Abstract
This polemic discusses two problematic aspects to the claim of a paradigmatic shift to the new technology-centered symbolic universe, as understood by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann.
The first problematic aspect is connected to the status quo ante transhumanism (before the postulated paradigmatic shift). By discussing cases from pre-modernity and peak modernity, I point out that the discussed claim does not provide satisfactory understanding of the role of technology in society. My counter-argument is built on cases of technoreligious institutions such as abbeys and rocketry research theoretical circles, using works by David Noble as the starting point.
The second problematic aspect goes back to the fundamentals of Berger and Luckmann’s concept and its relation to ontology. The discussed proposal mixed this framework with the concept of culture from the Margaret Archer system, which led to a shift in ontological positioning. In effect, some preliminaries about the materiality and dynamics of Berger-Luckmann dialectics are harder to trace in the proposal. This results in problems of operationalization and loss of useful theoretical dialogue with post-constructivist tradition.
In the last part of the paper, I sketch other possibilities and challenges for post Berger-Luckman applications in the case of transhumanism and late modernity.
Go to article
Bibliography
1. Abriszewski, Krzysztof. 2007. Teoria Aktora-Sieci Bruno Latoura. Teksty Drugie, 1–2: 113–126.
2. Agamben, Giorgio. 1998. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
3. Alaimo, Stacy. 2016. Exposed. Environmental politics and pleasures in posthuman times. Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press.
4. Archer, Margaret Scotford. 2004. Culture and agency. The place of culture in social theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Baker, D. 2022. Science, Technology, and Religion in Chosŏn Korea. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History. Retrieved 18.07.2022.
6. Barad, Karen Michelle. 2007. Meeting the universe halfway. Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham: Duke University Press.
7. Bellacasa, Maria Puig de la. 2011. Matters of care in technoscience, Assembling neglected things. Social Studies of Science, 41, 1: 85–106.
8. Berger, Peter L., Thomas Luckmann. 1967. The social construction of reality. A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Anchor Books.
9. Bińczyk, Ewa. 2012. Technonauka w społeczeństwie ryzyka. Filozofia wobec niepożądanych następstw praktycznego sukcesu nauki. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika (Polityka w Kulturze).
10. Bod, Rens. 2022. World of Patterns. A Global History of Knowledge. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
11. Bowker, Geoffrey C., Susan Leigh Star. 1999. Sorting things out. Classification and its consequences. Cambridge: MIT Press (Inside technology).
12. Bowker, Geoffrey C., Stefan Timmermans; Adele E. Clarke; Ellen Balka, eds. 2015. Boundary objects and beyond. Working with Leigh Star. Cambridge, London: MIT Press (Infrastructures).
13. Braidotti, Rosi. 2018. The posthuman. Cambridge: Polity.
14. Brautigan, Richard. 1971. All Watched by Machines of Loving Grace. OZ 34: 9.
15. Ellul, Jacques. 1973. The technological society. New York: Vintage books (A Vintage book).
16. Ferrando, Francesca. 2013. Posthumanism, transhumanism, antihumanism, metahumanism, and new materialisms: differences and relations. Existenz, 8, 2: 26–32.
17. Fukuyama, Francis. 2004. Transhumanism. Foreign Policy. 144: 42. DOI: 10.2307/4152980.
18. Fuller, Steve. 2018. Transhumanism. In: Bryan S. Turner, Kyung-sup Chang, Cynthia Fuchs Epstein, Peter Kivisto, William Outhwaite, J. Michael Ryan, eds. The Wiley encyclopedia of social theory. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell, 1–2.
19. Fuller, Steve; Veronika Lipińska. 2014. The proactionary imperative. A foundation for transhumanism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
20. Harari, Yuval Noaḥ. 2017. Homo deus. A brief history of tomorrow. First U.S. edition. New York (NY): Harper. Available online at http://worldcat.org/oclc/951507538.
21. Henke, Christopher R., Benjamin Sims. 2020. Repairing infrastructures. The maintenance of materiality and power. Cambridge: The MIT Press (Infrastructures series).
22. Jasanoff, Sheila, Sang-Hyun Kim, eds. 2015. Dreamscapes of modernity. Sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press.
