Hello everyone:
I would like to add something to the network discussion. I find actor
network theory helpful in creating analyses of how complex actions
occur. I think the question is how much agency to attribute to
artifacts. They have properties that contribute to action outcomes
and in that sense can be included in systemic analyses of such
outcomes. But Klaus is right in distinguishing human agency from
artifact properties. The problem becomes more complex, however, as
devices and systems are invented to replace human agency as in an ATM
machine instead of a bank teller, on-line shopping instead of a music
store and on and on. I have previously made a distinction between
human-human exchanges and machine-human exchanges, arguing that
machines may substitute for humans but they are less flexible. In
this age of economy, many managerial types are hoping to replace
humans with expert systems that perform equivalent functions. I
believe that the difference between human and machine exchanges has
been undertheorized and ought to be considered more. In some ways, we
may be giving too much agency to machines, electronic programs, and
so forth. Whereas we might once have envisioned a mechanized world in
terms of physical robots (which we may still see some of), the
mechanized world now is filled with physically invisible systems that
play an ever greater role in human lives. I find this disconcerting
and would like to see design theorists think much more about this
from the social point of view. There are folks who have begun to
write about it a bit but not in any systematic theoretical way that
could lead to the level of debate that I believe is needed.
--
Victor Margolin
Professor Emeritus of Design History
Department of Art History
University of Illinois at Chicago
935 W. Harrison St.
Chicago, IL 60607-7039
Tel. 1-312-583-0608
Fax 1-312-413-2460
website: www.uic.edu/~victor
|