Published as "The Ambivalence of Technology," Sociological Perspectives, pp.

3550 1990 by the Regents of the

University of California/Sponsoring Society or Association. Copying and permissions notice: Authorization to copy this
content beyond fair use (as specified in Sections 107 and 108 of the U. S. Copyright Law) for internal or personal use, or the
internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by the Regents of the University of California for libraries and other
users, provided that they are registered with and pay the specified fee via Rightslink on [JSTOR (http://www.jstor.org/r/
ucal)] or directly with the Copyright Clearance Center, http://www.copyright.com.

Pacific Sociological Association

The Ambivalence of Technology

Author(s): Andrew Feenberg
Source: Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 33, No. 1, Critical Theory (Spring, 1990), pp. 35-50
Published by: University of California Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1388976 .
Accessed: 15/04/2014 13:58

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of California Press and Pacific Sociological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Sociological Perspectives.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 142.58.129.109 on Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:58:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Sociological
Perspectives Vol. 33,No. 1, pp. 35-50
Copyright? 1990PacificSociological
Association ISSN 0731-1214

THE AMBIVALENCE OF TECHNOLOGY

ANDREW FEENBERG
San Diego State University

ABSTRACT:Marxisathismost whenheshowsthattechnol-
persuasive
ogyis notanautonomous thingonecanbefororagainst, butthattechno-
designis relative
logical topolitical which
forces depend inturnonsocial
interests.
Thus,technologyisan ambivalent
dimension ofthesocialproc-
law,themilitary,
essand,likeeducation, andthecorporate itis
structure,
involvedinsocialstruggles
wphichdeterminewhatit is andwillbecome.
Thispositionimpliesthenecessity
ofa democratic
technical con-
politics,
traryto theprevailing oftheexisting
practice commu(nist andsocialist
which
societies treat as a sociopolitical
technology invlariant.

THREE CRITIQUES OF TECHNOLOGY

Must humanbeingssubmitto the harshlogicofmachinery,or can technol-
ogy be fundamentally redesignedto betterserve its creators?This is the
ultimatequestion on which the futureof industrialcivilizationdepends.
Marxismaddressesthisquestionin a powerfuland cogentanalysisoftheills
ofindustrialism. A greatdeal can stillbe learnedfromtheMarxistapproach,
but onlyifits manyambiguitiesand problemsare firstresolved.Thatis the
purpose ofthisarticle,'whichoffersa preliminary sketchofa criticaltheory
of technologybased on a critiqueof Marxistpremises.
Marxwas neithera naive technologicalenthusiastnor was he a romantic
criticoftechnicalprogress.He carefully limitedhis criticismto the"bad use"
of machinery.But the middlepositionis difficult to defend,as theoristsof
technologyhave founddown to thepresentday; thereis a riskthateven the
mostmodestchallengeto thevirtuesofprogressmaybe seen as evidenceof
a dispositionto machinebreaking.Anticipating such reactions,Marx com-
plained in advance about thecriticwho "implicitly declareshis opponentto
be stupid enough to contendagainst, not the capitalisticemploymentof
machinery,but machineryitself"(Marx 1906:1,482).
It is easy to understandwhyMarxdid notwish to be tarredwiththesame
brushas theinfamousNedd Ludd, butthedistinction between"employment"
Directallcorrespondence
to:AndrewFeenberg, ofPhilosophy,
Department San DiegoStateUniversity,
San Diego,
CA 92182

This content downloaded from 142.58.129.109 on Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:58:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
36 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume33, Number1, 1990

and technology "in itself"is notveryhelpfulin clarifying

hisposition.Indeed,
everysignificant dimensionoftechnologycan be considereda "use" ofsome
sort.Forexample,we considersuch different thingsas war,electriclighting,
and the assembly line to be "uses" of technologyin differentsenses.
Furthermore, termssuch as "technology"and "machinery"are ambiguous
and mayrefereitherto particulartechnologiesused forthisor thatsubstan-
tiveend, or to technologyas a generalfieldcontainingvariouspossibilities,
each of whichmaybe considereda "use."
To say that technologyis "badly employed" may referto problemsas
as whatpurposeparticular
different technologies areemployedtoaccomplish,
how theyare employedwhateverthepurpose,ortheway in whichtechnical
principlesare employedin puttingthemtogetherin thefirstplace. A critique
oftheuses to whichtechnologyis put maythusmean at least the following
threethings,none of whichis mutuallyexclusive:

1. technology
is usedforbadends,suchas killing
people;
2. itis appliedwithoutreasonableprecaution
despitethehazardsitrepre-
sentsforthoseaffected
byitsoperation;
3. itsdesignis notoptimal
from
thestandpoint
ofprotecting
orfurthering
thevaluesofworkers,consumers,
or otheraffected
groups.

It is noteasy to knowwhichview Marxactuallyheld because he seems to

have believed elements of all three without ever clearlydistinguishing
betweenthem.Thus, by omittingreferences, whichare sometimesobscure
in anycase, one easilyarrivesat theMarxone wishestofind.I briefly review
these various positionsas theyappear in Marx's work or are attributedto
him. However, my purpose is less to produce an accountof Marx's views
thanto arriveat a persuasiveformulationofa criticalpositionon technology.
Such a positionmust take into accountwhat we have learned in the past
seventyyearsfromobservingthecommunistworld,as well as thelessons of
recentenvironmental movements.
Accordingto a widespreadview of Marx,he intendedthe firstand only
thefirstofthethreepositionsoutlinedabove. Marx'scritiquewould thenbe
a banal objectionto the wastefulnessof employingtechnologyforprivate
purposes ratherthan to serve human needs in general.Marx would have
attackedthe ends technologyserves under capitalism,while suspending
judgmenton the means. This is a theoryof the "innocence" of technology
which,as an ensembleof toolsavailableforany use whatsoever,cannotbe
blamed forthe particularuses to whichit is put.
This neutrality oftechnologyhas manyapplicationsI have discussed
theory
elsewhere,onlyone ofwhichis relevanthere(Feenberg1987).I willcall this
applicationthe product of technologybecause it focusesexclusively
critique
on the worthof the productsforwhich technologyis used and regards

This content downloaded from 142.58.129.109 on Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:58:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE AMBIVALENCE OF TECHOLOGY 37

technology"in itself"as unsulliedby its role in producingthem.Here is a

plausibleformulation of thiscritiquewithwhichMarxwas undoubtedlyin
agreement:

1. Although theadvanceoftechnologyhas thepotential

toservethehuman
raceas a whole,undercapitalismits contribution
to humanwelfareis
largelysquanderedon theproduction ofluxuriesand war.

