    nd organisational

    imperatives f

    industrialisation

    remain

    the same

    regardless f who or what

    entities

    wn, finance, nd manage given

    ndustriallant

    .

    . and regardlessf

    the

    wider ims which ndustrialisms to serve'

    I955: 5).

    To

    bring

    n a

    plant nd

    automated equipment,then,

    s

    to bring

    n

    the

    efficiency orms a factory

  • 8/10/2019 Pfaff en Berger

    6/18

    240 BRYAN PFAFFENBERGER

    requires, nd the nevitable esult-even in in a socialist etting Goonatilake

    1979)-is

    the exploitation nd 'deskilling' f factory

    workers e.g. Gottfried

    I982).

    Yet efficient actories ave indeed been built that do not lead to the

    degradation f working onditions Noble

    I979),

    and theannals

    of ndustrial-

    isation n theThirdWorld ell fnumerous nstancesn which

    fficiencyorms

    take back seatto other nes. Even where utomated evices

    re ntroducedn

    the

    West, here

    s no

    necessary,nevitableimpact'on socialrelationsAttewell

    & Rule I984). On the contrary, he outcome stemsfrom

    ocial and political

    choicesmade

    by engineers,managers

    nd

    workers

    Noble

    I986).

    The relationship

    etween

    echnology nd society, o be

    sure,

    can

    be

    simple

    and unproblematic

    n

    certain nstances.

    Givingup

    a

    bullock for

    tractor,

    or

    instance, rretrievablyorces farmer nto an internationalconomyofpet-

    roleum and replacement arts. Beyond obvious points such as

    this one,

    however, the outcome of a given innovation s still subjectto substantial

    modification y social, political nd

    cultural orces. t

    is,

    furthermore,

    un-

    damentallywrong

    to

    argue

    that

    technology

    arries

    with

    t

    any necessary

    r

    consequent attern

    f social

    and

    cultural

    volution.The literaturen the ocial

    impactof GreenRevolution echnology rovides telling ase

    in

    point e.g.

    Farmer1977). Experience shows that the technologydoes

    not necessarily

    produce

    the

    higheryields

    foreseen

    y

    its

    proponents.

    Nor

    does

    it

    necessarily

    produce the

    socio-economic

    differentiation

    oreseen

    y

    its

    critics.

    A

    new or

    introduced echnologyuch sthis nesimply rings new setofpossibilitieso

    a

    situation.

    Whether

    eople capitalise

    n those

    possibilities

    epends

    on

    their

    ability o conceptualise he restructuredoliticalfield,to

    set

    new

    goals

    for

    themselves,

    nd to mobilise

    personnel

    nd

    resources n

    pursuit

    f

    these

    new

    goals.

    We here

    onfront series f

    ndeterminacies

    n

    whichtheoutcome

    s far

    from

    redictable.

    The deterministhesis,

    n

    sum,

    s

    difficult

    o sustain

    n

    comparative

    tudies.

    Yet this act

    s

    no argument

    or return o the enets

    f

    technological

    omnam-

    bulism.

    The

    fact hat

    echnology

    s

    socially

    onstructed

    Pinch

    &

    Bijker 984)

    implies that t has

    social

    content;

    t

    is far from

    neutral'.

    Pinch

    and

    Bijker

    describethe social constructionf technologyn thefollowingway. In its

    inception,

    new

    technology ppears

    n

    a

    variety

    f forms. The

    process

    s

    analogous

    to the

    pecies-multiplying

    ffectsf an

    adaptive

    adiation

    f

    biologi-

    cal

    forms nto

    n

    unoccupied

    eries

    fniches.

    ome forms

    survive';

    thersdie'.

    In

    this process,

    the determinant

    f survival s not

    merely or

    even con-

    spicuously) conomic,

    technical

    r

    rational.

    On the

    contrary,

    he

    surviving

    form s theone selected

    y

    a

    social

    group

    that ucceeds

    n

    imposing

    ts

    choice

    over

    competing

    forms

    and against

    the

    objections

    of weaker

    groups).

    Such

    social

    groups,

    s

    Pinch

    nd

    Bijker tress,

    nclude nstitutions

    nd

    organisations,

    as well

    as

    organised

    nd

    unorganised roups

    f

    ndividuals,

    ut

    heirfundamental

    characteristics that all members f [thesocial group]share the same set of

    meanings

    .

    . attached o

    a

    specific

    rtefact'

    I984: 30, myemphasis).

    The social

    construction

    f

    technology,

    n

    sum,

    occurs

    when

    one set

    of meaningsains

    ascendancy

    ver ther

    nes,

    nd wins

    expression

    n

    the technical

    ontent

    f the

    artefact.

    technology

    s

    thus,

    n

    Noble's

    words,

    hardened

    istory'

    r

    a frozen

    fragment

    fhuman

    nd ocial ndeavor'

    I986: xi).

  • 8/10/2019 Pfaff en Berger

    7/18

    BRYAN PFAFFENBERGER 241

    The social

    vision woven into technologies s at timespatently bvious and

    deliberate,s

    in

    thenow-famous

    xample

    of

    Long

    Island's ow

    bridges.Their

    designer,RobertMoses, intended hem o obstruct uses, thereby estricting

    theLong

    Island

    population

    o

    automobile-owning

    hitesof the

    upper'

    and

    'comfortablemiddle' classes

    (Winner

    980:

    121-3). And

    at

    the end

    of

    the

    nineteenthentury, he adical aris ity ouncil

    sed precisely

    he ame trick o

    accomplish verydifferent

    olitical bjective.

    By making

    he

    tunnels

    f

    the

    Paris Metro

    very

    narrow,

    oo narrow

    for tandard-gauge ailway rains, he

    council

    prevented

    he

    private ailway ompanies

    rom

    ppropriating

    heMetro

    for heir wn

    ends Akrich987).

    Even

    where such

    designs

    are

    absent

    technologies

    till

    bring

    with

    them

    a

    definite ocial

    content.

    Any technology

    hould

    be

    seen

    as a

    system,

    ot ust of

    tools,but also ofrelated ocial behaviours nd

    techniques.

    We mean ust this

    when we

    refer,

    or

    nstance,

    o

    'woodworking'

    or

    'irrigation'.

    One

    can

    go

    further.echnology,necessarily,onsists

    f

    practical

    nowledge

    r knowhow

    which, lthough

    ften esistant

    o

    codificationr verbalisation

    Ferguson 977),

    must

    omehow be shared

    nd transmitted

    ust like

    any

    other

    spect

    of

    culture

    (Layton 1974).

    Technology

    can

    indeed

    be

    defi-ned

    s a set of

    operationally

    replicable ocialbehaviours: o

    technology

    an be

    said

    to existunless he

    people

    who use it can use

    it

    over and over

    again.

    To the extent

    hat

    technological

    behaviours

    re

    replicable,

    he

    nterpenetration

    f

    physical

    lements

    e.g.,

    tools,

    resources, tc.) and social communicationdiffusion, pprenticeship,tc.) is

    presupposed Tornatzky

    et

    al.

    I983: 2). And

    further till: the

    product

    of

    technology,

    material

    ulture,

    s

    far more than a

    practical

    nstrument.

    ech-

    nology s,

    simultaneously,

    social

    object endowed with ufficient

    eaning o

    mystify

    hose

    who

    become nvolvedwith

    ts

    creation r use.

