The essay "Do Artifacts Have Politics" by political scientist Langdon Winner from 1980 inspired me to write about this. He argues that technology is usually only judged for their contributions of efficiency and productivity, and possibly the environmental side effects, but not for the ways in which technological artifacts can embody specific forms of power and authority. These artifacts are physical objects, tools, or hardware intentionally created by humans to solve practical problems, perform tasks, or adapt to their environment.
He mentions that technology is split down to two sides. One authoritarian, which is system-centered, immensely powerful, but inherently unstable. The other side is democratic: man-centered, relatively weak, but resourceful and durable. Technological developments are usually seen as democratizing, liberating forces.
However, there are two ways in which technology can be seen as technological, and not necessarily as the democratic force that is imagined.
Social determinism of technology
The first argument is that technology does not matter in itself, but the social and economic systems in which it is embedded. The argument continues on the saying that the process of designing, developing and deploying a technology can heavily bias societal outcomes, empowering some groups while marginalizing others. The development of a technology can structurally favor particular interests.
This opposes technological determinism, which is the idea that technology develops as the sole result of an internal dynamic, and then, unmediated by any other influence, molds society to fit its patterns.
An example that Winner gives is the low-hanging parkway overpasses on Long Island, New York, which were designed by planner Robet Moses to be too low for public buses. This design choice barred lower-income and minority groups (who relied on public transit) from accessing public beaches and parks.
Histories of architecture, city planning, and public works contain many examples of physical arrangements that contain explicit or implicit political purposes. Winner mentions the broad Parisian thoroughfares, engineered at Napoleon's direction to prevent any recurrence of street fighting similar to the fights that happened during the revolution of 1848. He also mentions the grotesque buildings and huge plazas on American universities constructed during the late 1960s and early 1970s to defuse student demonstrations.
Technological change expresses a panoply of human motives, not the least of which is the desire of some to have domination over others. Technologies are ways of building order in our wold. Consciously or not, societies choose structures for technologies that influence how people are going to work, communicate, travel, consume, and so forth over a very long time.
Inherently political technologies
Some man-made systems require, or are extremely compatible with, specific political and social arrangements in order to function successfully.
Systems like nuclear power plants require rigid, hierarchical, and often authoritarian management by a specialized elite to operate safely and effectively. Conversely, decentralized renewable energy sources (like localized solar panels) tend to promote egalitarian, democratic distribution of power and community autonomy. Technically speaking, it is vastly more reasonable to build solar systems in a disaggregated, widely distributed manner than in large-scale plants.
The properties of many modern technologies - oil pipelines and refineries, for example - are such that overwhelmingly impressive economies of scale and speed are possible. However, certain internal social organization has to be fulfilled. Many large, sophisticated technological systems are highly compatible with centralized, hierarchical managerial control.
Langdon Winner's conclusion
His last sentences are:
In our times people are often willing to make drastic changes in the way they live at accord with technological innovation at the same time they would resist similar kinds of changes justified on political grounds. If for no other reason than that, it is important for us to achieve a clearer view of these matters than has been our habit so far.