Anthropology of technology

Last updated
Blacksmith at work, Nuremberg c. 1606 Mendel II 072 r.jpg
Blacksmith at work, Nuremberg c. 1606

The anthropology of technology (AoT) is a unique, diverse, and growing field of study that bears much in common with kindred developments in the sociology and history of technology: first, a growing refusal to view the role of technology in human societies as the irreversible and predetermined consequence of a given technology's putative "inner logic"; and second, a focus on the social and cultural factors that shape a given technology's development and impact in a society. However, AoT defines technology far more broadly than the sociologists and historians of technology.

Contents

AoT encompasses not only the study of the processes and products of modern science and engineering, but also the techniques of small-scale societies (such as basket-weaving [1] and bow and arrow fabrication [2] ), and the technologies of the past recoverable only by archaeology. Methodologically, AoT shares much in common with Science and Technology Studies (STS), typically employing intensive fieldwork methodologies in order to grasp the social and cultural shaping of technological artifacts and systems. These may include a phenomenological approach: how people feel, see, sense, smell, and apprehend through the body as technology is practiced and the products used. [3] AoT also emphasizes bodily skill and know-how; that technology cannot be practiced without the muscle memory that exists beyond the mental learning. [4] Unique to anthropology is the growing influence of AoT theory in archaeology, a development that is raising critical questions regarding long-held theories of cultural evolution. Additionally, AoT scholars often draw inspiration from anthropological concepts and theories that are not well known to STS scholars; an example is Bryan Pfaffenberger's use of Victor Turner's social dramas theory in framing his technological dramas theory. [5] But the overall trend is convergence rather than differentiation, as STS scholars, anthropologists, and historians of technology increasingly traverse disciplinary lines in building a larger and richer perspective on human technological activities.

Although most AoT scholars continue to employ the term “technology,” the modern use of the term often connotes the technological products of the modern industrial era. Thus the term is seen by some anthropologists to be inimical to understanding technology's social and cultural dimensions in non-industrial societies. [6] One modern "technomyth" or dominant narrative about information technology is ‘technological determinism’, the belief that the most efficient technique (efficient in terms of the least time, energy, and cost required) will inevitably vanquish its competitors. [7] [8] This has led to calls for the decolonisation of such technomyths, in particular those derived from the Western world, the universalism of which "suggest that a heterogeneous set of global cultural practices have been homogenized." [9]

Anthropologists of technology, as they study traditional activities such as pottery manufacture and use, prefer to speak of techniques or skills. [10] Still, as historians and sociologists of modern technologies have conclusively demonstrated, these myths of technological determinism are equally inapplicable to modern science and engineering practices. Many modern technological practices are governed by social preferences rather than pure efficiency; for example, the eclipse of the efficient and practical electric automobile in favor of the gas-powered auto in the early decades of the 20th century. [11]

History of the Anthropology of Technology

Nineteenth century anthropologists focused on technology as a mechanism for classifying and ranking human societies. A common assumption was that inventions and discoveries served to elevate societies from primitive, simple, and “savage” conditions to complex civilizations, as exemplified by the work of Lewis Henry Morgan. Debate focused on whether a specific technical practice was acquired through invention, diffusion, or migration. [12] Ethnology museums acquired artifacts to demonstrate the stages of cultural evolution. Early twentieth century anthropologists disputed this view, noting the complexity of non-state societies in northwest Canada and the Trobriand Islands. Bronislaw Malinowski decried the “technological enthusiasms” of ethnologists, insisting that technologies in such societies should be studied holistically, as part of a complex, interdependent formation, in order to put anthropology on a more scientific footing. [12] Nevertheless, the decades to follow in English-speaking countries saw the relegation of material culture studies to museums of ethnology, as anthropologists preferred to study cultures as mental creation. Technology was seen as a sphere largely divorced from the cultural. [13]

