See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/260983623

The Ambivalence of Technology

ARTICLE in SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES APRIL 1990
Impact Factor: 0.57 DOI: 10.2307/1388976

CITATION

READS

14

1 AUTHOR:
Andrew Feenberg
Simon Fraser University
268 PUBLICATIONS 1,302 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Available from: Andrew Feenberg

Retrieved on: 11 November 2015

Published as "The Ambivalence of Technology," Sociological Perspectives, pp. 3550 1990 by the Regents of the
University of California/Sponsoring Society or Association. Copying and permissions notice: Authorization to copy this
content beyond fair use (as specified in Sections 107 and 108 of the U. S. Copyright Law) for internal or personal use, or the
internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by the Regents of the University of California for libraries and other
users, provided that they are registered with and pay the specified fee via Rightslink on [JSTOR (http://www.jstor.org/r/
ucal)] or directly with the Copyright Clearance Center, http://www.copyright.com.

Pacific Sociological Association

The Ambivalence of Technology

Author(s): Andrew Feenberg
Source: Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 33, No. 1, Critical Theory (Spring, 1990), pp. 35-50
Published by: University of California Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1388976 .
Accessed: 15/04/2014 13:58
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of California Press and Pacific Sociological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Sociological Perspectives.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 142.58.129.109 on Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:58:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Sociological
Perspectives
? 1990PacificSociological
Association
Copyright

Vol. 33,No. 1, pp. 35-50

ISSN 0731-1214

THE AMBIVALENCE OF TECHNOLOGY

ANDREW FEENBERG
San Diego State University

whenheshowsthattechnolABSTRACT:Marxisathismost
persuasive
onecanbefororagainst,
butthattechnoogyis notanautonomous
thing
topolitical
inturnonsocial
logical
designis relative
which
forces
depend
isan ambivalent
interests.
Thus,technology
dimension
ofthesocialprocessand,likeeducation,
andthecorporate
itis
law,themilitary,
structure,
insocialstruggles
determine
wphich
whatit is andwillbecome.
involved
thenecessity
Thisposition
technical
implies
conofa democratic
politics,
traryto theprevailing
practice
oftheexisting
commu(nist
andsocialist
treat
which
as a sociopolitical
societies
invlariant.
technology

THREE CRITIQUES OF TECHNOLOGY

Must humanbeingssubmitto the harshlogicofmachinery,or can technology be fundamentally
redesignedto betterserve its creators?This is the
ultimatequestion on which the futureof industrialcivilizationdepends.
Marxismaddressesthisquestionin a powerfuland cogentanalysisoftheills
A greatdeal can stillbe learnedfromtheMarxistapproach,
ofindustrialism.
but onlyifits manyambiguitiesand problemsare firstresolved.Thatis the
purpose ofthisarticle,'whichoffersa preliminary
sketchofa criticaltheory
of technologybased on a critiqueof Marxistpremises.
Marxwas neithera naive technologicalenthusiastnor was he a romantic
criticoftechnicalprogress.He carefully
limitedhis criticism
to the"bad use"
of machinery.But the middlepositionis difficult
to defend,as theoristsof
technologyhave founddown to thepresentday; thereis a riskthateven the
mostmodestchallengeto thevirtuesofprogressmaybe seen as evidenceof
a dispositionto machinebreaking.Anticipating
such reactions,Marx complained in advance about thecriticwho "implicitly
declareshis opponentto
be stupid enough to contendagainst, not the capitalisticemploymentof
machinery,but machineryitself"(Marx 1906:1,482).
It is easy to understandwhyMarxdid notwish to be tarredwiththesame
brushas theinfamousNedd Ludd, butthedistinction
between"employment"
Directallcorrespondence
to:AndrewFeenberg,
ofPhilosophy,
Department
San DiegoStateUniversity,
San Diego,
CA 92182

This content downloaded from 142.58.129.109 on Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:58:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

36

SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume33, Number1, 1990

"in itself"is notveryhelpfulin clarifying

hisposition.Indeed,
and technology
dimensionoftechnologycan be considereda "use" ofsome
everysignificant
sort.Forexample,we considersuch different
thingsas war,electriclighting,
and the assembly line to be "uses" of technologyin differentsenses.
termssuch as "technology"and "machinery"are ambiguous
Furthermore,
and mayrefereitherto particulartechnologiesused forthisor thatsubstantiveend, or to technologyas a generalfieldcontainingvariouspossibilities,
each of whichmaybe considereda "use."
To say that technologyis "badly employed" may referto problemsas
as whatpurposeparticular
areemployedtoaccomplish,
different
technologies
how theyare employedwhateverthepurpose,ortheway in whichtechnical
principlesare employedin puttingthemtogetherin thefirstplace. A critique
oftheuses to whichtechnologyis put maythusmean at least the following
threethings,none of whichis mutuallyexclusive:
1. technology
is usedforbadends,suchas killing
people;
2. itis appliedwithoutreasonableprecaution
despitethehazardsitrepre-

sentsforthoseaffected
byitsoperation;

3. itsdesignis notoptimal
from
thestandpoint
ofprotecting
orfurthering
thevaluesofworkers,consumers,
or otheraffected
groups.