Because supportforthisview can be foundin Marx,certainpartiesand

theoristsargue thathe endorsedthe neutrality theoryas a whole. One also
hears fromthe same sourcesthatonlysuch a critiqueoftechnologyis com-
patiblewithMarxistmaterialism,accordingto which technologyis an ele-
mentofthebase and notrelativeto class interestsas are thesuperstructures.
Yet thisis certainlynota fullaccountofMarx'sposition,foritleaves out his
theoryofthe shapingoftechnologyand thedivisionoflaborby therequire-
mentsof capitalistcontrol(Thompson1983).The claimor chargethatMarx
was an uncriticalenthusiastof technologythus restson a highlyselective
readingof the texts,and will not be consideredfurther here.
There is plentyof evidence that,in additionto criticizingthe products
capitalistschoose to make,Marxalso believedthattheapplicationoftechnol-
ogy is fundamentallyflawed under capitalism.The widespread abuses
resultingfrom"thecapitalisticemployment ofmachinery" includesuchthings
as harmingthe soil to extractmaximumagriculturalyields, and failingto
safeguardthe healthand welfareof workersin the factories.
Accordingto thisview, the problemscaused by capitalisttechnologyare
due to factorssuch as the lengthof the workday,the pace of work, the
provisionof inadequate safetyequipmentand training,and so on. These
problemsare so verysignificant because theproductionprocessis notmerely
a means to an end, but shapes the mentaland physicalactivityof workers
and constitutesan environmentfora significant portionof the population
duringmuchofthe day. Subservedto therequirements ofclass power,this
environment becomes a menace to thosewho mustlive withinit. Here is a
briefstatementof thisprocesscritiqueof technology:

2. Undercapitalism,technology is appliedin ways thatare destructive

of
manand naturebecausethepursuitofmaximum profitand themainte-
nance of capitalistpoweron the workplaceare incompatible withthe
protectionof the workersand the environment fromthe hazards of
industrial
production.

Thistheoryrepresents a seconddimensionofMarx'scritiqueoftechnology.
While compatiblewith the productcritique,the process critiquedoes not
describetechnologyas "innocent"but asserts,on the contrary, thatindus-
trialtools are a constantsource of dangers thatmust be avoided through

This content downloaded from 142.58.129.109 on Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:58:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
38 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume33, Number1, 1990

scientificstudyand humaneand rationalplanningunbiasedby thedrivefor

power and profit.This theorycombinedwiththe firstadds up to a product
andprocesscritique,whichis truerto Marx'sapproachto technologythanthe
firsttheorytakenalone.
Thisview is exemplified by thetraditional Marxisttheoryofthe transition
to socialism,whichcalls forrelativelysimpletechnicalmodifications in the
foreseeablefuture,and preachesresignationto manyof the inevitableevils
ofmachineindustryuntilthedistant"higherphase" in whichfundamental
design changeswill finallyoccur.Forexample,Kautsky'sTheClass Struggle
([1892]1971)discussesthecapitalistdivisionoflaborand authoritarian man-
agementunder the generalheading of the consequences of technological
advance, and promisesworkersa reductionin labortimeunder socialism,
but no reformin theirconditionas workers(Kautsky[1892]1971:155-160).
Similarly,Bebel's classic WomanUnderSocialism(1904) treatsthe reforms
requiredto avoid wasteful,unpleasant,and hazardousproductionin consid-
erabledetail,but when it comes to discussingtechnologicalinnovationwe
are promisedadvances such as the automationof stone breakingand the
productionof foodratherthanfundamentalchangesin the design
artificial
of productiontechnologyand the laborprocess (Bebel 1904:283-298).
Thus, despite the presenceof a criticalappreciationof technology,this
second formulationof Marxism,like the firstview taken alone, is often
associatedwiththe"technicist"or "productivist" beliefthatthemainflawin
capitalismis the obstaclesit places in the path of the growthofthe produc-
tiveforces.Whethertheseobstaclesare a wastefulchoiceofends or a waste-
fulapplicationofmeans,thetechnologydeveloped undercapitalismis seen
here as immediatelyavailablewithoutmajor transformation fora different
and morehumane application.
Thereis yeta thirdcritiqueof technologyin Marx. Whilehe neverstates
thisthirdtheoryexplicitly, it is a plausibleimplicationof severalstrandsof
his argumentconcerningthe organizationoflaborand innovation.Accord-
ing to this designcritique,
the veryconstructionof capitalisttechnologyis
distortedby thehierarchical organizationofcapitalistproduction(Gorz 1978;
Slater1980).This is a muchmoredifficult positionto explainthantheprod-
uct and process critiquesdiscussed above. To begin, I show brieflyhow I
relatethistheoryof technologicaldesign to morefamiliaraspects of Marx's
views, such as his critiqueof the capitalistcontrolof economiclife.
Accordingto Marx, capitalistmanagementis based on two defining
"moments," a technicalmoment,concernedwith efficiency, and a social
momentrelatedto the reproduction of capitalistpower. For Marx, capitalist
controlofthelaborprocesscrossesthelinebetweenthesetwomoments.On
theone hand, ithas a cleartechnicalnecessity,demandedby theconditions
forthesuccessfulcooperationoflargenumbersofpeople: thisis theworkof
supervisioninseparablefromlarge-scaleproduction.On theotherhand, this
same systemofcontrolis designedto producean incomeforthecapitalist,a

