Controversy mapping case study preparation report

What you will include

Part 2: Peer Review

Use the prompts given below to provide initial feedback for your assigned peer’s case study (250 to 500 words).

What’s Included

Summary: How clear is the description of the case study? Is there anything that is unclear or questionable to you?

Relevance: Does this seem like a good case study to highlight important elements of the way technology is developed?

Sources: Are there enough sources to verify the facts? How reliable are they?

Timeline: Is the timeline clear? Are the moments adequately described?

Actor network diagram: How clear is the Actor network diagram? Does it adequately summarize how the relevant social actors conceptualize the case/issue/controversy?

Part 3: Website

You will develop a simple website to explain and illustrate technical disputes for the public.

What’s Included

Home page: includes the title, summary and relevance of the case study

Timeline page: includes annotated timeline diagram

Actor Network page: includes an annotated Actor Network diagram

A2 Part 1: Controversy mapping case study preparation report
Title:
Synopsis:
Relevance:
Sources:
Timeline:
Actor network diagram:
Bibliography:
Embedding your Padlet
1. From your Padlet’s page, click the arrow button below the alien to open the Share
panel
2. Scroll down the Share panel and select ‘Embed in your blog or your website’
3. Click to copy the embed code
4. On your Wix site’s page editor, click:
‘Add Elements’ à ‘Embed Code’ à ‘Embed HTML’
5. Paste the code copied from your Padlet
6. Ta-dah! Your Padlet is now embedded into your Wix site. You can now style the
Padlet block as you see fit.
Do Artifacts Have Politics?
Author(s): Langdon Winner
Source: Daedalus, Vol. 109, No. 1, Modern Technology: Problem or Opportunity? (Winter,
1980), pp. 121-136
Published by: The MIT Press on behalf of American Academy of Arts & Sciences
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20024652
Accessed: 06/10/2009 20:50
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
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 support@jstor.org.
The MIT Press and American Academy of Arts & Sciences are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Daedalus.
http://www.jstor.org
LANGDON WINNER
Do Artifacts Have Politics?
about
In controversies
and
technology
society,
there
is no
idea more
pro
vocative
than the notion that technical things have political qualities. At issue is
the claim that the machines,
structures, and systems of modern material culture
can be
not
of efficiency and pro
accurately
judged
only for their contributions
side effects,
ductivity, not merely for their positive and negative environmental
can
but also for the ways
in which
of
forms
power and
they
embody specific
a
of
Since
this
kind
have
and
in
ideas
presence
authority.
persistent
troubling
about the meaning
of technology,
discussions
deserve
attention.1
explicit
they
in Technology and Culture almost two decades ago, Lewis Mumford
Writing
gave
classic
to one
statement
version
of
the
theme,
arguing
that
“from
late
neo
East, right down to our own day, two technologies have
one authoritarian,
existed
side
the other democratic,
the
recurrently
by side:
first system-centered,
but
the
other
unstable,
immensely powerful,
inherently
but resourceful
and durable.”2 This
thesis
man-centered,
relatively weak,
stands at the heart of Mumford’s
studies of the city, architecture,
and the his
and mirrors concerns voiced earlier in the works of Peter
tory of technics,
lithic times in the Near
Kropotkin,
ism. More
America
William
and other nineteenth
Morris,
recently,
have
adopted
antinuclear
a
similar
and
prosolar
as
notion
century
critics of industrial
movements
energy
a
centerpiece
in
in
their
Europe
and
arguments.
Thus environmentalist
Denis Hayes
“The increased deployment
of
concludes,
nuclear power facilities must lead society toward authoritarianism.
Indeed, safe
reliance upon nuclear power as the principal source of energy may be possible
only in a totalitarian state.” Echoing the views of many proponents of appropri
ate
and the soft energy path, Hayes contends that “dispersed solar
technology
sources are more compatible
than centralized
technologies with social equity,
freedom and cultural pluralism.”3
An eagerness to interpret technical artifacts in political
language is by no
means the exclusive property of critics of
systems.
large-scale high-technology
A long lineage of boosters have insisted that the
“biggest and best” that science
and industry made available were the best guarantees of
freedom,
democracy,
and social justice. The factory system, automobile,
radio, television,
telephone,
the space program, and of course nuclear power itself have all at one time or
another been described as democratizing,
in
liberating forces. David Lilienthal,
T.V.A.: Democracy on theMarch, for example, found this promise
in the phos
121
122
LANGDON
WINNER
to rural
that technical progress was bringing
In a recent essay, The Republic of Technology,
television for “its power to disband armies, to cashier
phate fertilizers and electricity
Americans
during the 1940s.4
Daniel
Boorstin
extolled
to create
presidents,
a whole
new
democratic
world?democratic
in ways
never
before imagined, even in America.”5
Scarcely a new invention comes along that
someone does not proclaim
it the salvation of a free society.
It is no surprise to learn that technical systems of various kinds are deeply
of
in the conditions of modern politics. The physical arrangements
interwoven
and
the
like
have
fundamen
industrial production,
warfare,
communications,
tally changed the exercise of power and the experience of citizenship. But to go
to argue that certain technologies
in themselves have
beyond this obvious fact and
at
We all know
first
mistaken.
seems,
political properties
glance, completely
that people have politics, not things. To discover either virtues or evils in aggre
seems
and chemicals
transistors,
gates of steel, plastic,
integrated circuits,
a
true
human
of
artifice
and
of
the
way
just plain wrong,
mystifying
avoiding
sources
and
and
human
of
freedom
sources, the
injustice.
oppression,
justice
even more foolish than blaming the victims when
Blaming the hardware appears
it comes to judging conditions of public life.
the stern advice commonly given those who flirt with the notion that
Hence,
is not technology
technical artifacts have political qualities: What matters
itself,
but the social or economic system in which it is embedded. This maxim, which
is the central premise of a theory that can be called
in a number of variations
It serves as a
of technology,
has an obvious wisdom.
the social determination
needed corrective to those who focus uncritically on such things as “the comput
er and its social impacts” but who fail to look behind technical things to notice
and use. This view
of their development,
the social circumstances
deployment,
an
to
idea that tech
determinism?the
antidote
naive
provides
technological
an
as
and
of
unmediated
the
internal
sole
result
then,
dynamic,
nology develops
to
have not
Those
who
fit
its
molds
other
influence,
patterns.
any
society
by
are shaped by social and economic
in
the
which
ways
technologies
recognized
forces
have
not
gotten
very
far.
taken literally, it suggests that
But the corrective has its own shortcomings;
technical things do not matter at all. Once one has done the detective work
in
to reveal the social origins?power
holders behind a particular
necessary
of
stance of technological
will
have
impor
everything
explained
change?one
tance. This conclusion offers comfort to social scientists: it validates what they
about the study
had always suspected, namely, that there is nothing distinctive
can return to their standard models
of technology
in the first place. Hence,
they
of interest group politics, bureaucratic politics, Marxist
of social power?those
have everything
of class struggle, and the like?and
models
they need. The
of technology
social determination
is, in this view, essentially no different from
the
social
determination
of,
say,
welfare
policy
or
taxation.
on a special
are, however,
good reasons technology has of late taken
and
scien
in its own right for historians,
fascination
philosophers,
political
so
reasons
in ac
of
far
models
social
science
the
standard
tists; good
only go
most
the
and
troublesome
about
for
is
what
subject. In
interesting
counting
social and political
another place I have tried to show why so much of modern
statements of what can be called a theory of tech
thought contains recurring
There
DO
ARTIFACTS
HAVE
POLITICS?
123
an odd
of notions often crossbred with orthodox
nological politics,
mongrel
The theory of technological
and
socialist
liberal, conservative,
philosophies.6
to the momentum
of
draws
attention
systems,
large-scale sociotechnical
politics
to the response of modern
societies to certain technological
imperatives, and to
In
the all too common signs of the adaptation of human ends to technical means.
so
a novel framework of interpretation and explanation for some
offers
it
doing
of the more puzzling patterns that have taken shape in and around the growth of
culture. One strength of this point of view is that it takes
modern material
technical artifacts seriously. Rather than insist that we immediately
reduce
to the interplay of social forces, it suggests that we pay attention to
everything
the characteristics
of technical objects and the meaning of those characteristics.
A necessary complement
to, rather than a replacement for, theories of the social
as
this perspective
determination
of technology,
identifies certain technologies
own
us
to
in
It
borrow
Edmund
their
back,
phenomena
points
political
right.
Husserl’s
injunction, to the things themselves.
philosophical
In what follows I shall offer outlines and illustrations of two ways in which
artifacts can contain political properties. First are instances in which the inven
tion, design, or arrangement of a specific technical device or system becomes a
Seen in the proper light,
way of settling an issue in a particular community.
are
of
this
kind
and
Second
examples
fairly straightforward
easily understood.
are cases of what can be called inherently political
man-made
sys
technologies,
tems that appear to require, or to be
strongly compatible with, particular kinds
of political relationships.
about cases of this kind are much more
Arguments
troublesome and closer to the heart of the matter. By “politics,” Imean arrange
ments of power and authority in human associations as well as the activities that
take place within
those arrangements.
For my purposes,
here is
“technology”
to mean all of modern
to
understood
I
avoid
but
confusion
practical artifice,7
to
or
or
of
smaller
of
hardware
speak
systems
prefer
technology,
larger pieces
of a specific kind. My intention is not to settle any of the issues here once and for
and significance.
all, but to indicate their general dimensions
Technical Arrangements
as Forms
of Order
Anyone who has traveled the highways of America and has become used to
a little odd about some
the normal height of overpasses may well find
something
of the bridges over the parkways on
New
York. Many
of the
Long Island,
are
as
as
at the
little
nine
feet
of
clearance
low, having
overpasses
extraordinarily
curb. Even those who happened to notice this structural peculiarity would not
to it. In our accustomed way of look
be inclined to attach any special meaning
at
we
see
like
roads
and
the details of form as innocuous, and
ing
things
bridges
seldom give them a second thought.
It turns out, however,
that the two hundred or so
low-hanging overpasses
on
were
Island
Long
deliberately
designed to achieve a particular social effect.
Robert Moses,
the master builder of roads, parks, bridges, and other public
works from the 1920s to the 1970s in New York, had these overpasses built to
that would discourage
the presence of buses on his parkways.
specifications
to
evidence
According
provided by Robert A. Caro in his biography of Moses,
the reasons reflect Moses’s
social-class bias and racial prejudice. Automobile
124
LANGDON
WINNER
as he called them,
owning whites of “upper” and “comfortable middle” classes,
would be free to use the parkways for recreation and commuting.
