Latour and his Ridicules on Socio-Technology Dualism

This paper is great, if not for beating around the bush of why is he examining Aramis commuter system. Its only towards the end where a bright light shines through why he is making a mess of the already messy Socio-Technology dualism. He asserted that this dualism arises out of undisputable notions of efficiency and profitability, of presumption of technology determinisms, and precise demand of science to ‘objectify’ the world. As a result, technologies are seen to impact society, and vice versa, and both are independent constructs.

Through case studies of Aramis and VAL, he concluded that the failure of Aramis was due to separating the ‘core technical ideas’ from the institution, and therefore it was designed not to be institutionalized. VAL on the other hand, did not make this distinction, and satisfied all of the institutional demands, that it became more than an artifact, it became an institution.

Transcending the Socio-Technology Dualism

Latour highlighted very important issues in socio-technological research. Already problematic is the term, which already showed that society and technology have different properties, and as Latour pointed out, have independent socio-historical development trajectories. Technologies are free to ignore socio-historical foundations within the institution. However, Aramis showed that incompatibility with these foundations mean it will never see the daylights.

Beyond this dualism signifies a new possibility of transcending technology beyond an artifact into an institution. Becoming a part of a community with its role to play. It highlighted that researchers of technologies should examine the “exchanges between the translated interests of humans and the delegated competencies of non-humans.” How does technology fit in (be transformed) and transforms a community? Technology not as just a ‘plugin,’ but becoming an organ within the institution.

Minor Issues and Significance of Latour’s Contributions

In certain aspects, Latour appeared forceful in making his points. For example, Aramis was seen to fail because it “completely isolates the core technical ideas of the project from the rest of the network… that it cannot become an institution and is fated to remain a utopia.” Yet, the Aramis engineers did try to satisfy the community by enlarging cabins and increase traffic flow. So Aramis did not try to isolate its community. But the reason it failed can be found within the paper, that “Aramis prototypes have become so full of computers … that there is hardly any place left for passengers!” Contrary to Latour’s assertion, it's a classic problem of introducing an immatured technology on an unrealistic development budget and timeline!

However, Latour’s key points are not to be missed. He suggested dismissing the dualism and, in technological development, maintaining the exchanges with the community and tradeoffs between ‘interests’ and functionalities. “As long as this exchange goes on, the project is alive and may become real.”

We may associate this perspective of technological development as akin to introducing a new colleague into a workplace. He may not understand the accent, know the people, or how people work. Yet, we make an effort to speak slower, be patient, and try to initiate him into the culture. Yet, we did not do the same favor to technologies. New technologies were expected to ‘re-use’ existing infrastructures. These include sale channels and existing customers. In the case of hard-disk development, none of the companies producing 7-inches and 5-inches hard disk maintain the lead when 5-inches and 3-inches came along. Reason was due to incompatibility of the new technologies to existing customer based and sales channel. The smaller drives being more favorable to mass consumer market rather than corporate customers, were not initially profitable. Nonetheless, these new technologies proved to be the way to go. Therefore, it was not to say that community is always right and that technologies have to conform or fail. Sometimes, the technology that was rejected was for the good of the institution. New and more accepting communities will then become more successful and over shadow the old.

Both Latour and Groleau et al (in press) missed this wider implications of institutionalizing technologies. This is because as similar to Groleau et al (In pro), they failed to recognize that institutions have purposes. Contradictions have to be managed so that these values and motives were not compromised. In all cases of architects, Aramis, and VAL, clearly no one kept sight of this institutional purpose. Every one, the governer, engineers, etc, fought with their own goals that never intersect. Good technology is doomed to individualistic interests. This remains a major theoretical oversight in socio-technological research.

=========
References
Groleau C, Demers C, Lalancette M, and Barros M (in process of publication). Contradictions in practice-based studies of technological change: Introducing 3D design in an architect firm. In Scandinavian Jor of Info Sys.

Latour B (1993). Ethnography of a “High-Tech” Case. In technological choices: Transformation in material cultures since the Neolithic. London: Routledge.

Jan 2008