It is noteasy to knowwhichview Marxactuallyheld because he seems to

have believed elements of all three without ever clearlydistinguishing
whichare sometimesobscure
betweenthem.Thus, by omittingreferences,
in anycase, one easilyarrivesat theMarxone wishestofind.I briefly
review
these various positionsas theyappear in Marx's work or are attributedto
him. However, my purpose is less to produce an accountof Marx's views
ofa criticalpositionon technology.
thanto arriveat a persuasiveformulation
Such a positionmust take into accountwhat we have learned in the past
seventyyearsfromobservingthecommunistworld,as well as thelessons of
movements.
recentenvironmental
Accordingto a widespreadview of Marx,he intendedthe firstand only
thefirstofthethreepositionsoutlinedabove. Marx'scritiquewould thenbe
a banal objectionto the wastefulnessof employingtechnologyforprivate
purposes ratherthan to serve human needs in general.Marx would have
attackedthe ends technologyserves under capitalism,while suspending
judgmenton the means. This is a theoryof the "innocence" of technology
which,as an ensembleof toolsavailableforany use whatsoever,cannotbe
blamed forthe particularuses to whichit is put.
oftechnologyhas manyapplicationsI have discussed
This neutrality
theory
elsewhere,onlyone ofwhichis relevanthere(Feenberg1987).I willcall this
of technologybecause it focusesexclusively
applicationthe product
critique
on the worthof the productsforwhich technologyis used and regards

This content downloaded from 142.58.129.109 on Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:58:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE AMBIVALENCE

OF TECHOLOGY

37

technology"in itself"as unsulliedby its role in producingthem.Here is a

of thiscritiquewithwhichMarxwas undoubtedlyin
plausibleformulation
agreement:
1. Although
theadvanceoftechnology
has thepotential
toservethehuman
raceas a whole,undercapitalismits contribution
to humanwelfareis
largelysquanderedon theproduction
ofluxuriesand war.

Because supportforthisview can be foundin Marx,certainpartiesand

theoristsargue thathe endorsedthe neutrality
theoryas a whole. One also
hears fromthe same sourcesthatonlysuch a critiqueoftechnologyis compatiblewithMarxistmaterialism,accordingto which technologyis an elementofthebase and notrelativeto class interestsas are thesuperstructures.
Yet thisis certainly
nota fullaccountofMarx'sposition,foritleaves out his
theoryofthe shapingoftechnologyand thedivisionoflaborby therequirementsof capitalistcontrol(Thompson1983).The claimor chargethatMarx
was an uncriticalenthusiastof technologythus restson a highlyselective
readingof the texts,and will not be consideredfurther
here.
There is plentyof evidence that,in additionto criticizingthe products
capitalistschoose to make,Marxalso believedthattheapplicationoftechnology is fundamentallyflawed under capitalism.The widespread abuses
from"thecapitalistic
resulting
ofmachinery"
employment
includesuchthings
as harmingthe soil to extractmaximumagriculturalyields, and failingto
safeguardthe healthand welfareof workersin the factories.
Accordingto thisview, the problemscaused by capitalisttechnologyare
due to factorssuch as the lengthof the workday,the pace of work, the
provisionof inadequate safetyequipmentand training,and so on. These
problemsare so verysignificant
because theproductionprocessis notmerely
a means to an end, but shapes the mentaland physicalactivityof workers
and constitutesan environmentfora significant
portionof the population
duringmuchofthe day. Subservedto therequirements
ofclass power,this
environment
becomes a menace to thosewho mustlive withinit. Here is a
briefstatementof thisprocesscritique
of technology:
2. Undercapitalism,technology
is appliedin ways thatare destructive
of
manand naturebecausethepursuitofmaximum
profit
and themaintenance of capitalistpoweron the workplaceare incompatible
withthe
protectionof the workersand the environment
fromthe hazards of
industrial
production.

Thistheoryrepresents
a seconddimensionofMarx'scritiqueoftechnology.
While compatiblewith the productcritique,the process critiquedoes not
describetechnologyas "innocent"but asserts,on the contrary,
thatindustrialtools are a constantsource of dangers thatmust be avoided through

This content downloaded from 142.58.129.109 on Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:58:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

38

SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume33, Number1, 1990

scientific
studyand humaneand rationalplanningunbiasedby thedrivefor
power and profit.This theorycombinedwiththe firstadds up to a product
whichis truerto Marx'sapproachto technologythanthe
andprocesscritique,
firsttheorytakenalone.
Marxisttheoryofthe transition
Thisview is exemplified
by thetraditional
in the
to socialism,whichcalls forrelativelysimpletechnicalmodifications
foreseeablefuture,and preachesresignationto manyof the inevitableevils
ofmachineindustryuntilthedistant"higherphase" in whichfundamental
design changeswill finallyoccur.Forexample,Kautsky'sTheClass Struggle
man([1892]1971)discussesthecapitalistdivisionoflaborand authoritarian
agementunder the generalheading of the consequences of technological
advance, and promisesworkersa reductionin labortimeunder socialism,
but no reformin theirconditionas workers(Kautsky[1892]1971:155-160).
Similarly,Bebel's classic WomanUnderSocialism(1904) treatsthe reforms
requiredto avoid wasteful,unpleasant,and hazardousproductionin considerabledetail,but when it comes to discussingtechnologicalinnovationwe
are promisedadvances such as the automationof stone breakingand the
artificial
productionof foodratherthanfundamentalchangesin the design
of productiontechnologyand the laborprocess (Bebel 1904:283-298).
Thus, despite the presenceof a criticalappreciationof technology,this
second formulationof Marxism,like the firstview taken alone, is often
beliefthatthemainflawin
associatedwiththe"technicist"or "productivist"
capitalismis the obstaclesit places in the path of the growthofthe productiveforces.Whethertheseobstaclesare a wastefulchoiceofends or a wastefulapplicationofmeans,thetechnologydeveloped undercapitalismis seen
here as immediatelyavailablewithoutmajor transformation
fora different
and morehumane application.
Thereis yeta thirdcritiqueof technologyin Marx. Whilehe neverstates
it is a plausibleimplicationof severalstrandsof
thisthirdtheoryexplicitly,
his argumentconcerningthe organizationoflaborand innovation.Accordthe veryconstructionof capitalisttechnologyis
ing to this designcritique,
distortedby thehierarchical
organizationofcapitalistproduction(Gorz 1978;
Slater1980).This is a muchmoredifficult
positionto explainthantheproduct and process critiquesdiscussed above. To begin, I show brieflyhow I
relatethistheoryof technologicaldesign to morefamiliaraspects of Marx's
views, such as his critiqueof the capitalistcontrolof economiclife.
Accordingto Marx, capitalistmanagementis based on two defining
and a social
"moments," a technicalmoment,concernedwith efficiency,
momentrelatedto the reproduction
of capitalistpower. For Marx, capitalist
controlofthelaborprocesscrossesthelinebetweenthesetwomoments.On
theone hand, ithas a cleartechnicalnecessity,demandedby theconditions
forthesuccessfulcooperationoflargenumbersofpeople: thisis theworkof
supervisioninseparablefromlarge-scaleproduction.On theotherhand, this
same systemofcontrolis designedto producean incomeforthecapitalist,a