    Technology, hen,

    is essentially

    ocial, not 'technical'.

    When

    one

    examines

    the

    'impact'

    of a

    technology

    n

    society, herefore,

    ne is

    obliged

    to

    examinethe

    mpact

    of the

    technology's

    mbedded ocial behaviours nd

    meanings.

    Technological eterminism,

    n

    short, ests

    n

    specious

    grounds.Technology

    is not an

    independent, on-socialvariablethat

    has

    an 'impact'on societyor

    culture.On thecontrary, ny technologys a set of social behaviours nd a

    system

    f

    meanings.

    To

    restate

    he

    point:

    when

    we examine the

    impact'

    of

    technology

    n

    society,

    we are

    talking

    bout the

    mpact

    of one kind of

    social

    behaviouron another

    MacKenzie

    &

    Wajcman 985:

    3)-a point

    thatMarx

    graspedwithclarity nd subtletyMacKenzie

    I984).

    To

    thispoint this rticle

    will

    return,

    ut

    t

    is

    possible

    now to disclose

    the

    unity

    hat

    underlies

    echno-

    logical omnambulism nd ts pparent pposite,

    echnological eterminism.

    Fetishisedbjects

    What

    is

    so

    striking

    bout both naive

    views of technology, he view that

    emphasises

    isembodied

    ways

    of

    making nd

    doing technologicalomnambul-

    ism)and theother hat

    sserts echnology'sutonomy technological etermin-

    ism),

    is that

    they

    both

    ravelyunderstate r

    disguise the social relations f

    technology.

    n

    the

    omnambulistic

    iew, making'

    oncerns nly ngineers nd

  • 8/10/2019 Pfaff en Berger

    8/18

    242

    BRYAN PFAFFENBERGER

    'doing'

    concerns

    nly

    users.

    Hidden

    from iew is theentire

    etwork f social

    and political elations hat retied o making nd are nfluenced y doing. nthe

    technological eterminist iew,

    the technology

    tself

    usually conceived as

    material

    ulture)

    s seen as

    something part

    from

    hisnetwork.

    Technology

    s

    thus,nthis iew, an

    ndependent ariable o which heforms f ocialrelations

    and politics

    tand as

    dependent

    ariables. So there s

    indeed a hidden

    unity

    underlying hesepositions hat

    eem to stand

    n

    apparent ontradiction:ech-

    nology, underthe sway of Western

    ulture,

    s

    seen

    as

    a disembodied ntity,

    emptied

    f ocial

    relations,

    nd

    composed

    lmost

    ntirely

    f

    tools

    and

    products.

    It stands efore s,

    n

    other

    words,

    n

    what

    Marx

    would callfetishised

    orm:what

    is in realityroducedyrelationsmong eople ppears efores n

    afantasticforms

    relationsmong hings.

    Marx's

    concept

    f fetishismtems

    rom is

    discussion f

    commodities

    n the

    capitalist etting.

    he

    world

    of

    fetishised

    ommodities,

    Marx

    argued,

    s

    ike

    the

    'mist-enveloped egions

    fthe

    eligious

    world. n that

    world

    the

    productions

    f

    thehumanbrain

    ppear

    s

    independenteings

    ndowed with

    ife,

    nd

    entering

    into relation

    oth

    with

    one another nd

    the

    humanrace'

    (Marx 1938: 43).

    As

    Godelier1977: xxv)

    puts

    t,

    fetishisms

    the effect n

    and

    for

    consciousness

    of the

    disguising

    f social relations n and

    behind

    heir

    appearances.

    Now these

    ppearances

    re the

    necessaryoint

    f

    departure

    f the

    representationsf

    their .

    . relations hat ndividuals

    pontaneously

    orm or

    hemselves.

    uch mages

    hus onstitute

    the ocialrealitywithinwhichthese ndividualsive,and serve hem s a meansofacting ithin

    and

    upon

    this ocial

    reality.

    Marx's

    discussion

    was limited o the

    value

    of

    commodities

    which,

    he

    argued,

    is nreality etermined y the

    urplus alueextracted

    rom

    hewage abourer.

    t

    neverthelessppears

    to us

    in

    fetishised orm s a

    property

    f the

    commodity

    itself, ather

    hanof the ocial

    elationships

    hat

    produced

    t.

    Whether

    Marx's

    analysis fsurplus alue is correct

    n

    economicterms s of ittle oncern

    here,

    except

    o state

    hat t s

    tempting

    ndeed

    to see the

    fetishism

    f

    technology

    s a

    natural oncomitant

    f the fetishism f

    commodities

    and

    the

    capitalist

    con-

    omyin general).What s of interests Marx's extraordinarynthropological

    insight: heWesterndeologyf bjectsendersnvisiblehe ocial elationsfromhich

    technology

    rises nd nwhich

    ny echnology

    s

    vitally

    mbedded.

    his

    nvisibility

    ies

    at theheart f

    technological

    omnambulism nd determinism. he taskof

    the

    anthropology

    f

    technology

    s to

    bring

    hesehidden

    ocial

    relations

    o

    ight.

    Technology

    n

    nthropologicaliscourse

    Anthropologists,nfortunately,ave been slow

    to detect hehidden nfluence

    of

    technological

    omnambulism

    nd determinism

    Digard 1979). Under the

    sway ofthe somnambulistic iew, for nstance, echnology s simplynot of

    much

    nterest.

    Ways

    of

    making nd

    using

    re een o

    deserve escription

    nly

    n

    so far as

    theypreserve vidence of

    a

    disappearingway of life. Thus

    one is

    confronted ith

    dreary atalogues f such

    things s arrows nd pots that re,as

    Spierobserved, dull,unimaginative,myopic, nd guilty f generalizing rom

    the

    articular'

    I 970: 143).

  • 8/10/2019 Pfaff en Berger

    9/18

    BRYAN PFAFFENBERGER 243

    A concomitant f thisview is thattechnology,which s after ll a simple

    matter fmaking ndusing,does notdetermineocial nd cultural ormsxcept

    in ways that re o

    obvious that hey reof ittlenterest. orticulturebviously

    preceded rrigation, or

    nstance, ut such observations ellus very ittle bout

    the ultures e study.

    This was

    a

    pointmadeby Boas and a whole generation f

    American

    nthropologists, ho denied that ttempts o link technology nd

    social organisation

    r

    culturewould go beyond

    the

    obvious. What was of

    far

    greater nterest o

    Boas was the evidence, s he saw it, thatdissimilar ech-

    nologiescould be associatedwith urprisinglyimilar ultural orms:

    we

    have

    simple ndustriesnd

    complexorganization',

    e wrote

    I940: 266-267),

    as

    well

    as

    'diverse ndustries nd simple organization'.Ruth Benedict 1948:

    589),

    concurring ithBoas's radicaldenialof a necessaryinkbetweentechnology

    and culture, sserted

    hat

    man can at

    any state

    f

    technological evelopment

    create

    is

    gods

    n

    the

    mostdiverse

    orm'.This

    position

    s an old one

    n

    American

    anthropology,nd t

    s

    not

    without ts contemporarydvocates.

    Replying

    for

    technological

    eterminism re

    such authors s L.

    A.

