Lectura

para EVALUACIÓN CONTINUA 2

TECHNOLOGY AND THE CONTROL SOCIETY: A RESEARCH

PROGRAMME INTO THE AMBIGUITY OF TECHNOLOGY
Bernd Carsten Stahl
1. Introduction
While it is hard to deny that technology has affected our individual and collective lives, it is
more difficult to find agreement on the description and evaluation of these changes. One
reason for this is the deep ambiguity of technology. Technologies can be used for a range
of often contradictory purposes based on varying intentions and with often unpredictable
results. Technological development has improved our lives in many ways, for example by
lessening the requirement for physical labour, extending our life-expectancy but also in
many more subtle ways, for example by providing improved communication channels or
leisure activities. At the same time technology facilitates new ways in which humans can
be exploited or marginalised. At the extreme, technology may threaten our very existence
(e.g. through nuclear war) or essence (e.g. bio-engineering). There is a multitude of
research approaches that try to capture the changes. Many of these, predominant in
computer and information ethics, concentrate on individuals, either the individual
technology user or the professional involved in them. Simultaneously much research is
undertaken to evaluate individual types or instantiations of technology. A further strand
of research investigates how ethics and values can be incorporated into technical artefacts
and the processes that lead to their development and design. The present paper takes a
different approach and suggests that a different understanding of the relationship of
society and technology may be helpful in conceptualising the social and ethical
consequences of technology. The term ―control society‖ is proposed to represent this
new conceptualisation of technology and society and which incorporates the manifold
ambiguities of this relationship. Central to the control society is the ever-increasing
amount of control that is required to organise and manage modern and functionally
differentiated societies. Control can have a range of meanings, which find their reflection
in the use of technology. Control can mean power, command and domination but also
regulation or restraint, as well as the avoidance of something undesired. The present
paper explores the notion of control and develops an understanding of the meaning of
"control society". It discusses the different meanings and roles that control has in society
and outlines how technology in general and ICT in particular are implicated in such a
control society. It briefly discusses the relationship of the concept of control society in
relation to alternative conceptualisations of society, such as risk society, information
society, and surveillance society. The core difference of the control society is its direct
reliance on technology and the intrinsic (moral) ambiguity of this technology. In order to
develop the concept of the control society, the paper commences with a discussion of the
concepts of technology and control. This leads to an outline of different ways of
understanding the control society. This outline will cover some of the theoretical
approaches that can be employed to understand the control society and some of the
theoretical alternatives of the concept. The following sections discuss different roles that
technology can play with regards to control.
2. Technology and Control
Both of the core concepts of this paper are complex in their own right. The idea is
therefore to give an indication of their meaning in this paper rather than provide a
comprehensive discussion.
Technology
Technology, etymologically the study of a craft, has to do with the way human beings use
their environment to achieve their aims. There is a considerable amount of literature that
deals with the philosophical foundations of technology in general (Dusek, 2006; Olsen,
Pedersen, & Hendricks, 2009; Tabachnick & Koivukoski, 2004). Very briefly, one can say
that technology is typically (but not 513 necessarily) linked to physical tools and artefacts.
It relates to a systematic understanding of the world. Modern technology is closely linked
to science and research but technology predates science and is also a necessary condition
of modern science. Technology has been described part of what it means to be human.
Human beings lack genetic specialisation to particular environments and require
technology to survive (Gehlen, 1997). Of particular interest in this paper are those
technologies that relate to information and communication, the information and
communication technologies (ICTs). These again raise conceptual questions such as the
meaning of information. A pragmatic definition could posit that computing-related as well
as information exchange-related technologies fall under this category. This sort of
pragmatic definition is not particularly palatable to philosophers who like conceptual
clarity. It is also problematic because of current technical developments, in particular the
alleged convergence of different technologies such as nanotechnology, biotechnology and
cognitive technologies with ICTs. Despite this uncertainty surrounding the exact extent of
the concept of technology used here, it will suffice for the paper, which aims to show
general trends rather than pinpoint particular aspects. Technology has a systemic
character. While early forms of technology such as stones or bones used by our prehistoric
ancestors may not have required particular forms of social organisation, the same cannot
be said of modern technologies. These are intimately linked to the social context in which
they are developed and used. This refers to the social and technical infrastructure (e.g. a
car is worthless without a petrol station, a computer cannot serve its intended purposes in
an environment where there is no electrical power). The social character of technology
goes beyond this infrastructural environment. Technology needs to conform to
expectations of users if it is to be used and it needs to incorporate social expectations. At
the same time, technology also shapes social experiences and thereby expectations.
Technology can therefore be described as social in nature, which underlines the
importance of a perspective that allows seeing modern technology in terms of modern
society.
Control
The concept of control was chosen for this paper because it is ambiguous in its own right
and therefore captures the ambiguity of technology. A look at the definitions of control in
the Oxford English Dictionary (www.oed.com) shows the richness of the term. First, it is
important that the English term "control" is a noun as well as a verb. The most important
