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.