    White

    (I959),

    Wittfogel

    I959)

    and

    Harris

    I977),

    who

    tracemajor developments

    n

    cultural volution o

    thepatterns f technological hange.Technology,

    n

    the

    deterministiew,

    s seen o

    evolve

    according

    o ts

    own,

    autonomous

    ogic:

    the

    digging

    tickhad

    to precede

    the

    plow, the

    flint

    trike-a-light

    ad to

    precede

    the

    afetymatch, nd

    so

    on'

    (Harris 968: 232).

    In

    this

    iew

    the

    onsequences

    f

    thisevolutionary rocessfor social organisationnd culture re regular nd

    predictable: hen the

    plough replaces hehoe, for nstance, he exual division

    of

    labour alters

    n

    predictableways (Newton I985: 2I4). Wittfogel,

    o

    cite

    another eterminist

    heorist,

    elieved hat

    arge-scale rrigationystems ntail

    bureaucratic entralisationnd politicaldespotism.And forHarris, the odd

    customsand bizarre

    practices

    f

    tribal ultures, uch as human sacrifice nd

    witchcraft,

    ave

    a

    ready xplanation: hey

    have some

    hidden

    echno-economic

    rationality, hich

    s

    exposed only by reducing uch practices o their

    hidden'

    material ims

    e. g.

    Harris

    974).

    In

    this iew, there

    re

    no surprises

    n

    the ungle

    of

    ethnographic ata.

    Every seemingly izarre

    rait

    an be laid down to its

    underlyingechno-economicationality.

    Both

    of

    these

    nthropological

    ersions f

    Western

    ultural

    heory

    reremark-

    able for their nherent

    ogmatism,

    tself

    sign

    of

    their deological origin.

    Somnambulists

    eny

    t

    theoutset hat here s a demonstrable elation etween

    technologynd culture.

    eterministsssume uch

    a

    relationshiplwaysexists.

    Both views,

    in

    short,

    ee technology

    n

    fetishised orm. Both disguise the

    fundamentallyocial ehaviours n

    whichpeople engagewhenthey reate

    r

    use

    a

    technology.

    Humanised ature

    The anthropology

    f

    technology,

    must be

    founded,

    not

    on

    simplistic

    nd

    ideologically-shaped

    ropositions,

    ut rather

    n a

    recognition

    f

    the role of

    fetishism-specifically,

    n

    disguising

    he

    deep interpenetration

    nd

    dynamic

    interplay

    f social

    forms,

    ultural alues and

    technology Spier 970: 6-9).

    To

    counter he

    mystifying

    orce

    f

    fetishism,

    t s

    necessary

    o

    see

    technology

    n

    a

  • 8/10/2019 Pfaff en Berger

    10/18

    244 BRYAN

    PFAFFENBERGER

    radically ifferent ay: to view it, not through he fetishismf technological

    somnambulism

    r

    determinism,utrather

    s

    humanised

    ature.

    To say that echnologys humanised

    ature s

    to nsist hat

    t s a fundamen-

    tally

    ocial

    henomenon:

    t s a social constructionf thenature roundus and

    within

    us,

    and

    once

    achieved,

    t

    expresses

    n

    embedded

    social

    vision,

    and it

    engagesus

    in what Marx

    would

    call a formof life. The

    interpenetration

    f

    culture

    nd

    nature

    here

    described

    s, in

    short,

    of the sort

    thatMauss

    (I967)

    would readily

    all total:

    ny

    behaviour hat

    s

    technological

    s

    also,

    and

    at

    the

    same time, political,

    ocial

    and symbolic.

    t has a

    legal dimension,

    t has a

    history,t entails setof socialrelationshipsnd

    t

    has

    a

    meaning.

    So farfrom

    disguising

    he social

    relations

    nd cultural imension

    f

    tech-

    nology, thisviewlogicallynecessitates recognitionf the nterpenetrationf

    technology

    with social forms

    nd

    systems

    f

    meaning.

    Any study

    of tech-

    nology's impact'

    s

    in

    consequence

    he

    study

    of

    a

    complex,

    ntercausal ela-

    tionship

    etween

    ne form f

    ocialbehaviour nd

    another.

    here s no

    question

    of

    finding nice,

    neat ausal rrow hat

    oints

    rom n

    ndependent

    ariable o a

    dependent ne,

    for he ausal rrows unboth

    ways orevery

    which

    way),

    even

    in

    what appears to be the simplest

    f

    settings.One

    mightbe tempted,for

    instance, o regard

    he ulture fthe

    Kung-San eoples

    of outhwestern

    frica,

    hunters nd gathers

    ntil

    ecently,

    s the

    product

    f environmentalominance

    brought

    n

    by

    a

    low

    level of

    technological evelopment-until,

    however,

    one

    learns hat he Kung-Sanregularlynddeliberatelyetfire o thegrasslands,

    and so shape theenvironmenthatwe might uppose shapes

    them.

    Humans',

    Lee observes, have been cooking their nvironment

    or s long

    as

    theyhave

    been

    cooking

    ood'

    I979: I47). Dynamic nterplay

    nd

    nterpenetration

    f

    variables s

    to be

    expected

    from

    the

    theoretical

    tandpoint.

    Assertionsof

    one-waycausality,

    n

    contrast,

    re

    suspect

    nd

    require

    adical uestioning.

    Viewing technology

    s humanisednature

    does

    not, unfortunately,

    ake

    things imple.

    On the

    ontrary,

    t forces

    ecognition

    fthe lmostunbelievable

    complexity

    hat s

    involved

    n

    virtually ny

    ink

    between

    human

    echnological

    forms

    nd

    human

    culture.The

    questions

    his

    relationship aises,

    to

    be sure,

    seemsimpleenoughon thesurfacee. g. 'What s the mpactofgravity-flow

    irrigationchemes npeasantsnSri Lanka?'). Yet,

    in

    practice, iscovering he

    effectsf a

    given echnology

    n

    society s,

    as

    MacKenzie and

    Wajcmannote,

    n

    'intensely ifficult

    nd

    problematic

    xercise'.

    Consider,

    or nstance, he mpact

    of the

    microchip

    n

    employment:

    It srelativelyasytoguesswhatproportion

    f

    existingobs could be automated way by present

    or

    prospective omputer echnology.

    ut that

    s not

    the ffect f the

    microchip

    n

    employment,

    precisely ecause

    he

    uestion annotustifiably

    e

    approached

    n

    solation

    ike his.

    To know the

    microchip'sffect

    n

    employmentevels, ne

    needs o know

    thedifferent

    ates t

    which twill be

    adopted

    n different

    ocations,

    he

    nature f

    the ndustries

    roducing omputer echnology, he

    indirect conomic ffectsfthe reation nd destructionfjobs,the ikely oleofdevelopmentsn

    one

    country

    ithwhat

    goes

    on

    in

    other

    ountries,

    he

    growth

    r

    decline,

    nd

    changing atterns,

    of

    the world

    economy

    . . in

    other

    words, answering

    he

    question

    f the

    ffects

    n society f a

    particular echnology equires

    ne to

    have

    a

    good heoryf

    how hat

    ociety

    orks. he

    simplicityf

    the

    question

    s

    misleading.Answering

    t

    properly

    ill

    often equire

    n understandingf

    the

    verall

    dynamicsf society,

    nd t s thus

    ne

    f

    hemost

    ifficult,

    ather

    han ne

    f

    he

    asiest,uestions

    o

    nswer

    (MacKenzie & Wajcman 985: 6-7, my emphasis).