This content downloaded from 142.58.129.109 on Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:58:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE AMBIVALENCE

OF TECHOLOGY

39

goal thatflowsfromno technicalnecessityand thatis notservedvoluntarily

by the workers.3This conceptualdistinctionunderliesMarx 's demonstrationthatsome of the worstaspects of capitalism,such as its dehumanizing
criterionalone, but on the
divisionof labor, depend not on the efficiency
requirementsof systemreproduction.4
The relationbetween these distinctsocial and technicalfunctionsis not
entirelyclear. If they are related only externally,then Marx's complaint
would be thatcapitalistsmeddlein technicalaffairs,
violatingtechnicalnorms
in pursuitof power and wealth. On these terms,the productand process
sufficetoincorporate
thisnew aspect
critiqueoftechnologywould ultimately
ofMarx'stheory.Butthereis some evidencethatMarxdid not conceivethe
social and technicaldimensionsof productionas two "things"standingin
in theimperativecriteria
undercapitalism.Rather,theyare condensed
conflict
of capitalistdevelopment.These criteriacan be explainedsociologicallyin
termsof the capitalist'spositionin the economy.
Capitalistsand theirmanagerialrepresentatives
possess an unusual degree
in
the
control
of
of operational
autonomy
productionas comparedwithpolitical and economicleaders of earliersocieties,and theyuse thatfreedomto
manage and mechanizethe workplacein such a way as to extractprofits
fromthe firm.The preservationand enlargementof the capitalist'soperationalautonomy,as the veryessence of his social position,is the invariant
requirementof all successfulactivityundertakenfromthatpositionin the
is the pressureto reproducethe
social system.So powerfuland self-evident
capitalist'soperationalautonomythatit becomes a constantfactorin the
constructionof technologies,workrules,job descriptions,accountingsystems, and, indeed, it is eventuallyincorporatedinto the standardproceduresin everydomain,prejudgingthesolutionto everypracticalproblemin
termsof certaintypesof technicalresponses.
As Marcusewritesin his critiqueofWeber,the"technological
rationality"
of
capitalismpresupposes
theseparation
oftheworkersfromthemeansofproduction
... (as) a technical
necessityrequiringthe individualand privatedirection
and controlof the
means of production.

. The highlymaterial,historicalfactof the private-

thusbecomes... a formal
capitalist
enterprise
structural
elementofcapitalism
and of rational
economicactivity
itself(Marcuse1968:212).

In sum, theveryprinciplesunderlyingtechnicaldecisionsembodythesocial

assumptions of the capitalist system.

This technological rationalitycan be shown to consist in a specific code
which governs the constructionand interpretationof technical systems and
languages. I follow here Guillaume's definitionof social codes "as the ensemble of associations between signifiers(objects, services, acts . . .) and that

whichtheysignifyin society,associationscreatedor controlledby organiza-

This content downloaded from 142.58.129.109 on Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:58:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

40

SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume33, Number1, 1990

tionsas a basis of theirexistenceand ifpossible theirdevelopment"(Guillaume 1975:64).

condensationofcapitalistsocial and technicalrequireOn theseterms,the
codeofcapitalism.This
mentsMarcusedescribescould be called thetechnical
contextsoflaborand
ofall thetraditional
code presidesoverthedestruction
gives the capitalistcontrolof work organizationand innovation,insuring
thatthefirmwilloperateto maximizehis poweroverthelaborforce.Itis this
technicalcode which is the underlyingbasis of the social technologyof
capitalism.
of Marx's distinction
betweenthe social and technical
This interpretation
dimensionsof productionexplainshis claimthatinnovationunder capitalism is responsiveto class interestsin the pursuitof increasedpower over
thelaborforceand notjust to thegenericinterestin thepursuitofincreased
power over nature. Progressis governedsimultaneouslyby at least these
two criteria,both of which must be satisfiedif an innovationis to be
introduced.
Thus, Marx says of science that it "is the most powerfulweapon for
repressingstrikes,those periodicalrevoltsof the workingclass againstthe
autocracyof capital" (Marx 1906:1,475). And he claims that "it would be
possibleto writequite a historyofinventions,made since 1830,forthe sole
purpose of supplyingcapitalwithweapons againstthe revoltsof the working class" (Marx 1906:1,476).5Technologyis shaped in its design and deby the need to
velopmentby the social purposes of capital, particularly
maintainand furthera divisionof labor thatkeeps the labor forcesafely
under control.
To summarize,thisdesign critiqueargues that:
buttheform
3. Technological
progressachievesadvancesofgeneralutility,
and through
determined
in whichtheseadvancesarerealizedis through
by thesocialpowerunderwhichtheyare made and insuresthatthey
also servetheinterests
ofthatpower.

Accordingto this view, technologyis a dependent variablein the social

system,shaped to a purposeby thedominantclass, and subjectto reshaping
to new purposes under a new power.6
Marxbelievedthatthepossession and exerciseofclass power determines
the generalcourseoftechnologicaladvance overlong periods.An undemocraticclass power (thatofthecapitalistclass, Marxwould argue),eliminates
technologiesthat threatenits interests,while a democraticpower would
similarlyemphasize developmentsfavorableto it. Since, under socialism,
workerswould controlnot only day-to-dayproductionbut also the longtermreproductionofsociety,theycould use thatcontrolto changethevery
natureof technologyand workwhich,forthe firsttimein history,would
concerna rulingclass witha motiveto alterthem.The applicationof these

This content downloaded from 142.58.129.109 on Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:58:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

OF TECHOLOGY
THE AMBIVALENCE

41

new social criteriaof developmentwould eventuallyyield an alternative

class interestsand based on a differindustrialsystem,adapted to different
ent culture.

