The Politics of Technology and the Technology of Politics

Last week during an informal discussion with a leading academic from the Delhi University, the question was posed: "How does a social scientist begin to investigate the politics of technological artifacts in the city?". This is a very relevant question, especially since it directly addresses my research methods and the discourse on development that I wish to bring to the table. The following is a attempt at how one might be able to analyze the politics of technology and the technology of politics.Described below is a research methodology that is primarily Marxist and borrows from Henri Lefebvre- philosopher of space and Langdon Winner- Philosopher of Technology.

In Everyday Life in the Modern World, Henri Lefebvre describes urban society as 'the bureaucratic society of controlled consumption'. He argues that the bourgeoisie controls the instruments of production [technology], thereby the relations of production and with them the whole relations of society. By this analytic gaze the city and its spaces are reduced to things within it that are produced and consumed. Housing, community centers, malls, water supply, roads etc are some of the numerous examples of 'things in the city'. But as a result the emphasis shifts from space-as-a-thing to 'things in space'.

Lefebvre uses the same method to analyze the Production of Space in the city. According to him, urban planning, aids in the control of society by facilitating the co-ordination of large hegemonic instruments and systems related to production and consumption of the city. One might be tempted to stop and ask at this point; "Leon, but what does this mode of production of the city have anything to do with your initial question about investigating technological politics?"

These technological artifacts are assembled and executed by urban planning practices according to two recurring principles: social need and efficiency [Ellul]. Indian planning law dictates that planning is done for the purposes of equity and efficiency [Verma]. These principles are similar to Arthuro Escobar's argument that [modern] society is organized according to the logic of the machine and the market. With the brutal imposition of 'globalisation', the most likely definition of our condition of existence should be 'the bureaucratic society of uncontrolled consumption', especially if one sees the utter disregard that our society has for any human or environmental concern. In this way, today's 'social needs' more often than not are reflective of marker forces. After all, the consumer is in charge of demand. Delhi as a world class city must have its world class metro, its world class malls, its world class roads for its consuming world class citizens.

Efficiency is the efficient use of mechanical or technical means. The focus of this article is on this aspect- efficiency. The social relations of technology are often eclipsed by their technical dimensions, efficiency being one of them. Let us take the proposal for a tunnel road linking NH 24 and Nehru stadium in lieu of the 2010 commonwealth games. Imagine a conversation that takes place between the Public Works Department [PWD] engineers and the Delhi Urban Arts Commission [DUAC] members.

Charles Correa [after looking at the proposal]: 'The scheme would be a gross violation of the heritage rules in the country as it is too close to Purana Quila and the Humayun's Tomb.' [OR] 'I think these exit ramps need to be redesigned.'

The issues that would emerge from a discussion of this sort would be the analysis of the tunnel-as-a-product/commodity. Just for the sake of argument, what if the builder lobby in Delhi has greased the palms of some of the officials in the Delhi government [ I don't think that it is that preposterous after the cholagate scandal]. So through what discourse does one bring issues of this nature to the table? How does one engage with the moral, social and political issues of development in a context as murky as India? Lefebvre offers some analysis by moving the focus of analysis from the product to the process of its production. This move then attempts to answer Langdon Winner's question, "Do [Planning] Artifacts have Politics?" Langdon's approach is also Marxist by nature and while looking at the 'production' process, also focuses on how technologies as 'means' in a curious twist becomes 'ends' in themselves. In this way most social and political concerns are presented as having 'technological fixes'.

A couple of nights ago, I got into an animated discussion with an extraordinarily enthusiastic Fulbright researcher who was looking at Alternative Fuels for Sustainable Development. This article is also a way of theorizing the way I was critical of her project. I know that this researcher has dedicated the last couple of years of her life to the cause of global sustainability, however, the praxis of her work involves looking at technological fixes for what I consider social and cultural issues. And as a [less than cavalier] planner/ designer I think that technological solutions are easier than addressing social and moral issues but they bring with them only partial solutions and more often than not replace one social problem with another.

Therefore it is my belief that with the a theory of technological politics of Langdon Winner and the Production of Space of Henri Lefebvre that a social scientist can analyse the technological artifacts of the city.

The Interrogation of The Good

This post is offered as a caveat to those who take moralizing about ethics seriously. I would also like to dedicate this blog entry to a mentor of mine, who has led by example. She has shown me that it is important to fight for the underdog [whatever the cost], even when the fight is but a losing battle. The object of fighting the ethical fight is to go down swinging with head held high. The Poem is titled "The Interrogation of The Good", by Bertolt Brecht. I think the poem while written in dark humor shows the need for an unconditional ethical engagement with the world.

Step forward: we hear
That you are a good [wo]man.

You cannot be bought, but the lightening
Which strikes the house, also
Cannot be bought.
You hold to what you said.
But what did you say?
You are honest, you say your opinion.
Which opinion?
You are brave.
Against whom?
You are wise.
For whom?
You do not consider your personal advantages.
Whose advantages do you consider then?
You are a good friend.
Are you also a good friend of the good people?

Hear us then: we know
You are our enemy. This is why we shall
Now put you in front of a wall. But in consideration
of your merits and good qualities
We shall put you in front of a good wall and shoot you
With a good bullet from a good gun and bury you
With a good shovel in the good earth.*

* Bertold Brecht, "Verhor des Guten", translated by Slavoj Zizek in Werke: Band 18, Prosa 3, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag 1995, p. 502-503

The Community at New Friends Colony Community Center

For most of my professional life, I have believed and have been led to believe in the primacy of space. "Space is existential", I was told. Over the last couple of years, my association with Langdon Winner [my chair] and Ted Krueger [my advisor] I have begun to question the ideological bias for these beliefs. These queries were not attempts seeking ontological answers about existence [of space or otherwise] but rather an effort in seeking out the political and moral dimensions of putting space above all else.

Some of the questions that I have been asking these days include:

How am I part of the 'production' of [public] space? [I am already an urbanist with Marxist leanings, hence there has already been a shift from viewing space-as-a-product to the modes of production of space]

What are the relationships of the 'institutionalized forms of power' and this spatial production?

How does one 'design' space for a certain set of users, are users even a priority within a discipline that is obsessed with representation and simulacra?

How does one analyse and make claims that this particular space will transform lives for the better?

What kinds of spaces/ places get replaced in the bargain?

This led me to examine a recent experience that I had at the New Friends Colony Community Center in a new light. Community being the operative word. So here I was an American researcher[ wait a minute, I am an Indian with western sensibilities, but I think, I think like a non-westerner as well.... uggg ... I digress in existential angst but this is not about my 'being']. So here I was sipping on a latte at the Cafe Coffee Day in the community center when I see [What is the right terminology here?] urchins/ children who are begging/ juvenile panhandlers, through the glass store front. I could only see these kids as I was listening to music on my macbook. This may have softened the impact of what I was to experience but it was a gut wrenching sight all the same and I realized that 'the everyday' is a condition that might be more than I could bear. These kids would keep coming up to the [smoking] patrons of the Cafe who were seated outside and 'beg' for a few scraps of food or money. The waiters would then rush to shoo the children away. Once the waiter was back within the glass doors, the children would scramble back onto the patio of the Cafe. At first, I was caught-up in the sadness of the moment and the angst worsened. However a little later, I looked at the situation once again and saw that the children were in fact 'playing' a game with the waiters, in addition to looking for their daily sustenance, and they were gleeful in getting these young men out of their glassy air-conditioned confines.

I have not been able to synthesize the event and the dimensions of the encounter are endless, but as an urban designer I was forced to question what did I mean when I called this place a 'community' center. Who were the members of the community that patronized this public place? I am glad that in India, I am able to see how people of various backgrounds have found ways of coming together in a face-to-face manner and while confrontation of sorts do take place. They are not swept under the metaphorical carpet and maybe this is probably a truer existence of communities.

As I prepared myself mentally to face the heat and these community members, I heard Lucy Kaplansky sing into my ears, "I used to travel in a straight line, now I'm walking on a road that winds". I wonder where that long and windy road might lead me.