Poor people
and blacks, who normally used public transit, were kept off the roads because
One con
the twelve-foot
tall buses could not get through the overpasses.
was
access
to
limit
of
minorities
and
racial
low-income
sequence
groups to Jones
acclaimed public park. Moses made doubly sure of this
Beach, Moses’s widely
to Jones
result by vetoing a proposed
extension of the Long Island Railroad
Beach.8
a story
in recent American
life is fasci
political history, Robert Moses’s
and
with
and
his careful
mayors,
governors,
presidents,
dealings
of
the
and
labor
banks,
unions,
press,
public opinion
manipulation
legislatures,
are all matters that political scientists could
study for years. But the most impor
tant and enduring results of his work are his technologies,
the vast engineering
that
York
much
of
For
New
its
form.
after
present
projects
give
generations
Moses has gone and the alliances he forged have fallen apart, his public works,
and bridges he built to favor the use of the automobile
especially the highways
over the development
of mass transit, will continue to shape that city. Many of
structures of concrete and steel embody a systematic
his monumental
social
a way of
a
after
time,
among people that,
relationships
engineering
inequality,
told
becomes
just another part of the landscape. As planner Lee Koppleman
had
“The
old
Caro about the low bridges on Wantagh
Parkway,
son-of-a-gun
made sure that buses would never be able to use his goddamned
parkways.”9
of architecture,
and public works contain many ex
Histories
city planning,
that contain explicit or implicit political pur
amples of physical arrangements
broad Parisian
poses. One can point to Baron Haussmann’s
thoroughfares,
to prevent any recurrence of street
at
Louis
direction
Napoleon’s
engineered
one can
fighting of the kind that took place during the revolution of 1848. Or
As
nating. His
visit
any
number
of
grotesque
concrete
buildings
and
huge
plazas
constructed
campuses during the late 1960s and early 1970s to de
university
and instruments
Studies of industrial machines
fuse student demonstrations.
also turn up interesting political stories, including some that violate our normal
innovations are made in the first place. If
about why technological
expectations
are introduced to achieve increased efficien
we suppose that new
technologies
shows that we will sometimes be disappointed.
cy, the history of technology
a
not the least of
change expresses
panoply of human motives,
Technological
over
even
some
to
have
dominion
which
is the desire of
others,
though it may
some
to
an occasional
and
violence
the norm of
sacrifice of cost-cutting
require
more from less.
getting
illustration can be found in the history of nineteenth
One poignant
century
At Cyrus McCormick’s
industrial mechanization.
reaper manufacturing
plant in
a new and largely
in the middle
1880s, pneumatic molding machines,
Chicago
cost of
at an estimated
were
added to the foundry
untested
innovation,
we would
of
such
In the standard economic
$500,000.
things,
interpretation
the plant and achieve the kind of
expect that this step was taken to modernize
on American
efficiencies that mechanization
brings. But historian Robert Ozanne has shown
must be seen in a broader context. At the time, Cyrus
the
why
development
II was engaged in a battle with the National Union of Iron Mold
McCormick
as a way to “weed out the bad
ers. He saw the addition of the new machines
DO
ARTIFACTS
HAVE
125
POLITICS?
element among the men,” namely,
the skilled workers who had organized the
union local in Chicago.10 The new machines, manned by unskilled
labor, ac
at
a
cost
inferior
than
the
earlier
process. After
tually produced
castings
higher
three years of use the machines were, in fact, abandoned, but by that time they
had served their purpose?the
destruction of the union. Thus, the story of these
at the McCormick
technical developments
ade
factory cannot be understood
to
outside
the
of
record
workers’
attempts
quately
organize, police repression of
in Chicago during that period, and the events
the labor movement
surrounding
the bombing at Hay market Square. Technological
history and American politi
cal history were at that moment
deeply intertwined.
In cases like those of Moses’s
ma
low bridges and McCormick’s
molding
one
sees
use
of
the
technical
of
chines,
arrangements that precede the
importance
the things in question.
can be used in ways that
It is obvious that technologies
enhance the power, authority, and privilege of some over others, for
example,
the use of television to sell a candidate. To our accustomed way of
thinking,
are seen as neutral tools that can be used well or
technologies
poorly, for good,
in between. But we usually do not stop to
a
evil, or something
inquire whether
a
a
have
device
and
built
in
been
such
that
it
way
given
might
designed
produces
set of consequences
logically and temporally prior to any of its professed uses.
Robert Moses’s bridges, after all, were used to carry automobiles
from one point
to another; McCormick’s
machines were used to make metal castings; both tech
purposes far beyond their immediate use. If
nologies, however,
encompassed
our moral and
includes only cate
political language for evaluating technology
to
not
with
and
if
do
tools
it
does
attention to the
include
uses,
gories having
our
of
the
and
we will be
of
then
artifacts,
meaning
designs
arrangements
blinded to much that is intellectually
and practically crucial.
the point is most easily understood
Because
in the light of particular
in
tentions embodied
in physical form, I have so far offered illustrations that seem
almost conspiratorial.
But to recognize the political dimensions
in the shapes of
not
we
does
that
look
for
conscious
technology
require
conspiracies or malicious
intentions. The organized movement
of handicapped
in the United
people
States during the 1970s pointed out the countless ways
in which machines,
instruments,
and
structures
of
common
plumbing fixtures, and so forth?made
sons to move about
a condition
freely,
to
is
life.
It
safe
that
say
public
designs
from
long-standing
neglect
than
from
use?buses,
it impossible
sidewalks,
buildings,
for many
per
handicapped
that systematically
excluded them from
arose more
unsuited for the handicapped
anyone’s
active
intention.
But
now
that
the issue has been raised for public attention,
it is evident that justice requires a
are
A
now
whole
of
artifacts
and rebuilt to
remedy.
range
being redesigned
accommodate
this minority.
that have
Indeed, many of the most
important examples of technologies
are
those
that
transcend
the
political consequences
simple categories of “in
tended” and “unintended”
are
These
instances
in which
the very
altogether.
of
so
technical
a
is
in
biased
process
development
thoroughly
particular direc
tion that it regularly produces results counted as wonderful
breakthroughs
by
some social interests and
crushing setbacks by others. In such cases it is neither
correct nor
intended to do somebody else harm.”
insightful to say, “Someone
one
must
that
the
deck has been stacked long in ad
Rather,
say
technological
126
vanee
to
favor
certain
receive
a better
hand
social
LANGDON
WINNER
interests,
and
that
some
were
people
to
bound
than others.
tomato harvester,
a remarkable device
re
The mechanical
perfected
by
searchers at the University
of California
from the late 1940s to the present,
offers an illustrative tale. The machine
is able to harvest tomatoes in a single
a
the
from
the ground, shaking the fruit loose,
row, cutting
pass through
plants
and in the newest models
into large plastic
sorting the tomatoes electronically
tons of produce headed for
gondolas that hold up to twenty-five
canning. To
accommodate
the rough motion
of these “factories in the field,” agricultural
researchers
have
bred
new
varieties
of
tomatoes
that
are
hardier,
sturdier,
and
in which crews of
replace the system of handpicking,
farmworkers would pass through the fields three or four times putting ripe to
matoes
in lug boxes and saving immature fruit for later harvest.11 Studies
in
California
indicate that the machine
reduces costs by approximately
five to sev
en dollars per ton as
But the benefits are by no
compared to hand-harvesting.12
means
divided
in
the
In
in the
fact, the machine
equally
agricultural economy.
a
in
has
this
instance
been
the
occasion
for
of
social
garden
thorough reshaping
tomato
in
of
rural
California.
production
relationships
the ma
By their very size and cost, more than $50,000 each to purchase,
chines are compatible only with a highly concentrated
form of tomato growing.
With the introduction of this new method of harvesting,
the number of tomato
declined
from
in
four
thousand
the
growers
approximately
early 1960s to about
in 1973, yet with a substantial
six hundred
increase in tons of tomatoes pro
less tasty. The
harvesters
thousand
By the late 1970s an estimated thirty-two
jobs in the tomato
as a direct consequence
had
eliminated
of
mechanization.13
been
Thus,
industry
a jump in productivity
to the benefit of very large growers has occurred at a
sacrifice to other rural agricultural communities.
duced.
The
of California’s
University
research
and
development
on
agricultural
ma
like the tomato harvester is at this time the subject of a law suit filed by
an
attorneys for California Rural Legal Assistance,
representing
organization
a group of farmworkers
suit charges that
and other interested parties. The
on projects that benefit a hand
officials are spending tax monies
University
chines
ful
of
private
interests
to
the
detriment
of
farmworkers,
small
farmers,
con
sumers, and rural California generally, and asks for a court injunction to stop the
has denied
these charges,
practice. The University
arguing that to accept
them “would require elimination
of all research with any potential practical
application.”14
of the tomato
far as I know, no one has argued that the development
was the result of a plot. Two
students of the controversy, William
Friedland and Amy Barton, specifically exonerate both the original developers
of the machine
and the hard tomato from any desire to facilitate economic con
As
harvester
see here instead is an
social
ongoing
industry.15 What we
scientific knowledge,
invention, and corporate
process in which
technological
profit reinforce each other in deeply entrenched patterns that bear the unmistak
able stamp of political and economic power. Over many decades agricultural
in American
has
research and development
land-grant colleges and universities
It is in the face of
tended to favor the interests of large agribusiness concerns.16
such subtly ingrained patterns that opponents
of innovations
like the tomato
centration
in that
DO
harvester
are made
to
seem
ARTIFACTS
HAVE
127
POLITICS?
or
“antitechnology”
For
“antiprogress.”
the
ter is not merely the symbol of a social order that rewards some while
of that order.
others; it is in a true sense an embodiment
harves
punishing
Within a given category of technological
change there are, roughly speaking,
two kinds of choices that can affect the relative distribution of power, authority,
and privilege in a community.
Often the crucial decision is a simple “yes or no”
or not? In recent years
we going to develop and adopt the
choice?are
thing
international
about
and
national,
local,
many
disputes
technology have centered
on “yes or no” judgments about such things as food additives, pesticides,
the
nuclear reactors, and dam projects. The fundamental
building of highways,
or not the
to join
choice about an ABM or an SST is whether
thing is going
are
a
as
fre
of
its
Reasons
for
and
against
society
piece
operating equipment.
as important as those concerning the adoption of an important new law.
quently
A second range of choices, equally critical inmany instances, has to do with
or arrangement
of a technical system after the
specific features in the design
decision to go ahead with it has already been made. Even after a utility company
can
to build a large electric power line, important controversies
wins permission
remain with respect to the placement of its route and the design of its towers;
con
even after an organization
has decided to institute a system of computers,
to
can
the
kinds
of
arise
with
still
troversies
programs,
components,
regard
modes of access, and other specific features the system will include. Once the
tomato harvester had been developed
in its basic form, design altera
mechanical
addition of electronic
tion of critical social significance?the
sorters, for ex
on
effects
the balance of wealth
the character of the machine’s
ample?changed
and power in California
Some of the most interesting research on
agriculture.
in a
and politics at present focuses on the attempt to demonstrate
technology
concrete fashion how seemingly
innocuous design features in mass
detailed,
transit systems, water projects,
and other technologies
industrial machinery,
David Noble
is
of
mask
choices
Historian
social
actually
profound significance.
now
two
have
kinds
automated
machine
tool
that
different
of
systems
studying
and labor in the industries
implications for the relative power of management
that might employ them. He is able to show that, although the basic electronic
of the record/playback
and mechanical
and numerical control sys
components
are
tems
element
in the
choice
the
similar,
for social struggles
cutting, efficiency,
of one
design
on the shop floor. To
or the modernization
over
another
has
crucial
consequences
see the matter
solely in terms of cost
of equipment
is to miss a decisive
story.17
The
From such examples I would offer the following general conclusions.
we call
our world. Many
are ways of
in
order
things
“technologies”
building
for
technical devices and systems important in everyday life contain possibilities
or not, deliber
many different ways of ordering human activity. Consciously
or inadvertently,
societies choose structures for technologies
that influence
ately
how
people
a very
are
going
to work,
communicate,
travel,
consume,
and
so forth
over
are made,
structuring decisions
long time. In the processes by which
situated and possess unequal degrees of power as
different people are differently
well as unequal levels of awareness. By far the greatest latitude of choice exists
the very first time a particular instrument,
is introduced.
system, or technique
Because choices tend to become strongly fixed inmaterial equipment,
economic
128
WINNER
LANGDON
vanishes for all practical
and social habit, the original flexibility
are
once
In
initial
commitments
made.
that sense technological
the
purposes
that establish a
innovations are similar to legislative acts or political foundings
investment,
framework
for public
same
the
reason,
that will
order
endure
one
attention
careful
would
over many
to
give
For
that
and
rela
generations.
the
rules,
roles,
to such
as the
tionships of politics must also be given
things
building of high
and
the
of
television
the
creation
networks,
ways,
tailoring of seemingly
on new machines. The issues that divide or unite
features
people in
insignificant
are
not
in
and
of
the
institutions
settled
practices
society
politics proper,
only
but also,
wires
and
nuts
transistors,
Inherently
in tangible
less obviously,
and
Political
and
of steel and concrete,
arrangements
bolts.
Technologies
None of the arguments and examples considered thus far address a stronger,
more
and society?the
troubling claim often made in writings about technology
are by their very nature political in a specific way.
belief that some technologies
to this view, the adoption of a given technical system unavoidably
According
that have a distinctive political
it conditions for human relationships
with
brings
cast?for
or
centralized
example,
decentralized,
egalitarian
or
re
inegalitarian,
pressive or liberating. This is ultimately what is at stake in assertions like those
one authoritarian,
the
of Lewis Mumford
that two traditions of technology,
cases
I
In
cited
all
the
other democratic,
exist side by side inWestern
history.
are relatively flexible
in design and arrangement,
and
above the technologies
one can recognize a particular result produced
variable in their effects. Although
in a particular setting, one can also easily imagine how a roughly similar device
or situated with very much different political
or system
might have been built
consequences.
idea we
The
now
must
examine
and
evaluate
is that
certain
kinds
and that to choose them is to choose
of technology do not allow such flexibility,
a particular form of political life.
A remarkably forceful statement of one version of this argument appears in
anar
in 1872. Answering
Friedrich Engels’s little essay “On Authority” written
chists who believed that authority is an evil that ought to be abolished altogeth
for authoritarianism,
er, Engels launches into a panegyric
among
maintaining,
in modern
other things, that strong authority is a necessary condition
industry.
To advance his case in the strongest possible way, he asks his readers to imagine
a social revolution de
that the revolution has already occurred.
“Supposing
throned the capitalists, who now exercise their authority over the production
to adopt entirely the point of view of the
and circulation of wealth. Supposing,
land
and
the
instruments of labour had become the
that
the
anti-authoritarians,
use them. Will
of
the
workers
who
collective
property
authority have dis
or
its
form?”18
it
have
will
only changed
appeared
His answer draws upon lessons from three sociotechnical
systems of his day,
mills,
cotton-spinning
finished
becoming
tions at different
tasks,
from
running
another. Because
work
and
railways,
ships
at sea. He
observes
thread,
through
locations in the factory. The workers
the
steam
engine
these tasks must
is “fixed by the authority
to
that,
on
its way
to
a number
cotton moves
carrying
be coordinated,
of the steam,”
the
of different opera
perform a wide variety of
products
and because
laborers must
from
one
room
to
the timing of the
learn to accept a
DO
HAVE
ARTIFACTS
129
POLITICS?
to
at regular hours and
Engels, work
according
rigid discipline. They must,
to
to
wills
the
their
individual
subordinate
persons in charge of factory
agree
to
that produc
do
the
If
risk
fail
so,
they
horrifying possibility
operations.
they
“The automatic
tion will come to a grinding halt. Engels pulls no punches.
“is much more despotic than the small
of a big factory,” he writes,
machinery
who
capitalists
ever
workers
employ
lessons
are adduced
such
schemes
have
been.”19
in Engels’s analysis of the necessary operating
of
for railways and ships at sea. Both require the subordination
conditions
workers to an “imperious authority” that sees to it that things run according to
an idiosyncracy of capitalist social organ
plan. Engels finds that, far from being
of all
arise “independently
and
subordination
of
ization, relationships
authority
us
are
condi
with
the
material
social organization,
[and]
together
imposed upon
tions under which we produce and make products circulate.” Again, he intends
this to be stern advice to the anarchists who, according to Engels,
thought it
at a single
to
and
subordination
eradicate
superordination
simply
possible
Similar
All
stroke.
are
nonsense.
roots
The
of
author
unavoidable
with
are, he argues, deeply
implanted
“If man, by dint of his knowledge
and inventive genius,
science and technology.
has subdued the forces of nature, the latter avenge themselves upon him by
a
as he
independ
employs them, to veritable despotism
subjecting him, insofar
ent of all social organization.”20
to justify strong authority on the basis of supposedly
necessary
Attempts
conditions of technical practice have an ancient history. A pivotal theme in the
Republic is Plato’s quest to borrow the authority of techn? and employ it by analo
the illus
gy to buttress his argument in favor of authority in the state. Among
is that of a ship on the high seas. Because large
trations he chooses, like Engels,
nature need to be steered with a firm hand, sailors
sailing vessels by their very
must yield to their captain’s commands; no reasonable person believes that ships
a state is
can be run democratically.
Plato goes on to suggest that governing
as a physician.
rather like being captain of a ship or like practicing medicine
itarianism
same
Much
the
nized
technical
that
conditions
activity
require
create
this
also
in the human
involvement
and
action
central
need
rule
in
decisive
in orga
government.
argument, and arguments like it, the justification for authority is
no
made
by Plato’s classic analogy, but rather directly with reference to
longer
as Engels believed
If the basic case is as compelling
it to be,
itself.
technology
one would expect that, as a society adopted increasingly complicated
technical
systems as its material basis, the prospects for authoritarian ways of life would
In Engels’s
be greatly enhanced. Central control by knowledgeable
people acting at the top
In this respect, his
of a rigid social hierarchy would seem increasingly prudent.
to
at
Karl
stand in “On Authority”
be
variance
with
Marx’s
appears
position in
will
Volume One of Capital. Marx tries to show that increasing mechanization
render obsolete the hierarchical division of labor and the relationships of subor
dination that, in his view, were necessary during the early stages of modern
manufacturing.
The
“Modern
Industry,”
he
“…
writes,
sweeps
away
by
technical means the manufacturing
division of labor, under which each man is
bound hand and foot for life to a single detail operation. At the same time, the
this same division of labour in a
capitalistic form of that industry reproduces
still more monstrous
into
a
living
appendage
shape;
of
in the factory proper,
the machine.
by converting
. . .”21 In Marx’s
view,
the workman
the
conditions
130
WINNER
LANGDON
that will eventually dissolve the capitalist division of labor and facilitate prole
tarian revolution are conditions
latent in industrial technology
itself. The dif
in Capital and Engels’s
in his essay raise an
ferences between Marx’s position
after all, does modern
important question for socialism: What,
technology make
in political life? The theoretical tension we see here mir
possible or necessary
rors many troubles in the practice of freedom and authority that have muddied
the tracks of socialist revolution.
are in some sense
to the effect that
inherently politi
Arguments
technologies
cal have
been
In my
here.
in a wide
advanced
of
reading
such
of
variety
notions,
far
contexts,
too
are
there
however,
to summarize
many
two
basic
of
ways
case. One version claims that the adoption of a
stating the
given technical sys
tem actually requires the creation and maintenance
of a particular set of social
conditions as the operating environment
of that system. Engels’s position
is of
this kind. A similar view is offered by a contemporary writer who holds that “if
you
nuclear
accept
power
also
you
plants,
a techno-scientific-industrial
accept
in charge, you could not have nuclear
elite. Without
these people
military
some
In
of technology
this
kinds
power.”29
conception,
require their social en
to
vironments
in
structured
be
a
in much
way
particular
same
the
sense
that
an automobile
in order to run. The thing could not exist as an
requires wheels
certain social as well as material
effective operating
unless
conditions
entity
were met. The meaning of “required” here is that of practical (rather than logi
cal) necessity. Thus, Plato thought it a practical necessity that a ship at sea have
one captain and an
obedient crew.
unquestioningly
A second, somewhat weaker,
version of the argument holds that a given
kind of technology
is strongly compatible with, but does not strictly require,
of a particular stripe. Many
social and political relationships
advocates of solar
are
now
more
that
hold
that
of
energy
variety
compatible with a
technologies
democratic,
clear
power;
energy
society
egalitarian
same
at the
time
requires
than
they
case
Their
democracy.
energy
do not
systems
based
maintain
that
that
is, briefly,
on
coal,
oil,
anything
solar
nu
and
about
solar
is decentral
energy
a technical and political sense: technically
it is vastly
speaking,
izing in both
more reasonable to build solar systems in a disaggregated,
distributed
widely
manner than in
speaking, solar energy
large-scale centralized plants; politically
to manage
and local communities
accommodates
the attempts of individuals
because they are dealing with systems that are more
their affairs effectively
sources. In
than huge centralized
and controllable
accessible,
comprehensible,
this view, solar energy is desirable not only for its economic and environmental
it is likely to permit in other areas
benefits, but also for the salutary institutions
of public life.23
to be
there is a further distinction
Within
both versions of the argument
of a given technical
that are internal to the workings
made between conditions
internal social
system and those that are external to it. Engels’s thesis concerns
cotton
to
and
within
factories
relations said
be required
railways, for example;
a
mean
of
for the condition
what such relationships
society at large is for him
separate
are
compatible
society
In contrast,
question.
removed
with
from
democracy
the
the
solar
pertains
organization
that
solar
advocate’s
belief
to the way
they complement
of
those
technologies
as
technologies
aspects of
such.
are, then, several different directions that arguments of this kind can
follow. Are the social conditions predicated
said to be required by, or strongly
There
DO
HAVE
ARTIFACTS
131
POLITICS?
compatible with, the workings of a given technical system? Are those conditions
internal to that system or external to it (or both)? Although writings that address
such questions are often unclear about what is being asserted, arguments in this
an important presence
in modern political discourse.
general category do have
enter
to
into
how
many attempts
They
explain
changes in social life take place
in the wake of technological
innovation. More
they are often used
importantly,
to buttress attempts to justify or criticize proposed courses of action
involving
new
or
technology. By offering distinctly political reasons for
against the adop
tion of a particular technology,
arguments of this kind stand apart from more
more
commonly employed,
easily quantifiable claims about economic costs and
benefits, environmental
impacts, and possible risks to public health and safety
that technical systems may involve. The issue here does not concern how many
jobs will be created, how much income generated, how many pollutants added,
or how many cancers
produced. Rather, the issue has to do with ways in which
choices about technology have important consequences
for the form and quality
of
human
associations.
If we
examine social patterns that comprise the environments
of technical
we
to specific
find
certain
devices
and
almost
linked
systems,
systems
invariably
of
and
The
is:
Does
this
ways
organizing power
authority.
important question
state of affairs derive from an unavoidable
social response to intractable proper
ties in the things themselves, or is it instead a pattern imposed independently
by
a
governing body, ruling class, or some other social or cultural institution to
further its own purposes?
most obvious example, the atom bomb is an
Taking the
inherently political
artifact. As long as it exists at all, its lethal properties demand that it be con
trolled by a centralized,
chain of command
closed to all
rigidly hierarchical
influences that might make its workings unpredictable.
The internal social sys
tem of the bomb must be authoritarian;
there is no other way. The state of
affairs stands as a practical necessity
independent of any larger political system
in which the bomb is embedded,
independent of the kind of regime or character
of
its rulers.
democratic
Indeed,
structures
social
and
mentality
states
must
that
characterize
to find
try
the
to ensure
ways
that
of
management
the
nuclear
weapons do not “spin off’ or “spill over” into the polity as a whole.
The bomb is, of course, a special case. The reasons very rigid relationships
of
are
authority
in its
necessary
immediate
should
presence
be
clear
to
anyone.
we
look for other instances in which particular varieties of tech
If, however,
are
of a special pattern of power
nology
widely perceived to need the maintenance
and authority, modern
technical history contains a wealth of examples.
a monumental
in The Visible Hand,
Alfred D. Chandler
study of modern
to defend the hypothe
business enterprise, presents impressive documentation
sis
that
tion,
the
construction
transportation,
centuries
require
the
and
and
day-to-day
of
development
tralized,
hierarchical
organization
Typical
of Chandler’s
reasoning
made
possible
Technology
liable movement
of goods
and repair
of locomotives,
a
particular
is his analysis
stock,
systems
in the nineteenth
administered
fast, all-weather
and passengers,
rolling
of many
operation
communication
social
form?a
of
produc
twentieth
large-scale
cen
skilled managers.
by highly
of the growth of the railroads.
transportation;
as the
as well
and
and
track,
but
safe,
regular,
maintenance
continuing
stations,
roadbed,
round
re
132
LANGDON
and
houses,
organization.
functional
other
equipment,
required
It meant
the employment
over
activities
administrative
an extensive
command
the work
coordinate
WINNER
of middle
of managers
a set
for
administrative
to
of managers
these
supervise
of an
and
the appointment
to monitor,
evaluate,
area;
geographical
and top executives
responsible
a sizable
of
creation
the
of
the day-to-day
and
operations.
his book Chandler points to ways inwhich technologies used in the
and distribution
of electricity,
chemicals, and a wide range of indus
“demanded” or “required” this form of human association.
“Hence,
of
railroads
demanded
the
creation
of
the first
the operational
requirements
in American
administrative
hierarchies
business.”25
Were there other conceivable ways of organizing these aggregates of people
and apparatus? Chandler
shows that a previously
dominant
social form, the
small traditional family firm, simply could not handle the task in most cases.
he does not speculate further, it is clear that he believes there is, to be
Although
Throughout
production
trial goods
realistic, very
within modern
little
in the forms of power and authority appropriate
tech
systems. The properties of many modern
such that over
and refineries,
for example?are
If such
of scale and speed are possible.
economies
latitude
sociotechnical
nologies?oil
pipelines
impressive
whelmingly
systems are to work effectively,
efficiently, quickly, and safely, certain require
ments of internal social organization
have to be fulfilled; the material possi
available
could not be exploited
bilities
make
that modern
technologies
as
one
institu
that
otherwise. Chandler
compares sociotechnical
acknowledges
tions of different nations, one sees “ways in which cultural attitudes, values,
and social structure affect these imperatives.”26
systems,
ideologies, political
But the weight of argument and empirical evidence in The Visible Hand suggests
that any significant departure from the basic pattern would be, at best, highly
unlikely.
It may
be
example,
prove
that
of
capable
other
of
those
of
arrangements
worker
democratic
conceivable
decentralized,
factories,
administering
refineries,
in
and
Yugoslavia
other
countries
is often
for
authority,
could
self-management,
communications
and railroads as well as or better than the organizations
teams in Sweden
from automobile
Evidence
assembly
plants
and
power
systems,
describes.
Chandler
and worker-managed
to
presented
these
salvage
pos
over this matter here, but
I shall not be able to settle controversies
sibilities.
to
to
be their bone of contention. The available
what I consider
merely point
evidence tends to show that many large, sophisticated
systems are
technological
compatible with
question, however,
in fact highly
interesting
sense
any
a
of
requirement
control. The
centralized, hierarchical managerial
has to do with whether or not this pattern is in
such
systems,
a
is not
that
question
about what
structure
of human
if
what,
such
anything,
measures
require
of
the
an
solely
rests on our judgments
cal one. The matter ultimately
are practically necessary
in the workings
of particular
empiri
steps,
if any,
kinds of technology
and
associations.
Was Plato right in saying that a ship at sea needs steering by a decisive hand and
an obedient crew?
that this could only be accomplished
by a single captain and
Is Chandler correct in saying that the properties of large-scale systems require
control?
hierarchical managerial
centralized,
To
moral
answer
such
questions,
claims of practical
we
necessity
w7ould
(including
have
to
examine
those advocated
in
some
detail
in the doctrines
the
of
DO
HAVE
ARTIFACTS
133
POLITICS?
economics) and weigh them against moral claims of other sorts, for example, the
in the command of a ship or that
notion that it is good for sailors to participate
in a
workers have a right to be involved in making and administering
decisions
on
It
of
based
is
characteristic
societies
factory.
large, complex technological
that
however,
systems,
reasons
moral
other
than
those
of
necessity
practical
claims one
“idealistic,” and irrelevant. Whatever
appear increasingly obsolete,
or
on
can
to
wish
make
behalf
of
be
may
immediately
liberty, justice,
equality
neutralized when confronted with arguments to the effect: “Fine, but that’s no
way
to run
a railroad”
so on). Here
we
(or
steel
encounter
an
or
mill,
or
airline,
communications
and
system,
important quality in modern political discourse
are justified in
think about what measures
and in the way people commonly
to
the
make
In
available.
response
many instances, to
possibilities
technologies
are inherently political is to say that certain widely
say that some technologies
reasons
of
the need to maintain
crucial
accepted
practical necessity?especially
as
to
entities?have
tended
systems
eclipse
smoothly working
technological
other sorts of moral and political reasoning.
One attempt to salvage the autonomy of politics from the bind of practical
involves the notion that conditions of human association found in the
necessity
of technological
internal workings
systems can easily be kept separate from the
a
as
whole.
Americans
have
polity
long rested content in the belief that arrange
ments of power and authority
inside industrial corporations,
public utilities,
and the like have little bearing on public institutions,
and ideas at
practices,
was
as
a
at
the factory gates”
taken
fact of life that
stops
large. That “democracy
had nothing to do with the practice of political freedom. But can the internal
and the politics of the whole community
be so easily
politics of technology
recent
ex
A
of
American
business
leaders,
contemporary
separated?
study
of
Chandler’s
“visible
hand
of
found
them
emplars
management,”
remarkably
with
impatient
such
democratic
as
scruples
“one
one
man,
vote.”
If
democracy
for the firm, the most critical institution in all of society, American
of a
ask, how well can it be expected to work for the government
doesn’t work
executives
when
nation?particularly
that
attempts
government
to
with
interfere
the
achievements
of the firm? The authors of the report observe that patterns of
that
in the corporation become for businessmen
work
“the
authority
effectively
desirable model against which to compare political and economic relationships
in the rest of society.”27 While
such findings are far from conclusive,
they do
common
reflect a sentiment
in
the
land:
what
dilemmas
like the
increasingly
of wealth or broader public partici
energy crisis require is not a redistribution
pation
but,
rather,
stronger,
centralized
public
Carter’s
management?President
Board and the like.
proposal for an Energy Mobilization
An especially vivid case in which the operational
a technical
requirements of
now
influence
the
of
at
life
is
issue
in
debates
about
system might
quality
public
the risks of nuclear power. As the supply of uranium for nuclear reactors runs
as a
in
out, a proposed alternative fuel is the plutonium
generated
by-product
reactor
cores.
Well-known
economic
ceptable
gers
in regard
these
concerns,
ards?those
objections
its risks
of
costs,
to the
international
however,
that involve
stands
to
plutonium
environmental
proliferation
another
less
the sacrifice of civil
focus
recycling
contamination,
of nuclear
widely
its unac
its dan
weapons.
appreciated
liberties. The
on
and
Beyond
set
widespread
of
haz
use of
134
WINNER
LANGDON
as a fuel increases the chance that this toxic substance
plutonium
might be sto
len by terrorists, organized crime, or other persons. This raises the prospect,
and not a trivial one, that extraordinary measures would have to be taken to
from theft and to recover it if ever the substance were
safeguard plutonium
as
in the nuclear
stolen. Workers
industry as well
ordinary citizens outside
covert surveillance,
could well become subject to background
checks,
security
wiretapping,
and
informers,
even
emergency
measures
under
martial
law?all
justified by the need to safeguard plutonium.
Russell W. Ayres’s
recycling
study of the legal ramifications of plutonium
concludes: “With the passage of time and the increase in the quantity of pluto
to eliminate
the traditional checks the
nium in existence will come pressure
courts and legislatures place on the activities of the executive and to develop a
to enforce strict safeguards.” He avers
powerful central authority better able
that “once a quantity of plutonium had been stolen, the case for literally turning
the country upside down to get it back would be overwhelming.”31
Ayres antic
I
have
of
the
kinds
about
and
worries
thinking that,
argued, characterize
ipates
true that, in a world in which human
It
is
still
inherently political technologies.
is “required” in an absolute
beings make and maintain artificial systems, nothing
sense.
Nevertheless,
once
a course
of
action
is
underway,
once
artifacts
like
the kinds of reason
nuclear power plants have been built and put in operation,
to
technical
life
of
social
the
pop up as
requirements
adaptation
ing that justify
“Once recycling be
as flowers in the spring. In Ayres’s words,
spontaneously
the
theft become real rather than hypothetical,
gins and the risks of plutonium
seem
will
case for
compelling.”28
infringement of protected rights
governmental
and im
After a certain point, those who cannot accept the hard requirements
as dreamers and fools.
will
be
dismissed
peratives
*
*
*
I have outlined indicate how artifacts can
The two varieties of interpretation
in which specific
In the first instance we noticed ways
have political qualities.
of a device or system could provide a
features in the design or arrangement
in a given
convenient means of establishing
patterns of power and authority
a range of flexibility
in
of
the
dimensions
of
this
kind
have
setting. Technologies
form. It is precisely
because they are flexible
that their con
their material
sequences for society must be understood with reference to the social actors able
are chosen. In the second instance
to influence which designs and arrangements
we examined ways in which the intractable properties of certain kinds of tech
are
linked to particular
institutionalized
nology
strongly, perhaps unavoidably,
of
and
initial
about
the
choice
whether or not
power
patterns
authority. Here,
to adopt something
There are no alter
is decisive in regard to its consequences.
or arrangements
that would make a significant dif
native physical
designs
no
for creative intervention
ference; there are, furthermore,
genuine possibilities
or
different
socialist?that
could
social systems?capitalist
change the intrac
by
or
alter
of
its
the quality
political effects.
tability of the entity
significantly
is applicable in a given case is often
To know which variety of interpretation
some of them passionate ones, about the meaning of
what is at stake in disputes,
we
live.
I have argued a “both/and” position here, for it
for how
technology
DO
ARTIFACTS
HAVE
135
POLITICS?
are applicable in different circum
that both kinds of understanding
a
can
that
within
it
Indeed,
happen
particular complex of technology?
seems to me
stances.
a
of
system
or
communication
for
transportation,
aspects
example?some
may
in their possibilities
for society, while other aspects may be (for
be flexible
I
intractable. The two varieties of interpretation
better or worse) completely
have
examined
here
can
and
overlap
at
intersect
many
points.
some
issues on which people can disagree. Thus,
are, of course,
now
resources
at
from
renewable
believe
of
have
last
proponents
energy
they
a set of
communitarian
tech
discovered
intrinsically democratic,
egalitarian,
the social consequences
In my best estimation,
of build
however,
nologies.
on
will
the specific configurations
ing renewable energy systems
surely depend
of both hardware and the social institutions created to bring that energy to us. It
may be that we will find ways to turn this silk purse into a sow’s ear. By com
of nuclear power seem to believe
parison, advocates of the further development
that they are working on a rather flexible technology whose adverse social ef
fects can be fixed by changing the design parameters of reactors and nuclear
waste disposal systems. For reasons indicated above, I believe them to be dead
wrong in that faith. Yes, we may be able to manage some of the “risks” to public
health and safety that nuclear power brings. But as society adapts to the more
These
indelible features of nuclear power, what will be the
dangerous and apparently
in
toll
human
freedom?
long-range
My belief that we ought to attend more closely to technical objects them
selves is not to say that we can ignore the contexts in which
those objects are
situated. A ship at sea may well require, as Plato and Engels insisted, a
single
captain and obedient crew. But a ship out of service, parked at the dock, needs
a caretaker. To understand which
and which contexts are
only
technologies
an
to
must
and
is
that
involve
both the study of
us,
important
why,
enterprise
as
as
a
technical
and
their
well
systems
specific
history
thorough grasp of the
our
and
controversies
of
In
times
concepts
political theory.
people are often
to
to
make
in
drastic
the
live
accord
with
way they
willing
changes
technological
innovation at the same time they would resist similar kinds of changes justified
on political
If for no other reason than that, it is important for us to
grounds.
achieve
a clearer
view
of
these
matters
than
has
been
our
habit
so
far.
References
ll would
like to thank Merritt
Roe Smith,
Leo Marx,
David Noble,
Charles
James Miller,
Loren Graham,
Gail Stuart, Dick Sclove,
and Stephen Graubard
for their
Weiner,
Sherry Turkle,
comments
on earlier drafts of this essay.
and criticisms
thanks also to Doris Morrison
of the
My
of California,
for her bibliographical
Agriculture
Library of the University
Berkeley,
help.
2Lewis Mumford,
“Authoritarian
and Democratic
5 (1964):
Technics,”
Technology and Culture,
1-8.
3
Denis Hayes,
Rays ofHope: The Transition to a Post-Petroleum World (New York: W. W. Norton,
1977), pp. 71, 159.
4David Lilienthal,
72-83.
T. V.A.:
Democracy
on theMarch
(New York: Harper
and Brothers,
1944), pp.
5Daniel J. Boorstin,
The Republic of
& Row,
1978), p. 7.
Technology (New York: Harper
as a Theme in Political
Autonomous Technology: Technics-out-of-Control
6Langdon Winner,
Thought
1977).
Press,
(Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.
7The meaning
of
I
not
in
some
this
does
of the broader
essay
encompass
“technology”
employ
definitions
ofthat
found in contemporary
for example,
the notion of “technique”
literature,
concept
136
in the writings
culties
that arise
8Robert A.
LANGDON WINNER
Ellul. My purposes
here are more
limited. For a discussion
of the diffi
to define
see Ref. 6, pp. 8-12.
“technology,”
The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York (New York: Random
of Jacques
in attempts
Caro,
1974), pp. 318, 481, 514, 546, 951-958.
9Ibid., p. 952.
10Robert Ozanne,
A Century of Labor-Management
Relations atMcCormick
and International Harvest
er (Madison, Wis.:
of Wisconsin
Press,
1967), p. 20.
University
11
The
of the tomato harvester
is told in Wayne
D. Rasmussen,
“Advances
in
early history
as a Case
American
The Mechanical
Tomato Harvester
Agriculture:
Study,” Technology and Culture,
531-543.
9(1968):
12Andrew Schmitz
and David
“Mechanized
and Social Welfare:
The Case
Seckler,
Agriculture
of the Tomato
American Journal of Agricultural
52 (1970): 569-577.
Harvester,”
Economics,
13William H. Friedland
and Amy Barton,
“Tomato Technology,”
13:6 (September/Oc
Society,
tober 1976). See also William
H. Friedland,
Social Sleepwalkers: Scientific and
Technological Research in
of California,
of Applied
Behavioral
Davis, Department
Sciences,
California Agriculture,
University
No.
Research Monograph
13, 1974.
House,
1, 1979.
of California Clip Sheet, 54:36, May
and Barton,
“Tomato Technology.”
and critical analysis
of agricultural
research
in the land-grant
is given
in
colleges
Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times (Cambridge, Mass.:
Schenkman,
1978).
James Hightower,
17David Noble,
inMachine
“Social Choice
The Case of Automatically
Controlled
Ma
Design:
in Case Studies in the Labor Process (New York: Monthly
chine Tools,”
Review
Press, forthcoming).
18Friedrich Engels,
“On Authority”
in The Marx-Engels
(ed.)
Reader, 2nd ed., Robert Tucker
(New York: W. W. Norton,
1978), p. 731.
14University
15Friedland
16A history
“Ibid.
20Ibid., pp. 732, 731.
21Karl Marx,
vol. 1, 3rd ed., Samuel Moore
and Edward Aveling
(trans.) (New York:
Capital,
The Modern
1906), p. 530.
Library,
Four Arguments for the Elimination
(New York: William
Morrow,
of Television
22Jerry Mander,
1978), p. 44.
The Sun Builders: A
Barbara Emanuel,
and Stephen Graham,
23See, for example, Robert Argue,
to Solar, Wind and Wood Energy
in Canada (Toronto: Renewable
in Canada,
People’s Guide
Energy
is an implicit component
of renewable
this implies the
1978). “We think decentralization
energy;
decentralization
of energy systems,
communities
and of power. Renewable
energy doesn’t
require
sources of
Our cities and towns, which
mammoth
transmission
corridors.
disruptive
generation
on
some
to
achieve
have been dependent
centralized
energy supplies, may be able
degree of auton
their own energy needs”
and administering
omy, thereby controlling
(p. 16).
in American Business (Cam
Revolution
24Alfred D. Chandler,
Jr., The Visible Hand: The Managerial
Press,
1977), p. 244.
Belknap, Harvard
University
bridge, Mass.:
2sIbid.
26Ibid., p. 500.
Ethics and Profits: The Crisis of Confidence in American Business
27Leonard Silk and David Vogel,
and Schuster,
(New York: Simon
1976), p. 191.
The Civil Liberties
28Russel W. Ayres,
Fallout,” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil
“Policing Plutonium:
374.
10 (1975):443,
Liberties Law Review,
413-4,
Chapter 4
Sloped Technoscience
Curb Cuts, Critical Frictions, and
Disability (Maker) Cultures
Responsibility flows out of cuts that bind.
—Ka r e n Ba r a d, “Intra-actions”
Copyright © 2017. University of Minnesota Press. All rights reserved.
In the late 1960s, disability activists and their allies drove around Berkeley, California,
under dark of night, smashing sidewalks with sledgehammers and pouring new curb
cuts with bags of cement or asphalt—or so the rumor goes.1 While those allegedly
involved describe the circumstances surrounding activist curb cuts as far more mundane, heroic stories about sledgehammer-wielding activists have taken shape as the
primal scenes of U.S. disability activism, securing the movement’s place within the
broader memory of civil rights–era direct action and portraying disability as a social
and cultural rather than medical category (Figure 4.1). These stories have, in turn,
shaped the national narrative about disability rights and U.S. citizenship. The Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History in Washington, D.C., for instance,
houses in its permanent collections a concrete fragment from an activist-made curb
cut in Denver, Colorado, from 1978 (Figure 4.2). At their core, artifacts and narratives
of activist curb-cutting express the central ideas of the 1960s and ’70s independent
living movement, through which disabled people rejected their status as objects of
knowledge for rehabilitation professionals and architects, asserting disability as a kind
of expert knowledge and critical making.2 When disabled people enact politics, these
narratives suggest, they also design and build new worlds.
“The social life of city sidewalks,” wrote Jane Jacobs in 1961, “is precisely that
they are public.”3 The curb cut is often understood as a post–World War II technology of barrier-free design, a design feature enabling access to the public sidewalk.
Accordingly, the curb cut has also served as a storytelling device in liberal narratives
of inclusion and good design. In 1946 lawyer Jack H. Fisher wrote to the mayor of