TECHNOLOGY AND TRANSITION

ofMarx'spositionhas itsadvocates.The prodEach oftheseinterpretations
uct and processcritiqueis routinelyattributed
to Marxby "orthodox"comofMarxismand by muchofrecentcriticaltheory.It is
munistinterpretations
and technologithebasis, forexample,oftheSoviet"theoryofthe scientific
cal revolution."Wellmer,representing
criticaltheory,would agree,although
he expressesthe pointnegativelywhen he accuses Marxof "latentpositivism,"whichbecomesthedominanttrendin laterorthodoxMarxism(Wellmer
1974:chap.2). Reduced to itslowestcommondenominator,this"positivist"
Marxismderiveshistoricaldevelopmentfromthetechnologically
determined
sequence of modes of production.On the otherhand, laborprocesstheory
impliesa design critique,accordingto whichtheveryformoftechnological
developmentdepends on social as well as technicalfactors.
I do not wish to contributea chapterto thisdebate about Marx's views,
especiallysinceI doubtifhe everdistinguishedthevarioustheoriesin question clearlyenough in his own mind to noticetheirverydifferent
political
implications.The moreimportant
problemthatconcernsus hereis to address
the different
implicationsofthevarioustheories.Iftheproductand process
critiqueis correct,the abolitionof the capitalistformof propertywould
sufficeto resolvethe social problemscaused by technology.But the design
critiqueimplies the need forsignificant
changes to adapt technologyto a
new social power.
Followingthe formerapproach, the victoriousRussian revolutionaries
assumed thatthe industrialapparatus inheritedfromcapitalismcould be
operatedunchangedby a workers'state.Thus, when theyfoundthatearly
experimentsin workers'controlreduced efficiency,
theydid not consider
to adapt theconditionsofproductionto new social requirements
attempting
but ratherquicklyreintroducedone-manmanagementand the most rigorous controlfromabove (Azrael 1966;Bailes 1978;Gvishiani1972).
No doubt these measures were motivatedoriginallyby an emergency
situation.But soon the leading Germantheoreticianof social ownership,
Eduard Heimann,could writethat"The introduction
offactory
councilshas
conceptuallynothingto do with socialization"(Kellner1971:132;Rusconi
1975). Communistleaders believed in the imperativerequirementsof the
existingtechnologyand divisionoflabor,whichtheyjudged tobe neutralas
betweensocial systems.If,as the"base" ofmodernproduction,thetechnology created under capitalismis common to all industrialsocieties,then
democracymustin factremainbehindat the factory
gatejust as the capitalists had always claimed.

This content downloaded from 142.58.129.109 on Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:58:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

42

SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume33, Number1, 1990

The productand processcritiqueis compatiblewiththisconclusion,and

to socialism.Butthe design
also withthe traditional
theoryofthetransition
ofpowerovertheapparatuswillpose
critiquealso suggeststhatthetransfer
muchmorecomplexproblemsthanthosecommunistrevolutionaries
generallybelievedthemselvesto be facing.The technicalinheritanceofcapitalism
organization,whetheror not it is operis peculiarlyadapted to hierarchical
rootedin thetechnical
ated by capitalistowners.Thishierarchical
structure,
code ofcapitalism,is availablein any socialsystemas a basis foran alienated
of industrialsocietywould not therefore
be a
power. The democratization
merelyformalmatterofchangingtheformofownershipand theprocedures
and selectingthosein charge.In addition,it would be necesforrecruiting
aspects of capitalisttechnologyand the
sary to identifyand to transform
withtheprincipleofdemocratic
control.
relateddivisionoflaborwhichconflict
The design critiquethusleads to the conclusionthatthe classicaldistincoffers
no guidancetotransitional
policy,
tionbetweenbase and superstructure
and that aftera socialistrevolutiontechnologywould have to be reconinheritedfromcapistructedmuchlikethestate,law, and otherinstitutions
if the establishmentof a workers'power
talistsociety.Correspondingly,
requiresfundamentaltechnologicalchange,thenperhapsthe failureof the
technical
existingcommunistsocietiesto engage in such a reconstructive
politicsmaybe one ofthereasonsforthepowerlessnessofworkersin those
societies.
taskwould be extremely
difficult.
We cannotknow in
This reconstructive
advance exactlywhat technicalchangeswould be requiredto createa suitaforbuildingsocialism.That mustbe learnedfromexperible environment
ment and struggle.Nor can poor socialist countriesbuy "appropriate"
the idea of
technologyfromrichcapitalistones. Despite these difficulties,
socialismis more plausible in this conceptionthan in the traditionalone,
accordingto which the "assembled producers"need only seize the state
to transform
society.
throughtheirrepresentatives
At leasthere,theclaimthatsocialismcan organizea realtransfer
ofpower
restson an understandingof the obstaclespresentedby the high level of
betweensuch different
aspects of capitalistsocietyas
systemicintegration
of social
the design oftechnology,the divisionoflaborand the distribution
power. Overcomingtheseobstacleswillrequirea moreradical"deep democratization"ofcapitalistsociety,extendingdown to itstechnological
basis, to
intoa suitablefoundationfora freersociety(Fleron
transform
itsinheritance
1977;Feenberg1979).
THE AMBIVALENT HERITAGE
The design critiqueof technologyis incompatiblewith some of the most
theory,includingtheview thattechimportant
implicationsoftheneutrality
availableas thebasis ofa
nologydeveloped undercapitalismis immediately

This content downloaded from 142.58.129.109 on Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:58:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE AMBIVALENCE