This content downloaded from 142.58.129.109 on Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:58:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE AMBIVALENCE OF TECHOLOGY 39

goal thatflowsfromno technicalnecessityand thatis notservedvoluntarily

by the workers.3This conceptualdistinctionunderliesMarx 's demonstra-
tionthatsome of the worstaspects of capitalism,such as its dehumanizing
divisionof labor, depend not on the efficiency criterionalone, but on the
requirementsof systemreproduction.4
The relationbetween these distinctsocial and technicalfunctionsis not
entirelyclear. If they are related only externally,then Marx's complaint
would be thatcapitalistsmeddlein technicalaffairs, violatingtechnicalnorms
in pursuitof power and wealth. On these terms,the productand process
critiqueoftechnologywould ultimately sufficetoincorporate thisnew aspect
ofMarx'stheory.Butthereis some evidencethatMarxdid not conceivethe
social and technicaldimensionsof productionas two "things"standingin
conflictundercapitalism.Rather,theyare condensed in theimperativecriteria
of capitalistdevelopment.These criteriacan be explainedsociologicallyin
termsof the capitalist'spositionin the economy.
Capitalistsand theirmanagerialrepresentatives possess an unusual degree
of operational
autonomy in the controlof productionas comparedwithpoliti-
cal and economicleaders of earliersocieties,and theyuse thatfreedomto
manage and mechanizethe workplacein such a way as to extractprofits
fromthe firm.The preservationand enlargementof the capitalist'sopera-
tionalautonomy,as the veryessence of his social position,is the invariant
requirementof all successfulactivityundertakenfromthatpositionin the
social system.So powerfuland self-evident is the pressureto reproducethe
capitalist'soperationalautonomythatit becomes a constantfactorin the
constructionof technologies,workrules,job descriptions,accountingsys-
tems, and, indeed, it is eventuallyincorporatedinto the standardproce-
duresin everydomain,prejudgingthesolutionto everypracticalproblemin
termsof certaintypesof technicalresponses.
As Marcusewritesin his critiqueofWeber,the"technological rationality"
of
capitalismpresupposes

theseparationoftheworkersfromthemeansofproduction ... (as) a technical

necessityrequiringthe individualand privatedirection
and controlof the
means of production. . . The highlymaterial,historicalfactof the private-
capitalist thusbecomes... a formal
enterprise structural
elementofcapitalism
and of rational
economicactivity
itself(Marcuse1968:212).

In sum, theveryprinciplesunderlyingtechnicaldecisionsembodythesocial
assumptions of the capitalist system.
This technological rationalitycan be shown to consist in a specific code
which governs the constructionand interpretationof technical systems and
languages. I follow here Guillaume's definitionof social codes "as the ensem-
ble of associations between signifiers(objects, services, acts . . .) and that
whichtheysignifyin society,associationscreatedor controlledby organiza-

This content downloaded from 142.58.129.109 on Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:58:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
40 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume33, Number1, 1990

tionsas a basis of theirexistenceand ifpossible theirdevelopment"(Guil-

laume 1975:64).
On theseterms,the condensationofcapitalistsocial and technicalrequire-
mentsMarcusedescribescould be called thetechnical codeofcapitalism.This
code presidesoverthedestruction ofall thetraditionalcontextsoflaborand
gives the capitalistcontrolof work organizationand innovation,insuring
thatthefirmwilloperateto maximizehis poweroverthelaborforce.Itis this
technicalcode which is the underlyingbasis of the social technologyof
capitalism.
This interpretationof Marx's distinctionbetweenthe social and technical
dimensionsof productionexplainshis claimthatinnovationunder capital-
ism is responsiveto class interestsin the pursuitof increasedpower over
thelaborforceand notjust to thegenericinterestin thepursuitofincreased
power over nature. Progressis governedsimultaneouslyby at least these
two criteria,both of which must be satisfiedif an innovationis to be
introduced.
Thus, Marx says of science that it "is the most powerfulweapon for
repressingstrikes,those periodicalrevoltsof the workingclass againstthe
autocracyof capital" (Marx 1906:1,475). And he claims that "it would be
possibleto writequite a historyofinventions,made since 1830,forthe sole
purpose of supplyingcapitalwithweapons againstthe revoltsof the work-
ing class" (Marx 1906:1,476).5Technologyis shaped in its design and de-
velopmentby the social purposes of capital, particularly by the need to
maintainand furthera divisionof labor thatkeeps the labor forcesafely
under control.
To summarize,thisdesign critiqueargues that:

3. Technologicalprogressachievesadvancesofgeneralutility,
buttheform
in whichtheseadvancesarerealizedis through
and through determined
by thesocialpowerunderwhichtheyare made and insuresthatthey
also servetheinterests
ofthatpower.

Accordingto this view, technologyis a dependent variablein the social

system,shaped to a purposeby thedominantclass, and subjectto reshaping
to new purposes under a new power.6
Marxbelievedthatthepossession and exerciseofclass power determines
the generalcourseoftechnologicaladvance overlong periods.An undemo-
craticclass power (thatofthecapitalistclass, Marxwould argue),eliminates
technologiesthat threatenits interests,while a democraticpower would
similarlyemphasize developmentsfavorableto it. Since, under socialism,
workerswould controlnot only day-to-dayproductionbut also the long-
termreproductionofsociety,theycould use thatcontrolto changethevery
natureof technologyand workwhich,forthe firsttimein history,would
concerna rulingclass witha motiveto alterthem.The applicationof these

This content downloaded from 142.58.129.109 on Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:58:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 OF TECHOLOGY
THE AMBIVALENCE 41

new social criteriaof developmentwould eventuallyyield an alternative

industrialsystem,adapted to different
class interestsand based on a differ-
ent culture.