  • 8/10/2019 Pfaff en Berger

    11/18

    BRYAN PFAFFENBERGER 245

    Anthropology,

    t its

    best,

    s

    uniquely

    uited

    o the

    study

    ofsuch

    complex

    relationships etweentechnology nd culture.Anthropologys distinctive,

    after

    ll,

    not only

    for

    ts

    ocal-level,

    mall-scale

    tudies

    using

    the

    participant-

    observation

    method.

    t

    is also

    distinctive or ts

    holism,

    n

    approach

    that

    ees

    any

    society

    s a

    system

    f

    more

    or ess nterrelated

    omponents.

    o

    undertake

    such an

    analysis equires

    t east

    workingknowledge

    fa

    society's

    iological

    environment, istory,

    ocial

    organisation,

    olitical ystem,

    conomic

    ystem,

    internationalelations,

    ultural

    alues nd

    spiritual

    ife.Such

    analyses

    re

    by

    no

    means asy;they equire

    nothing

    ess

    than commitmento situate

    ehaviours

    and meanings

    n

    their

    otal

    ocial,

    historical

    nd cultural ontext.Yet

    nothing

    less will

    suffice

    f

    we

    seek

    to

    illuminate he nature nd

    consequences

    of our

    attemptso humanise ature.

    An example: riLanka's

    rrigation

    ettlementchemes

    To illustratehis pproach ully equires

    more

    pace

    than

    an

    be taken

    here,

    but

    thebroadoutlines

    f

    study hrased

    n

    the erms

    eveloped

    here

    anbe sketched

    out for

    purposes

    of illustration.

    References

    will be omitted

    for

    brevity; ee

    Pfaffenberger

    .d. for

    full

    ccount.)

    The island nation of Sri

    Lanka has been

    much

    concerned

    f late with the

    development

    f

    gravity-flow

    rrigation

    ettlement

    chemes, he

    atest

    f

    which

    is the massiveMahaweliDevelopmentProject.This project eeks to develop

    fully

    he

    rrigation

    apabilities

    f the 208-mileMahaweli Ganga,

    Sri Lanka's

    longest

    river.A majorgoal of the

    project, ike ts predecessors,

    s to resettle

    landlesspeasants

    on newly irrigated

    ands withinthe country's

    Dry Zone.

    Although

    he till-unfinished

    rojecthas raised ri

    Lanka's riceproduction

    nd

    helped to

    free he country rom

    dependence n

    rice mports, he economic

    performance

    f thenew

    rice-growing

    ommunities

    as fallen

    hort f

    expec-

    tations.

    Particularly

    isappointing

    s

    the

    project's

    ocial

    performance.

    o

    far

    from iberating

    andless

    peasants

    rom

    ebt ervitude nd

    agricultural

    enancy,

    the

    Mahaweli settlementsppear

    to be

    reproducing

    he adverse

    features f

    traditionaleasant ociety hat heprojectwas designed o cure.

    The

    Mahaweli

    Project's

    utcomes cho thedisappointing erformance

    f ts

    predecessors,which

    were marked

    by seriousdeficienciesn

    the management

    and distributionf water esources. he reasons, ome argue,

    re technical'

    n

    nature.Since

    their nception ecades

    ago, Sri Lanka's irrigation

    evelopment

    projects

    ave employed

    ravity-flowrinciples,n

    which rivers dammed

    nd

    diverted,

    ia

    canals,

    to

    agricultural

    ettlements. he volume

    and pressure

    f

    water

    upply

    n

    gravity-flow

    rrigation

    orks

    s

    alwaysgreatest

    tthe topend'

    of the

    system.

    And not

    surprisingly,

    ettlers t the top end

    of the rrigation

    projects,

    where the water supply

    s continuous nd ample,

    use from wo to

    seventimes s muchwater sthey eed.At the ame time, ettlerst the ail nd

    of the

    projects

    receive

    nsufficient

    ater-or

    no water at all.

    The result s a

    process f

    socio-economic

    ifferentiation,n which

    op-endersend o become

    wealthy

    nd tail-endersend

    o become

    poor and,

    eventually,

    ose their andto

    moneylenders

    nd and

    speculators.

    Top-enders

    se the xtrawater

    o

    free hemselves rom he xpenseofhiring

  • 8/10/2019 Pfaff en Berger

    12/18

    246 BRYAN PFAFFENBERGER

    labourers o clearweeds (thecopiouswaterdoes the ob instead) nd

    to assure

    themselves

    n abundant

    rop. They

    invest heir

    profits y encouraging

    rri-

    gationmanagementfficialsinvariedways) to keep thefloodgateswide open

    and by nvolving

    ess

    fortunate

    ettlers

    n

    high-interestoans which ften esult

    in thedebtors ecoming enants n lands they hemselves nce owned).

    In the

    end, these

    ocial

    processes

    ead to thereproductionf some of the features f

    traditional

    easant society

    (such as landlessness,

    harecropping,

    nd

    debt

    servitude) hat heprojectwas expressly

    reated o circumvent.

    That

    this

    disparity

    n

    income between

    top-enders

    nd

    tail-endershould

    emerge s hardly urprising hen one considerswhat one observer

    alls the

    'harshfacts f hydraulics', amely,

    he pronounced endency f gravity-flow

    irrigation echnology o rewardtop-enders nd punishtail-enders.

    his ten-

    dency

    can be combatted

    y building

    xtensive

    ystems

    f field hannels

    nd

    automated elivery ystems, ut uch ystems an add so much o the

    ostof he

    project hat t ceases to be cost-effective.

    f one builds n irrigation

    ystem hat

    lacks

    such

    features, he seemingly

    nevitableresult s economic disparity

    between

    op-enders

    nd tail-enders.

    Yet this nterpretation

    macks f

    echnological

    eterminism,viewpoint hat

    the

    nthropology

    f

    technology

    mistrustsn theoretical

    rounds.

    And on closer

    inspection, sing thnographic

    aterialupplied y

    SriLanka

    tself,

    t

    turns ut

    that he

    harsh acts f

    hydraulics'

    re not

    as determinativef

    social relations s

    this iew wouldhave t. SriLankans, fterll,havebeen rrigatingicefields or

    two

    millennia,

    nd

    as

    it

    happens

    traditional

    ri Lankan

    villages

    had devised

    several ustoms

    hat

    perated

    o

    mute,

    f

    not

    negate,

    he economic

    disparities

    implicit

    n

    gravity-flowrrigation

    ystems.

    n a

    village

    studied

    by

    Leach, for

    instance, op-end

    nd tail-end

    andholdings

    were

    always inked,

    ven

    n

    prop-

    erty ransfers,

    o thatthe benefits f the

    top

    end

    were

    balanced out

    by

    the

    penalties

    f the ail nd.

    This customwas

    accompanied y

    a

    complex

    ystem

    f

    rights

    o

    irrigation

    ater that

    discouraged op-endwastage

    and

    adjusted

    the

    scope

    of

    griculturalctivity

    o the mount fwater vailable.

    At

    theheart fthe

    system

    was a clear

    recognition

    hat,

    n

    an

    irrigated roduction ystem,

    what

    countssaccess owater, otmerelyo and.Subsequent esearch as shownthat

    such

    customs

    are

    common

    in

    traditional, ommunity-basedrrigation ys-

    tems.