23. Kaiser, David. 2011. How the hippies saved physics. Science, counter culture, and the quantum revival. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
24. Latour, Bruno. 1999. Pandora’s Hope. Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
25. Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social. An introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
26. Leigh Star, Susan. 1999. The Ethnography of Infrastructure. American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 3: 377–391. DOI: 10.1177/00027649921955326.
27. Leigh Star, Susan, Karen Ruhleder. 1994. Steps towards an ecology of infrastructure. In John B. Smith, F. Don Smith, Thomas W. Malone, eds. The 1994 ACM conference. Chapel Hill, 253–264.
28. Lifton, Robert Jay. 2019. Losing reality. On cults, cultism, and the mindset of political and religious zealotry. New York: The New Press.
29. Lipowicz, Markus. 2021. Transhumanism, Human Nature and Culture: a Preliminary Sociological Contextualization. Studia Socjologiczne, 243, 4: 59–82. DOI: 10.24425/sts.2021.139722.
30. Lykke, Nina. 2018. Passionately Posthuman. From Feminist Disidentifications to Postdisciplinary Posthumanities. In: Cecilia Åsberg, Rosi Braidotti, eds. A feminist companion to the posthumanities. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 23–35.
31. Marx, Karl. 2021. Poverty of Philosophy. Marxists Internet Archive. Retrieved 25.06.2022
32. Matthewman, Steve. 2011. Technology and Social Theory. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
33. Mumford, Lewis. 1967. The myth of the machine. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich (A Harvest/HBJ book).
34. Nail, Thomas. 2021. Theory of the Earth. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
35. Neal, Homer A., Smith, Tobin L., McCormick, Jennifer B. 2008. Beyond Sputnik. U.S. science policy in the twenty-first century. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
36. Noble, David. 2011. Forces of Production. A Social History of Industrial Automation. Somerset: Taylor and Francis.
37. Noble, David F. 1999. The religion of technology. The divinity of man and the spirit of invention. New York: Penguin Books.
38. Nowak, Andrzej. 2013. Ontological Imagination. Transcending methodological solipsism and the promise of interdisciplinary studies. Avant IV, 2: 169–226.
39. Nowak, Andrzej; Krzysztof Abriszewski, Michał Wróblewski. 2016. Czyje lęki? Czyja nauka? Struktury wiedzy wobec kontrowersji naukowo-społecznych. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza.
40. Ratajczak, Mikołaj. 2020. Forma życia i dobro wspólne. Geneza i aktualność współczesnej włoskiej filozofii politycznej. Warszawa: Instytut Badań Literackich PAN; Stowarzyszenie Pro Cultura Litteraria (Nowa Humanistyka, 67).
41. Rosa, Hartmut. 2013. Social Acceleration. A New Theory of Modernity. New York: Columbia University Press (New Directions in Critical Theory).
42. Simonyi, Károly, David Kramer. 2012. A cultural history of physics. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
43. Sismondo, Sergio. 2010. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. 2nd ed. Chichester, Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
44. Sorgner, Stefan Lorenz, Robert Ranisch, eds. 2015. Post- and Transhumanism. An Introduction. 1st, New ed. Frankfurt a.M: Peter Lang GmbH Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften (Beyond Humanism, 1).
45. Special Eurobarometer. 2021. E uropean citizens’ knowledge and attitudes towards science and technology. 516th ed. (978-92-76-41143-7).
46. St. Pierre, Elizabeth A. 2016. The Empirical and the New Empiricisms. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies,16, 2: 111–124.
47. von Braun, Wernher. 1967. Responsible Scientific Investigation and Application. NASA HDC, 74.
48. Yearley, Steven. 2005. Making sense of science. Understanding the social study of science. London: Sage.
49. Young, George M. 2012. The Russian cosmists, The esoteric futurism of Nikolai Fedorov and his followers. New York: Oxford University Press.
50. Zaród, Marcin. 2017. Hakerzy i kolektywy hakerskie w Polsce. Od operacjonalizacji do laboratoriów i stref wymiany. Studia Socjologiczne, 1, 334: 225–252.
Go to article
en
pl
