Micro/Meso/Macro Analysis in Modernity and Technology

I started to think about the theme of micro/meso/macro level analysis and the relation to modernity theory, technology studies, and Heidegger's ideas of Dasein and resoluteness.

It seems to me that often the micro level and technological disturbances of modernity theory are caused by dasein that have achieved a greater level of resoluteness. That is, those that have realized that a piece of their reality is ungrounded and that there is no reason for it to be the way that it is. Actors that have realized that certain technologies can be radically rethought have altered the Dasein of our existence by working along the frays of intelligibility.

Likewise, the reverse could be true. Modernity theory could be explained as the appropriation of Dasein by theorists exerting control over the whole of existence. That is, the categorizations, correlations, and causalities that have been described as harbingers of the modern age are just the work of dasein who have become resolute enough to describe a previously unfounded depiction of reality and re-align the entirety of the collective Dasein.

So are we seeing incommesurability between those dasein that work at the edge of ungroundedness in theory and those in technology?

I'd be interested in talking about this in class, as I don't think a blog post is the best platform for this idea.

Modernity and Technology: Initial thoughts on its entirety

The editors did eventually cover my initial questions: Namely, why are we created niches for studying modernity and technology, and why is it important to unite these two fields?

Arie Rip probably states it most simply: This type of analysis provides a window into the human condition and let us 'see' something that we didn't perceive before. In addition, these insights can provide fodder for the bootstrapping mechanisms of hermeneutics that were described in chapter three and was also advocated as a way to enhance our understanding of reality.*

I still don't know if I am entirely convinced of the theoretical trajectories of technology studies provided in this book. It seems as if part of the problem with merging the two fields is created via the definitions in which technology is understood. Several authors mentioned in the book have taken stances that advocate that a more 'cyborg' oriented vision of humanity and technology may be useful for understanding technology. This may be interpreted as positing the idea that technologies should be looked at as vital components of humans and modern infrastructures, not as extensions of them. Donna Haraway's A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century takes a more integrated look at technology, as does Heidegger's writing in general. Perhaps by viewing technology as a given, an author could open a window that more effectively joins modernity and technology theories. I would have liked to see the book explore this definition of technology and reality to a greater degree.

* I realize that statement is a circular argument, but I'm not sure I care at this point. Additionally, hermeneutics admits to being a circular activity. Here's a bit of reasoning that I could refute, but won't.

Why are we studying modernity and technology in
tandem? To understand our
reality.

Then how do we enhance our understanding of reality? By
bootstrapping from existing understandings of reality.

So we already
understand reality? Yes, in some way we
already understand reality.

So why do we want to understand reality when we already have
an
understanding of reality?

I guess it may be a question of why do we care to have these windows into the human condition.

Modernity and Technology, pgs. 1-73

Chapter One describes what will be later covered in the entire book. Written by Misa, it mentions a few important theorists that will later be discussed and outlines the chapters from other contributing writers. Misa lays out four proposals that are worth recounting (pgs. 5-15).

1. The concepts of "technology" and "modernity" have a tangled past.
2. Technology may be the truly distinctive feature of modernity.
3. Modernization theory missed what was modern about technology.
4. Post-modernism no less and no more than modernism is tangled up with technology (His phrasing, not mine).

At this point the reader should know what's about to be crammed down his or her respective maw, and also the ideological starting points of Misa and company.

Chapter Two outlines how the authors define modernity theory and technology studies. Good thing, because the introduction failed to do so. Without blowing the chapter for other readers, this is my take. Brey, the author of this chapter, makes an attempt to validate how modernity theories and technology theories operating on both the macro and micro level should augment each other and lead researchers to a more middling understanding of reality. My questions: Why do we care about a middling ground between technology studies and modernity? It seems that if a theorist would like to merge theory there are many other spheres to choose from besides these two. I'm not discrediting the relevance of Brey's project, I just want to know why.

Second question: The ways in which modernity and technology are defined can be recursively deconstructed until they mean almost nothing. I would have liked a more thorough explanation of why Brey feels the definitional boundaries that he sets for himself are important for his project. Is he just standing on the shoulders of other theorists that have set these boundaries for him? If so, why does he respect their opinions?

Overall, the second chapter sets a nice backdrop for the continued invention of the book. The definitions provided were essential for my reading, and there was a good discussion of historical thought in both modernity and technology studies.