meanings of the term as a verb for the purpose of this paper include "to check or verify,
and hence to regulate", "to check by comparison, and test the accuracy of," "to take to
task, call to account, rebuke, reprove (a person)", "to challenge, find fault with, censure,
reprehend, object to (a thing)," "to exercise restraint or direction upon the free action of;
to hold sway over, exercise power or authority over; to dominate, command," "to hold in
check, curb, restrain from action; to hinder, prevent," "to hold in check or repress one's
passions or emotions; so to control one's feelings, tears, etc.", "to overpower,
overmaster." This is a somewhat richer view than the equation of control with power as
ability to do an agent one's bidding. It reflects relevant literature in ethics and technology,
e.g. Brey (2008) when he distinguishes between behavioural and situational control power
as the ability to influence an agent's behaviour or the situation she finds herself in. A quick
look at this non-exclusive list shows that the term "control" refers to a range of activities
that are related but far from identical. Let's use the example of a very simple statement:
"A controls B". According to the above definitions this can mean that A checks B, tests B's
accuracy, regulates B, reproves B, restraints B, exercises power over B, dominates B, or
even overpowers B. There seems to be a continuum of relationships that is hidden in the
term. A further important aspect of the term is its ethical standing. The ethical evaluation
of an instance of control is clearly context dependent. Whether A's control of B is
perceived to be a good thing depends on both A and B as well as the basis of their
relationship. If A is a police officer and B is a violent offender, then A's control over B is
likely to be an uncontroversial moral good. If A and B swap places and A is the criminal (or
dictator or paedophile) and B is the police officer (or citizen or child), then the control
relationship is morally problematic. This leads to the question of ethical evaluation of
control. From a utilitarian point of view, the above example indicates that the evaluation
would be context-dependent. However, from a deontological perspective, such a
statement is more difficult to uphold. At least certain types of control might arguably
conform with the Categorical Imperative. The virtue ethicist might see control as a virtue,
at least self control but also control mechanisms within 514 society that uphold social
structure. The position of ethics of care might come to the conclusion that care requires
control and therefore control is a moral good. The point of the last paragraph is to show
that control is morally and ethically ambiguous. Its connotations are neither always good
nor always bad. Control has a link to established moral goods such as privacy or security
but it can also easily be linked to problems such as surveillance or oppression. This
ambiguity, in conjunction with the interpretive flexibility of technology is a core
characteristic of the control society which will be described in the next section.
3. Control Society
All societies exert some sort of control over their members and are, in turn, controlled by
their members. Societies determine the boundaries of acceptable behaviour and define
sanctions for transgressing these boundaries. The idea behind the term "control society" is
that modern societies increase the level and depth of control over their members.
However, unlike dictatorial and totalitarian societies, which often explicitly set out to
control members, the control society is characterised by its members' agreement to and
even desire of increased control. The argument here is that modern western societies
collectively take a turn towards increased control and that they do this with general
agreement of its citizens. Control societies are furthermore intrinsically linked to modern
technology, which require and facilitate the development of control, as will be argued in
the following sections. At this stage, I can only offer anecdotal evidence for the truth of
the suspicion that western democratic societies are moving in the direction of control
societies. In the UK, a primary example is that of surveillance. It is widely known that the
UK is the "CCTV capital of the world" with a very high density of technical surveillance
mechanisms. The interesting aspect is that this surveillance is generally met with approval
by citizens. It is promoted under the heading of security and crime detection and
prevention, which citizens generally seem to accept (despite a lack of evidence that CCTV
has such consequences). Another aspect of control that seems to spread across
democratic societies is that of control of life style choices. Prominent here is the example
of smoking and the way states use a range of mechanisms from economic incentives and
awareness campaigns to statutory regulation to move citizens to adopt certain
behaviours. If the initial suspicion that western societies are turning into control societies
is correct, then this warrants the question of the cause of this development. This question
is an obvious one because there is a prima facie suspicion that control and freedom may
conflict and freedom is one of the primary values that western democracies profess to
uphold. An important aspect of the allure of the control society for the individual citizen
seems to be that of security. This needs to be seen in conjunction with the rise of Islamist
terrorism and the western reaction to it during the first decade of the 21st century.
Control of citizens by society via the state may be seen as a mechanism that increases the
individual. This refers to terrorism but also to all sorts of other criminal behaviour. Crime
is seen as a central problem in western societies, typically relatively independent of actual
development of criminal statistics. While the wish for security is arguably a central cause
of citizens' wish for the control society, this in itself is probably not enough to explain the
growth of the phenomenon. A further important psychological cause is likely to be the
desire for clarity and the hope to overcome ambiguity. The modern world is often
perceived to be overly complex and confusing. Individuals often have more choices than
ever before in human history but many find it difficult to identify what exactly these are
and according to which rules they should make their choices. A related phenomenon is
that of globalisation which has led to international migration on a large scale and has
contributed to a further blurring of national, ethnic and other boundaries. Individual and
collective identities which may have been relatively unproblematic and stable in the past
