What exactly is the "Neutrality" of technology?

[sman123]

Hello everybody,

First post. Glad to be here!

People - from the most average man on the street to some of the world's most renowned technologists - keep reciting this mantra - "technology is neutral"/"tools are neutral" (and the corollary of it: it depends only on the people). You know, the classical "guns don't kill people, but people do" - the core of instrumentalist approach of technology.

What I wasn't able to find ANYWHERE - neither in this approach, nor in the critics of it - is a critic of the very concept of neutrality, or at least something like a "cultural history" of neutrality.

Where and when does the concept of "tool neutrality" come from? Who formulated it for the first time and what were his premises? So, how can tools be "neutral", after all, while us, their creators, aren't?

Any reference in this matter is much appreciated!

[Scott]

Anecdotally, my personal experience doesn't match your claim that the mantra "technology is neutral" and/or "tools are neutral" are so frequently recited. I don't recall ever hearing those particular expressions before. So I find the premise doubtful, but for anecdotal reasons. Though, it also is actually subjective too since whether or not something is considered frequent is subjective.

With all that said, I would take those mantras to be the generalized principle for (as an example) the phrase, "guns don't kill people; people kill people." The same concept can be generalized to all tools not guns and generalized to actions in general not just killing. Granted, that concept is far from a given. Needless to say, frequency of statement is not evidence of truth.

[Count Lucanor]

Hello everybody,

First post. Glad to be here!

People - from the most average man on the street to some of the world's most renowned technologists - keep reciting this mantra - "technology is neutral"/"tools are neutral" (and the corollary of it: it depends only on the people). You know, the classical "guns don't kill people, but people do" - the core of instrumentalist approach of technology.

What I wasn't able to find ANYWHERE - neither in this approach, nor in the critics of it - is a critic of the very concept of neutrality, or at least something like a "cultural history" of neutrality.

Where and when does the concept of "tool neutrality" come from? Who formulated it for the first time and what were his premises? So, how can tools be "neutral", after all, while us, their creators, aren't?

Any reference in this matter is much appreciated!

I don't remember the neutrality of technology being specifically claimed so often, but I do remember the critique of the assumed neutrality of technology, which perhaps gives ground to the perception that there's this mantra. Also, Habermas is said to posit that technology is an instrumental nonsocial rationality, the technical action which by itself is neutral, inside a broader instrumental action.

In general, it seems to me that the "cultural history of neutrality" is implied in all critiques of modernity and in the development of the concept of ideology. In other words, the apparent neutrality of the prevailing ideas in society are revealed as socially determined by the dialectics of power.

[Consul]

Is the sort of neutrality in question ethical/moral neutrality?

"One important general theme in the ethics of technology is the question whether technology is value-laden. Some authors have maintained that technology is value-neutral, in the sense that technology is just a neutral means to an end, and accordingly can be put to good or bad use (e.g., Pitt 2000). This view might have some plausibility in as far as technology is considered to be just a bare physical structure. Most philosophers of technology, however, agree that technological development is a goal-oriented process and that technological artifacts by definition have certain functions, so that they can be used for certain goals but not, or far more difficulty or less effectively, for other goals. This conceptual connection between technological artifacts, functions and goals makes it hard to maintain that technology is value-neutral. Even if this point is granted, the value-ladenness of technology can be construed in a host of different ways."

The Philosophy of Technology: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/technology/

For example, it can hardly be argued that the development of torture devices takes place in a moral vacuum.

[sman123]

@Consul, my suspicion is that one can not talk about the neutrality of technology before creating the necessary conditions for a radically divided and abstract thinking, in which the mind is supposed to be objective and outside the world (the world also including the mind's products, which are tools)- which, bluntly put, would be synthetized by the cartesian view. I guess this is the only way one can start separating the "neutral" tools from their causes, effects or even unintended consequences. So, I'd say this would be a cartesian-biased view, pretty hard to find in Ancient Greek philosophy. This, I guess, would explain both the "non-neutrality" of the Ancient World and the mainstream "neutralism" of the contemporary philosophy of technology.

[LuckyR]

Hello everybody,

First post. Glad to be here!

People - from the most average man on the street to some of the world's most renowned technologists - keep reciting this mantra - "technology is neutral"/"tools are neutral" (and the corollary of it: it depends only on the people). You know, the classical "guns don't kill people, but people do" - the core of instrumentalist approach of technology.

What I wasn't able to find ANYWHERE - neither in this approach, nor in the critics of it - is a critic of the very concept of neutrality, or at least something like a "cultural history" of neutrality.

Where and when does the concept of "tool neutrality" come from? Who formulated it for the first time and what were his premises? So, how can tools be "neutral", after all, while us, their creators, aren't?

Any reference in this matter is much appreciated!

The origin of the concept occurs when governments seek to limit in some way a product, presumably because of some perceived negative aspect of said product. Folks who profit from the manufacturing and distribution of these can be predicted to trot out the products don't need to be regulated, since it is the misuse of the product that is responsible for the negative. This happens when the negative can't be denied outright.

[Scott]

I'm just guessing, but I would bet the concept predates the existence of governments, so I doubt goverments are the literal origin of the concept.

I would imagine the concept is about as old as tools are. As soon as humans had tools, I'd bet those humans started wondering, asking, and answering (in different disagreeing ways) who among the creator, the user, and the tool itself is responsible for the good or bad results of the tool's usage and the consequences thereof.

[Eduk]

Er neutral just means something which isn't taking sides. In the case of inanimate objects they can't take sides. Doesn't seem like much need to write a book to argue this point as it is the definition of the words.

[LuckyR]

I'm just guessing, but I would bet the concept predates the existence of governments, so I doubt goverments are the literal origin of the concept.

I would imagine the concept is about as old as tools are. As soon as humans had tools, I'd bet those humans started wondering, asking, and answering (in different disagreeing ways) who among the creator, the user, and the tool itself is responsible for the good or bad results of the tool's usage and the consequences thereof.

The concept? Yes. But the injection of the concept into the public sphere through mass media (to the point that we are speaking of it now), needs a driving force and 13 billion dollars a year in jeopardy provides a driving force.