OF TECHOLOGY

43

socialistsociety.Indeed, on Marx's account,capitalisttechnologyis intrinsicallypolitical;an alienated apparatus designed to be operatedby a disqualifiedlabor forceunder the controlof an autocraticmanagement.But is
socialismpossibleat all on theseterms?In Marxisttheory,thetransformation
forworkersorganizingthemof technologyand work are not preconditions
selves as a rulingclass, but ratherresultsof workingclass rule. And yet
technologyis throughand throughmarkedbyitsoriginsand functionin the
politicalstrategiesof capitalism:the veryexistenceof capitalisttechnology
thus appears to threatenthe achievementof the socialistsocietyit is also
supposed to make possible.
One strandof Marx's theoryof the transitioncan be interpretedas an
a heritageofmediationsbetween
attemptto solvethisproblembyidentifying
in change.
capitalismand socialismthatwould supplyelementsofcontinuity
Marxdoes nottreatthesemediatingelementsas neutral,which
Interestingly,
would have been one way of explainingthe possibilityof using them to
make the transition.Instead,he worksfroman originalpositionforwhich
ofmeans withrespect
he neverdevelops adequate concepts,theambivalence
to civilizational
projects.
Marx's conceptionof the transitionto socialismis intendedto avoid both
conventionalpoliticalrealism and utopianismby identifying
among the
inheritancesof capitalismthe ambivalentraw materialsneeded to createa
socialist society. Like Archimedes,the revolutionaryclass can move the
world if only it has a place to stand. This "place" is the institutionaland
technologicalbase which socialismtakes over fromthe capitalistsocietyit
replaces.Here are themostimportantexamplesofambivalentinheritances:
1. Fundamentalpoliticalinstitutions
such as votingwould be takenover
fromcapitalistdemocracyand developedas the basis fora stillmore
democratic
socialiststate.This socialiststateis notan end in itselfbut
merelya meansto theend ofabolishingthestatealtogether.
2. Similarly,
even such a basic capitalistinstitution
as the wage system
wouldbe reformed
and retainedduringthetransition,
as a steptoward
thesocialistgoal ofdistribution
accordingto need.
3.

Capitalistmanagement,subordinatedto the will of the "assembled

producers,"is availableto runindustry
duringthe transition
to a new
thedivisionofmentaland mantypeofindustrial
societythattranscends
ual labor.

4. Thetechnology
ofalienation
takenoverfromcapitalism
wouldbe neither
acceptednor abolishedbut used as a means forthe productionof a
different
technological
apparatus,a technology
of liberationin which
workbecomes"life'sprimewant."

This Marxistconceptionof transitionmightbe called noninoral

because of
itsrealistictreatment
oftheproblemofmeans and ends. Bukharinexpresses

This content downloaded from 142.58.129.109 on Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:58:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

44

SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume33, Number1, 1990

of
oppositionality
in writingthat"the functional
thispositionveryabstractly
oppositionformally
similarphenomenais totallydeterminedbya functional
alityofsystemsoforganization,by theiropposed class character"(Bukharin
1971:118).Thus,thepaymentofwages as a permanentand essentialfeature
ofwages
employment
ofcapitalismcan be distinguishedfromthetemporary
to socialism.Similarly,capitalisttechnolto motivateworkin the transition
undersocialogy designedto deskillthelaborforcecan be used temporarily
ismto builda new generationofproductiontechnologybetteradapted to the
reskilledlaborforceof an advanced socialistsociety.
The initiationoftheprocessleadingto socialismdepends on theinherent
possibilityof using the existingtechnologyin the frameworkof different
civilizationalprojects.Socialismwould be theresultof technologicalreproductionunder a new class power. This conceptiondiffersfromthe idea of
"neutrality"ofthemeans withrespectto thevariouspossiblegoals thatfall
underthegoal-horizonthemeansis designedto serve.The thesisofambivalence on which this concept of the transitionto socialismis based is far
thegoal-horizon
oftransforming
broaderin scope and referstothepossibility
fortherealizationofnew types
itself,thatis to say, generatinga framework
ofpurposesnotsupportedby theexistingmeansin theirpresentform.It can
be summedup in the followingthreepropositions:
(or
1. In theshortrun,workerscan and indeedmustuse manyinherited
theirpower.
elementswhileconsolidating
transferred)
theseelementsin thecourseofusingthemover
2. Workers
can transform
different
social
theyhavebuilta radically
an extendedperiod,untilfinally
and technological
base, one adjustedto theirneeds as a class.
ofthe
potentialities
determines
whichoftheambivalent
3. Whatultimately
is theclasspowerunderwhichthe
is developedmostcompletely
heritage
systemoperatesand whichsetsthestandardsand goalsofprogressfor
society.

This realisticapproach serves as a defenseagainst chargesof impracticability,but it involvesa "pact withthe devil" thatexposes itto attackfrom
anotherquarter.Both liberaland anarchistcriticsof Marxismcriticizethe
relianceon formsof organizationand repressivemeans chosen fortheir
with the "ideal" of
"realistic"usefulnessratherthan fortheirconformity
socialism.If,as thesecriticsargue,theend is "contained"in themeans,then
proposiindeed Marxismis fatallyflawedbecause itis based on thecontrary
tion,accordingto whichthefutureis bornofthedialecticofmeans and ends
in history.
ofmethods
This approachseems to involveMarxismin ominousconflicts
as
Union
the
Soviet
proofthat
and goals. Marx'scriticssee the evolutionof
of
the
the
Marxist
are fatalto
theory.Certainly theory ambivatheseconflicts

This content downloaded from 142.58.129.109 on Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:58:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE AMBIVALENCE