are now threatened and in need of justification and explanation. Control of society and its
citizens then seems to promise a higher level of stability and dependability of the future. It
addresses real or perceived problems and relieves the individual of personal
responsibilities to order their view of reality. These explanations may also go some way
towards explaining why democratic governments are willing to support the increase level
of control required in control societies. Again, one can ask why democracies risk liberties
as their primary political value in order to cater for the wish for control. Democratic
politicians get elected on the promise of fulfilling citizens' requirements. If citizens wish
515 for increased levels of control, then democratic politicians have to take such wishes
seriously and, if possible, implement them. Furthermore, politicians need to be perceived
to be active rather than reactive, to lead and shape current and future realities. There is
an element of catering to populism here but it goes beyond base instincts. Democratic
governments know that they have to fulfil competing and often contradictory demands.
They therefore have to make choices that they see to serve their countries best. In current
climates, these often seem to be choices for more control.
Relationship to other Conceptualisations of Society
The idea of the risk society is related to but different from several other attempts to
characterise modern society. This section briefly outlines this relationship to some of
these alternative conceptions. Ulrich Beck's risk society (1986) is a prominent example of a
description of society that conceptualises the role that technology plays in modern
society. Published immediately prior to the nuclear accident at Chernobyl, Beck captured
the problem arising from the attempt to manage and limit risks using technological means
which, in turn, raise new risks. He showed how technology creates risks while
simultaneously improving the ability to describe these. The phenomena at the basis of the
risk society are core to explaining the rise of the control society. Indeed, one important
aspect of the control society is to address the risks that Beck has pointed to, using
mechanisms of social control. A further concept of society of relevance to the control
society is that of the information society. This is a much more diffuse concept than the risk
society that can refer to numerous contributors and has a range of different meanings. At
its core seems to be the observation that information, its availability and exchange, has
changed many aspects of democracies. A core area of impact is that of the economy,
which is allegedly moving towards a "knowledge economy" in which the relevance of
traditional economic activities such as agriculture or industrial production decrease in
favour of information and knowledge based products. The network society (Castells,
2000), one aspect of the information society, is characterised by the instantaneous flow of
information, capital and cultural communication. It accelerates cultural developments and
economic exchange, while excluding large parts of the world. The information and
network society provides a description of the phenomena that cause the development of
the control society such as globalisation and uncertainty. They do not necessitate the
control society, however, as different developments, such as a less controlled society
would be conceivable and possibly even more plausible in the light of the information
society. The surveillance society, whose prototype was described by Orwell in "1984"
(Orwell, 2004), has been described by scholars in the field of surveillance studies. The
possibly most prominent description of the surveillance society is provided by Lyon (2001).
Lyon analyses the role and organisation of surveillance in modern societies and argues
that surveillance is problematic in ways that go beyond the broadly discussed issue of
privacy and data protection. As indicated earlier, surveillance is a core aspect of the
control society but not the only one. Surveillance is one means of control but by far not
the only one. The theory of the control society therefore needs to incorporate that of the
surveillance society but move beyond it. These very brief paragraphs are meant to
underline that there is a rich literature on related conceptualisations that support or
accompany the concept of control society. A more detailed discussion of these theories as
well as further ones will need to be undertaken during the development of the theory of
the control society. For now, an important point to discuss is the question which role
technology plays in the control society.
4. The Relationship of Technology and the Control Society
There are several different ways in which technology and the control society can affect
each other. This section outlines some of these relationships.
Ontological Relationship
A brief remark about the ontological relationship between technology and the control
society is probably in order to head off unnecessary criticism. The theory of the control
society developed here is closely linked to critical and social constructivist accounts of
technology. This means technology is not seen as an independent and external entity that
has more or less predictable consequences for the 516 control society. Instead,
technology and the control society are mutually constitutive. The technologies including
the constituent artefacts that we can observe are shaped and produced in a social
context. They are appropriated by users on the basis their socially shaped experiences and
expectations. This position avoids the problems raised by both the technical determinist
and the social determinist positions. Within this mutual embeddedness (Orlikowski, 2007)
of technology and the control society one can nevertheless discern several different roles
that technology can play, which are discussed below.
Technology as the Medium of Control
The most obvious role of technology in the control society as that as a medium of control.
This means that technology can be used in order to implement and achieve the aims of
the control society and exert control over its members. Examples of this abound in the
literature on ICT and society, in particular in surveillance studies. Much research in this
area is based on Bentham's idea of the panopticon and Foucault's subsequent
development of this idea (Foucault, 1975). However, there are further areas in which
technology can take the role of a medium of control. A prominent one is the area of
human enhancement. While it is difficult to define what exactly constitutes enhancement
