Common sense

In our daily lives, we use the word technoology in a more common sense. The edges are more blurred, but we can often see clear characteristics.

Approach through production

As regards to the object itself, we will talk of technology for industrial productions or unique productions using advanced techniques (generally electric or electronic techniques, but not exclusively…).
This approach of the word « technology » is also reflected in Jacob Bigelow’s work. This Harvard professor seems to be the one who, for the first time, formalised the systematic use of the word « technology » in English in his work « Elements of technology » (1829).

Boards from the book « Elements of technology » (1829) by Jacob Bigelow. (Public domain))

Bigelow proposed the merging of the arts and sciences on the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. He incited towards a heightened division into sectors of the scientific knowledge and a scientific allocation of tasks in the work sphere. The first uses of the word « technology » in the sense given by Bigelow thus preceded the technical, environmental and social upheavals of the 19th century, and its use spread during the Industrial Revolution. [6]

Bigelow was influenced by engineer John A. Etzler, who had a religious dimension of the technique and would spread out his ideal four years later in a book which would be quickly and widely acknowledged : « The Paradise within the Reach of all Men without Labor, by Powers of Nature and Machinery : An Address to all intelligent men ». [7]

This school of thoughts could be called the technological fix. According to this concept, all problems could be fixed by « better and new » technologies [8].

Bigelow and Etzler are millennialists, a resurgent current of that era. They thought the Messiah would come (back) to Earth. It was, thus, a question of preparing paradise. In their minds, machinery and nature helped abolish work, subsequently helping the most disadvantaged social classes. There was a preparation of the last judgment, with a terrestrial messiah who would chase away the antechrist. « In helping the most deprived, you will receive in return during the resurrection of the righteous » [9].

Production-driven and capitalistic considerations on the Industrial Revolution, the heightened division into sectors of scientific knowledge and task allocation [10] will bring their share of problems. We can quote, among others :

• the loss of autonomy by not knowing all the stages of the processes ;
• the ignorance of productions (their uses, their sources, their social impacts…) ;
• the creation of various types of pollution ;
• the decrease of ressources (their time limit had not been considered at the beginning) ;
• work conditions which do not improve with increasing productions ;
• the large transformation of landscapes by increasing exploitation ;
• the disappearance or increasing scarcity of handcraft trades ;
• a growing consumption ;
• a growing dependency on productions ;
• …

Approach through the product surroundings

Nowadays, we also think of the technologies surrounding us and of their impacts on our daily lives, on our ways of life These technologies are mirroring how one sees the world, thus creating dependency.
A wooden pen or a ballpoint pen are rarely considered as technologies in the common sense. Yet, when we focus on learning how they are made, they prove to be advanced or even well-advanced fabrication techniques.
Nonetheless, we more often use a pen to take notes, scribble, draw… [11] We keep a certain control on the use and on the production undertaken. For simple uses, we just take any pen we come across, of any brand or fabrication technique, as long as there is enough ink or the lead has been sharpened. We absorb the tool and do whatever we wish of it, it barely requires anything from us…
With technologies such as the internet, we have less control on how we use it. Algorhythms are like inciting forceful tools of informative bubbles, forecasts of our expectations, access to information that change our vision of the world, counterfeiting information through mass sharing… The tool becomes less insignificant…

Critical reflections on technologies

Critical reflections on technologies are not new [12].

There are many forms of criticism on the productions and conditions thereof.

We can name multiple aspects, such as appropriation or reappropriation questions [13], mentioned by Karl Marx as early as 1844.

There’s also DIY [14] with magazines such as « Popular Mechanics »(founded in 1902), though this was a niche issue at the time [15].

DIY will be seen later on in various movements criticizing mass comsumption, such as hippy or punk movements.

We can also find connections between the ecological and technocritical movements in the 1970s.
As it is often the case, a movement isn’t born out of nothing but is instilled by its environment and movements that preceded it.

Technocritical reflection

In modern approaches following the Industrial Revolution, we can quote Karl Marx, who will write in « The Capital » :
« Technology unveils man’s active connection to nature, the immediate involvement of the production of his life, and thus of his social conditions of living and the spiritual representations thereof. »

The technocritical reflection started at the beginning of the 19th^e century in Great-Britain (the first industrial nation at the time) with the Luddist Rebellion [16]. This reflection has, then, been evolving gradually along with the flourishing industry and adaptable human beings. In France, criticism was more discreet during the French Glorious Thirty, a period when consumerism was in full boom. The technocritical reflection appeared to be on the rise again at the beginning of the 1970s when the ecological crisis became obvious. It then teamed up with ecological yet still remaining critical of it [17].

The word « technocritical » was founded in 1975 by French engineer and philosopher Jean-Pierre Dupuy.

The technocritical neologism defines a school of thought based on the criticism of the « technical progess » concept, thought to be an ideology born in the 18th^e century during the Industrial Revolution and which has, since the Second World War, been rooted in consciousness mainly through the outcomes of automation (mechanisation or machinism) and computerisation [18].

Techno-discernment

The word techno-discernment emerged recently. In French, it can be rooted from a 2009 tweet by Amélia Matar. This would be the only mention of this word on the web that year.

We speak of « techno-discernment » to require technologies when we really need them.

We can have an attitude or a way of life with a low consumption, and not necessarily cast out sophisticated devices that are necessary for our health, for example.
The « definitions » that are provided here remain outlines, as multiple and personal approaches can, of course, broaden how they are interpreted. Indeed, beyond the core technical reflection, the environment (ecological and social) implied by the technique is a milestone in the foundations of the technocritical school of thought.

Low-Tech

Low-tech (or low-techs) is not a technophobe approach, but a technocritical one. In other words, although it is against the obsession over high-tech, it follows the principle of techno-discernment, and low-tech can complement useful high-tech [19].

The concept of low-tech dates back from the 1970s, when it emerged under the pen of Ernst Friedrich Schumacher [20].

The word « low-tech » is a vision of the world. It can take into account various elements such as :

• the finiteness of ressources ;
• various environmental problematics ;
• the work conditions and other social aspects ;
• the reappropriation of work tools and techniques ;
• simplicity (of production, repair, future waste treatment…) ;
• the use of local ressources ;
• zero-waste ;
• the place of the citizens, of the human-beings or of the living more generally ;
• sharing ;
• …
  It should also be noted that numerous low-tech productions are available in free licences, as opposed to intellectual propriety which puts a stop to sharing.

The drawing on the following page shows a plural approach of low-techs.

Authors : [Arthur Keller and Émilien Bournigal, CC BY SA- licence >https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Innovation_low-tech.jpg].

Future of low-techs

We wish low-techs a bright future ! But here’s the thing...
Some great initiatives have been taken by the systems they were fighting against.
We can mention free culture, which aims at sharing the code and intellectual proprieties in a general way. It has been increasingly spreading into companies, as open source or open data, as a mere production tool, because it is free, and can legally be modified by everone for their own requirements. We can see the appearance of some criticism ici or là. According to Richard Stallman, the fundamental difference beween the concepts of free and open source lay in their respective philosophies : « Open source is a methodology of development ; free softwares are a social movement ».

Here is another example. Organic cooperative stores are less and less co-ops of associated consumers and stakeholders to procure organic products. Many still keep the « cooperative stores » designation while being a co-op made of owners from various stores… These reasoning threads generate social anger.

One last example concerns food : organic food or products with protected designation of origin, are initiatives stemming from genuine roots. Increasingly stronger lobbying practices make them highly problematic…

Tomatoes organic and grown under greenhouses in winter authorised again in France, AOC/AOP designations [21] with production methods for the profit of industrialists and not for the small local producers…

Concepts for the well-being, whether they are social or environmental, have been denatured at the time of their appropriation, by companies which took the ethical dimension away. Are we facing the same situation with low-techs and companies which would keep the eco-design aspects at best, but would take away the social aspects (free licence, workshops on sharing, cross-cutting decisions…), but also some environmental aspects (sobriety, sustainability…) ?

Organisations such as Veolia are already appropriating the word « low-tech » which is often seen in numerous communication videos [22]…

Thank you to Brigitte, Jeanne and François DUMAS for their proofreading.