    The

    point

    here s not to romanticise raditional

    rrigation

    ustoms,

    but

    simply

    his:

    gravity-flowrrigation

    echnology

    s

    not

    merely

    matter f

    things,

    that

    s, dams,

    canals nd

    water.This

    technology

    s also a

    systemf

    human

    ocial

    behaviours,

    haracterised

    y

    the

    scription

    or

    the

    non-ascription-of

    ights

    o

    water.

    If

    rights

    o land are ascribed nstead

    of

    rights

    o

    water,

    one

    possible

    outcome

    (in

    the

    absence of

    countervailing ustoms)

    s

    socio-economic

    dif-

    ferentiation.

    he

    design

    law

    n

    SriLanka's

    rrigation

    ettlements

    s

    that

    heneed

    to

    design

    water-allocation

    rocedures

    nd

    rights

    nto the

    technology

    as been

    consistentlynd thoroughlygnored.The reasonsfor thisoversight an be

    known

    onlyby grasping

    he ocial and cultural ircumstances

    nder

    whichthe

    technology

    as

    constructed.

    The

    Sri

    Lankan

    project lanners

    nvisioned

    ommunities f

    sturdy,ndepen-

    dent, yeoman

    farmers ho

    possess

    secure

    and

    tenure.Thus

    protected

    rom

    exploitation

    nd

    poverty,

    uch

    farmers ould

    naturally egard

    heir

    rotector,

  • 8/10/2019 Pfaff en Berger

    13/18

    BRYAN PFAFFENBERGER

    247

    the tate,with

    ffectionnd

    oyalty.

    This

    dea,

    obviously

    f

    European

    cultural

    origin,

    ccurred o Sri

    Lanka's

    conservative

    oliticaleadership with,perhaps,

    British

    ncouragement)

    fter he second

    world

    war,

    when landlessness nd

    political

    adicalismwere

    growing minously

    n

    the

    densely-populated

    outh-

    western

    oastal

    plan.

    The extension f

    irrigation

    acilitiesnto the

    sparsely-

    populatedDry

    Zone was

    expressly onceptualised

    s a

    way

    of

    domesticating

    r

    co-opting

    his

    angerous and ncreasinglyumpen)

    ural

    roletariat.

    et there

    s

    more to the social

    constructionf this

    echnology

    han hisbrand

    of

    Western

    political ensibility.What made

    it so useful s

    that

    t dovetails

    handily

    with

    a

    particularly

    ri Lankan

    modality

    f

    political egitimation.

    Sri

    Lanka's

    political

    lite inds ts

    egitimacy,

    n

    part,

    n an

    ndigenous olitical

    frameworkhat tems rom he ncient inhala ivilisationalraditionormore

    accurately,

    rom

    modern

    nterpretations

    f that

    radition).

    he ancient

    inhala

    kings legitimated

    heirrule

    by constructingrrigation

    works,

    and

    modern

    politicians-especially

    those

    of

    the

    ruling

    United

    National

    Party-emulate

    their

    xample.

    The

    early

    movers

    of

    irrigation rojects,

    he United National

    Party eaders

    D.

    S.

    Senanayake

    nd his son

    Dudley,

    claimeddescent rom

    he

    ancient

    ry

    Zone

    kings.

    Their

    UNP

    successor,

    residentJ.

    .

    Jayawardene,

    s

    often escribed

    s a Boddhisattva

    who,

    like

    the

    kings

    f

    old,

    s

    bringingwater,

    prosperity nd justice

    (dharma)

    o the

    people;

    in an

    annual

    ceremony,

    he

    emulates he

    king

    f

    old

    by driving

    he

    buffaloes

    nto

    hefield o cut he

    eason's

    first urrow.

    The same elite

    draws

    ts

    egitimacy

    rom

    nother

    ource,

    s well: a

    politically-

    constructed

    myth

    about the

    deleterious

    mpact

    of the colonial

    plantation

    economy

    on

    peasant ociety.

    This

    myth

    nsists

    hat he

    foreign-owned lan-

    tations,

    n

    collusionwith

    heBritish olonial

    government, eprived raditional

    villages

    of and

    neededfor xpansion, nd

    n

    so

    doing set

    off vicious

    cycleof

    landfragmentationhat

    finally

    ulminated

    n

    widespread andlessness, hare-

    cropping,poverty

    nd moral

    degradation

    or

    huge

    masses

    of peasants. By

    seeking ndependence

    nd promising o right hesewrongs by developing

    irrigationettlements,

    ri

    Lanka's ndigenous olitical

    lite

    found

    successful

    formulaforpolitical egitimacy.To describe hisnotionof theplantation's

    impact

    s a

    'myth'

    s not

    to deny, o be sure, hat heremaybe some truth o t.

    But it s to insist

    hat,

    ike all

    myths,

    his

    myth ends o be applieduncritically.

    And

    nowhere

    did

    it

    operatemore perniciously han

    n

    the social designof the

    irrigation

    ettlements.

    The social

    goals

    of the

    irrigationettlements

    ere,

    from

    the beginning,

    expressly

    ntended

    o

    forestalland

    fragmentation,

    hich

    was

    seen

    to have

    played

    a

    majorrole

    in

    the

    rise of landlessness

    uring nd after he colonial

    period.

    So the ettlement

    lots-surveyed

    and

    fixed

    lots

    of

    up

    to five cres

    of

    irrigated

    ice and-were not

    given

    o

    the ettlers

    utright,utwere ssigned o

    themby perpetualeaseand made ndivisible.A peasant ouldpass them n to

    his

    heirs nlyby

    nominating single uccessor.

    Although

    his ocial vision

    may have been

    politically atisfying,t could not

    have been more

    nappropriate

    or

    Sri

    Lankan conditions.By focusing n the

    politically

    marketable

    mage

    of

    secure

    and

    rights

    orthe

    peasantry,t

    fails

    o

    acknowledge

    he mportance

    f water

    ights

    or

    table

    rrigation ommunities,

  • 8/10/2019 Pfaff en Berger

    14/18

    248 BRYAN PFAFFENBERGER

    and so condemns he ettlementso precisely he ocio-economic ifferentiation

    that heprojects

    were

    ntended

    o

    avoid. Ruled out

    n

    the troke

    f a pen, too,

    was the kind of careful, nter-familialuggling of land holdings that,in

    traditional ri Lankan

    communities,

    elp farmers o put together holding f

    economic

    size.

    In

    the

    politically-focused

    ens of the

    project's design, such

    jugglings appear

    as

    'fragmentation',

    nd

    are branded-often wrongly-as

    undesirable

    ndices of

    community egradation.Finally, the atomistic ndi-

    vidualism

    f

    the

    project's

    ocial

    design, oupled

    with

    thediverse ocial

    origins

    of the settlers hemselves,

    as militated

    gainst

    the formation f

    kin-based

    systems

    of

    reciprocity

    nd resource

    sharing.

    n

    successful

    rrigation

    om-

    munities,

    such

    systems frequently

    unction o mute

    processes

    of

    socio-

    economic

    differentiation y enabling

    what amounts to a

    process

    of

    intracommunityapital ransfer,s families elp achother ut for nstance, y

    hiring

    insmen t

    rates

    ar bove the conomic

    wage).