as opposed to healing, one can argue that there are some applications of technology to
the human body that serve to improve its capacities and overcome its weaknesses. The
latter is what the transhumanist movement aims at. This shows that technology as the
medium of control can be aimed at different objects. The first one, surveillance, is aimed
at individual behaviour whereas human enhancement is aimed at the human body. The
two are clearly related but not identical. There are further objects of control by
technology. These technologies can be used to control either other technologies or the
environment. Technologies to control other technologies are well established. It is one of
the main achievements of ICT to facilitate a higher level of control over established
technologies, such as engineering production technologies. Technologies to control the
environment are also well established and may be traced back to the use of fire to clear
forests. Again, ICT offers new avenues of control, for example in the fight against climate
change which requires new levels of control.
Technology as the Object of Control
At the same time that technology can be used to establish control it can also become the
object of control. Many of the problems the current world faces are problems caused by
technology. This includes climate change but also the potential annihilation of human
culture and possible the human race by nuclear weapons. There is a host of smaller issues
where technology needs to be controlled, for example transportation-related technologies
which need to be controlled to avoid an even more excessive level of danger than the one
we currently face. Finally, technology may need to be controlled in instances where it
affects the way that humans interact. A current example is the group of technologies that
are often called Web 2.0 technologies. There are different ways of controlling technology.
These include social arrangements such as laws or other governmental control
mechanisms. Particular technologies can be regulated directly, e.g. by outlawing them.
More differentiated ways of controlling technology may provide processes of control that
develop criteria and ways of applying them to technologies or individual artefacts. This is
what most societies do with the control of cars. Control of technology can also be
implemented via the development of directions for those individuals that are directly
involved in them. This is the area of professionalism and professional ethics. A further way
of controlling technology can be the development of clear social preferences, e.g. by
highlighting the acceptability (or lack thereof) of a particular technology that then leads to
further actions. This is what was done in the case of genetically modified organisms,
particularly in Europe. It is interesting to note that the significant parts of the field of
computer or information ethics can be described as belonging to this domain that aims to
develop principles of control of ICT. 517 Technology as the Cause of Control In addition to
being a medium and an object of control, technology can also be the reason why control is
needed in the first place. This is the case, for example, in control of technical artefacts. A
nuclear power station is an artefact that requires high level of systemic control. More
interesting is the idea that technology affects society in a way that requires an increased
amount of control of its members. Due to the complexity of technologies they often
require individuals who use them to have particular characteristics. Prime among them is
a need for a particular type of educational background. An internet-oriented society of the
year 2010 not only needs a population that is capable of reading and writing but also has a
high level of familiarity with the artefacts that allow access and the detailed knowledge
that allows operating them. High tech control societies are also accelerated societies in
which many activities happen at a greater speed requiring its members to have individual
characteristics that go beyond the cognitive. Members need to appreciate the importance
of speed and need to be willing organise their lives around sociotechnical requirements
(e.g. check email 7 days per week, update social website status regularly). While some of
this control is based on social agreements, it can, in turn, be facilitated by technologies.
The operator of the nuclear power plant who needs to be reliable and stable can be
checked for diseases or substance abuse by technical artefacts.
Technology against Control
An important part of the narrative in this paper is that control is not a one-way street.
Control can be subverted and resisted. Any power relationship is a two-way relationship
that allows the one over whom power is exerted to respond. In the literature on
information systems this aspect of resistance is well explored. Technology can therefore
be used as a means to avoid control or overcome it. Where control may seek to normalise
behaviour by instituting surveillance, technology can be used to hide activities. Privacy
enhancing technologies are a category of technologies that aim to ensure that users are
not subject to surveillance by others.
5. Conclusion
This paper is the first attempt to outline a much larger research programme into the
relationship of technology, control and society. It posits that we can gain by developing a
new conceptualisation of society, namely the control society. The control society is an
ambiguous concept in itself because the term allows different interpretations. It is positive
in that it allows individuals and collectives to take charge of their environments and lives
but at the same time it embodies a threatening undertone of power and subjugation. The
brief examples used in this paper were meant to provide plausibility of the claim that the
"control society" is a good term to describe current societies. The paper then argued that
technology and the control society are intimately related. Technology can play a number
of roles in the control society. Technology can facilitate, necessitate, exert, receive or
evade control. This interplay between different aspects of control may be a good way of
describing the way technologies are used in modern societies. The narrative of the paper
is purely descriptive. Its purpose is to develop a conceptual frame that will allow a better
description of social realities. If it turns out that it can do this, that the control society is a
useful way for conceptualising the way we deal with technology, then a further task, to be
delivered at a later stage, is to think about whether this can lead to practical
recommendations on how we should shape technology or the control society.

