Upload
onclefetit
View
251
Download
0
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=rai8/10/2019 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.