TECHNOLOGY AND TRANSITION

Each oftheseinterpretations ofMarx'spositionhas itsadvocates.The prod-
uct and processcritiqueis routinelyattributed to Marxby "orthodox"com-
munistinterpretations ofMarxismand by muchofrecentcriticaltheory.It is
thebasis, forexample,oftheSoviet"theoryofthe scientific and technologi-
cal revolution."Wellmer,representing criticaltheory,would agree,although
he expressesthe pointnegativelywhen he accuses Marxof "latentpositiv-
ism,"whichbecomesthedominanttrendin laterorthodoxMarxism(Wellmer
1974:chap.2). Reduced to itslowestcommondenominator,this"positivist"
Marxismderiveshistoricaldevelopmentfromthetechnologically determined
sequence of modes of production.On the otherhand, laborprocesstheory
impliesa design critique,accordingto whichtheveryformoftechnological
developmentdepends on social as well as technicalfactors.
I do not wish to contributea chapterto thisdebate about Marx's views,
especiallysinceI doubtifhe everdistinguishedthevarioustheoriesin ques-
tion clearlyenough in his own mind to noticetheirverydifferent political
implications.The moreimportant problemthatconcernsus hereis to address
the differentimplicationsofthevarioustheories.Iftheproductand process
critiqueis correct,the abolitionof the capitalistformof propertywould
sufficeto resolvethe social problemscaused by technology.But the design
critiqueimplies the need forsignificant changes to adapt technologyto a
new social power.
Followingthe formerapproach, the victoriousRussian revolutionaries
assumed thatthe industrialapparatus inheritedfromcapitalismcould be
operatedunchangedby a workers'state.Thus, when theyfoundthatearly
experimentsin workers'controlreduced efficiency, theydid not consider
attempting to adapt theconditionsofproductionto new social requirements
but ratherquicklyreintroducedone-manmanagementand the most rigor-
ous controlfromabove (Azrael 1966;Bailes 1978;Gvishiani1972).
No doubt these measures were motivatedoriginallyby an emergency
situation.But soon the leading Germantheoreticianof social ownership,
Eduard Heimann,could writethat"The introduction offactory councilshas
conceptuallynothingto do with socialization"(Kellner1971:132;Rusconi
1975). Communistleaders believed in the imperativerequirementsof the
existingtechnologyand divisionoflabor,whichtheyjudged tobe neutralas
betweensocial systems.If,as the"base" ofmodernproduction,thetechnol-
ogy created under capitalismis common to all industrialsocieties,then
democracymustin factremainbehindat the factory gatejust as the capital-
ists had always claimed.

This content downloaded from 142.58.129.109 on Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:58:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
42 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume33, Number1, 1990

The productand processcritiqueis compatiblewiththisconclusion,and

also withthe traditional theoryofthetransition to socialism.Butthe design
critiquealso suggeststhatthetransfer ofpowerovertheapparatuswillpose
muchmorecomplexproblemsthanthosecommunistrevolutionaries gener-
allybelievedthemselvesto be facing.The technicalinheritanceofcapitalism
is peculiarlyadapted to hierarchical organization,whetheror not it is oper-
ated by capitalistowners.Thishierarchical structure, rootedin thetechnical
code ofcapitalism,is availablein any socialsystemas a basis foran alienated
power. The democratization of industrialsocietywould not therefore be a
merelyformalmatterofchangingtheformofownershipand theprocedures
forrecruiting and selectingthosein charge.In addition,it would be neces-
sary to identifyand to transform aspects of capitalisttechnologyand the
relateddivisionoflaborwhichconflict withtheprincipleofdemocratic control.
The design critiquethusleads to the conclusionthatthe classicaldistinc-
tionbetweenbase and superstructure offersno guidancetotransitional policy,
and that aftera socialistrevolutiontechnologywould have to be recon-
structedmuchlikethestate,law, and otherinstitutions inheritedfromcapi-
talistsociety.Correspondingly, if the establishmentof a workers'power
requiresfundamentaltechnologicalchange,thenperhapsthe failureof the
existingcommunistsocietiesto engage in such a reconstructive technical
politicsmaybe one ofthereasonsforthepowerlessnessofworkersin those
societies.
This reconstructive taskwould be extremely difficult.
We cannotknow in
advance exactlywhat technicalchangeswould be requiredto createa suita-
ble environment forbuildingsocialism.That mustbe learnedfromexperi-
ment and struggle.Nor can poor socialist countriesbuy "appropriate"
technologyfromrichcapitalistones. Despite these difficulties, the idea of
socialismis more plausible in this conceptionthan in the traditionalone,
accordingto which the "assembled producers"need only seize the state
throughtheirrepresentatives to transform society.
At leasthere,theclaimthatsocialismcan organizea realtransfer ofpower
restson an understandingof the obstaclespresentedby the high level of
systemicintegration betweensuch different aspects of capitalistsocietyas
the design oftechnology,the divisionoflaborand the distribution of social
power. Overcomingtheseobstacleswillrequirea moreradical"deep demo-
cratization"ofcapitalistsociety,extendingdown to itstechnological basis, to
transform itsinheritance intoa suitablefoundationfora freersociety(Fleron
1977;Feenberg1979).

