Myth of neutrality; politics of TA; constitutive outside; political identities; pluralistic agonism; TA futures
Abstract :
[en] This article aims at theoretically and pragmatically addressing the future roles of Technology Assessment (TA) communities in the challenging context of contemporary politics. Mobilizing Chantal Mouffe’s theory of pluralistic agonism, we argue that TA communities should break with the myth of neutrality to render their political identities explicit and to recognize that TA does not only have politics, it also is politics. To do so, the notion of ‘constitutive outside’ is mobilized as a guiding methodological principle to invent a politics of TA. Three sites of politics where to define such a ‘constitutive outside’ are suggested: the values, the visions of the future, and the hegemonic and counter-hegemonic practices. We conclude that with a full awareness of its politics, TA communities should be able, on the one hand, to gain the trust and active support of political actors committed to the same ideals of democracy and knowledge-based policy-making. On the other hand, TA communities will also be able to distinguish TA supporters and adversaries and, consequently, reinforce their power of influence on policy-making. In a time of political uncertainty and epistemic ambiguity, TA communities may become a bastion of democratic politics.
Research center :
Cité - CITE SPIRAL
Disciplines :
Law, criminology & political science: Multidisciplinary, general & others Sociology & social sciences Political science, public administration & international relations
Author, co-author :
Delvenne, Pierre ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département de science politique > Département de science politique
Parotte, Céline ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département de science politique > Gouvernance et société
Language :
English
Title :
Breaking the myth of neutrality: Technology Assessment has politics, Technology Assessment as politics
Publication date :
February 2019
Journal title :
Technological Forecasting and Social Change
ISSN :
0040-1625
eISSN :
1873-5509
Publisher :
Elsevier, Netherlands
Volume :
139
Pages :
64-72
Peer reviewed :
Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi
Funders :
F.R.S.-FNRS - Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique [BE]
Barland, M., Lovett, H., The future of ageing. Policy report on technology, innovation and organisation in European health care. PACITA project http://wp6.pacitaproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/WP-6-report-web.pdf, 2015 (last accessed on the 17th of November 2017).
Beck, U., Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Vol. 17, 1992, Sage.
Beck, U., Giddens, A., Lash, S., Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. 1994, Stanford University Press.
Beck, U., Bonss, W., Lau, C., The theory of reflexive modernization: problematic, hypotheses and research programme. Theory Cult. Soc. 20:2 (2003), 1–33.
Bereano, P.L., Reflections of a participant-observer: the technocratic/democratic contradiction in the practice of technology assessment. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 54:2 (1997), 163–175.
Blair, P., Congress's Own Think Tank: Learning From the Legacy of the Office of Technology Assessment (1972–1995). 2013, Springer.
Blok, A., Experts on public trial: on democratizing expertise through a Danish consensus conference. Public Underst. Sci. 16 (2007), 163–182.
Bütschi, D., Almeida, M., Technology assessment for parliaments—towards reflexive governance of innovation. Klüver, L., Nielsen, R.Ø., Jørgensen, M.-L., (eds.) Policy-Oriented Technology Assessment Across Europe: Expanding Capacities, 2016, Palgrave Macmillan, London, 64–76.
Camargo, R., Rethinking the political: a Genealogy of the ‘Antagonism’ in Carl Schmitt through the Lens of Laclau-Mouffe-Žižek. CR: The New Centennial Review 13:1 (2013), 161–188.
Carpentier, N., Cammaerts, B., Hegemony, democracy, agonism and journalism: an interview with Chantal Mouffe. Journal. Stud. 7:6 (2006), 964–975.
Coenen, C., Transhumanism and its genesis: the shaping of human enhancement discourse by visions of the future. Humana Mente 26 (2014), 35–58.
Decker, M., Ladikas, M., Technology assessment in Europe; between method and impact—the TAMI project. Bridges between Science, Society and Policy, 2004, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1–10.
Delvenne, P., Science, technologie et innovation sur le chemin de la réflexivité. Enjeux et Dynamiques du Technology Assessment Parlementaire, 2011, Academia L'Harmattan, Louvain-La-Neuve.
Delvenne, P., Responsible research and innovation as a travesty of technology assessment?. J. Responsible Innov., 2017, 1–11.
Delvenne, P., Fallon, C., Brunet, S., Parliamentary technology assessment institutions as indications of reflexive modernization. Technol. Soc. 33:1–2 (2011), 36–43.
Delvenne, P., Evers, J., Rosskamp, B., Parliamentary TA in Flanders (Belgium). Ganzevles, J., van Est, R., (eds.) TA Practices in Europe, 2012, European Commission, Brussels (Deliverable 2.2. PACITA Project, European Commission).
Delvenne, P., Charlier, N., Rosskamp, B., Van Oudheusden, M., De- and re-institutionalizing technology assessment in contemporary knowledge-based economies. Technikfolgenabschätzung-Theorie und Praxis 24:1 (2015), 20–28.
Ferrari, Arianna, Lösch, Andreas, How smart grid meets in vitro meat: on visions as socio-epistemic practices. NanoEthics 11:1 (2017), 75–91.
Ferrari, A., Coenen, C., Grunwald, A., Visions and ethics in current discourse on human enhancement. NanoEthics 6:3 (2012), 215–229.
Foucault, M., The subject and power. Crit. Inq. 8:4 (1982), 777–795.
Frankfurt, H.G., On Bullshit. 2009, Princeton University Press.
Fritsch, M., Antagonism and democratic citizenship (Schmitt, Mouffe, Derrida). Res. Phenomenol. 38:2 (2008), 174–197.
Fuller, S., Science has always been a bit ‘post-truth’. The Guardian, 2016 https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2016/dec/15/science-has-always-been-a-bit-post-truth (last accessed on 17th November 2017).
Gibbons, J., Johns, L., Oral history. Assistant to the president for science and technology and director of the white house office of science and technology policy. Presidential Oral Histories, 2006, University of Virginia https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-oral-histories/john-gibbons-and-lionel-johns-oral-history-2006 (last accessed on the 17th of November 2017).
Giddens, A., Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. 1991, Stanford University Press.
Gieryn, T.F., Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. Am. Sociol. Rev. 48:6 (1983), 781–795.
Grin, J., Grunwald, A., Vision Assessment: Shaping Technology in 21st Century Society. Towards a Repertoire for Technology Assessment. 2000, Springer, Berlin.
Grunwald, A., Vision assessment as a new element of the FTA toolbox. New horizons and challenges for future-oriented technology analysis. Proceedings of the EU-US Scientific Seminar: New Technology Foresight, Forecasting & Assessment, Sevilla, 2004, 13–14.
Hennen, L., Participatory technology assessment: a response to technical modernity?. Sci. Public Policy 26:5 (1999), 303–312.
Hennen, L., Nierling, L., Taking stock of TA in Europe and abroad. Introduction to the thematic focus. Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis 24:1 (2015), 4–10.
Hennen, L., Nierling, L., The politics of technology assessment. Call for Papers, 3rd European Technology Assessment Conference, Cork, May 17–19, 2017, 2017 http://cork2017.technology-assessment.info/images/files/Call-for-Papers—The-politics-of-TA.pdf.
Jasanoff, S., (eds.) States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order, 2004, Routledge.
Jasanoff, S., Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. 2007, Princeton University Press.
Jasanoff, S., Perspective: back from the brink truth and trust in the public sphere. Issues Sci. Technol. 33:4 (2017), 25–28.
Jasanoff, S., Kim, S.H., (eds.) Dreamscapes of modernity: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power, 2015, University of Chicago Press.
Jasanoff, S., Simmet, H.R., No funeral bells: public reason in a ‘post-truth’ age. Soc. Stud. Sci. 47:5 (2017), 751–770.
Kunkle, G.C., New challenge or the past revisited?: the office of technology assessment in historical context. Technol. Soc. 17:2 (1995), 175–196.
La Porte, T.M., New opportunities for technology assessment in the post-OTA world. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 54:2–3 (1997), 199–214.
La Porte, T., Technology assessment at the American Congress and the future of technology assessment. Presentation at a Symposium on Technology Assessment in the Walloon Parliament, March 8, 2013, Namur, 2013.
Lynch, M., STS, symmetry and post-truth. Soc. Stud. Sci. 47:4 (2017), 593–599.
Mann, T., The magic mountain. HT Lowe-Porter, 1924, Vintage, New York.
Mironesco, C., Un Enjeu Démocratique: Le Technology Assessment: Maîtrise de la Technologie aux Etats-Unis et en Europe. 1997, Institut européen de l'Université de Genève, Georg.
Mouffe, C., The Democratic Paradox. 2000, Verso.
Mouffe, C., On the Political. 2005, Psychology Press.
Mouffe, C., Art as an agnostic intervention in public space. Art and Democracy, 2008, 6–15 (Open 2008/No. 14).
Mouffe, C., Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically. 2013, Verso.
Mouffe, C., L'illusion du Consensus. 2016, Albin Michel.
Mouffe, C., Errejón, I., Construire Un Peuple: Pour Une Radicalisation de La Démocratie. 2017, Editions du Cerf.
Rabesandratana, T., A quiet death. Interview with Robby Berloznik on the closure of IST. Research Europe, Vol. 24 (2013), 2013, 6.
Rip, A., Te Kulve, H., Constructive Technology Assessment and Socio-Technical Scenarios. Fisher, E., Selin, C., Wetmore, J.M., (eds.) Presenting Futures. Vol. 1 of The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, 1, 2008, Springer, Netherlands, 49–70.
Rosskamp, B., Futures and Remakings of Policy-Oriented Technology Assessment-Case Studies From Wallonia, Portugal and the Czech Republic. (Doctoral dissertation), 2017, Université de Liège, Liège, Belgique.
Schmitt, Carl, The Concept of the Political. 1996, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Schneider, C., Lösch, A., What about your futures, technology assessment? An essay on how to take the visions of TA seriously, motivated by the PACITA conference. Technikfolgenabschätzung-Theorie und Praxis 24:2 (2015), 70–74.
Tambakaki, P., Cosmopolitanism or Agonism? Alternative visions of world order. Crit Rev Int Soc Pol Phil 12:1 (2009), 101–116.
Van Bouwel, J., Van Ousheusden, M., Participation beyond consensus? Technology assessments, consensus conferences and democratic modulation. Soc. Epistemol. 31:6 (2017), 497–513.
Van Eijndhoven, J.C., Technology assessment: product or process?. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 54:2–3 (1997), 269–286.
Van Est, R., Brom, F., Technology assessment: analytic and democratic practice. Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics, 4, 2012, 306–320.
Van Kasteren, J., It's not just science. VolTA Magazine, 2015 Issue 8 https://www.rathenau.nl/en/file/527/download?token=iRZzCgFd (last accessed on November 17th, 2017).
Van Oudheusden, M., Where are the politics in responsible innovation? European governance, technology assessments, and beyond. J. Responsible Innov. 1:1 (2014), 67–86.
Van Oudheusden, M., Charlier, N., Rosskamp, B., Delvenne, P., Broadening, deepening, and governing innovation: Flemish technology assessment in historical and socio-political perspective. Res. Policy 44:10 (2015), 1877–1886.
Wenger, E., Trayner, B., Communities of practice — a brief introduction. Available at http://wenger-trayner.com/introduction-to-communities-of-practice/, 2015 (last accessed on November 17th, 2017).
Whiteman, D., Congress and policy analysis: a context for assessing the use of OTA projects. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 54:2–3 (1997), 177–189.
Winner, L., Do artifacts have politics?. Daedalus, 1980, 121–136.
Wood, F.B., Lessons in technology assessment: methodology and management at OTA. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 54:2–3 (1997), 145–162.
Wynne, B., Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science—hitting the notes, but missing the music?. Public Health Genomics 9:3 (2006), 211–220.