    What

    was not

    ruled ut n the

    project esign,however,

    was

    any ffectiveegal

    or

    political

    mechanism o

    forestall

    he sale' of the

    ettler's

    lots

    to

    mudalalis,

    class of self-made'

    andholders nd

    moneylenders

    ho have

    long preyedon

    peasants hroughout

    ri Lanka.

    Such

    sales are

    llegal

    n

    principle,

    ut

    common

    inpractice. incetitles reheldto and,notwater,tail-end' ettlersuickly all

    behind

    n

    the

    ompetition

    orwater

    nd

    wealth,

    nd surrenderheir

    oldings o

    land speculators.

    ome wind

    up

    as tenants n their

    wn

    lands,

    n

    arrangement

    thatmaywellbring hetenantmoreeconomic ecurityhanwas possible s an

    impoverished

    owner' of the and

    in

    question. Moreover,

    the

    prohibition n

    land

    fragmentation

    lies

    n

    theface

    f SriLankan

    nheritance

    ustoms.Not

    a

    few

    settlers refer

    o sell' their

    lots illegally)

    ather han

    ace he

    disconcertingnd

    uncomfortable

    rospect

    f

    favouring

    ne

    heirover

    others.Other

    factors,

    uch

    as

    irregularities

    n

    water

    upply,

    hevicissitudes f

    therice

    market,

    herise

    of

    fertiliser

    nd herbicide

    rices,

    nd

    mismanagement,

    lso contribute

    o the sale'

    of

    plotsto mudalalis.

    n

    one settlement

    cheme,

    mudalaliwas found

    to have

    amassed

    'holding'

    of

    OO

    acres

    of

    prime

    ice

    and, rrigated

    t

    publicexpense.

    There

    s

    nothing

    ew

    aboutthe ctivities fmudalalis. hat

    s

    new

    s

    the

    massive

    public investmentn the settlementchemes,which have createdrichnew

    opportunities

    or the

    mudalalis' ctivities.

    ndeed,

    the

    schemes create new

    mudalalis.

    hey

    enrich

    op-enders

    o that

    they may choose, among

    several

    alternative

    areers,

    he mudalali's

    way

    of

    money-lending, ribery

    nd

    land

    speculation.

    That the

    older

    rrigation

    ettlements ere

    promoting

    ocio-economicdif-

    ferentiation

    as been

    known for ome

    time,

    but the new

    phase

    of

    irrigation

    development

    nder heAcceleratedMahaweli

    Development rogram AMDP)

    sought

    o forestall

    uch

    processesby using

    the

    expensive

    echnical olution

    f

    constructing

    ieldchannels o

    groups

    of settlers. or

    reasons that re

    hardly

    surprising iven he boveanalysis, his trategyoesnot ppear o beworking.

    Processes f

    ocio-economic

    ifferentiationrewell

    at work

    n

    the

    new

    AMDP

    settlements.

    rice

    fluctuations,rregularities

    n

    water

    supply

    and other

    prob-

    lems

    frequentlyring

    he ettlers o themudalali

    ho,

    for

    ll his

    propensity

    o

    exploit

    the

    peasant

    nd

    deprive

    him

    of

    his

    land,

    still

    offers he

    peasant

    more

    day-to-day ecurity

    han

    the

    government-sponsoredrrangements.

    n

    the

  • 8/10/2019 Pfaff en Berger

    15/18

    BRYAN PFAFFENBERGER

    249

    absenceof kinsmen

    n the tomised ettlementommunities,here

    snowhere

    else to

    turnwhen

    a child

    falls

    ll

    or

    new clothes re needed for

    n important

    event.The 'technical ix' of field hannels,n sum, has not workedverywell

    becauseonly

    the material omponent

    f the technology as been changed.

    ts

    social, legal

    and mythic omponents

    have been left alone, and

    expose the

    peasant

    ettler

    o a

    socio-political

    ontext

    n whicheconomicdifferentiations

    virtually ssured.

    Conclusion

    Technology,

    efinednthropologically,

    s

    notmaterial ulture

    utrather total

    social phenomenonnthe enseused by Mauss, a phenomenonhatmarries he

    material,

    he social

    and the

    symbolic

    n

    a

    complex

    web of associations.

    A

    technology

    s farmore than he

    material

    bject

    that

    ppears

    under

    he

    way

    of

    the Western

    enchant

    or

    fetishism,

    he

    tendency

    o

    unhinge

    humancreations

    fromthe

    social relations

    hat

    produce

    them. Every technology

    s

    a human

    world,

    form fhumanised

    ature,

    hat nifies

    irtuallyvery spect

    fhuman

    endeavour.

    To construct technology

    s

    not

    merely

    o

    deploy

    materials nd

    techniques;

    t

    s

    also to construct ocial

    and economic

    alliances,

    o

    inventnew

    legal principles

    or ocial relations, nd

    to providepowerfulnew

    vehiclesfor

    culturally-providedyths. he impact' f rrigationechnology

    n the

    ociety

    takingshape

    in

    Sri Lanka's

    irrigation-based

    ettlement

    chemes cannot be

    grasped,

    herefore,

    ntil

    this

    technology

    s

    seen

    in

    itstotality, totality

    hat

    embraces ot

    only

    he harsh acts

    f

    hydraulics'the

    mplicit isparity

    etween

    top-enders

    nd

    tail-enders),

    ut what

    is

    more,

    the choices that the

    project

    designers

    made

    n

    defining

    hecolonies' social relations,

    nd,

    n

    particular,

    he

    powerful oliticalmyths

    hat

    uided

    hem o

    these hoices.

    There remains

    o

    concede,

    however,

    hat technological

    nnovation's ocial

    and

    mythic

    imensions

    may

    become

    starkly pparent

    when t

    is

    perceived

    o

    fail.

    After he

    Challengerdisaster,

    or

    nstance,

    he

    American

    pace

    shuttle

    programmeame to be seen s aproduct, otof cience nd reason,butrather f

    political

    ompromise,

    lawed ommunication

    nd confused

    oals.

    If

    an inno-

    vation

    succeeds,

    however,

    the social and

    mythic

    dimensions

    stay

    in

    the

    background.

    The innovation's

    success will be attributed o

    the

    project's

    unerring

    navigation

    of the true

    course laid down by

    the

    laws

    of

    nature,

    efficiency

    nd reason.

    Here is

    yet

    another

    rap

    for he

    mind,

    one that

    s

    even

    more nsidious han

    fetishism.

    o

    argue

    hat

    nly

    failed

    echnology

    s

    socially

    onstructed

    and,

    by

    implication,

    hat successfulones are

    not

    socially constructed)

    iolates

    the

    principle

    f

    symmetry

    n

    sociologicalexplanation:

    we

    should use the same

    explanatory rinciples o accountfora successful nnovation s a failedone

    (Latour 987). Many

    examples-the

    American utomobile,

    or nstanceFlink

    1975)-can

    indeed be foundof successful echnologies

    n

    which the technical

    design

    betrays

    he

    thorough

    nterweaving

    f

    materials nd

    techniques

    with

    social

    visions nd

    mythic

    onceptions.

    et we must

    go

    further.

    o create new

    technology

    s

    to createnot

    only

    a

    new

    artefact,

    ut also a new

    world of social

  • 8/10/2019 Pfaff en Berger

    16/18

    250 BRYAN PFAFFENBERGER

    relations and myths n which definitions

    f what 'works' and is 'successful' are

    constructed by the same political relationsthe technology engenders. It could

    be objected,

    to be

    sure,

    that

    a

    technology

    either works' or it

    doesn't,

    but this

    objection

    obscures

    the

    mounting

    evidence that

    creating

    a

    'successful' tech-

    nology

    also

    requires creating

    and

    disseminating

    the

    very

    norms that define it

    as successful (MacKenzie I987).