The French Influence

The first steps toward today's Anthropology of Technology were undertaken by francophone anthropologists, and reflected a twentieth-century movement away from decontextualized artifacts to technical processes. Beginning in the mid-1930s, Marcel Mauss and his student Leroi-Gourhan noted that object-making techniques involving socially-learned gestures of the body are potent generators of meaning, rivaling religious ritual. [12] From this tradition evolved a methodology, initially characteristic of the French anthropology of techniques, focusing on the chaîne opératoire, the sequence of technical actions and gestures involved in the production of an artifact. [14] Beginning in the 1970s, French anthropologist Pierre Lemonnier, influenced in part by pioneering work in the history and sociology of technology, noted that the components of a chaîne opératoire include some “arbitrary” components not strictly required in order to ensure a successful outcome. Lemonnier and other workers in the French Techniques et culture school attributed such components to technical choices reflecting broader social and cultural factors. [15] Yet his pioneering work, much of it written in French, remained largely inaccessible to Anglo-American anthropologists. The latter nevertheless made significant contributions to understanding the social implications of various productive processes such as irrigation, fishing, mining, and industry. Still, most English-speaking anthropologists studied the results of such processes, showing little interest in examining the technologies themselves from an anthropological point of view. At the same time, some anglophone anthropologists, exemplified by Marvin Harris and his “cultural materialism,” voiced the technological determinist view that the adoption of a given technological process inevitably produces a given social and cultural outcome. [16]

Recent Developments

The 1980s and 1990s saw significant development in Anthropology of Technology, thanks in part to pioneering developments in the history and sociology of technology. In 1988, Bryan Pfaffenberger placed emphasis on the meanings of technologies in familiarizing anthropologists with the work of sociologists and historians of technology such as Trevor Pinch, Wiebe Bijker, and Thomas Hughes, [17] all of whom argued that the cultural meanings deeply shape the formation of technological artifacts and systems: If a technology is essentially a set of meanings and social behaviors — a point made conclusively by these scholars — then the impact of a technology is the result of one set of social behaviors on another. Technology is culture, a seamless web of activities, materials, and beliefs. [18] In 1992, Pierre Lemonnier published Elements for an Anthropology of Technology, [19] a work that not only introduced anglophone workers to the Techniques et culture school but also argued that the cultural shaping of technological activities occurs across the entire scope of human technological activity, spanning the fabrication of stone axes to the design of twentieth century fighter jets.

Some of the most interesting work in the Anthropology of Technology has been conducted in sub-Saharan African iron metallurgy, where local iron smelting/smithing was practiced in many areas within the memory of informants. Many of these studies illustrate the blurred line between ‘utilitarian’ and ‘expressive’ artifacts, the complex nature of the adoption of new techniques, the role of gender and ritual, and the role of new technologies in the rise of political centralization (for a wide range of examples, see Schmidt 1996). [20] Other scholars have focused on ‘communities of practice’, the social organization of craftworkers, how knowledge is transmitted to the next generation, and the multiple social networks of craft that may cross-cut other social relations. [21] Others focus on the differing social contexts of the adoption of a new technology; for example, Kim (2001) examined how the differing elite strategies in bronze period Denmark and southern Korea affected the adoption of iron production. [22]

Archaeological Applications of the Anthropology of Technology

Most historians and sociologists of technology have worked in industrial societies, where ample information about the thoughts and motivations of adopters and users of new technologies exist, and where the social effects of new technologies can be assessed. But how can this be done for the archaeological past, where all anthropologists have are the physical remains of artifacts? Some approaches allow at least some approximations of participant observations. These approaches rest on the concept of technical choices, the idea that any technological product can be fabricated and used in a variety of ways. Technical choices can be made among decisions about raw material, tools used to shape the raw material, the energy sources, the techniques used to manipulate the material, and the chaîne opératoire that produced the artifact. [23] For example, one article by Ottaway sets forth all the variety of technical choices possible in copper-base metal production, and relates these choices to general cultural processes of innovation and specialization. [24] The hope is that once the chaîne opératoire and knowledge of choices is established, then cognitive processes and cultural norms can tentatively be inferred. [25] Establishing the choices made often requires detailed laboratory analysis of the materials to establish the irreducible properties of artifacts. For example, to alloy copper with tin requires one to be able to reach the melting point of copper (1083 °C), but this temperature can be achieved with a variety of crucibles and/or furnace structures, all of which require other technologies and choices to create—crucibles require a certain degree of fire-resistance, providing an air supply requires multiple workers at the same time, with implications for labor organization, and so on. Thus this laboratory analysis can reach beyond the laboratory to garner clues to what Pfaffenberger named the ‘sociotechnical system’, where techniques and material culture are linked to the wider social coordination of labor. [26]

A strong example of approaches to the Anthropology of Technology using both archaeological and analytical data is found in the suite of volumes examining the ancient metallurgy of northeast Thailand, centering on the site of Ban Chiang. AOT analyses of the details of the ancient system demonstrated how a competent but decentralized metal production and manufacturing system emerged and endured over millennia, a system that served the needs of heterarchical metal age economies.