THE AMBIVALENT HERITAGE

The design critiqueof technologyis incompatiblewith some of the most
importantimplicationsoftheneutralitytheory,includingtheview thattech-
nologydeveloped undercapitalismis immediately availableas thebasis ofa

This content downloaded from 142.58.129.109 on Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:58:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE AMBIVALENCE OF TECHOLOGY 43

socialistsociety.Indeed, on Marx's account,capitalisttechnologyis intrin-

sicallypolitical;an alienated apparatus designed to be operatedby a dis-
qualifiedlabor forceunder the controlof an autocraticmanagement.But is
socialismpossibleat all on theseterms?In Marxisttheory,thetransformation
of technologyand work are not preconditions forworkersorganizingthem-
selves as a rulingclass, but ratherresultsof workingclass rule. And yet
technologyis throughand throughmarkedbyitsoriginsand functionin the
politicalstrategiesof capitalism:the veryexistenceof capitalisttechnology
thus appears to threatenthe achievementof the socialistsocietyit is also
supposed to make possible.
One strandof Marx's theoryof the transitioncan be interpretedas an
attemptto solvethisproblembyidentifying a heritageofmediationsbetween
capitalismand socialismthatwould supplyelementsofcontinuity in change.
Interestingly, Marxdoes nottreatthesemediatingelementsas neutral,which
would have been one way of explainingthe possibilityof using them to
make the transition.Instead,he worksfroman originalpositionforwhich
he neverdevelops adequate concepts,theambivalence ofmeans withrespect
to civilizational
projects.
Marx's conceptionof the transitionto socialismis intendedto avoid both
conventionalpoliticalrealism and utopianismby identifying among the
inheritancesof capitalismthe ambivalentraw materialsneeded to createa
socialist society. Like Archimedes,the revolutionaryclass can move the
world if only it has a place to stand. This "place" is the institutionaland
technologicalbase which socialismtakes over fromthe capitalistsocietyit
replaces.Here are themostimportantexamplesofambivalentinheritances:

1. Fundamentalpoliticalinstitutionssuch as votingwould be takenover

fromcapitalistdemocracyand developedas the basis fora stillmore
democratic
socialiststate.This socialiststateis notan end in itselfbut
merelya meansto theend ofabolishingthestatealtogether.
2. Similarly,
even such a basic capitalistinstitution
as the wage system
wouldbe reformed and retainedduringthetransition,as a steptoward
thesocialistgoal ofdistribution
accordingto need.
3. Capitalistmanagement,subordinatedto the will of the "assembled
producers,"is availableto runindustry
duringthe transition
to a new
typeofindustrialsocietythattranscends
thedivisionofmentaland man-
ual labor.
4. Thetechnologyofalienation
takenoverfromcapitalism wouldbe neither
acceptednor abolishedbut used as a means forthe productionof a
different
technological
apparatus,a technologyof liberationin which
workbecomes"life'sprimewant."

This Marxistconceptionof transitionmightbe called noninoral

because of
itsrealistictreatment
oftheproblemofmeans and ends. Bukharinexpresses

This content downloaded from 142.58.129.109 on Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:58:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
44 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume33, Number1, 1990

thispositionveryabstractly in writingthat"the functional oppositionalityof

formally similarphenomenais totallydeterminedbya functional opposition-
alityofsystemsoforganization,by theiropposed class character"(Bukharin
1971:118).Thus,thepaymentofwages as a permanentand essentialfeature
ofcapitalismcan be distinguishedfromthetemporary employment ofwages
to motivateworkin the transition to socialism.Similarly,capitalisttechnol-
ogy designedto deskillthelaborforcecan be used temporarily undersocial-
ismto builda new generationofproductiontechnologybetteradapted to the
reskilledlaborforceof an advanced socialistsociety.
The initiationoftheprocessleadingto socialismdepends on theinherent
possibilityof using the existingtechnologyin the frameworkof different
civilizationalprojects.Socialismwould be theresultof technologicalrepro-
ductionunder a new class power. This conceptiondiffersfromthe idea of
"neutrality"ofthemeans withrespectto thevariouspossiblegoals thatfall
underthegoal-horizonthemeansis designedto serve.The thesisofambiva-
lence on which this concept of the transitionto socialismis based is far
broaderin scope and referstothepossibility oftransforming thegoal-horizon
itself,thatis to say, generatinga framework fortherealizationofnew types
ofpurposesnotsupportedby theexistingmeansin theirpresentform.It can
be summedup in the followingthreepropositions:

(or
1. In theshortrun,workerscan and indeedmustuse manyinherited
elementswhileconsolidating
transferred) theirpower.
2. Workers can transformtheseelementsin thecourseofusingthemover
an extendedperiod,untilfinally
theyhavebuilta radicallydifferent
social
base, one adjustedto theirneeds as a class.
and technological
3. Whatultimately whichoftheambivalent
determines ofthe
potentialities
is theclasspowerunderwhichthe
is developedmostcompletely
heritage
systemoperatesand whichsetsthestandardsand goalsofprogressfor
society.

This realisticapproach serves as a defenseagainst chargesof impracti-

cability,but it involvesa "pact withthe devil" thatexposes itto attackfrom
anotherquarter.Both liberaland anarchistcriticsof Marxismcriticizethe
relianceon formsof organizationand repressivemeans chosen fortheir
"realistic"usefulnessratherthan fortheirconformity with the "ideal" of
socialism.If,as thesecriticsargue,theend is "contained"in themeans,then
indeed Marxismis fatallyflawedbecause itis based on thecontrary proposi-
tion,accordingto whichthefutureis bornofthedialecticofmeans and ends
in history.
This approachseems to involveMarxismin ominousconflicts ofmethods
and goals. Marx'scriticssee the evolutionof the SovietUnion as proofthat
theseconflicts are fatalto the theory.Certainly theory ambiva-
Marxist the of

