Whereas many constructivist and feminist approaches to the social study of technology
share an antipathy to technological tietenninism, they offer an insufficiently radical
critique of technolagy. Three main problems in "anti-essentialist" critiques of techno logical determinism are identified, all of which mean that such critiques remain committed to a form of essentialism. These characteristics recur in many recent feminist
arguments about technology, illustrated by the example of reproductive technologies. To
overcome weaknesses in political radicalism based on anti-essentialism, it is necessary
to move to a "past-essentialist" approach. The unwillingness to do so is shown to be
based on unfounded objections to "excessive" relativism.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, B.S., and J.P. Zinsser.1990. A history of thear own: Women in Europe from prehistory to the present.Harmondsworth, England . Penguin.
2.
Ashmore, Malcolm.1989. The reflexive thesis: Wrighting the sociology of scientific knowledgeChicago: University of Chicago Press.
3.
Ashmore, Malcolm, Derek Edwards, and Jonathan Potter .1994. The bottom line: The rhetoric of reality demonstrationsConfigurations2:1-14.
Berg, A.J.1991. "He, she and I T.: Desigmng the technological house of the future " IFIM Paper No 12/91, Institute for Social Research in Industry, Trondheim, Norway.
6.
Bijker, W. E , T. P Hughes, and T. J. Pinch, eds 1987. The social construction of technological systemsCambndge, MA: MIT Press
7.
Bijker, W E , and J Law, eds 1992Shaping technology/building society: Studies in Socaotechmcal changeCambndge, MA: MIT Press.
8.
Cockburn, Cynthia1983Brothers: Male dominance and technological change.London. Pluto
9.
— 1985Machinery of dominance: Women, men and technical know-how.London: Pluto
10.
— 1991In the way of womenLondonMacmillan
11.
Cooley, M.1968Architect or bee ?Slough, EnglandLangley Techmcal Services.
12.
Corea, M. , Duelli-Klein, R. , Hanmer, J. , Holmes, H.B. , Hoskins, B. , Kishwar, M. , Raymond, J. , Rowland, R. and Steinbacher, R.1985Man-made women: How new reproductive technologies affect womenLondonHutchinson
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Edwards, Derek, Malcolm Ashmore, and Jonathan Potter1992"Death and furniture: The rhetoric, politics and theology of bottom line arguments against relativism." Unpublished manuscript, Loughborough University, Department of Social Sciences.
18.
Elam, M.1994. Anti anticonstructivism, or laying the fears of Langdon Winner to restScience, Technology, & Human Values19.101-6
19.
Farrant, W.1985. Who's for ammocentesis? The pohtics of prenatal screening In The sexual politics of reproduction, edited by H. Homans Aldershot, England: Gower
20.
Firestone, S.1970. The dialectic of sex.New York : William Morrow
21.
Gnnt, Keith, and Rosalind Gill, eds. Forthcoming. The gender-technology relation.London: Taylor & Francis .
22.
Grint, Keith, and Steve Woolgar.1995. Deus ex machina: Technology, work and societyCambridge, England: Polity.
23.
Hacker, Sally.1989. Pleasure, power and technology.London: Unwin.
24.
Haraway, Donna.1991. Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature.New York: Routledge .
25.
Harding, Sandra, ed. 1986. Perspectives on gender and science.Bnghton, England. Falmer .
26.
Keller, Evelyn Fox.1988. Feminist perspectives on science studiesScience, Technology, & Human Values13:235-49.
27.
Kirkup, G., and L. Smith Keller .1992. The nature of science and technology In Inventing women: Science, technology and gender, edited by G. Kirkup and L Smith Keller. Cambridge, England: Polity.
28.
Klein, R.1985. What's "new" about the "new" reproductive technologies? In Man-made women, edited by G. Corea et al. London: Hutchinson.
29.
Kling, Rob.1992Audiences, narratives and human values in social studies of technologyScience, Technology, & Human Values17:349-65.
30.
Kreinberg, N., and E.K. Stage1983. EQUALS in computer technology In The technological woman: Interfacing with tomorrow , edited by J Zimmerman. New York. Praeger.
31.
Kvande, E., and B. Rasmussen.1986. "Who lacks courage-the organizations or the women?" NOTAT Paper No. 5, Institute for Social Research in Industry , Trondheim, Norway.
32.
Latour, Bruno.1993. We have never been modern HemelHempstead, England: Harvester Wheatsheaf .
33.
Law, John., ed. 1991. A sociology of monsters. Essays on power, technology and dominationLondon: Routledge.
34.
MacKenzie, Donald.1990Inventing accuracy: A historical sociology of missile guidance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
35.
McNeil, Maureen, ed 1987Gender and expertise . London: Free Association Books
36.
Moskos, C.1990. Army womenAtlantic Monthly . August.
37.
Pinch, Trevor, and Wiebe Bijker.1989The social construction of facts and artifacts-or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other In The social construction of technological systems, edited by W E. Bijker, T P Hughes, and T Pinch Cambridge, MA. MIT Press
38.
Pollner, M.1978. Constitutive and mundane versions of labeling theory HumanSciences31285-304
39.
Post Office Records1930Women Clerks Equality of Opportunity (No 0033) London
40.
Roberts, M.1979Sickles and scythes. Htstory Workshop Journal , No 7, pp 3-28.
41.
Rothschild, J.1983. Machina ex deaOxford, England : Pergamon
42.
Rowland, R.1992. Living laboratories. Women and reproductive technologies London Lime Tree
43.
Shields, P.M.1988Sex roles in the military In The military More than just a Job ?, edited by C Moskos and F. R. Wood. Oxford, England. Pergamon-Brassey
44.
Sorensen, Knut1992. Towards a feminized technology? Gendered values in the construction of technology. Social Studies of Science22.5-31
45.
Stanley, A.1992. Mothers of inventionNew Jersey . Scarecrow
Wheelwright, J.1992. "A brother in arms, a sister in peace": Contemporary issues of gender and military technology. In Inventing women , edited by G. Kirkup and L Smith Keller Cambridge, England: Polity.
48.
Winner, Langdon1985Do artifacts have politics?Daedalus109:121-36
49.
1993Upon opening the black box and finding it empty: Social constructivism and the philosophy of technology. Scaence, Technology, & Human Values18-362-78
50.
Woolgar, Steve.1981Interests and explanation in the social study of scienceSocial Studies of Science11:365-94.
51.
-, ed 1988. Knowledge and reflexrvaty: New frontiers in the socaology of knowledgeLondon: Sage.
52.
-. 1992. "Who/what is this for? Utility and value as textual accomplishments "Paper presented at 4S/EASST Conference, Gothenberg, Sweden 12-15 August.
53.
-. 1993What's at stake in the sociology of technology?Science, Technology, & Human Values18:523-29
54.
Woolgar, Steve, and Dorothy Pawluch1985. Ontological gerrymandering. The anatomy of social problems explanationsSocial Problems32:214-27
55.
Zoonen, L.van.1992. Feminist theory and information technology. Media, Culture and Society14:9-30.