    In Sri

    Lanka,

    for

    nstance,

    the web of

    political

    associations

    created

    along

    with the

    dams

    and canals-a web that includes the

    influx of foreign economic assistance, the provision of lucrative construction

    contracts,and the creation

    of

    politically ndebted communities-is of such vital

    significance to the ruling United National

    Party government that the project's

    'failings'cannot be admitted,save

    in

    privateand off he record. The project may

    have plunged generationsofSri Lankans into debt, damaged the ecology of river

    valleys and created dangerous new contexts for political violence, but none of

    this

    can be

    conceded without

    undermining

    a political edifice of impressive

    dimensions

    and

    complexity. So

    far as Sri

    Lankan government officials are

    concerned,

    the AMDP

    project

    is

    a

    great

    success. To

    put

    it

    another way, these

    officials

    re

    part of

    a

    huge enterprise

    whose stability nd endurance depends, in

    part, on constructing

    new norms of success'

    and, equally, resisting the intru-

    sions of external and unwanted norms of 'failure'. If they succeed, the tech-

    nology becomes a 'black box': few question its design or the norms thatdefine t

    as a success

    (MacKenzie

    I987).

    And

    its social origins disappear from view.

    Technology, in short, s a mystifying orceof the first rder, and it s rivalled

    only by language

    in its

    potential (to paraphrase

    Geertz) for suspending us in

    webs of significance that we ourselves

    create. That is why it is an appropriate

    -indeed crucial-subject for anthropological study.

    NOTE

    My thanks oMel Cherno,

    W. BernardCarlson

    nd

    H.

    L.

    Seneviratne,

    hose

    comments n

    an

    earlier

    draft

    f this

    article

    helped

    me

    shape

    its

    argument,

    or which

    alone take

    responsibility.

    Thanks re

    due, too,

    to the chool

    of

    Engineering

    nd

    Applied cience,University

    f

    Virginia,

    or

    summer esearch rant hat acilitatedhis ssay's omposition.

    REFERENCES

    Acheson,James

    M.

    i98i.

    Anthropology

    f fishing.

    nn. Rev.Anthrop.0,

    275-3 6.

    Akrich,

    Madelainei987.

    How can technical bjects

    be described?Unpublishedmss.,

    Centrede

    Sociologie

    de L'Innovation,

    cole Nationale

    Sup6rieurees Mines de

    Paris.

    Attewell,

    aul & James

    Rule

    i984.

    Computing ndorganizations:

    whatwe know

    and what

    we

    don't know.

    Communications f

    theACM

    27,

    I I84-92.

    Beardsley,Richard

    K.

    i964.

    Ecological

    and social parallels etween ice-growing

    ommunities

    f

    Japan

    and

    Spain.

    In

    Symposium

    n

    community

    tudies

    n

    anthropology

    ed.) Viola E.

    Garfield.

    Seattle:American thnological ociety.

    Benedict,Ruth 948.

    Anthropology nd

    thehumanities. m.

    Anthrop.

    0, 585-93.

    Boas, Franz

    940.

    Race, anguage,nd

    culture. ew York: Macmillan.

    Bodley,JohnH. I 982.

    Victimsfprogress

    2nd edn).Menlo Park,

    CA: Benjamin-Cummings.

    Chapple,

    E. D.

    I94I.

    Organization

    roblemsn ndustry.

    ppl.Anthrop.

    ,

    2-9.

    Digard,

    Jean-Pierre979.

    La technologie n anthropologie:

    inde parcours

    u nouveau

    souffle?

    L'Homme 19, 73-I04.

  • 8/10/2019 Pfaff en Berger

    17/18

    BRYAN

    PFAFFENBERGER

    25I

    Downing,

    Theodore

    & McGuire Gibson

    (eds)

    1974. Irrigation'smpact n

    society. ucson, AZ:

    Univ. of ArizonaPress.

    Ellul,Jacques

    962.

    The technologicalrder. Technol. ult.3,

    394-42I.

    Farmer, . H. (ed.)

    I977.

    Green

    evolution?echnologynd hangenrice-growingreas fTamilNadu nd

    Sri Lanka.Boulder,CO: Westview ress.

    Ferguson, ugene S. I977. The

    mind's

    ye: nonverbal hought

    n

    technology. cience97, 827-36.

    Flink, ames . 975.

    The car

    ulture.

    ambridge,

    MA:

    MIT

    Press.

    Fores,

    Michael

    I982.

    Technical

    change

    and

    the

    technology'myth.Scand. econl. ist.

    Rev. 30,

    I67-88.

    Geertz,Clifford972.

    The wet and the

    dry:

    raditional

    rrigation

    n

    Ball

    and Morocco.

    Htm.

    Ecol.

    I, 23-9.

    Godelier,

    Maurice

    977. Perspectives

    n Marxist

    nthropologytrans.)

    M.

    Brain,Cambridge:Univ.

    Press.

    Godoy,

    Ricardo

    985.

    Mining:anthropological erspectives.

    nn.

    Rev.

    Anthrop.

    4, I99-2I7.

    Goonatilake,

    usantha

    979.

    Technology

    as a social

    gene. J. jci. indust. es.

    (New Delhl) 38,

    339-3 54.

    Gottfried,

    eidi

    I982. Keeping

    theworkers

    n

    ine.

    Sciencefor

    he

    eople 4

    (July/August),9-24.

    Gray,

    RobertF.

    I973.

    The

    Sonjo

    of Tanganyika:

    n

    anthropologicaltudy f

    n

    irrigation-basedociety.

    New York: OxfordUniv. Press.

    Harris,

    Marvin

    968.

    The rise f

    nthropologicalheory.

    ew

    York:

    Thomas Y. Crowell.

    I974. Cows,pigs,wars,

    ndwitches:he iddles

    f

    ulture. ew York: Random

    House.

    I977. Cannibals ndkings: he riginsf ultures. ew York:VintageBooks.

    Holzberg,

    Carol S.

    & Maureen

    J.

    Giovannini

    98I.

    Anthropology

    nd

    industry:

    eappraisal

    nd

    new directions. nn. Rev.

    Anthrop.0, 3I7-60.

    Honigmann,JohnJ.ed.) I973.

    Handbook

    f

    ocial nd

    ultural

    nthropology.ew

    York: Macmillan.

    Hughes, Thomas P.

    I983.

    Networksf ower: lectrificationnwesternociety,

    880-1930.

    Baltimore:

    JohnsHopkinsUniv. Press.

    Hunt,

    RobertC. & Eva

    Hunt

    976.

    Canal

    irrigation

    nd local

    social structure.

    tirr.

    nlthrop.

    7,

    389-98.

    Latour,

    Bruno

    987.

    Sciencen ction.

    ambridge,

    MA:

    HarvardUniv. Press.

    Law, John 987. Technology nd

    heterogeneousngineering:he ase

    of

    Portuguese

    xpansion.

    n

    The social onstruction

    ftechnologicalystemseds) W. E. Bijker et al.

    Cambridge,

    MA:

    MIT

    Press.

    Layton,

    dwin T.

    I974. Technology s knowledge. Technol. ult.

    5,

    3I-4.

    Leach,

    Edmund

    959. Hydraulic ociety

    n

    Ceylon.

    Past

    ndPresent

    5, 2-25.

    Lee, RichardBorshay

    957.

    The KungSan: men,women,ndwork n foraging

    ociety. ew York:

    CambridgeUniv. Press.

    Mackenzie,Donald

    I984.

    Marxand the machine. Technol. ult.

    5, 473-503.

    I987. Stellar-inertial

    uidance: study n the ociology fmilitary

    echnology.Ms, Dept. of

    Sociology,

    Univ. of

    Edinburgh.

    &JudyWajcman 985.

    Introduction.n The ocial haping f echnology.hiladelphia: pen

    Univ. Press.

    Marx,

    Karl

    938. Capital,

    Vol.

    I. London: Allen& Unwin.

    &

    Friedrich

    ngels I976.

    The German

    deology.

    n Collected

    Works,

    ol.

    5.

    New York:

    International

    ublishers.

    Mauss,

    Marcel

    967.

    The

    gift:

    ormnsndfunctionsf xchangen archaicociety

    trans.) an Cunnison.

    New York: Norton.

    Mills,

    C.

    Wright963. Power, olitics,

    nd

    people:

    he ollected

    ssays f

    C.

    Wright ills.

    New York:

    Ballantine.

    Mitchell,William .

    I973.

    A newweapon stirs p old ghosts.Nat. Hist. 82(December,

    973).

    Nash, June 979. Weeatthemines. ew York: Columbia Univ. Press.

    Nash, Manning

    967.

    Machine geMaya: the ndustrializationf Guatemalan

    ommunity.hicago:

    Univ. Press.

    Newton, Janice 985. Technology

    and

    cooperative

    abour

    among

    the

    Orokaiva.

    Mankind

    5,

    2I4-22.

    Noble,

    David

    I979.

    Social

    choice

    in

    machine tool

    design:

    the

    case

    of

    automatically

    ontrolled

  • 8/10/2019 Pfaff en Berger

    18/18

    252

    BRYAN

    PFAFFENBERGER

    machine ools.

    n

    Case studiesni

    he

    abor

    rocess

    ed.) Andrew

    Zimbalist.

    New

    York:

    Monthly

    Review Press.

    I986. Forces f

    roduction:

    socialhistoryf

    ndustrialutomation.

    ew York:

    Oxford

    Univ.

    Press.

    Pelto, Pertti . 973.

    The

    nowmobileevolution:

    echnologynd

    ocial hangen the

    Arctic.

    Menlo Park,

    CA:

    Benjamin/Cummings.

    Pfaffenberger,ryan

    987.

    The harshfacts f

    hydraulics:

    rrigation

    nd

    society

    n Sri

    Lanka's

    colonizationchemes.

    Ms,

    Division

    of

    Humanities.

    Univ. of

    Virginia.

    Pinch,

    T.

    J.

    & W.

    E.

    Bijker

    I984.

    The

    social construction f facts nd

    artefacts:

    r how

    the

    sociologyof

    science ndthe

    ociology

    f

    technologymight

    enefit ach

    other. ocialStud. ci.

    '4,

    399-44I-

    Salz,

    B. R.

    I955.

    The problem nd

    some

    issues.

    In

    The

    human lement

    n

    industrializationAm.

    anthrop.

    Assn.

    Mem.

    85).Washington: merican

    Anthropological

    ssociation.

    Schon, D. A.

    I967.

    Technologynd hange. ew York:DelacortePress.

    Sharp,Lauriston

    952. Steel

    axes

    for

    tone-age

    Australians. tm.

    Org. I, I7-22.

    Spier,RobertF. G.

    I970. From he

    handof man:

    primitivend

    preindustrial

    echnologies.oston:

    Houghton-Mifflin.

    Staudenmaier, ohn 985.

    Technology'storytellers:

    eweaving

    he

    human

    abric.

    Cambridge, MA,

    London:

    The Society or

    he

    History f

    Technology nd MIT

    Press.

    Taussig, M. I980. The devil

    nd

    commodity

    etishismn South

    America.

    hapel

    Hill, NC:

    Univ. of

    North

    Carolina

    Press.

    Tornatzky, ouis G. et

    l.

    I983. The

    processf

    echnological

    nnovation. ashington:

    ational

    Science

    Foundation.

    Tucker,RobertC. (ed.)

    I978. TheMarx-Engels

    eader.

    ew York:

    Norton.

    Wallace,

    Anthony

    F.

    C.

    I978.

    Rockdale: he

    growthf

    an

    American

    illage

    n the

    arly ndustrial

    revolution.ew York:Knopf.

    White,

    eslieA.

    I959.

    The

    evolution

    f

    ulture.

    hicago:

    Univ.

    Press.

    White,LynnJr

    967. The

    historical ootsof

    our

    ecologic crisis. cience

    155, 1203-7.

    Winner,

    angdon 1977.

    Autonomous

    echniology:

    echniics-out-of-conitrol

    s a

    themne

    npolitical

    hought.

    Cambridge,

    MA: MIT

    Press.

    1980. Do artifacts

    ave

    olitics?

    aedalus

    09, I2I-3.

    I986.

    Technology

    s forms f

    ife.

    n

    Thewhale

    nd he eactor:

    searchforimitsn nage

    of igh

    technology.

    hicago:

    Univ.

    Press.

    Wittfogel,

    arl

    957.

    Oriental

    espotism.

    ew

    Haven:

    Yale

    Univ.

    Press.

    Objets fetiches t naturehumanisee: vers une anthropologie de la

    technologie

    Resume

    Le concept e technologie evient tile eulementorsque espr6conceptionsacites

    ont

    mises

    au

    our. Dans le

    discours

    ccidentale

    terme

    echnologie st

    1i6

    deuxextr6mites e

    la

    pensee

    mythique:e d6terminismet

    e

    somnambulismeechnologiques. e premier ecritatechnologle

    comme la cause de la formation ociale; le

    derniernie

    ce lien de causalite. Tous les deux,

    cependant, ccultent es choix soclauxet es relationsociales qui appartiennent tout

    ysteme

    technologlque.

    our rendre e tellesnotions

    aduques,

    a

    technologie st red6finie

    ci

    comme

    etant

    n

    phenomene

    ocial total ans e sens utilis6

    ar Mauss;

    un

    ph6nomene

    la fois

    mat6r&el,

    social,

    et symbolique.

    Creer et

    utiliser ne

    technologie,

    'est

    alors

    humaniser

    a

    nature; 'est

    exprimer

    nevision

    ociale, reer

    n

    symbole uissant,

    t

    s'engager

    oi-meme ansune

    forme

    e

    vie. L'6tude de la technologie,par consequent, 'adapte bien aux outils d'interpr6tatione

    l'anthropologle ymbolique. Ce pointest

    illustr6

    arune analysebrevedes projets oloniaux

    d'irrigation

    u Sri Lanka.