A related concept to technical choice is that of ‘technological style’, the idea that cultures have characteristic approaches to the manipulation of a wide variety of materials, approaches that can carry symbolic messages. The most famous example in the literature is Lechtman's linking of Incan techniques of gold working and textile that both share a preoccupation with ‘essence’, the design and the gold must be integral to the product: no plating or applique is allowed. Few archaeologists have established this kind of cross-material conceptual linkage, however. [27]

Another technique to reconstruct past technologies is experimental archaeology, where modern scholars attempt to reconstruct past technological practices. [28] This not only allows the establishment of physical requirements for manufacturing, but also offers hypotheses for the various possibilities of manufacture, along with the bodily requirements of production and use.

The Anthropology of Technology and Emerging Technologies

Wikipedia edit-a-thon "1Lib1Ref" in New Delhi to improve a lack of citations on Wikipedia about women in India, featured in the entry "Creative Commons, Open Access, Free / Libre / Open Source Software" in International Journal of Anthropology. 1Lib1Ref Wikipedia editathon in India.jpg
Wikipedia edit-a-thon “1Lib1Ref” in New Delhi to improve a lack of citations on Wikipedia about women in India, featured in the entry "Creative Commons, Open Access, Free / Libre / Open Source Software" in International Journal of Anthropology.

Spurring the development of AoT in the 2000s is the stunning penetration of advanced technologies throughout the world and across social divides. Most behaviors of interest to anthropologists are increasingly mediated by technologies. At the same time, there is an urgent need to develop anthropological understandings of the cultural shaping of new and emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence. An increasing number of female scholars across anthropology and posthumanities such as Donna Haraway, Anna Tsing, Gabriella Coleman, Kit Kat Braybrooke and Silvia Lindtner have also called for a centering of feminist, posthuman, decolonial and postcapitalist perspectives in contemporary anthropological inquiries of the sociotechnical. [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]

Anthropological studies of phenomena such as cell phone use, postgenomic sequencing, and artificial intelligence require significant methodological innovations, with anthropologists increasingly involved as consultants in design processes. [34] Anthropological studies of digital movements such as creative commons, open access, and free/libre open-source software (FLOSS) are also increasingly integral to understanding the impact of hacker, maker and developer cultures on contemporary society - "the critical dynamics of which anthropology is especially suited for examining". [35] [36] [37]

The maturity, diversity, and growth of AoT today in socio-cultural anthropology is attested by the 2022 publication of the Palgrave Handbook of the Anthropology of Technology, the first major effort to assess the field's status in a variety of areas. The papers grew out of a conference on assessing the anthropology of technology as it deals with new and emerging technologies, ranging from digital technology, new modes of human reproduction, and food infrastructure. As a result, ethnographies of non-industrial technologies, as is archaeology, are lacking in the Handbook.

Founding scholars

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anthropology</span> Scientific study of humans, human behavior, and societies

Anthropology is the scientific study of humanity, concerned with human behavior, human biology, cultures, societies, and linguistics, in both the present and past, including archaic humans. Social anthropology studies patterns of behavior, while cultural anthropology studies cultural meaning, including norms and values. The term sociocultural anthropology is commonly used today. Linguistic anthropology studies how language influences social life. Biological or physical anthropology studies the biological development of humans.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cultural anthropology</span> Branch of anthropology focused on the study of cultural variation among humans

Cultural anthropology is a branch of anthropology focused on the study of cultural variation among humans. It is in contrast to social anthropology, which perceives cultural variation as a subset of a posited anthropological constant. The term sociocultural anthropology includes both cultural and social anthropology traditions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anthropologist</span> Person with an extensive knowledge of anthropology

An anthropologist is a person engaged in the practice of anthropology. Anthropology is the study of aspects of humans within past and present societies. Social anthropology, cultural anthropology and philosophical anthropology study the norms, values, and general behavior of societies. Linguistic anthropology studies how language affects social life, while economic anthropology studies human economic behavior. Biological (physical), forensic and medical anthropology study the biological development of humans, the application of biological anthropology in a legal setting and the study of diseases and their impacts on humans over time, respectively.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Blade (archaeology)</span> Type of stone tool

In archaeology, a blade is a type of stone tool created by striking a long narrow flake from a stone core. This process of reducing the stone and producing the blades is called lithic reduction. Archaeologists use this process of flintknapping to analyze blades and observe their technological uses for historical purposes.

