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/
|