Technologies and human values both have important bearing on human life and conditions. Unfortunately, the dialogue between them has remained inadequate, at best. While the discourse on human values recognizes various kinds and layers of values, including values that are universally relevant across societies and cultures, research on the interface between values and technology has predominantly focused on technology’s interactions with society-specific values. This article is an attempt to broaden the scope of this research by specifically taking the case of cremation technologies. Numerous societal, religious and universal values interplay with each other in matters related to death and the dead. Unlike other technologies, an individual can ‘use’ cremation technology only once, that too with limited control over his/her choice. Our empirical research finds that a complex interaction of multiple layers of values shapes the form and trajectory of cremation technology. Tracking the debate on the adoption of cremation technology in Europe and India, we find important differences in this interaction across societies.
American Academy of Arts & Sciences (AAAS) (1977). Technological choices in the context of social values. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 30(5), 4–14.
2.
ArnoldD. (2013). Everyday technology: Machines and the making of India’s modernity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
3.
ArnoldD. (2017). Burning issues: Cremation and incineration in modern India. NTM Journal of the History of Science, Technology and Medicine, 24(4), 393–419.
4.
BEPA (2010). Empowering people, driving change: Social innovation in the European Union. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/bepa/pdf/publications_pdf/social_innovation.pdf
5.
BijkerW. E., & LawJ. (1992). General introduction. In BijkerWiebe E. and LawJohn, (Eds.), Shaping technolog/building societies: Studies in sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6.
BijkerW. E. (2009). Social construction of technology. In PedersonS. A. & OlsenJ. K. B. (Eds.), A companion to the philosophy of technology (pp. 88–94). Malden, Oxford and Western Sussex: Blackwell Publishing.
7.
BrandomR. (1994). Making it explicit. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8.
BurtonJ. W. (1969). Universal values and world politics. International Journal, 24(4), 673–692.
9.
ChattopadhyayaD. (1993). What is living and what is dead in Indian philosophy. New Delhi: People’s Publishing House.
10.
CheaterA. P. (1991). Death ritual as political trickster in the People’s Republic of China. The Australian Journal of Chinese Affairs, 26, 67–97.
11.
ChristophorouL. G. (2002). Place of science in a world of values and facts. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
12.
CutcliffeS. (1990). The STS curriculum: What have we learned in twenty years?Science, Technology, & Human Values, 15(3), 360–372. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/689814
13.
DennieG. M. (2003). Flames of race, ashes of death: Re-inventing cremation in Johannesburg, 1910–1945. Journal of Southern African Studies, 29(1), 177–192.
14.
ErichsenH. (2013). The cremation of the dead considered: From an esthetic, sanitary, religious, historical, medico-legal and economical standpoint. London: FB &c Ltd.
15.
FidlerF. G. (1930). Cremation. London: Williams and Norgate Ltd.
16.
FreemanC. (1995). The ‘National System of Innovation’ in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19(1), 5–24.
17.
GaitondeV. A. (1979). Technological changes and social values. Social Scientist, 8(3), 64–72.
18.
GeislerE. (2001). Creating value with science and technology. London: Quorum Books.
19.
GonzalezW. J. (Eds.). (2015). New perspective on technology, values and ethics: Theoretical and practical (Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, Vol. 315). Dordrecht: Springer.
20.
HaddenS. G., & KatzJ. E. (1986). Science, regulation, and values: Introduction to a special section. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 11(1), 3–6.
21.
HammondS. G. (2013). The legal framework for burial and cremation in New Zealand: A first principles review. Wellington: Law Commission.
22.
HollanderR., & SteneckN. (1990). Science- and engineering-related ethics and values studies: Characteristics of an emerging field of research. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 15(1), 84–104.
23.
HupkováM. (2014). The link between the popularity of cremation in the Czech Republic and religious faith. Geographical Studies (Prace Geograficzne), 137, 69–90.
24.
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) (2010). Protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Geneva. Retrieved 29August2018, from https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc_002_0321.pdf
25.
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC, Undated). The Geneva Conventions Of 12 August 1949, Geneva. Retrieved 29August2018, from https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-0173.pdf
26.
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Customary IHL Database. Retrieved 21November2018, from https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule113
27.
JuppP. C. (2006). From dust to ashes: Cremation and the British way of death. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
28.
KinnierR. T., KernesJ. L., & DautheribesT. M. (2000). A short list of universal moral values. Counseling and Values, 45(1), 4–16.
29.
KlingR. (1992). Audiences, narratives, and human values in social studies of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 17(3), 349–365.
30.
LaceW. (2013). Mummification and death rituals of ancient Egypt. United States: Reference Point Press.
31.
LeW. E. (2013). Cremation of the dead: Its history bearings upon public health. London: FB &c Ltd.
32.
LiuH.-M. L. (2015). Dying socialist in capitalist Shanghai: Ritual, governance, and subject formation in Urban China’s modern funeral industry (Unpublished dissertation). Boston University, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Boston, MA.
33.
McDonaghE. (1975). Technology and value preferences. Irish Theological Quarterly, 43(2), 75–90.
34.
MitchamC., & WaelbersK. (2009). Technology and ethics: Overview. In OlsenJ. K. B., PedersenS. A., and HendricksV. F. (Eds.), A companion to the philosophy of technology (pp. 367–383). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
35.
MumfordE. (1981). Values, technology and work. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
36.
MurrayT. H. (1986). Regulating asbestos: Ethics, politics, and scientific values. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 11(3), 1–13.
37.
National Green Tribunal questions tradition of cremating in Hindus, says it causes air, water. (2016, February). Retrieved from http://zeenews.india.com/news/india/ngt-questions-tradition-of-cremating-in-hindus-says-it-causes-air-water-pollution_1851679.html
38.
NussbaumM. C. (2000). Women and human development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39.
Olsen et al (2009). A companion to the philosophy of technology. Malden, Oxford, Western Sussex: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
40.
PeirceC. N. (2013). Sanitary disposal of the dead. A lecture delivered at St. George’s Hall, Sunday, October In, 1891. London: FB &c Ltd.
41.
PoelI. (2015). Values in engineering and technology. In GonzalezW. J. (Ed.), New perspectives on technology, values and ethics (pp. 29–46). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
42.
PerryR. B. (1926) General theory of value. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
43.
ProtheroS. (2001). Purified by fire: A history of cremation in America. London: University of California Press.
44.
ScloveR. E. (1995). Democracy and technology. New York, NY and London: The Guilford Press.
45.
SenA. (2005). The argumentative Indian. London: Pengiun Books.
46.
SinghB. 1933, Disposal of the dead by mutilation in Spiti (W.Tibet). Man, 33, 141–143.
47.
SpeckK. S., & RoyA. (2008). The interrelationships between television viewing, values and perceived well-being: A global perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 39, 1197–1219.
48.
TatumJ. S. (1994). Technology and values: Getting beyond the ‘device paradigm’ impasse. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 19(1), 70–87.
49.
ThorsbyD. (2001). Economics and culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50.
UsluA., BarrisE., & ErodganE. (2009). Ecological concerns over cemeteries. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 4(13), 1505–1511.
51.
WilliamsR., & EdgeD. (1996). The social shaping of technology. Research Policy 25, 9(6), 865–899.
52.
WinnerL. (1980). Do artifacts have politics?Daedalus, 109, 121–136.