OF TECHOLOGY

45

lence has been reduced to Orwellian"Newspeak" where activitiessuch as

forcedlabor are evaluated as either"buildingsocialism" or as "capitalist
exploitation"dependingon whethertheytakeplace in a socialistor a capitalist society.The state which supposedly grantsa socialistsignificanceto
massive abuses as inhumaneas anythingknownunder capitalismconsists
essentiallyof theseveryabuses, and cannotclaimto transcendthemand to
designatethemas being in the serviceof a highergoal.
In lightof thishistory,it is necessaryto insistthatinsofaras something
to Marx,itis concernedwith
likethetheoryofambivalencecan be attributed
buildingon theflawedbutveryrealachievementsofcapitalismand notwith
horriblemeans in the presentby referenceto admirablebut still
justifying
imaginaryfuturegoals. The aim of the theoryis not apologeticbut strategic
and consistsin guidingtheapplicationofinstitutions,
equipment,and techniques developed undercapitalismthroughan evolutiontowardthecorresverifiable
pondingsocialistones. Thisis an empirically
process,therealityof
whichneeds to be judged by appropriatecriteria,not a ritualaffirmation.
to imaginean alternative
As faras technologyis concerned,itis difficult
to
an ambivalentprocess of change. A whole new technologycannotspring
pure fromthe sweatybrow of the proletariatas Athena did fromZeus's
forehead.Againstthe liberalthesisof the identityof means and ends, the
fromcapitalism
theoryofambivalenceassertsthepossibilityofbootstrapping
to socialism.The reshapingoftheinheritedtechnologyis a processin which
machinesdeveloped undercapitalismwould not simplybe put to new uses
in a different
social context,but, moreimportantly,
would be employedto
producenew technologicalmeans,fullyadapted to thecultureof socialism.
This developmentalapproach is quite different
fromthe notion that the
same neutralmeans can be used fora varietyofends. It suggeststhefurther
endstechnologymaydirectlyserve,butwhat
relationship:notwhatdifferent
new technologicalmeansitmayproduce,in a technically
and culturally
feasible sequence leading fromone typeofindustrialsocietyto a quite different
type.

TECHNICAL POLITICS
The traditional
Marxisttheoryofthetransition
admitsthesocialdetermination
of "product" and "process" only,and treatsthe design of technology"in
itself"as neutral.Yet Marx's own critiqueof the capitalistdivisionof labor
revealsthepowerintereststhathide behindthemaskoftechnicalneutrality,
interestswhichwe would identify
todaywithboththepossessorsofmaterial
and culturalcapital.7These interestsdo notmerelydistortthechoiceofgoals
forproductionor the applicationof technologybut, as we have seen, are
installedin theverycode on thebasis ofwhichtechnologyis designed.The
ambivalenceof technologythus reflectsthe ambiguityof a design process
which condensesboth social and technicalgoals.

This content downloaded from 142.58.129.109 on Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:58:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

46

SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES

Volume 33, Number 1, 1990

This critiqueof technologyexplains the limitationsof the technological

inheritancesof capitalism.Since theyderive originally
and administrative
fromthe structureof the capitalistcollectivelaborer,theyare designed to
establishthe broadestoperationalautonomyof leadershipfunctions.Even
afterthe disappearanceof the class in the interestsof whichthisconstellaformsand technological
achievementschartionfirstarose,itsadministrative
surrogates
whichcan continueunderbureaucratic
acterizea typeofcivilization
forcapitalism.Socialismmust approach these formsand technologiesas
reducambivalentpointsofpassage towarda new societyby systematically
ing the operationalautonomytheysupport,and introducingnew formsof
controlfrombelow and technologicalinnovationsadapted to these new
forms.
fromthe one impliedin Engels' famous
This strategyis subtlydifferent
authority
descriptionofsocialismas a systemthegoal ofwhichis "to restrict
solely to the limitswithinwhich the conditionsof productionrenderit
inevitable"(Engels 1959:484).It is easy to approvegenerallyof thisprinciple
but Engels failsto explainhow the limitsto whichhe
authority,
ofrestricted
refersare to be determined.The "conditionsofproduction"are ambiguous,
technicalcodes, a capitalist
subjectto rationalorderingundertwo different
and a socialistcode. These codes are distinguishedpreciselyby theiranswer
lie. Thus, fromthe
to thequestionofwherethe limitsoftechnicalauthority
standpointof organizationaldynamics,whodefinesthe boundarybetween
techniqueand therestwillhave a greatdeal to do withwheretheboundaryis
drawn. If it is up to the technicalexpertsthemselves,predictablytheywill
set virtuallyno limitson theirauthorityat all (Larson 1984).
Lenin suspectedthatthingswere morecomplicatedthan Engels' simple
formula.His remarkson bureaucracyshow thathe was aware thatexperts
extendtheirpowerbeyondthetechnicaldomaintheymasteron thebasis of
drawingthelinesbetween
theirspecializedknowledge,and that,therefore,
processesis a politicaland not
thetechnicaland socialaspectsofinstitutional
a technicalaffair.
Had Lenin understoodthe design critiqueof technology,he mighthave
as a dimensionof a socialrevolution
politics
graspedthe necessityof technical
the deepest foundationsof capitalistcivilization.But, because he
affecting
of technology,he was never
shared the widespreadbeliefin the neutrality
able to workout the theoretical
implicationsof thisorganizationalproblem,
it to the class originsofthe individualexperts.As a
and tendedto attribute
result,Lenin and the otherBolshevikscame to expect miraclesfromthe
of managersofproletarianoriginfortheinheritedpersonnelof
substitution
the old regime.
The transitionto socialism,accordingto traditionalMarxism,is a twophase process, characterizedby an early phase of deep changes in nontechnicalmatterssuch as state policy,law, and ownershipof productive

This content downloaded from 142.58.129.109 on Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:58:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE AMBIVALENCE