Ethnoarchaeology is the ethnographic study of peoples for archaeological reasons, usually through the study of the material remains of a society. Ethnoarchaeology aids archaeologists in reconstructing ancient lifeways by studying the material and non-material traditions of modern societies. Ethnoarchaeology also aids in the understanding of the way an object was made and the purpose of what it is being used for. Archaeologists can then infer that ancient societies used the same techniques as their modern counterparts given a similar set of environmental circumstances.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Environmental archaeology</span> Sub-discipline of archaeology

Environmental archaeology is a sub-field of archaeology which emerged in 1970s and is the science of reconstructing the relationships between past societies and the environments they lived in. The field represents an archaeological-palaeoecological approach to studying the palaeoenvironment through the methods of human palaeoecology and other geosciences. Reconstructing past environments and past peoples' relationships and interactions with the landscapes they inhabited provide archaeologists with insights into the origins and evolution of anthropogenic environments and human systems. This includes subjects such as including prehistoric lifestyle adaptations to change and economic practices.

In cultural anthropology and cultural geography, cultural diffusion, as conceptualized by Leo Frobenius in his 1897/98 publication Der westafrikanische Kulturkreis, is the spread of cultural items—such as ideas, styles, religions, technologies, languages—between individuals, whether within a single culture or from one culture to another. It is distinct from the diffusion of innovations within a specific culture. Examples of diffusion include the spread of the war chariot and iron smelting in ancient times, and the use of automobiles and Western business suits in the 20th century.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Material culture</span> Physical aspects of culture

Material culture is the aspect of culture manifested by the physical objects and architecture of a society. The term is primarily used in archaeology and anthropology, but is also of interest to sociology, geography and history. The field considers artifacts in relation to their specific cultural and historic contexts, communities and belief systems. It includes the usage, consumption, creation and trade of objects as well as the behaviors, norms and rituals that the objects create or take part in.

Cognitive archaeology is a theoretical perspective in archaeology that focuses on the ancient mind. It is divided into two main groups: evolutionary cognitive archaeology (ECA), which seeks to understand human cognitive evolution from the material record, and ideational cognitive archaeology (ICA), which focuses on the symbolic structures discernable in or inferable from past material culture.

A cultural trait is a single identifiable material or non-material element within a culture, and is conceivable as an object in itself.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">André Leroi-Gourhan</span> French archeologist (1911-1986)

André Leroi-Gourhan was a French archaeologist, paleontologist, paleoanthropologist, and anthropologist with an interest in technology and aesthetics and a penchant for philosophical reflection.

Psychological anthropology is an interdisciplinary subfield of anthropology that studies the interaction of cultural and mental processes. This subfield tends to focus on ways in which humans' development and enculturation within a particular cultural group—with its own history, language, practices, and conceptual categories—shape processes of human cognition, emotion, perception, motivation, and mental health. It also examines how the understanding of cognition, emotion, motivation, and similar psychological processes inform or constrain our models of cultural and social processes. Each school within psychological anthropology has its own approach.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jisk'a Iru Muqu</span> Archaeological site in Peru

Jisk'a Iru Muqu is a pre-Columbian archaeological site 54 kilometers (34 mi) south-east of Puno, Peru. The site lies in the mountains at elevation 4,115 meters (13,500 feet), in the Aymara community of Jachacachi, adjacent to the Ilave River drainage, of the Lake Titicaca Basin, Peru. Occupation of Jisk'a Iru Muqu spans from the Late Archaic to the Formative.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to anthropology:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tim Ingold</span> British anthropologist

Timothy Ingold is a British anthropologist, and Chair of Social Anthropology at the University of Aberdeen.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chaîne opératoire</span> Term in anthropology

Chaîne opératoire is a term used throughout anthropological discourse, but is most commonly used in archaeology and sociocultural anthropology. It functions as a methodological tool for analysing the technical processes and social acts involved in the step-by-step production, use, and eventual disposal of artifacts, such as lithic reduction or pottery. This concept of technology as the science of human activities was first proposed by French archaeologist, André Leroi-Gourhan, and later by the historian of science André-Georges Haudricourt. Both were students of Marcel Mauss who had earlier recognised that societies could be understood through its techniques by virtue of the fact that operational sequences are steps organised according to an internal logic specific to a society.

Social anthropology is the study of patterns of behaviour in human societies and cultures. It is the dominant constituent of anthropology throughout the United Kingdom and much of Europe, where it is distinguished from cultural anthropology. In the United States, social anthropology is commonly subsumed within cultural anthropology or sociocultural anthropology.

This bibliography of anthropology lists some notable publications in the field of anthropology, including its various subfields. It is not comprehensive and continues to be developed. It also includes a number of works that are not by anthropologists but are relevant to the field, such as literary theory, sociology, psychology, and philosophical anthropology.

