This paper proposes a framework for understanding and evaluating technology in library settings through the lens of critical theory of technology, dubbed critical tech theory, by drawing on the philosophies of Martin Heidegger, Jacques Ellul, Herbert Marcuse, and Andrew Feenberg. Leveraging metasynthesis to juxtapose each theorist’s arguments and claims in dialectical discussion, the paper advocates for a deeper, values-based critique and merges utilitarian and deontological ethical frameworks with critical tech theory. The study uses autoethnography and case study to recount the author’s experiences with Amazon Alexa devices in a public library, highlighting ethical conflicts surrounding privacy, dataveillance, and professional integrity. Assessment of the scenario demonstrates how critical tech theory can reveal underlying power dynamics and unintended consequences in the adoption and deployment of emerging technologies, which brings forth insights in regard to how libraries may exhibit a sustainable form of mindful resistance to the rapid adoption of emergent technologies. The combination of theory and praxis demonstrates that libraries deploy technology with the best of intentions, but the values of librarianship and corporate technology developers are not well aligned. Under circumstances where technology acquisition and public exposure prove out of step with values and intended outcomes, the technology itself must be rejected. The study concludes by calling for community engagement in the form of democratic intervention to reexamine priorities benefiting the public good and define how they are represented in library policy.
AgbemabieseLByrneJ (2005) Commodification of Ghana’s Volta River: An example of Ellul’s autonomy of technique. Bulletin of Science Technology & Society25(1): 17–25.
AsatoN (2011) The origins of the freedom to read foundation: Public librarians’ campaign to establish a legal defense against library censorship. Public Library Quarterly30(4): 286–306.
6.
BerkowitzAE (2021) Are YouTube and Facebook canceling classical musicians? The harmful effects of automated copyright enforcement on social media platforms. Notes78(2): 177–202.
7.
BerkowitzAE (2023) Public libraries. Notes80(2): 296–302.
8.
BerkowitzAE (2025) “Slow-MO or FOMO”: AI conversations at library conferences. Public Services Quarterly21(1): 51–70.
BurgessJTF (2019) Principles and concepts of information ethics. In: BurgessJTFKnoxEJM (eds) Foundations of Information Ethics. Chicago, IL: American Library Association, pp.1–16.
11.
BurkartPMcCourtT (2006) Digital Music Wars: Ownership and Control of the Celestial Jukebox. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
12.
ChangH (2008) Autoethnography as Method. New York: Routledge.
ChrastinaJ (2018) Meta-synthesis of qualitative studies: Background, methodology and applications. In: NORDSCI International Conference Proceedings: Education and Language Edition, Helsinki, Finland, 17July2018, pp.113–121. Helsinki: NORDSCI.
DeniseTCWhiteNPPeterfreundSP (2005) Great Traditions in Ethics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
18.
EllulJ (1964) The Technological Society. Toronto, ON: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
19.
ErwinEJBrothersonMJSummersJA (2011) Understanding qualitative metasynthesis: Issues and opportunities in early childhood intervention research. Journal of Early Intervention33(3): 186–200.
GilbertED (2005) Confidentially speaking: American libraries and the USA PATRIOT Act. Library Philosophy and Practice8(1): 1–7.
29.
HeideggerM (1977) The question concerning technology. In: LovittW (ed.) The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays. New York: Harper & Row, pp.3–35.
KantI (1964) Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. New York: Harper & Row.
35.
KienscherfM (2025) Voice assistants, capitalism, and the surveillance of social reproduction. In: HabscheidSHectorTHoffmannD, et al (eds) Voice Assistants in Private Homes. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag, pp.57–76.
36.
KitzieVWanYAlsaidMBerkowitzAEHerdiyantiAPenroseRB (2024) The AI-empowered researcher: Using AI-based tools for success in Ph. D. programs. In Proceedings of the ALISE Annual Conference.
37.
LindebaumDMoserCAshrafM, et al. (2023) Reading the technological society to understand the mechanization of values and its ontological consequences. Academy of Management Review48(3): 575–592.
38.
MarcuseH (2002) One Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. New York: Routledge.
MilamPE (2021) Get smart: Outcomes, influence, and responsibility. Monist104(4): 443–457.
41.
MorelliM (2021) Theology, Ethics, and Technology in the Work of Jacques Ellul and Paul Virilio: A Nascent Theological Tradition. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
42.
PyatiAK (2006) Critical theory and information studies: A Marcusean infusion. Policy Futures in Education4(1): 83–89.
Reed-DanahayD (2020) Auto/Ethnography. New York: Routledge.
45.
RodgerEJ (2002) Value & Vision: Public libraries must create public value through renewal and reinvention. American Libraries33(10): 50–54.
46.
SalzmanPC (2002) On reflexivity. American Anthropologist104(3): 805–811.
47.
SchonherrLGollaMEisenhoferT, et al. (2020) Unacceptable, where is my privacy? Exploring accidental triggers of smart speakers. arXiv. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2008.00508.
48.
SegallL (2024) Grieving mother: AI was the stranger in my home, Dear Tomorrow, Mostly Human. October23. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbuBfizSnPk (accessed 24 April 2025).
49.
ShihWRiveroE (2020) Voice assistants: Use Alexa and Google Assistant for teaching and communicating. American Libraries51(6): 47.
WiegandWA (1999) Tunnel vision and blind spots: What the past tells us about the present; Reflections on the twentieth-Century History of American librarianship. Library Quarterly69(1): 1–32.
54.
WillinghamTL (2008) Libraries as civic agents. Public Library Quarterly27(2): 97–110.
55.
WoodsHS (2018) Asking more of Siri and Alexa: Feminine persona in service of surveillance capitalism. Critical Studies in Media Communication35(4): 334–349.