This content downloaded from 142.58.129.109 on Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:58:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE AMBIVALENCE OF TECHOLOGY 45

lence has been reduced to Orwellian"Newspeak" where activitiessuch as

forcedlabor are evaluated as either"buildingsocialism" or as "capitalist
exploitation"dependingon whethertheytakeplace in a socialistor a capital-
ist society.The state which supposedly grantsa socialistsignificanceto
massive abuses as inhumaneas anythingknownunder capitalismconsists
essentiallyof theseveryabuses, and cannotclaimto transcendthemand to
designatethemas being in the serviceof a highergoal.
In lightof thishistory,it is necessaryto insistthatinsofaras something
likethetheoryofambivalencecan be attributed to Marx,itis concernedwith
buildingon theflawedbutveryrealachievementsofcapitalismand notwith
justifying horriblemeans in the presentby referenceto admirablebut still
imaginaryfuturegoals. The aim of the theoryis not apologeticbut strategic
and consistsin guidingtheapplicationofinstitutions, equipment,and tech-
niques developed undercapitalismthroughan evolutiontowardthecorres-
pondingsocialistones. Thisis an empirically verifiable
process,therealityof
whichneeds to be judged by appropriatecriteria,not a ritualaffirmation.
As faras technologyis concerned,itis difficultto imaginean alternative
to
an ambivalentprocess of change. A whole new technologycannotspring
pure fromthe sweatybrow of the proletariatas Athena did fromZeus's
forehead.Againstthe liberalthesisof the identityof means and ends, the
theoryofambivalenceassertsthepossibilityofbootstrapping fromcapitalism
to socialism.The reshapingoftheinheritedtechnologyis a processin which
machinesdeveloped undercapitalismwould not simplybe put to new uses
in a differentsocial context,but, moreimportantly, would be employedto
producenew technologicalmeans,fullyadapted to thecultureof socialism.
This developmentalapproach is quite different fromthe notion that the
same neutralmeans can be used fora varietyofends. It suggeststhefurther
relationship:notwhatdifferent endstechnologymaydirectlyserve,butwhat
new technologicalmeansitmayproduce,in a technically and culturally
feasi-
ble sequence leading fromone typeofindustrialsocietyto a quite different
type.

TECHNICAL POLITICS
The traditional
Marxisttheoryofthetransition admitsthesocialdetermination
of "product" and "process" only,and treatsthe design of technology"in
itself"as neutral.Yet Marx's own critiqueof the capitalistdivisionof labor
revealsthepowerintereststhathide behindthemaskoftechnicalneutrality,
interestswhichwe would identify todaywithboththepossessorsofmaterial
and culturalcapital.7These interestsdo notmerelydistortthechoiceofgoals
forproductionor the applicationof technologybut, as we have seen, are
installedin theverycode on thebasis ofwhichtechnologyis designed.The
ambivalenceof technologythus reflectsthe ambiguityof a design process
which condensesboth social and technicalgoals.

This content downloaded from 142.58.129.109 on Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:58:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
46 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume 33, Number 1, 1990

This critiqueof technologyexplains the limitationsof the technological

and administrative inheritancesof capitalism.Since theyderive originally
fromthe structureof the capitalistcollectivelaborer,theyare designed to
establishthe broadestoperationalautonomyof leadershipfunctions.Even
afterthe disappearanceof the class in the interestsof whichthisconstella-
tionfirstarose,itsadministrative formsand technological achievementschar-
acterizea typeofcivilizationwhichcan continueunderbureaucratic surrogates
forcapitalism.Socialismmust approach these formsand technologiesas
ambivalentpointsofpassage towarda new societyby systematically reduc-
ing the operationalautonomytheysupport,and introducingnew formsof
controlfrombelow and technologicalinnovationsadapted to these new
forms.
This strategyis subtlydifferent fromthe one impliedin Engels' famous
descriptionofsocialismas a systemthegoal ofwhichis "to restrict authority
solely to the limitswithinwhich the conditionsof productionrenderit
inevitable"(Engels 1959:484).It is easy to approvegenerallyof thisprinciple
ofrestrictedauthority,but Engels failsto explainhow the limitsto whichhe
refersare to be determined.The "conditionsofproduction"are ambiguous,
subjectto rationalorderingundertwo different technicalcodes, a capitalist
and a socialistcode. These codes are distinguishedpreciselyby theiranswer
to thequestionofwherethe limitsoftechnicalauthority lie. Thus, fromthe
standpointof organizationaldynamics,whodefinesthe boundarybetween
techniqueand therestwillhave a greatdeal to do withwheretheboundaryis
drawn. If it is up to the technicalexpertsthemselves,predictablytheywill
set virtuallyno limitson theirauthorityat all (Larson 1984).
Lenin suspectedthatthingswere morecomplicatedthan Engels' simple
formula.His remarkson bureaucracyshow thathe was aware thatexperts
extendtheirpowerbeyondthetechnicaldomaintheymasteron thebasis of
theirspecializedknowledge,and that,therefore, drawingthelinesbetween
thetechnicaland socialaspectsofinstitutional processesis a politicaland not
a technicalaffair.
Had Lenin understoodthe design critiqueof technology,he mighthave
graspedthe necessityof technical as a dimensionof a socialrevolution
politics
affecting the deepest foundationsof capitalistcivilization.But, because he
shared the widespreadbeliefin the neutrality of technology,he was never
able to workout the theoretical implicationsof thisorganizationalproblem,
and tendedto attribute it to the class originsofthe individualexperts.As a
result,Lenin and the otherBolshevikscame to expect miraclesfromthe
substitution of managersofproletarianoriginfortheinheritedpersonnelof
the old regime.
The transitionto socialism,accordingto traditionalMarxism,is a two-
phase process, characterizedby an early phase of deep changes in non-
technicalmatterssuch as state policy,law, and ownershipof productive

