 |
 |
Thanks Ken for the clarification and I agree totally, particularly with the skepticism with regard to ascribing agency to designed things. That said, I would like to point to two ways in which the issue of agency gets complicated. The first has to do with artifacts today that increasingly take on roles that in the past we would never have imagined non-human actors being able to do. This partly has to do with the increasing complexity of tasks that software can now take on (think decisions being taken in buying and selling stock) - at speeds and computational intensity beyond human capabilities. Apart from complexity there is also the sophistication that programs increasingly have (think Google's self-driving car). Though I agree that we could (should?) "describe this as the unintended consequences of the designers who design those designed things. The designers remain responsible." I wonder if Google would be liable if there were an car accident. Consider also the evolutionary development of software - where humans are responsible for setting the initial conditions but the final output is the result of "mutation,""competition" and "selection."Who is the designer? The key idea being that the distance between the tools and the humans designing them are getting severed in ways that have the potential to undermine the directness of the relationship between agency of the designer and the final artifact. The second issue is, to my mind, even more interesting. It has to do with people's perception of agency - particularly with interactive objects. Reeves and Nass (and others) have demonstrated that in many cases people respond to interactive artifacts as if they were actual humans. They are polite them, relate to them as team-mates, etc. etc. There are a variety of reasons for this - and those interested can read my take on this below. The article is a bit dated but still relevant. Mishra, P., Nicholson, M., & Wojcikiewicz, S. (2001/2003). Does my wordprocessor have a personality? Topffer’s Law and Educational Technology. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy . 44 (7), 634-641. Reprinted in B. C. Bruce (Ed.). Literacy in the information age: Inquiries into meaning making with new technologies . (pp. 116-127). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. http://punya.educ.msu.edu/2008/04/30/mishra-nicholson-wojcikiewicz-20012003/ The point here is that perception agency is at some level a psychological phenomena, based on attributes of interaction, use of language etc. that tap into our social brain. Combine the points 1 and 2, above, and we get quite an interesting scenario for thinking about the issue of agency and our interaction with technological artifacts. I don't think it undermines in any way the argument Ken is making, nor does it make a case for the "strong agency" argument from ANT - but it does point to the fact that these are issues that are evolving - and as scholars, designers (and users) of these tools - it is important for us to recognize these shifts. Thanks ~ punya -------------------------------------- Punya Mishra Web: http://punyamishra.com Blog: http://punya.educ.msu.edu/blog/