References
Beck, U. (1986). Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Frankfurt a.M:
Suhrkamp.

Brey, P. (2008). The Technological Construction of Social Power. Social Epistemology, 22(1), 71-95.

doi:10.1080/02691720701773551

Castells, M. (2000). The Rise of the Network Society: Economy, Society and Culture v.1: The
Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture Vol 1 (2nd ed.). WileyBlackwell.

Dusek, V. (2006). Philosophy of Technology: an Introduction. WileyBlackwell.

Foucault, M. (1975). Surveiller et punir. Gallimard.518

Gehlen, A. (1997). Der Mensch. Seine Natur und seine Stellung in der Welt. (13th ed.). Stuttgart:
UTB.Lyon, D. (2001). Surveillance society: Monitoring everyday life. Open University Press.

Olsen, J. B., Pedersen, S. A., & Hendricks, V. F. (2009). A Companion to the Philosophy of
Technology.WileyBlackwell.

Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial Practices: Exploring Technology at Work. Organization

Studies, 28(9),1435-1448. doi:10.1177/0170840607081138

Orwell, G. (2004). 1984 Nineteen Eighty-Four (New Ed.). London: Penguin Classics.

Tabachnick, D., & Koivukoski, T. (Eds.). (2004). Globalization, Technology, and Philosophy. State
University of New York Press.