This content downloaded from 142.58.129.109 on Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:58:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE AMBIVALENCE OF TECHOLOGY 47

means, and a laterphase of technicalchange. In practice,this two-phase

conceptionhas less to do withpredictionsaboutthedistantfuturethanwith
political styles in the present, where it serves to normalize Marxism's
apparentlycontradictory reliancebothon politicalmobilizationand on tech-
nical expertise.It thus justifiestreatingpolitico-administrative workdiffer-
entlyfromtechnicalwork, in order to quicklytransformthe one while
shelteringthe otherfrominterference (Lenin 1943:II,344). But Marxistthe-
oryshows, thatas faras thestateis concerned,itis notenoughto changethe
leading personnel,but thatthe operationalautonomyof the bureaucracies
must be reduced by changingthe codes, rules, procedures,and practices
underwhichtheywork.Whyare theseprinciplesnotapplied in some form,
howevermodest,to technologyas well?
The widespread assumptionthatthe technicallimitsof rationalpolitical
actionare self-evident obstructsclearthinking aboutthestatusoftechnology
and expertiseundersocialism.Social changeis undoubtedlylimitedby tech-
nical considerations;to thatextent,the two-phaseconceptionof the transi-
tion is realisticin suggestingthe need to assess what is and what is not
technicallyfeasibleat different stages. But the real technicallimitationsare
much less confiningthan Marxistshave generallyassumed and lie deep
withinthe technicalsphere,whichtherefore cannotbe distinguishedinsti-
tutionallyas a "realm of necessity"froma sociopoliticaldomain to which
actionis confined.8
Because social interestsplay a role in the mostbasic technicaldecisions,
the boundaryof techniqueis neverclear,and the struggleforand against
alienated power thereforetakes place throughthe very definitionof the
technicalsphere. The discoveryof thisboundaryis extraordinarily difficult
sincethe ultimateideologicalappeal ofhierarchical powerin industrialsoci-
ety consistsin maskingsocial requirementsas technicalimperatives.Just
because thisconfusionis routine,oppositionto establishedpowerinevitably
transgressessupposedly technicallimitsin unmaskingthe intereststhey
protect,and mistakesare likelyto be made in the probingstruggleto dis-
coverthe realtechnicallimitson change.
In ignoringtheambiguousrealitiesofmoderntechnicalpolitics,theclassi-
cal theoryof the transitionlegitimatesthe existingtechnologicalapparatus
and associated managementpracticesat least in the firstphase of the
transition.In the conceptionof the transitionproposed here, the gradual
abolitionoftheoperationalautonomyofleadershipin thepoliticalorganiza-
tionofsocietyand thedivisionoflaborwould notoccurin sequenced phases
butwould go hand in hand and would quicklyhave an impacton technologi-
cal developments.TraditionalMarxismalways dismissedthis approach as
utopian,but the realitiesof industrialsocietieshave finallyrefutedthe cri-
tique by banalizingtechnicalstruggleitself.

This content downloaded from 142.58.129.109 on Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:58:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
48 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume 33, Number 1, 1990

In fact,democraticstrugglesfortechnicalchangehave become routinein

all typesofcontemporary industrialsocieties.Few importantproblemsarise
in eitherthe politicalor economicdomain withoutraisingtechnicalissues
and requiringtheexpertiseofhighlytrainedpersonnel.Butitis rarethatthe
issues come packaged in such a way thatpoliticaland technicalconsidera-
tionsare clearlydistinct;mostsocial problemspointto a multitudeofpossi-
ble technicalsolutions,and the choice between available alternativeshas
undeniablepoliticalimplications. Generally,wherethereareimportant politi-
cal stakes,theexpertsthemselvesare unableto achieveconsensuson techni-
cal groundsbutcan onlyemploytheirknowledgetoinformpublicdiscussion
oruse theirauthority to suppressit.The intermingling ofpoliticaland techni-
cal issues characteristic
of the publicprocessof industrialsocietiesappears
clearlyin such struggles(Winner1972).
Today these strugglesare confinedto particularissues, such as problems
ofworkdesign,pollution,urbangrowth,or nuclearhazards,butin a demo-
craticsocialistsociety,as a byproductofaccomplishingsuch concreteends,
technicalpoliticscould worktowardthe generalreconstruction of technol-
ogyand administration. Underthesenew circumstances, technicaldevelop-
mentwould move on a verydifferent path fromthatfollowedby industrial
societiestoday.New social criteriaofinnovationrespondingto theinterests
of theunderlyingpopulationwould prevailovercapitalistvalues embodied
in inheritedtechnology,providingthe basis forfundamentalcivilizational
change.
In sum,I would argueforabandoningthetraditional Marxistemphasison
the stateas economicplanner,and instead emphasize the role thatpublic
participationin technicaldecisions can potentiallyplay in social change.
"Capitalism" and "socialism" are not mutuallyexclusive "modes of pro-
duction,"but,rather,theyare ideal-typeslyingat the extremesof a contin-
uum of changesin the technicalcodes ofadvanced societiesand the related
socialorganization.Thus, theyare constantly at issue in socialstrugglesover
such problemsas labororganization,education,and ecology.This position
offersa way of understandingthe continuingstruggleforsocialismin a
world that no longerbelieves systemchanges can be legislated,or geo-
graphicallylocalized in thisor thatcountryor block.
Thata "higherphase" ofsocialismmightgrowout ofthe strugglesofthe
"lower phase" remainsan interesting hypothesis,but it acquires a rather
different in view ofthisapproachto technicalpolitics.The actual
significance
technicallimitsof changediscoveredin thecourseofstruggleappear as the
otherside ofthe coin oftechnicalpolitics.These limitscomprehendblocked
potentialitieswhichmighteventuallymotivatea processofinnovationdriven
bynew socialdemands.Theconcretesignificance ofthenotionofdisalienation
is to be foundhere, and not in a generalplan forhumanity'sfuture.

This content downloaded from 142.58.129.109 on Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:58:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE AMBIVALENCE OF TECHOLOGY
Acknowledgments: I would like
to thank FrederickFleron Jr.and
GeraldDoppelt fortheirhelp in de-
velopingthe ideas presentedhere.
NOTES
1. This articleis drawn frommy forth-
comingbook entitledTheCriticalTheory
of
Technology.
2.. Does anyone actually hold such an
interpretationof Marx? The answer is
"yes." Consider,forexample,Hans Jonas's
choice of the followingsignificantsubtitle
fora discussion ofMarx: "'Reconstruction
ofthePlanetEarth'ThroughUntrammeled
Technology" (Jonas1984:186;Cf. Baudril-
lard 1975).
3. "The controlexercisedby thecapitalist
is not only a special function,due to the
nature of the social labour-process,and
peculiar to that process, but it is, at the
same time, a functionof the exploitation
of a social labour-process,and is conse-
quentlyrooted in the unavoidable antag-
onismbetweentheexploiterand theliving
and labouring raw materialhe exploits"
(Marx 1906:J,363).
4. For an application of this distinction
between social and technicaldeterminants
oftechnologyin anotherdomain, see Wil-
liams (1975).
5. It is interestingto find Marx's view
on capitalistinnovationechoed a century
laterby RobertK. Merton. For his evalu-
ationofthisposition,see Merton(1968:619
ff).
6. This view contrastswiththatofcritics
of technologysuch as Jacques Ellul, who
believe that the essence of technologyin
itselfis the source of the problemstreated
by Marxistsas sociallyrelative.Fora Marx-
ist response to Ellul and otherswho share
his view, see McMurtry(1978:222-239).
7. One of the advantages of the frame-
work introduced here is that it makes
possible a unifiedaccount of the way in
This content downloaded from 142.58.129.109 on Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:58:37 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
49
which material and cultural capital are
organized against workersand othersub-
ordinate members of society through
technicalcodes thatmaximizeoperational
autonomy (cf. Gouldner 1979).
8. The role of technical politics in the
workplaceis illustratedby two recentstud-
ies: Shaiken (1984),and Rosnerand Mark-
owitz, (1987). The participationof mem-
bers of the middle stratain revising the
technicalcodes of theirprofessionsunder
theimpactofa revolutionary crisisis docu-
mented in Feenberg (1978).
REFERENCES
Azrael,Jeremy.1966.ManagerialPowerand
SovietPolitics.Cambridge:Harvard Uni-
versityPress.
Bailes,Kendall. 1978.Technology
andSociety
underLeninand Stalin.Princeton,NJ:
PrincetonUniversityPress.
Baudrillard,Jean. 1975. TheMirrorofPro-
duction, trans. M. Poster. St. Louis:
Telos.
Bebel, August. 1904. WomanUnderSocial-
ism,trans.D. de Leon. New York:New
York Labor News.
Bukharin,Nicolai. 1971. Transformation
Pe-
riod.New York: Bergman.
Engels, Frederick.1959. "On Authority."
Pp. 482-484 in Marx and Engels: Basic
Works andPhilosophy,
on Politics edited
by L. Feuer. New York: Anchor.
Feenberg,Andrew. 1978. "Remembering
the May Events." Theoryand Society6:
29-53.
1979. "Technology Transferand
Cultural Change in Communist Soci-
eties." Technologyand Cultutre
20(2):348-
354.
1987. "The Bias of Technology."
Pp. 225-256in Herbert
Marcuse:Critical
TheoryandthePromiseofUtopia,edited
by R. Pippin,A. Feenberg,and C. Webel.
Amherst,MA: Berginand Garvey.
Fleron, Jr.,FrederickJ. (ed.). 1977. Tech-
50 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume33, Number1, 1990

nologyandCommunist NewYork:
Culture. Weber."Pp. 201-226inNegations, trans.
Praeger. J.Shapiro.Boston:Beacon.
Gorz, Andre(ed.). 1978. TheDivisionof Marx,Karl.1906.Capital.New York:Mod-
Labor.Sussex:Harvester. ernLibrary.
Gouldner,Alvin.1979.TheFutuire ofthe McMurtry, John.1978. The Structure of
andtheRiseoftheNewClass.
Intellectuals Marx'sWorld-View. NJ:Prince-
Princeton,
New York:Seabury. tonUniversity Press.
Guillaume,Marc. 1975.Le Capitalet son Merton,Robert.1968."The Machine,the
Double.Paris:PUF. Worker and theEngineer."Pp. 616-627
Gvishiani, andMan-
D. 1972.Organization inSocialTheory andSocialStructure.
New
agement. Moscow:Progress. York:The FreePress.
Jonas,Hans. 1984.TheImperativeofRespon- Rosner,David and Markowitz,Gerald
Chicago:University
sibility. ofChicago (eds.). 1987.DyingforWork. Blooming-
Press. tonand Indianapolis:IndianaUniver-
Kautsky, Karl.[1892]1971.TheClassStrug- sityPress.
gle,trans.W.E.Bohn.NewYork:Norton. Rusconi,GianEnrico.1975."Introduction
Kellner,Douglas (ed.). 1971.KarlKorsch: to'WhatIs Socialization?"' NewGerman
RevolutionaryTheory.Austin:University Critiqte 6:48-59.
ofTexasPress. Shaiken,Harley.1984.WorkTransformed.
Larson,MagaliSarfatti. 1984."The Pro- Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
ductionof Expertise and theConstitu- Slater,Phil(ed.). 1980.Outlines
ofa Critique
tionofExpertPower."Pp. 28-80in The of Technology. AtlanticHighlands,NJ:
Authority ofExperts,editedby Thomas HumanitiesPressInternational.
Haskell.Bloomington andIndianapolis: Thompson,Paul.1983.TheNature ofWork.
IndianaUniversity Press. London:MacMillan.
Lenin,V. I. 1943."The Stateand Revolu- Wellmer, Albrecht. 1974.TheCritical
Theory
tion."Vol. 2, pp. 263- 361 in Selected ofSociety,trans.J.Cumming. NewYork:
Works.New York:International Pub- Seabury.
lishers. Williams, Raymond.1975.Television. New
Marcuse,Herbert. 1968."Industrialization York:Schocken.
and Capitalismin the Workof Max Winner, Langdon.1972.Autonomotus Tech-
nology. Boston:MIT Press.

This content downloaded from 142.58.129.109 on Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:58:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions