As a student of Science Technology Society studies, currently focusing on the employment of ICT as a means of development in developing countries I have found an interest in the question, which is often being addressed: Is technology neutral? What I find interesting is that there even is a discussion arguing for, or against the neutrality of technology. In my mind the question in itself is highly problematic and draws up more paradoxes than clarifications, yet utterly reduced as a question of being either neutral or biases. I would simply like to question the validity of the question itself and whether it makes sense to ask this question, when used as a tool for technology assessment.
As a student within STS it seems almost natural for me to take my epistemological starting point investigating the socio-technical networks that forms when technology is employed. Therefore I mainly draw on Actor Network Theory as my theoretical background. Not just because I find it inspiring, but also because the whole idea of non-modernity makes sense to me in the ICT for development debate, where the highly modern technology is sought to be employed in order to modernise the old fashioned, underdeveloped countries.
One of these countries that is to be modernised using ICT is South Africa, where I happen to be doing my master studies. It seems obvious, that an African nation such as South Africa would benefit from development aid that is based on the use of ICT. In the development discourse [Escobar 2000] South Africa has become a poor country; it needs to be modernised in order to fully become a part of the Information Society, which origins can be traced back to Europe and United States [Nulens et al 2001]. In this discourse ICT is closely related to economic development, since it is perceived to be able to create new business opportunities and as such prosperity in the communities, where it is being employed. This is the very well known discourse within development, mainly constructed by western countries and institution based in western countries (see Escobar for a deconstruction of this discourse and the impact on the third world countries, by the discourse it self). Basically, this view is closely related to an understanding of development as development towards economic rationality; ICT is the tool from the Western Information Society which needs to be given to the underdeveloped countries, in order to make them develop [Nulens et al. 2001]. In this discourse ICT is a necessary component, in order to develop; ergo it is very hard to question its goodness, yet the mission is to make these countries Information Societies and as such ICT is the neutral tool; this ontological stand render questions about ICT invalid, since such considerations are anti-modern. Backed by the strong discourse of science ICT even becomes the main key to the information society, and as such to development. In my mind the further development of this discourse has lead to the strong dichotomy of “have/have notâ€: if you do not have ICT then you are strongly disadvantaged. In South Africa, Hewlett Packard tried to launch so-called HP i-Communities that were development projects aiming at giving poor people in rural districts in South Africa, access to ICTs. At the web site for one of these projects Hewlett Packard writes: “HP has extended its commitment to enabling economic and social development through innovative technology and public-private partnerships with the launch of an i-community in Mogalakwena, Limpopo Province, South Africaâ€
[http://h40058.www4.hp.com/icommunity/faq.htm]. Once again we see that, apparently HP’s notion of development through ICT revolts around economic development. The quote also include another element: social development, which is also an element of the western development discourse, mainly based on notions originating in Durkheims idea of development as something that required the change of peoples attitude [Barnett 1988]. What I would like to illustrate with this quote is how social development is now being linked to this tool ICT, yet with ICT still maintaining its Cartesian status, as an object. With other words the artefact and its social context remain two units and yet we still have the discourse about how the one can have an impact on the other. When readdressing the initial question about the neutrality of technology, what would the answer be: In my mind both yes (it is a tool, created by technologists) and no (because of issues like e-inclusion, Digital Divide etc.).
When working with development theory you soon realise, that development is not such a straight forward thing, as sometimes insinuated by western theorists of development. In many ways, the western perspective is quite problematic (which is a very comprehensive discussion, which goes beyond the scope of this article). But what I would like to bring in is a perspective that is not based on the perception of development as being purely a matter of economic change. Here in South Africa I am working closely together with people, who are actively involved in research on higher education development. What I have learned from these people is another way of seeing development, highly influenced by contextual conditions. Here in South Africa it remains an imperative to redo the inequalities of the South African society, that were a consequence of the Apartheid policies in order create a society, which ensures equal opportunities for people of all races. This is what is commonly coined as transition or transformation; to me these are key terms in the South African development debate and seem to be considered as being equally important as poverty reduction. Now, what does this mean for the notion of ICT for development, when it is no longer considered merely as a means of promoting economical growth? Being a part of a reading group dealing with these matters I was presented with a paper [Ravjee 2005] where a South African researching professor addresses questions about how ICT can be used as a transformative force within higher education. She is criticising the dominant discourses as she generally sees fuelled by an increasing commercialisation of higher education and notes: “The emphasis on the subaltern discourses as an effect of the dominant discourse on higher education transformation..would constitute... [an alternative] approach to the relation between ICTs and higher information transformation. The decolonisation and democratization projects around knowledge for example, may be viewed as cases of alternative