OF TECHOLOGY

47

means, and a laterphase of technicalchange. In practice,this two-phase

conceptionhas less to do withpredictionsaboutthedistantfuturethanwith
political styles in the present, where it serves to normalize Marxism's
apparentlycontradictory
reliancebothon politicalmobilizationand on technical expertise.It thus justifiestreatingpolitico-administrative
workdifferentlyfromtechnicalwork, in order to quicklytransformthe one while
shelteringthe otherfrominterference
(Lenin 1943:II,344). But Marxisttheoryshows, thatas faras thestateis concerned,itis notenoughto changethe
leading personnel,but thatthe operationalautonomyof the bureaucracies
must be reduced by changingthe codes, rules, procedures,and practices
underwhichtheywork.Whyare theseprinciplesnotapplied in some form,
howevermodest,to technologyas well?
The widespread assumptionthatthe technicallimitsof rationalpolitical
actionare self-evident
obstructsclearthinking
aboutthestatusoftechnology
and expertiseundersocialism.Social changeis undoubtedlylimitedby technical considerations;to thatextent,the two-phaseconceptionof the transition is realisticin suggestingthe need to assess what is and what is not
technicallyfeasibleat different
stages. But the real technicallimitationsare
much less confiningthan Marxistshave generallyassumed and lie deep
withinthe technicalsphere,whichtherefore
cannotbe distinguishedinstitutionallyas a "realm of necessity"froma sociopoliticaldomain to which
actionis confined.8
Because social interestsplay a role in the mostbasic technicaldecisions,
the boundaryof techniqueis neverclear,and the struggleforand against
alienated power thereforetakes place throughthe very definitionof the
technicalsphere. The discoveryof thisboundaryis extraordinarily
difficult
sincethe ultimateideologicalappeal ofhierarchical
powerin industrialsociety consistsin maskingsocial requirementsas technicalimperatives.Just
because thisconfusionis routine,oppositionto establishedpowerinevitably
transgressessupposedly technicallimitsin unmaskingthe intereststhey
protect,and mistakesare likelyto be made in the probingstruggleto discoverthe realtechnicallimitson change.
In ignoringtheambiguousrealitiesofmoderntechnicalpolitics,theclassical theoryof the transitionlegitimatesthe existingtechnologicalapparatus
and associated managementpracticesat least in the firstphase of the
transition.In the conceptionof the transitionproposed here, the gradual
abolitionoftheoperationalautonomyofleadershipin thepoliticalorganizationofsocietyand thedivisionoflaborwould notoccurin sequenced phases
butwould go hand in hand and would quicklyhave an impacton technological developments.TraditionalMarxismalways dismissedthis approach as
utopian,but the realitiesof industrialsocietieshave finallyrefutedthe critique by banalizingtechnicalstruggleitself.

This content downloaded from 142.58.129.109 on Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:58:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

48

SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES

Volume 33, Number 1, 1990

In fact,democraticstrugglesfortechnicalchangehave become routinein

industrialsocieties.Few importantproblemsarise
all typesofcontemporary
in eitherthe politicalor economicdomain withoutraisingtechnicalissues
and requiringtheexpertiseofhighlytrainedpersonnel.Butitis rarethatthe
issues come packaged in such a way thatpoliticaland technicalconsiderationsare clearlydistinct;mostsocial problemspointto a multitudeofpossible technicalsolutions,and the choice between available alternativeshas
undeniablepoliticalimplications.
Generally,wherethereareimportant
political stakes,theexpertsthemselvesare unableto achieveconsensuson technical groundsbutcan onlyemploytheirknowledgetoinformpublicdiscussion
to suppressit.The intermingling
oruse theirauthority
ofpoliticaland techniof the publicprocessof industrialsocietiesappears
cal issues characteristic
clearlyin such struggles(Winner1972).
Today these strugglesare confinedto particularissues, such as problems
ofworkdesign,pollution,urbangrowth,or nuclearhazards,butin a democraticsocialistsociety,as a byproductofaccomplishingsuch concreteends,
technicalpoliticscould worktowardthe generalreconstruction
of technolUnderthesenew circumstances,
ogyand administration.
technicaldevelopmentwould move on a verydifferent
path fromthatfollowedby industrial
societiestoday.New social criteriaofinnovationrespondingto theinterests
of theunderlyingpopulationwould prevailovercapitalistvalues embodied
in inheritedtechnology,providingthe basis forfundamentalcivilizational
change.
In sum,I would argueforabandoningthetraditional
Marxistemphasison
the stateas economicplanner,and instead emphasize the role thatpublic
participationin technicaldecisions can potentiallyplay in social change.
"Capitalism" and "socialism" are not mutuallyexclusive "modes of production,"but,rather,theyare ideal-typeslyingat the extremesof a continuum of changesin the technicalcodes ofadvanced societiesand the related
socialorganization.Thus, theyare constantly
at issue in socialstrugglesover
such problemsas labororganization,education,and ecology.This position
offersa way of understandingthe continuingstruggleforsocialismin a
world that no longerbelieves systemchanges can be legislated,or geographicallylocalized in thisor thatcountryor block.
Thata "higherphase" ofsocialismmightgrowout ofthe strugglesofthe
"lower phase" remainsan interesting
hypothesis,but it acquires a rather
in view ofthisapproachto technicalpolitics.The actual
different
significance
technicallimitsof changediscoveredin thecourseofstruggleappear as the
otherside ofthe coin oftechnicalpolitics.These limitscomprehendblocked
whichmighteventuallymotivatea processofinnovationdriven
potentialities
ofthenotionofdisalienation
bynew socialdemands.Theconcretesignificance
is to be foundhere, and not in a generalplan forhumanity'sfuture.

This content downloaded from 142.58.129.109 on Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:58:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE AMBIVALENCE

Acknowledgments: I would like

to thank FrederickFleron Jr.and
GeraldDoppelt fortheirhelp in developingthe ideas presentedhere.
NOTES
1. This articleis drawn frommy forthcomingbook entitledTheCriticalTheory
of

Technology.

