Introduction
This essay explores my personal experiences with science and technology, drawing on concepts from the Science, Technology, and Society module, specifically from Part 2. As a student in this field, I have encountered technology in everyday life, such as using smartphones and online platforms for learning. The purpose is to describe these experiences and reflect on them using the anthropological view of technology, the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) theory, and Martin Heidegger’s perspective. These theories help us understand how technology is not just a tool but is shaped by society and influences our way of being. I will outline my experiences first, then analyse them through these lenses, showing their relevance and limitations. This reflection highlights how technology affects daily life in complex ways.
My Experiences with Science and Technology
In my daily life as a university student, technology plays a central role. For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, I relied heavily on online platforms like Zoom and Microsoft Teams for lectures and group work. This shift from face-to-face classes to virtual ones was challenging at first, as poor internet connections often disrupted sessions. However, it also allowed me to access resources from anywhere, making education more flexible. Another experience involves my use of smartphones; I use apps for navigation, social media, and health tracking. Last year, I used a fitness app to monitor my exercise, which motivated me but also made me overly focused on data, sometimes ignoring how I actually felt. These experiences show technology as both helpful and sometimes overwhelming, integrating science (like algorithms and data processing) into personal routines. Generally, they reflect broader societal reliance on tech, but they also raise questions about dependency and control.
Anthropological View of Technology
From an anthropological perspective, technology is seen as a cultural artefact embedded in social practices, not separate from human culture (Pfaffenberger, 1992). In my online learning experience, the platforms were not just tools but part of a cultural shift towards digital education during the pandemic. Anthropologists argue that technology reflects and shapes social values; for example, Zoom became a symbol of resilience in education, but it also highlighted inequalities, like access to reliable internet in different communities. This view applies to my smartphone use too – the fitness app embodies a cultural emphasis on quantification and self-improvement in modern society. However, this perspective has limitations; it sometimes overlooks how technology can impose uniform practices across diverse cultures, arguably reducing individual agency. My experiences support this theory by showing how tech is woven into daily rituals, yet it requires us to consider power dynamics in who designs these tools.
Social Construction of Technology (SCOT)
The SCOT theory, developed by Bijker and others, posits that technology is socially constructed through interactions among relevant social groups, leading to interpretive flexibility (Bijker, 1995). Reflecting on my experiences, online learning platforms evolved based on user feedback – for instance, features like breakout rooms were added after educators and students identified needs during the pandemic. This shows how technology is not fixed but shaped by groups like developers, users, and institutions. Similarly, smartphone apps like my fitness tracker were influenced by health enthusiasts and tech companies, closing down alternative interpretations (e.g., non-data-driven wellness). SCOT helps explain why some technologies succeed while others fail, based on social negotiation. A limitation is that it may underplay economic forces, as not all groups have equal influence. In my case, this theory reveals how my tech use is a product of collective choices, encouraging a critical view of innovation.
Heidegger’s Perspective on Technology
Heidegger’s philosophy views technology as “enframing” (Gestell), where it orders the world as a standing-reserve, concealing other ways of revealing truth (Heidegger, 1977). In my experiences, online platforms enframed education as efficient data delivery, hiding the relational aspects of in-person interaction – I felt isolated despite connectivity. Likewise, the fitness app enframed my body as measurable data, potentially diminishing a holistic sense of well-being. Heidegger warns that this can lead to a loss of authentic being, which resonates with my occasional frustration with tech dependency. However, his view can seem overly pessimistic, ignoring positive potentials like empowerment through information access. Applying this to my life, it prompts reflection on whether technology enhances or restricts human essence, though it requires balancing with practical benefits.
Conclusion
In summary, my experiences with online learning and smartphone use illustrate technology’s dual role as enabler and constraint. Through the anthropological view, SCOT, and Heidegger’s perspective, we see technology as culturally embedded, socially constructed, and philosophically challenging. These theories provide sound insights but have limitations, such as overlooking power imbalances or seeming too abstract. Overall, they encourage a critical approach to technology in society, implying that as students, we should advocate for more inclusive designs. This reflection underscores the need for ongoing evaluation to address complex problems like digital divides.
(Word count: 812, including references)
References
- Bijker, W.E. (1995) Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. MIT Press.
- Heidegger, M. (1977) The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays. Harper & Row.
- Pfaffenberger, B. (1992) Social Anthropology of Technology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 21, pp. 491-516.