discourses that are at risk of being submerged or reshaped under the hegemony of the globalisation discourse [western discourse][p.4]â€. What we see here is a discourse involving the same elements: ICT as a tool for transformation/development this time revolving around democracy rather than economy. I know that these two examples of development discourse are much too crude, but what I would like to show is just that in both examples ICT appears as a tool and as such still appears neutral, al though it is sought to transform a social context, a job that can be anything, but neutral. Once again we are faced with a schism: Technology as being both neutral and non-neutral. I see this schism a motivating factor for the neutral vs. non-neutral discussion and as being more strongly represented in ICT for development field, than generally in the public (western) debate about ICT. In my mind the whole question is inhibiting for a constructive use of ICT for development, since it does not motivate the un-prejudiced approach to the non-human actor ICT. The question itself detaches technology from the social network it is a part of; moreover the question itself detaches the social matters in a third world community. The consequence is that it inhibits us from understanding how, and in which way technology has an impact on a third world community; it excludes praxis. When society and nature are being kept separately, as a consequence of western modernity [Latour 1993], which is more strongly emphasised because of ICT as being the artefact of modern western science, we are kept from understanding praxis and through that kept from determining the impact of ICT on a third world community. As being an artefact of modern western science ICT is this tool that is constructed by objective scientists; a creation detached from society. In this modern western way ICT is neutral and objective and it from this modern perspective we want to modernise third world countries. As argued from many sides (e.g. Post-development, feminist theory etc.), this perception is problematic since it entails an idea of western modernity as being a priori universal and as such being valid for third world countries as for European countries. What I would like to argue and underline is the understanding of ICT as a tool as an ontologically based notion, that is validated by modern western science. But in order to understand ICT in a non-western community it is vital to keep the ontological differences in mind; computer technology may be understood quite differently in a non-western community than in a western community. Our tool of wonder, by which we want to improve and enrich a non-western community may even be considered totally irrelevant. I believe it is vitally important to keep these ontological differences in mind, when assessing the impact of technology in a third world context, rather than having an a priori idea about the detached tool ICT and what it can do/cause in a third world context, which I see as being based on western modernity.
Methodologically, I see it as necessary to follow the actors (human as well as non-human) together [Latour 1987] when studying ICT in a development context, which means investigating the praxis of human and non-human actors. Moreover I see it as vitally important to reflect about one’s own ontological position when it comes to technology and involve this on an equal level with the study of the ontologically based praxis of technology in a third world context.
So to sum up the discussions in this article:
As argued I regard the question about the neutrality of technology as being funny, since it involves a paradox: According to science technology is an objective artefact which is purely neutral and detached from society. But at the same time it is seen as a tool for making changes in a society assigning it a role which is highly political. As shown both views of technology seems to be present at the same time, implying some kind of paradox and to me it seems even more out spoken in development discourse; even discourse that is criticizing a western understanding of development. Technology remains the tool which is detached from society and still claimed to be otherwise. Based on the general ideas in ANT, it is highly important to see the socio-technical network in it its praxis in order to understand and asses the impact of technology in third world community. This also means that there is a need for a change of view of technology as merely a tool, which is based on an ontologically based praxis validated by modern western science. In our quest for not recognising western modernity as being universally applicable to non-western communities we need to recognise the different ontologically based views of technology and reflect over these, when doing research and/or assessing consequences. Therefore the western modern view of technology as a detached tool would not give us an insight that includes praxis and as such showing us the ontological factors that are determining for the impact of technology.
The question about the neutrality of technology is as such truly modern, in the sense that it is decontextualising technology and leaves out, that this question is highly dependent on the eyes that are looking at technology. It even implies a paradox, which is at the same time is trying to ignore. I would argue that the prejudiced attitudes towards technology, which is embedded in this question are undesirable and inhibiting when it comes to ICT use in development. I see a need to approach these matters pragmatically and when assessing the impacts of technology, that this should be viewed in its socio-technical praxis taking in account its ontological basis. In other words, it’s the final use of ICT in a specific setting, and ontological perspective that will ultimately decide if technology is neutral or not; it does not make sense to address this question when technology is detached from the context it is meant to be a part of.
Bibliography:
Barnett, T.: 'Sociology and Development' Hutchinson Education 1988
Escobar, A.: 'La Invenvición del Tercer Mundo' 2000
Ihde, D.: 'Bodies in Technology' University of Minnesota Press 2002
Latour, B.: 'Science in Action' Harvard University Press 1987
Latour, B.: 'We Have Never Been Modern' Harvard University Press 1993
Nulens, G.: et al. 'The Digital Divide in Developing Countries – Towards an Information Society in Africa' VUB Brussels University Press 2001
Ravjee, N.: [Internal unpublished paper from the University of the Western Cape 2005]
