In this week’s symposium we discussed the neutrality of technologies. In particular, Adrian examined the subversions of technologies, or the explicit way they are designed to use versus how they are used in actuality. Pedestrian crossings was an example given. While they are designed for individuals to cross the road at certain points, many choose not to use them when inconvenient. Personally, I don’t think this example is apt. People still use pedestrian crossings as they are intended to be used when they choose to use them. It’s more that people just don’t use them at all. The actual function has remained consistent, just some individuals choose to cross the road whenever they can, rather than waiting until they come to a designated crossing.
Following this, Adrian tried to demonstrate how technologies are never neutral by using the example of a hammer. This analogy lasted for around fifteen minutes, and to be honest I struggled to stay focused.
The quote “nothing exists abstractly by itself” caught my attention again. This is an interesting idea in relation to the neutrality of technology. Initially, I’d thought that perhaps technology could be neutral if it’s not being used. However, this quote made me realise how illogical that thought is. Technology is designed to be used, hence why it can’t exist by itself. If it’s not being used, the technology isn’t neutral, it’s just waiting for a user.
I’m not sure this makes too much sense at the moment, but it’s at least an idea which I may be able to explore further in my mixed media essay.