Kalamazoo, Michigan, arguing that curb cuts and ramps “were instrumental in allowing disabled veterans, disabled non-veterans, aged and infirm persons and mothers
with baby carriages more freedom of movement.”4 Productive disabled citizenship
95
Hamraie, A. (2017). Building access : Universal design and the politics of disability. University of Minnesota Press.
Created from deakin on 2021-12-07 05:03:57.
Hamraie.indd 95
03/08/2017 12:24:35 PM
Copyright © 2017. University of Minnesota Press. All rights reserved.
Figure 4.1. Flat sidewalks and curb cut at the corner of Dwight and Dana, an alleged site of
DIY curb cuts, in the present day. Photograph by author.
Figure 4.2.
A fragment of a
concrete sidewalk,
which disability
activists in Denver
smashed as part
of a protest in
1978. Courtesy
of National
Museum of
American History,
Smithsonian
Institution, Division
of Medicine and
Science.
Hamraie, A. (2017). Building access : Universal design and the politics of disability. University of Minnesota Press.
Created from deakin on 2021-12-07 05:03:57.
Hamraie.indd 96
03/08/2017 12:24:36 PM
Sloped Technoscience
97
and the liberal narrative surrounding it were central to these particular user categories
and the stories they told. Fisher continued:
These cement ramps in many instances mean the difference between disabled vet­
erans and disabled non-­veterans having employment, as with the ramps a person
confined to a wheel chair, on crutches or wearing an artificial limb is able to get to a
place of employment unaided. The ramps thus enable many so called unemployable
persons to become employable persons, and not only benefits the disabled person
alone, but benefits the community at large as well.5
Copyright © 2017. University of Minnesota Press. All rights reserved.
To suggest that curb cuts reflect the idea that accessibility benefits everyone requires
accepting that the universe of users encompasses particular, legible forms. While
curb cuts would not appear in most U.S. cities until the 1970s, Fisher’s assertion that
these features would increase employment for disabled veterans and have added
value for others resonates with the claims of rehabilitation experts that barrier-­free
design benefits “all.” Reinforcing the nondisabled, normate status of the “community,”
Fisher’s explanation presents as fact that “everyone” benefits from the curb cut, a fact
that dematerializes the racialized, gendered, and classed dimensions of difference—­
even within the category of disability. And even within the category of disability, this
story obscures the diverse physical, sensory, and mental access needs of different
disabled users. Much like disability activists’ political claims that “every body needs
equal access” (Figure 4.3), claims that “everyone” benefits from curb cuts are historically materialized conditions of legibility and illegibility.
Materiality is messy, but the optics of concrete can be misleading. On the surface
of Berkeley’s streets, curb cuts appeared to materialize en masse after 1973, following high-­profile acts of Congress that provided a political mandate and government
funding.6 A year earlier, however, in 1972, the city of Berkeley adopted an official mandate to install curb cuts at every corner—­a major victory that symbolized disabled
peoples’ legibility as users.7 Once integrated into the urban fabric, the curb cut became a material device for securing the place of disability in public space, as well as a
metaphor for the smooth integration of misfit users into social, economic, and material life. Yet this victory erased any physical evidence of guerrilla curb-­cutting and
other crip interventions into the social life of Berkeley’s sidewalks. By repaving Berkeley’s sidewalks, the official curb cuts rewrote the history and theory of curb cutting.
Reproduced for nearly a century, the liberal curb cut narrative has become a quintessential explanatory device for the claim that accessibility benefits “everyone.” As
disability rights leader Ed Roberts framed it in the early 1990s,
We secured the first curb cut in the country; it was at the corner of Bancroft and Telegraph Avenue. When we first talked to legislators about the issue, they told us, “Curb
cuts, why do you need curb cuts? We never see people with disabilities out on the
Hamraie, A. (2017). Building access : Universal design and the politics of disability. University of Minnesota Press.
Created from deakin on 2021-12-07 05:03:57.
Hamraie.indd 97
03/08/2017 12:24:36 PM
Copyright © 2017. University of Minnesota Press. All rights reserved.
98
Sloped Technoscience
Figure 4.3. Disability activists used the term “everybody” strategically. Here, a protester holds
a sign that says “Every Body Needs Equal Access.” Raymond Lifchez and Barbara Winslow,
Design for Independent Living: The Environment and Physically Disabled People (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1979), 10. Courtesy of Raymond Lifchez.
streets. Who is going to use them?” They didn’t understand that their reasoning was
circular. When curb cuts were put in, they discovered that access for disabled people
benefit[s] many others as well. For instance, people pushing strollers use curb cuts, as
do people on bikes and elderly people who can’t lift their legs so high. So many people
benefit from this accommodation. This is what the concept of universal design is all
about. Now Berkeley is a very accessible city. We [people with disabilities] are visible
in the community because we can get around everywhere fairly easily. . . . I look around,
and I notice that a lot of us are getting gray. As we get older, we realize that disability
is just a part of life. Anyone can join our group at any point in life. In this way, the disability rights movement doesn’t discriminate. So those of us who are temporarily able-­
bodied and working for access and accommodation now get older, and the changes
they make will benefit them as well.8
Hamraie, A. (2017). Building access : Universal design and the politics of disability. University of Minnesota Press.
Created from deakin on 2021-12-07 05:03:57.
Hamraie.indd 98
03/08/2017 12:24:36 PM
Sloped Technoscience
99
Copyright © 2017. University of Minnesota Press. All rights reserved.
Much like the barrier-­free design regime that framed accessibility through its benefits
for “all,” Roberts’s narrative of curb cuts as benefiting “everyone” or “many people”
reproduces an often-­told story about accessible design and disability. In this story,
the curb cut’s treatment as a metaphor, historical object, and material frame represents the values of unmarked assimilation into public space and promotes a notion
of disability identity and community as indiscriminate, uniform, and united in its
goals and needs.9 Far from neutralizing the curb cut’s symbolic and material work,
however, these valences suggest that the foundational objects and origin stories of
the independent living movement, of barrier-­free design, and of Universal Design
contain manifold ways of understanding disability, varied positions on assimilation
and resistance, and wide-­ranging approaches to access-­knowledge. These complexities require unpacking.
Smooth belonging, the crux of the liberal curb cut theory, contrasts with rumors
of guerrilla curb-­cutting by dark of night to animate one of the central tensions within
twentieth-­century access-­knowledge: the friction between liberal demands for compliance, productivity, and assimilation and radical, anti-­assimilationist, and crip methods of knowing-­making the world. This chapter historicizes these frictions by tracing
the rise of what I term “crip technoscience.”10 Emerging from within disability cultures and communities, these experimental practices of knowing-­making challenged
hierarchies and power relations within the field of access-­knowledge by shifting expertise to those with lived experiences of disability and away from the outside experts
often designing in their name. Unlike most accounts of assistive and adaptive technologies, which focus on conforming the user to its material environment, I argue
that curb cuts are politically, materially, and epistemologically adaptive technologies
around which two distinct approaches to disability inclusion—­liberal, assimilationist
positions and crip, anti-­assimilationist positions—­have cohered.11 Tilting and reconsidering the historical archive of the curb cut and other disability-­made technologies,
crip technoscience reveals a field of critical labor, friction, leverage, noncompliance,
and disorientation that materialized within access-­knowledge as a response to dominant medical, scientific, and rehabilitative ways of knowing the user.
THE POLITICS OF SURFACE TEXTURE
Curb cuts (and their close cousins, wheelchair ramps) often signify the notion that
disability is a social and environmental construction, produced in the relationship
between bodies and built environments, and thus not something innate to the body.
Frequently referenced as the “social model” of disability, this idea was central to the
regime of knowing-­making that I am calling access-­knowledge. In the mid-­1960s,
rehabilitation professionals and medical sociologists developed a notion of “functional limitation” to describe the environmental production of misfit, or the discrepancy between what a body can do and what it ought to be able to do (by normate
Hamraie, A. (2017). Building access : Universal design and the politics of disability. University of Minnesota Press.
Created from deakin on 2021-12-07 05:03:57.
Hamraie.indd 99
03/08/2017 12:24:36 PM
100
Sloped Technoscience
rehabilitation standards).12 Simultaneously, a growing movement of physically disabled, D/deaf, and blind people challenged the authority of rehabilitation experts
and their claims to know disability, offering instead a politicized and cultural understanding of disabled people as resourceful, creative, nonnormative, and interdependent.13 Disability activists produced a set of ideas that later influenced an academic
theory of the “social model,” which is often taken to argue that disability is a system
of disadvantages that societies produce, and not solely embodied pathology.14 But as
disability activists articulated it, the notion of environmentally produced disability
was not the social model’s primary contribution. Instead, activists were concerned
with creating a new standard of knowledge, offered as an alternative to medicine and
rehabilitation. In 1972 the UK-­based Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation (UPIAS) proclaimed:
Copyright © 2017. University of Minnesota Press. All rights reserved.
We as a Union are not interested in descriptions of how awful it is to be disabled. What
we are interested in, are ways of changing our conditions of life, and thus overcoming the disabilities which are imposed on top our physical impairments by the way
this society is organised to exclude us. In our view, it is only the actual impairment
which we must accept; the additional and totally unnecessary problems caused by the
way we are treated are essentially to be overcome and not accepted. We look forward
to the day when the army of “experts” on our social and psychological problems can
find more productive work.15
Treating disability as deficit and disqualification, in other words, failed to understand
the broader social and cultural contexts of disability, which included lived experiences of oppression and disability communities forged from acceptance of disabled
embodiments. This epistemological and political argument appropriated the rehabilitation language of productive citizenship, using it to characterize rehabilitation
experts as engaged in the unproductive labor of normalization.
As a metaphor for disability’s social construction, the liberal curb cut metaphor
often reproduces the rehabilitation notion of body-­environment misfit in concert
with ideas of equal rights and universal disability. Yet this metaphor says little of the
politics of knowing-­making disability.16 For instance, theorists invoke the frictioned
dynamic between wheels and stairs to argue, as feminist philosopher Iris Marion
Young has, that “moving on wheels is a disadvantage only in a world full of stairs.”17
Metaphors of “ramping” or curb cutting to a better world suggest overcoming bar­riers,
reorienting values, and achieving broad accessibility through flexible design.18 Such
metaphors circulate beyond architecture in the “electronic curb cut,” a metaphor for
built-­in accessibility, and even “curb cut feminism,” which explains that everyone benefits from feminism, not only women.19 Prevalent uses of the curb cut as a metaphor
for broad inclusion refer to the historical “fact” of its usability to multiple types of
Hamraie, A. (2017). Building access : Universal design and the politics of disability. University of Minnesota Press.
Created from deakin on 2021-12-07 05:03:57.
Hamraie.indd 100
03/08/2017 12:24:36 PM
Sloped Technoscience
101
users, including wheelchair users, cyclists, or people pushing strollers and shopping
carts, to emphasize the necessity of unmarked, smooth disability integration into U.S.
public space.
Unusual things happen when products are designed to be accessible by people with
disabilities. It wasn’t long after sidewalks were redesigned to accommodate wheelchair
users that the benefits of curb cuts began to be realized by everyone. People pushing
strollers, riding on skateboards, using roller-­blades, riding bicycles and pushing shopping carts soon began to enjoy the benefits of curb cuts. These facts are good examples
of why sidewalks with curb cuts are simply better sidewalks.20
Copyright © 2017. University of Minnesota Press. All rights reserved.
These supposed facts appear as commonsense yet miraculous findings discovered
in the process of enacting more inclusive built environments. They attest to the
nature of barriers as constructed rather than pregiven. They convey the notion that
more thoughtful design can remake the world. Yet, by treating disability as a universal, environmentally produced experience of misfit, curb cut metaphors align more
closely with rehabilitation models of disability and barrier-­free design than with the
social model’s articulation of disabled peoples’ resourceful, interdependent knowing-­
making as a form of politics.
Like Berkeley’s city-­sponsored curb cuts, liberal curb cut metaphors pave over the
history of crip resistance to the normate template, rehabilitation, and expert logics
of environmental knowing-­making that guerrilla curb cutting embodied. There is
another way to understand the curb cut, however. Illustrating a crip theory of the
curb cut, which professes the antinormative work of noncompliant users empowered
as makers, Robert McRuer writes,
The chunk of concrete dislodged by crip theorists in the street—­simultaneously solid
and disintegrated, fixed and displaced . . . marks the will to remake the material world.
The curb cut, in turn, marks a necessary openness to the accessible public cultures
we might yet inhabit. Crip theory questions—­or takes a sledgehammer to—­that
which has been concretized; it might, consequently, be comprehended as a curb cut
into disability studies, and into critical theory more generally.21
Curb cutting disrupts, in other words, the concretized status quo through acts of rematerialization. Understood as simultaneously productive and disruptive, cutting and
rebuilding, the crip curb cutting narrative suggests that misfitting can be a resource
for redesigning not only the place of disability in the built world but also our ways of
knowing disability. Curb cutting, in other words, is crip technoscience.
Seamless, smooth, a cross-­cutting plane from point A to point B, paving over physical and attitudinal barriers—­these are some of the ways that liberal curb cut theories
Hamraie, A. (2017). Building access : Universal design and the politics of disability. University of Minnesota Press.
Created from deakin on 2021-12-07 05:03:57.
Hamraie.indd 101
03/08/2017 12:24:36 PM
102
Sloped Technoscience
understand the materiality of this feature. Liberal curb cuts embody simple, effortless
common sense and flexibility. Crip curb cuts, by contrast, are instruments of friction,
disruption, and countermaterial rhetoric. They propose access as negotiation, rather
than as a resolved, measurable end. Taking curb cuts to signify friction, as opposed
to smoothness, has implications for how we understand the strategies and tactics of
disability activism. Curb cuts can signify critical labor rather than productive work,
explains Eric Dibner, a nondisabled ally of the independent living movement and
early ramp designer.
Copyright © 2017. University of Minnesota Press. All rights reserved.
A ramp is a bevel between two elevations. . . . In order to reach something you need
location—­you might have to move it closer—­and ease of operation—­it has to turn
easily. So you extend it to make it a lever, which gives you greater force and also brings
it down closer to you. To me, the ramp is really symbolic, in a way, of how I see proceeding through the system. You’re trying to get from point A to point B and you need
to figure out how to lever your way—­a ramp is a lever—­and you need to figure out
how to move objects that are blocking your path. . . . People aren’t really trying to make
a different world; they’re just trying to build ramps.22
Dibner’s theory of the ramp as a leverage-­producing device references Galileo’s notion
of ramps as “simple machines” that move objects from one plane to another and thus
create a more advantageous mechanics.23 The operative work of ramps as levers is not
an ease of use but the generation of force. Ramps generate friction and leverage toward
particular outcomes or goals. In other words, they materialize politics.
For Galileo, simple machines fell into one of two categories. Frictionless, “ideal”
machines required almost no force to set them into motion (relative to what they
produced). “Real” machines,” however, required some energy to work, producing
frictions that reduced their leverage.24 Like the ideal machine, liberal curb cuts are
purportedly neutral, smoothing out tensions between users and ramping over the
frictioned work of critical knowing-­making. Elision, rather than friction, is their surface texture. But apprehending the significance of curb cuts for access-­knowledge
requires challenging these associations, not because they are inaccurate but because
they risk depoliticizing and oversimplifying the material, epistemic, and technological force of designing ramps and curb cuts for disability access.
Crip curb cutting (or ramping) is not assimilation, Dibner seems to suggest, nor
does curb cutting remake the world by displacing dominant norms. As a frictioned,
leverage-­generating device, the curb cut represents noncompliant labor within an
existing system, discourse, or built arrangement. As in political struggles for systemic
change, critical, interrogative, and “adversarial” design practices leverage material
disruption and contention as productive forces.25 In Slope:Intercept, designer Sara
Hendren captures the “interrogative” work of curb cutting as public noncompliance.26
A series of portable, inexpensively produced plywood ramps can be carried, stacked,
Hamraie, A. (2017). Building access : Universal design and the politics of disability. University of Minnesota Press.
Created from deakin on 2021-12-07 05:03:57.
Hamraie.indd 102
03/08/2017 12:24:36 PM
Sloped Technoscience
103
Copyright © 2017. University of Minnesota Press. All rights reserved.
and arranged in urban environments to produce surfaces on which wheelchair users
and skateboarders (both urban misfits) can roll, maneuver, and occupy space. The
temporary curb cuts require neither productive labor nor assimilation into existing
material arrangements, but their presence generates friction and their use multiplies
force. Slope:Intercept suggests that the political work of curb cuts rests upon the production of friction and disorientation rather than smooth, neutral belonging.27
“Functional estrangement” is a term that critical design theorist Anthony Dunne
uses to describe the interrogative work of certain material forms, which can unsettle
the user’s experience of the designed world.28 In some respects, critical design resembles so-­called empathic simulation exercises, prevalent in rehabilitation education,
which enroll nondisabled users in observing impaired experience through temporary
use of a wheelchair or blindfold. Often conducted in the name of disability awareness,
these exercises presume a user that is normate and open to temporary experiences
of estrangement.29 And like the rehabilitation promises that accessibility reduces
functional limitation and relieves frictions between bodies and environments, Dunne
contrasts functional estrangement with user-­centered design, which appears as purely
functional and rarely social, interrogative, or agonistic.30 Hence, the critical design
theory of functional estrangement takes for granted that disability is a depoliticized
experience and that accessibility is a neutral solution to functional limitation.
But power and privilege shape critical design and its means of enactment. My
concept of “crip technoscience” takes a different approach, investigating the critical
design work of how misfit disabled users, for whom estrangement is already a pervasive experience, draw on the sensibilities of friction and disorientation to enact design
politics. Reading the curb cut as crip technoscience centralizes disabled people as
critical knowers and makers, extending the work of feminist technoscience scholars,
who frame technoscience as an interface between critical ways of knowing and iterative practices of world-­making.31 Crip technoscience understands ramps and curb
cuts as frictioned “real machines,” to use Galileo’s term, often operating in tension
with their users, rather than as frictionless, “ideal machines,” integrating seamlessly.
Crip curb cutting is a friction-­producing concept through which accessibility materializes “slantedly,” to borrow from Sara Ahmed, through disorienting, tense negotiations of the categories of “knower” and “maker.”32 While disabled people are often
imagined as cyborgs with “seamless” relationships to technology, Alison Kafer explains,
these relations are often tense, frictioned, and subject to other forms of economic
and embodied privilege.33 Following Kafer, this chapter centers disabled peoples’
“ambivalent relationship to technology,” informed by histories of failure and denials
of access, as well as iterative, political design practices.34 Rather than centering assistive technologies that aim to cure or rehabilitate bodies, then, I focus on how dis­
ability design and politics co-­materialize. If we take a sledgehammer to the seemingly
concretized sidewalks of disability rights history, what layered sedimentations of resistance do we find below?
Hamraie, A. (2017). Building access : Universal design and the politics of disability. University of Minnesota Press.
Created from deakin on 2021-12-07 05:03:57.
Hamraie.indd 103
03/08/2017 12:24:36 PM
104
Sloped Technoscience
DISABILITY MAKER CULTURES
Copyright © 2017. University of Minnesota Press. All rights reserved.
Ronald Mace half-­smiles at the camera (Figure 4.4). He sits in a high-­backed hospital
wheelchair, one arm in a sling, the other using a tool to tinker with something on the
table surface before him. In the background, glimpses of the Central Carolina Convalescent Hospital, where nine-­year-­old Mace was committed in 1950, are fuzzy but
visible. The wheelchair configures him as disabled, a body acted upon in this rehabilitation hospital, but the tool and Mace’s gaze suggest that he, too, makes and knows.
Diffuse networks of disabled youth, adults, and their families in the postpolio
maker community of the 1940s and ’50s practiced “self-­help” citizenship, employing
do-­it-­yourself tinkering and engineering to access built environments. Concentrated
in white, middle-­class communities, for whom the rehabilitation regime sought
access to private homes and public universities, the disability maker culture both
Figure 4.4. Ronald
Mace tinkering with
a tool at the
Central Carolina
Convalescent
Hospital (1950).
Courtesy of Joy
Weeber.
Hamraie, A. (2017). Building access : Universal design and the politics of disability. University of Minnesota Press.
Created from deakin on 2021-12-07 05:03:57.
Hamraie.indd 104
03/08/2017 12:24:37 PM
Sloped Technoscience
105
Copyright © 2017. University of Minnesota Press. All rights reserved.
embraced and resisted the demands of productive spatial citizenship. In “Electric
Moms and Quad Drivers,” design historian Bess Williamson captures the postpolio
maker community of this era, which designed adaptive technologies as consumer
goods and also produced small-­scale architectural features such as ramps.35 Through
newsletters such as the Ohio-­based Toomey Gazette (later the Rehabilitation Gazette),
families shared information gleaned from other sources, including prominent rehabilitation proponents and popular magazines, built their own wheelchairs from
spare parts, designed everyday household tools with found materials, and offered
techniques for hacking automobiles, beds, and wheelchair ramps (Figure 4.5). One
of many postwar disability cultures, the postpolio maker community reflected the
white, middle-­class norms of the era.36 As Williamson points out, the only people
of color apparent in the Toomey Gazette were representatives of institutionalized populations.37 Despite opposing institutionalization, Williamson argues, postpolio makers were engaging in “acts of integration, not resistance into the normative roles for
men and women of their class and race.”38 Tinkering with homemade tools, auto­
mobiles, and the architectures of single-­family homes contributed to smoothing out
the frictions between physically disabled bodies and compulsory white, middle-­class,
heteronormative able-­bodiedness.
Figure 4.5. Disabled makers shared tips for designing features such as homemade
wheelchair ramps. Toomey Gazette (Spring 1961): 11. Courtesy of Post-­Polio Health
International.
Hamraie, A. (2017). Building access : Universal design and the politics of disability. University of Minnesota Press.
Created from deakin on 2021-12-07 05:03:57.
Hamraie.indd 105
03/08/2017 12:24:37 PM
106
Sloped Technoscience
Copyright © 2017. University of Minnesota Press. All rights reserved.
Disabled Knowing-­Making in Private
Although disabled makers were not engaging in public acts of disobedience, and
while their domain was often the privileged white, middle-­class home, subtle acts
of critical remaking were taking place. The interdependent, networked nature of the
postpolio maker culture, wherein disabled people and their families connected to others with similar experiences, made disability a resource for grassroots social networks.
Through these networks, postpolio makers shared strategies for creating mundane
tools of daily life, and not just technologies that would enhance their productivity.
Alice Loomer, a white disabled woman and wheelchair user who had polio as a child,
described these activities as “hanging onto the coattails of science” in a time when
disabled people were often excluded from schools and had “been given little knowledge of science and technology” but instead “learn[ed] to improvise, invent, supervise, or do more of our own construction.”39 Mace, for instance, created a device for
squeezing his wheelchair into a narrower profile so that he could access the restroom
of his family home. Loomer developed “all kinds of things: kitchens, hand controls,
van lifts, even urinals” over her lifetime by using everyday materials, such as “a paper
coffee cup, a small garbage bag, a bunch of Kleenex, and a rubber band.”40 While the
public face of access-­knowledge—­rehabilitation experts, legislators, and architects—­
defined an experimental field of knowledge in public, many disabled makers operated
through these nonapparent, distributed networks of knowing-­making, remaining unrecognized as engineers or researchers.
Because it operated in the illegibly political sphere of the private home, the postpolio maker culture of the 1940s and ’50s did not appear explicitly resistant to rehabili­
tation norms. But for many postpolio makers, tinkering with and adapting technologies
was a way of enacting access, either through disabled expertise or through interdependence with nondisabled allies such as family members. Loomer’s first wheelchair,
for instance, was an assemblage built from “a kitchen chair and [her brother’s] old
bicycle.”41 Another, a rigged power chair, combined a manual wheelchair frame with
electrical controls and motorized wheels; “its craftsmanship is deplorable,” she said
of the chair, “but it’s the only wheelchair that could have kept me away from nursing
homes and attendants. . . . I made it. So I know how to fix it. . . . I may have failed almost
as often as I succeeded, but I have equipment that fits me.”42 This ethos of reinvention was not the individualistic endeavor of single engineering geniuses in their
workshops but a product of the interdependent networks of disabled people, families, and assistants who co-­materialized a disability maker culture in the mid-­twentieth
century, often without formal training in engineering or architecture.
While Loomer was not subverting the white, middle-­class norms of the mid-­
twentieth century, she also did not embody the white disabled housewife that rehabilitation engineers and scientific managers sought to transform into a productive
worker. Nor was she (or Mace) a disabled cyborg, whose relationship to technology
operated as a well-­integrated, smooth circuit.43 Loomer’s experiences tinkering with
Hamraie, A. (2017). Building access : Universal design and the politics of disability. University of Minnesota Press.
Created from deakin on 2021-12-07 05:03:57.
Hamraie.indd 106
03/08/2017 12:24:37 PM
Sloped Technoscience
107
wheelchairs disclose a technological ambivalence, which holds in tension the need
for access or function with the frictions, limitations, and failures inherent to technoscientific design processes. Unlike the Cold War–­era hopefulness toward technology
as a solution to human problems, technologies such as prosthetic limbs, wheelchairs,
or canes could nevertheless be awkward or painful to use, ineffective in the absence
of ramps and curb cuts, or simply prone to error. Ambivalence toward these technolo­
gies, then, is itself a disabled way of knowing-­making, born from the iterations of lived
experience, technological failure, and ambivalence toward the fantasy of normalization. In this sense, postpolio makers were imagining access as a beginning, what Jay
Dolmage calls a “place to start,” rather than a measurable or imaginable outcome.44
Disabled Knowing-­Making in Public
Copyright © 2017. University of Minnesota Press. All rights reserved.
Public accessibility, through barrier-­free design, also contributed to the rise of disability maker cultures. In public, ambivalence toward technology presented opportunities for political friction and contestation. Take, for example, the disability maker
culture that materialized around access to public universities. In 1949 the governor
of Illinois threatened to shut down an educational program for disabled students at
the University of Illinois at Galesburg, intending to repurpose the building as an
institution for the elderly, where the state would transfer people housed in other,
overcrowded “mental wards.”45 The program’s thirteen students and their director,
Timothy Nugent, organized a series of demonstrations to protest the move (see Figure 3.1). The first protest took place at the inaccessible Illinois state capitol building.
With the support of a local police motorcade, paraplegics drove adapted automobiles
(like those created by postpolio makers) from Galesburg to Springfield, where they
circled the drive in front of the building and attempted to visit the governor at his
mansion before speaking to state officials.46 These officials offered students the options
of completing “two years of college work by correspondence” or remaining at Galesburg in an “‘isolated ward’ for paraplegic students in conjunction with the new medical center for the aged and infirm.”47 Opposing the options of isolated coursework
or reentering a public university-­turned-­institution, the students organized a second
demonstration, this time to put pressure on the University of Illinois’s administration.
Tactics for the second protest drew upon the resourcefulness of disability maker culture. Some students wheeled around campus to gain public visibility, while others
demonstrated access-­in-­action by placing “two-­by-­ten planks from a paint scaffolding . . . over some steps to show that these guys in wheelchairs could get into that
building.”48 Constructed in situ with repurposed supplies from the campus landscape,
these informal ramps were material-­discursive arguments, which made the case for
disabled students’ belonging in mainstream built environments.
At stake in these demonstrations of disabled knowing-­making was the admission
of students with disabilities, the majority white and male, to a major public university.
In one sense, the students resourcefully demanded access to a rehabilitation program
Hamraie, A. (2017). Building access : Universal design and the politics of disability. University of Minnesota Press.
Created from deakin on 2021-12-07 05:03:57.
Hamraie.indd 107
03/08/2017 12:24:37 PM
Copyright © 2017. University of Minnesota Press. All rights reserved.
108
Sloped Technoscience
that would extend their normalization into productive citizenship. In another sense,
however, the students made their nonuniform belonging legible and demonstrated
its value by producing friction. The rough, noticeable presence of disabled bodies,
technologies, and design forms in the campus environment was an argument for
belonging but not necessarily sameness. While the student protests were not immediately successful, the state government eventually decided to allow a program for
physically disabled students to continue at the Urbana-Champaign campus “as an
experiment.”49 It was within the context of this disability maker culture (and its relatively privileged location) that the Rehabilitation Education Center and the city of
Champaign became experimental sites for access-­knowledge.50
Physically disabled students, particularly wheelchair users, who attended the University of Illinois in the 1950s and participated in the Rehabilitation Education Center
would have been enrolled as designers in experiments with accessibility technologies.
Some would have lived in adapted dormitories and others in buildings that were
“designed and constructed so that they are equally usable by the able-­bodied and
the physically disabled.”51 Some would have used an informal ride system, organized
through word of mouth, to get to class on time, and others would have helped to design
new accessible buses, outfitted with hydraulic lifts resembling machines for loading
trucks with heavy materials, which would serve as an alternative transit system in
Champaign.52 If they were athletes, they would have ridden these buses to nearby
wheelchair basketball or cheerleading competitions.53 Some would have been involved
in lobbying Emerson Dexter, a vocational rehabilitation counselor and the city’s mayor,
to install curb cuts in Champaign, and because few precedents for such features
existed, some disabled students would have helped to design them (Figure 4.6).54 For
the predominantly white, physically disabled students in the program, the new curb
cuts would have enabled participation in the surrounding community.
In all these spaces, technologies, and design features, accessibility was continually being remade. There were not, at this point, any standards for accessible universities, public buildings, or city streets. Nor was accessibility understood as an objective
set of circumstances that would benefit all users. The material conditions of access
had to be studied, tested, and enacted. But in this space of vocational rehabilitation
and productive citizenship, the frictions of access-­experimentation channeled into
efforts to standardize accessible knowing-­making. In 1959 the Rehabilitation Education Center received federal and private funding for the American National Standards
Project A117, which would create standards for barrier-­free design based on the center’s research and experiments.
Like design, research is an iterative material practice, and like public protest, it
involves negotiation, material symbols, and generative frictions. Accessib…