Albert Clanton Spaulding was an American anthropologist and processual archaeologist who encouraged the application of quantitative statistics in archaeological research and the legitimacy of anthropology as a science. His push for thorough statistical analysis in the field triggered a series of academic debates with archaeologist James Ford in which the nature of archaeological typologies was meticulously investigated—a dynamic discourse now known as the Ford-Spaulding Debate. He was also instrumental in increasing funding for archaeology through the National Science Foundation.

Marcia-Anne Dobres was an American archaeologist whose research focused primarily on the confluence of gender, agency, and technology. She was a professor at the University of Southern Maine. She died of thyroid cancer on May 14, 2021.

References

  1. Bunn 2022.
  2. Lemonnier 1986.
  3. Bunn 2022; Tilley 2005.
  4. Ingold 2001.
  5. Pfaffenberger 1992b.
  6. Ingold 2000.
  7. Smith & Marx 1994.
  8. McGregor, Gaile (1987). "The Technomyth in Transition: Reading American Popular Culture". Journal of American Studies. 21 (3): 387–409. doi:10.1017/S0021875800022891. ISSN   1469-5154. S2CID   145732487.
  9. Braybrooke, Kit Kat; Jordan, Tim (2017-07-26). "Genealogy, Culture and Technomyth". Digital Culture & Society. 3 (1): 25–46. doi:10.14361/dcs-2017-0103 (inactive 2024-06-28). ISSN   2364-2122. S2CID   133964948.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of June 2024 (link)
  10. Sigaut 1994.
  11. Skibo & Schiffer 2008.
  12. 1 2 3 Brunn & Wahlberg 2022.
  13. Ingold 1997.
  14. Schlanger 2005.
  15. Lemonnier 1986; Lemonnier 1992.
  16. Harris 1979.
  17. Bijker, Hughes & Pinch 1989.
  18. Pfaffenberger 1988; Pfaffenberger 1992a.
  19. Lemonnier 1992.
  20. Schmidt 1996.
  21. Wenger 1998.
  22. Kim 2001.
  23. Sillar & Tite 2001.
  24. Ottaway 2001.
  25. Dobres & Hoffman 1999, p. 124.
  26. Pfaffenberger 1992a.
  27. Lechtman 1977; Epstein 1993.
  28. Dillian 2019; Hurcombe 2005.
  29. Haraway, Donna Jeanne (2016). Staying with the trouble : making kin in the Chthulucene. Durham. ISBN   978-0-8223-6214-2. OCLC   934194942.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  30. Tsing, Anna Lowenhaupt (2021). The mushroom at the end of the world : On the possibility of life in capitalist ruins (First published 2015. New paperback printing, 2021 ed.). Princeton, NJ. ISBN   978-0-691-22055-0. OCLC   1258021502.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  31. Coleman, E. Gabriella (2010-10-21). "Ethnographic Approaches to Digital Media". Annual Review of Anthropology. 39 (1): 487–505. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.012809.104945. ISSN   0084-6570. S2CID   146531830.
  32. Braybrooke, Kit Kat (2019). Borgers, Loes (ed.). The critical makers reader: (un)learning technology. Loes Bogers, Letizia Chiappini. Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures. pp. 258–268. ISBN   978-94-92302-36-6. OCLC   1164660258.
  33. Avle, Seyram; Lin, Cindy; Hardy, Jean; Lindtner, Silvia (2020). "Scaling Techno-Optimistic Visions". Engaging Science, Technology, and Society. 6: 237–254. doi: 10.17351/ests2020.283 . S2CID   219747625.
  34. Garvey, Pauline; Miller, Daniel (2021). Ageing with Smartphones in Ireland: When life becomes craft. London: UCL Press.
  35. Braybrooke, Kit Kat (2018-10-05). Callan, Hilary (ed.). The International Encyclopedia of Anthropology (1 ed.). Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781118924396.wbiea2486. ISBN   978-0-470-65722-5. S2CID   245391512.
  36. Coleman, E. Gabriella (2014). Hacker, hoaxer, whistleblower, spy: the many faces of Anonymous. London: Verso. ISBN   978-1-78168-583-9. OCLC   890807781.
  37. Braybrooke, Kit Kat; Smith, Adrian (2020), O'Neil, Mathieu; Pentzold, Christian; Toupin, Sophie (eds.), "Makerspaces and Peer Production: Spaces of Possibility, Tension, Post-Automation, or Liberation?", The Handbook of Peer Production (1 ed.), London: Wiley, pp. 347–358, doi:10.1002/9781119537151.ch26, ISBN   9781119537151, S2CID   234518288

Sources