49

OF TECHOLOGY

2.. Does anyone actually hold such an

interpretationof Marx? The answer is
"yes." Consider,forexample,Hans Jonas's
choice of the followingsignificantsubtitle
fora discussion ofMarx: "'Reconstruction
ofthePlanetEarth'ThroughUntrammeled
Technology" (Jonas1984:186;Cf. Baudrillard 1975).
3. "The controlexercisedby thecapitalist
is not only a special function,due to the
nature of the social labour-process,and
peculiar to that process, but it is, at the
same time, a functionof the exploitation
of a social labour-process,and is consequentlyrooted in the unavoidable antagonismbetweentheexploiterand theliving
and labouring raw materialhe exploits"
(Marx 1906:J,363).
4. For an application of this distinction
between social and technicaldeterminants
oftechnologyin anotherdomain, see Williams (1975).
5. It is interestingto find Marx's view
on capitalistinnovationechoed a century
laterby RobertK. Merton. For his evaluationofthisposition,see Merton(1968:619
ff).
6. This view contrastswiththatofcritics
of technologysuch as Jacques Ellul, who
believe that the essence of technologyin
itselfis the source of the problemstreated
by Marxistsas sociallyrelative.Fora Marxist response to Ellul and otherswho share
his view, see McMurtry(1978:222-239).
7. One of the advantages of the framework introduced here is that it makes
possible a unifiedaccount of the way in

which material and cultural capital are

organized against workersand othersubordinate members of society through
technicalcodes thatmaximizeoperational
autonomy (cf. Gouldner 1979).
8. The role of technical politics in the
by two recentstudworkplaceis illustrated
ies: Shaiken (1984),and Rosnerand Markowitz, (1987). The participationof members of the middle stratain revising the
technicalcodes of theirprofessionsunder
theimpactofa revolutionary
crisisis documented in Feenberg (1978).

REFERENCES
Azrael,Jeremy.1966.ManagerialPowerand
SovietPolitics.Cambridge:Harvard UniversityPress.
Bailes,Kendall. 1978.Technology
andSociety

underLeninand Stalin.Princeton,NJ:

PrincetonUniversityPress.
Baudrillard,Jean. 1975. TheMirrorofProduction, trans. M. Poster. St. Louis:
Telos.
Bebel, August. 1904. WomanUnderSocialism,trans.D. de Leon. New York:New
York Labor News.
Bukharin,Nicolai. 1971. Transformation
Period.New York: Bergman.
Engels, Frederick.1959. "On Authority."
Pp. 482-484 in Marx and Engels: Basic
on Politics
Works
andPhilosophy,
edited
by L. Feuer. New York: Anchor.
Feenberg,Andrew. 1978. "Remembering
the May Events." Theoryand Society6:
29-53.
1979. "Technology Transferand
Cultural Change in Communist Societies." Technology
and Cultutre
20(2):348354.
1987. "The Bias of Technology."

Pp. 225-256in Herbert

Marcuse:Critical
andthePromise
Theory
ofUtopia,edited

by R. Pippin,A. Feenberg,and C. Webel.

Amherst,MA: Berginand Garvey.
Fleron, Jr.,FrederickJ. (ed.). 1977. Tech-

This content downloaded from 142.58.129.109 on Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:58:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

50

SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume33, Number1, 1990

Culture.
NewYork:
andCommunist
nology
Praeger.
Gorz, Andre(ed.). 1978. TheDivisionof
Labor.Sussex:Harvester.
ofthe
Gouldner,Alvin.1979.TheFutuire
andtheRiseoftheNewClass.
Intellectuals
New York:Seabury.
Guillaume,Marc. 1975.Le Capitalet son
Double.Paris:PUF.
andManD. 1972.Organization
Gvishiani,
Moscow:Progress.
agement.
ofResponJonas,Hans. 1984.TheImperative
ofChicago
Chicago:University
sibility.
Press.
Karl.[1892]1971.TheClassStrugKautsky,
gle,trans.W.E.Bohn.NewYork:Norton.
Kellner,Douglas (ed.). 1971.KarlKorsch:
Austin:University
Theory.
Revolutionary
ofTexasPress.
1984."The ProLarson,MagaliSarfatti.
and theConstituductionof Expertise
tionofExpertPower."Pp. 28-80in The
editedby Thomas
Authority
ofExperts,
andIndianapolis:
Haskell.Bloomington
Press.
IndianaUniversity
Lenin,V. I. 1943."The Stateand Revolution."Vol. 2, pp. 263- 361 in Selected
PubWorks.New York:International
lishers.
1968."Industrialization
Marcuse,Herbert.
and Capitalismin the Workof Max

Weber."Pp. 201-226inNegations,
trans.
J.Shapiro.Boston:Beacon.
Marx,Karl.1906.Capital.New York:ModernLibrary.
John.1978. The Structure
of
McMurtry,
Marx'sWorld-View.
NJ:PrincePrinceton,
tonUniversity
Press.
Merton,Robert.1968."The Machine,the
Worker
and theEngineer."Pp. 616-627
inSocialTheory
andSocialStructure.
New
York:The FreePress.
Rosner,David and Markowitz,Gerald
(eds.). 1987.DyingforWork.
Bloomingtonand Indianapolis:IndianaUniversityPress.
Rusconi,GianEnrico.1975."Introduction
to'WhatIs Socialization?"'
NewGerman
Critiqte
6:48-59.
Shaiken,Harley.1984.WorkTransformed.
MA: Lexington
Books.
Lexington,
ofa Critique
Slater,Phil(ed.). 1980.Outlines
AtlanticHighlands,NJ:
of Technology.
HumanitiesPressInternational.
ofWork.
Thompson,Paul.1983.TheNature
London:MacMillan.
1974.TheCritical
Albrecht.
Theory
Wellmer,
NewYork:
trans.J.Cumming.
ofSociety,
Seabury.
New
Williams,
Raymond.1975.Television.
York:Schocken.
TechWinner,
Langdon.1972.Autonomotus
Boston:MIT Press.
nology.

This content downloaded from 142.58.129.109 on Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:58:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions