6‐12‐2022

Ethics and Technology in Society: Mediation and the Idea of a

‚Script‘
0SV10 Sustainable Technology in Society 2022
Andreas Spahn

ECIS – Eindhoven School of Innovation Sciences

Course Setup Diagnostics

Social
Large Technical Construction of
Systems (LTS) Technology
(SCOT)
Sustainable Moral Values &
Development Scripts

Socio‐Technical
System

Monitoring
Sustainbility Mediation of
& Policy Values
Governance of Sustainbility
Innovation Trade‐offs
Intervention
2

1
 6‐12‐2022

Program of today

(1) Morality and Artifacts – Repetition

(2) Ethics as Matter of Things – Beyond ‘Technological Functionalism’
(3) Technological Mediation
• Mediation of perception
• Mediation of action
(4) Moralizing Technology and ‘Designing Mediations’

Morality and Artifacts

2
 6‐12‐2022

Feedback on Presentation (Frank, Shelly, Andreas)

• Moral Values = states of affairs worth striving for

• One word terms (happiness, justice, sustainability)

Feedback on Presentation (Roxanne, Andreas)

• Moral Values = states of affairs worth striving for

• One word terms (happiness, justice, sustainability)
• Explain what they mean for your case (conceptualize the value)
• E.g. sustainability
• People
• Planet
• Profit

3
 6‐12‐2022

Feedback on Presentation (Frank, Shelly, Andreas)

• Moral Values = states of affairs worth striving for

• One word terms (happiness, justice, sustainability)
• Explain what they mean for your case (conceptualize the value)
• E.g. sustainability
• People
• Planet
• Profit

• Interest = what people actually want (sleep long!) vs. moral value = what you should
want (get up and work hard!)
• How to know what we should strive for => ethical theories (USE base)

Technology as Neutral Tool

Classical Engineering Assumption:

• Humans have ‚values‘, technology not
• Technology is a neutral tool, ethics depends on usage
• A technology can be used in many different ways, therefore
it is morally neutral. [Pitt]

Ethics:
• Only Humans ‚act‘, ethics is about humans and their choices

4
 6‐12‐2022

Countervision within STS / Winner

Technology is not neutral

• Rather it is loaded with values!

• It can be highly political (Winner)
• It has normativ visions inscribed, how it should be used (Akrich)
• It has a type of „agency“: it „mediates“ human action and perception (Verbeek)

Values
Values

Technology
Designer User

10

5
 6‐12‐2022

the Robert Moses Causeway overpass at EXIT RM2 (NY 27A / Montauk Highway) in West Islip

11

Winner – Take Home Message

Winner: Artifacts can be political by

1. „settling a political issue“
2. „suggesting or requiring a certain type of power‐relations“ (inherently
political technologies)

12

6
 6‐12‐2022

Ethics as a Matter of Things

13

Verbeek: Main Idea

Technology determines our actions and decision in many different ways

Ethics = how to act?

• In our technological age: this question should thus be linked to philosophy
of technology
• Ethics no longer a matter of human subjects and their decision, but about
how humans and technology co‐shape each other!

14

7
 6‐12‐2022

AKRICH – THE DE‐SCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY

15

Idea of a script

Play with words: In‐scription vs. De‐Scription

Madeleine Akrich. The De‐scription of Technical Objects. Bijker, W. & Law, J. Shaping
Technology/Building Society. Studies in Sociotechnical Change, MIT Press, pp.205‐224, 1992

• ‘Script’ = expected use‐plan of a technology or a technological artifact

• Actors are supposed to play according to the script. Sequences of expected
actions
• Therefore also technology ‘acts’ (agent = human, actant = everything that
acts), p. 206

16

8
 6‐12‐2022

17

18

9
 6‐12‐2022

Designers of technology

Designers anticipate certain usage and what will (and can) be done by whom

• They distribute power‐relation

• They ‘in‐scribe’ a vision about what will be done with the technology and
by whom
• Users might follow this vision or use the technology in a new and un‐
intended way: de‐scription

19

20

20

10
 6‐12‐2022

21

21

Example of un‐intended usage

Typewriter was originally invented

for blind or nearsighted people

But then used for a different purpose

Christopher Latham Sholes, shown in

this photo from the middle 1880s,
invented the first feasible typewriter

22

11
 6‐12‐2022

Design and abuse

23

Proper Use

24

12
 6‐12‐2022

Abuse

25

Mismatch

Main Idea of Akrich

• Intended usage and real usage might differ, tension between the two

• “projected usage” vs. “real usage”

• link to power‐relations, most scripts delegate responsibility and power:
who is supposed to do what

26

13
 6‐12‐2022

Summary

Technologies can contain a ‘script’

‐ That ‘in‐scribes’ a vision of the designer about how the technology should
be used
‐ That ‘pre‐scribes’ how the user should behave (relation to power)
‐ The user can override this pre‐scription and behave use technology in a
new unforeseen way (de‐scription) (as in “de‐struction”)

27

27

Example of Speed Bump

Idea of Verbeek: Engineers design artifacts, their decision will thus co‐shape behaviour

28

14
 6‐12‐2022

Traditional Engineering Ethics

Negative Approach: “no harm principle”

• Engineers should try to avoid disaster and make technology efficient
according to its function and safe to use.
• Responsibility of Engineers: proper functionality of technology

New approach (defended by Verbeek):

• Engineers should actively inbuilt morality into engineering design

29

Questions from the audience

Dave Leunissen

On which element should designers focus other than the

functionality of technologies? - Group D.4

30

30

15
 6‐12‐2022

Paradigmatic Shift in Ethics of Technology

Ethics „post design“

Old Paradigm
• Engineering is about functionality + fulfilling legal requirements
• Ethical Reflection comes after the design, done by stakeholders in
society

31

Paradigmatic Shift in Ethics of Technology

Ethics in design (new paradigm)

• Engineering has to in‐cooperate ethical aspect
• Design has to be Value Sensitive (Poel, Friedman)
• Designers can ‘Moralize Technology’
• Technological Artifacts are more than
neutral tools

32

16
 6‐12‐2022

„Separatism“ ‐ Responsibility

"Once the rockets

are up, who cares
where they come
down? That's not my
department," says
Wernher von Braun

33

Responsibility of Engineers

Shift from user‐centred perspective to design‐perspective

Example ‚Car‐Safety‘

James Wetmore: Study on USA

• Change in perspective during the 20th century
• From: Accidents: human errors, car‐user
• To: industry should produce safe cars that compensate for human errors

34

17
 6‐12‐2022

Towards a Framework of Technological Mediation

Old Idea
(1) Safe Functionality of Technology

Verbeek adds
(2) Impact of technology on moral decisions and quality of life
=> Framework of Mediation

35

TECHNOLOGICAL MEDIATION

36

18
 6‐12‐2022

Phenomenology
Traditional Phenomenology
• Analysis of the experience of the (life)world of humans
• Husserl: systematic reflection on the world as it appears in our consciousness
• Heidegger: analysis of fundamental aspects of human existence (Being and Time,
Question Concerning Technology)

Post‐Phenomenology
• Avoids negative view of technology
• Aims to look at specific technologies

37

37

Mediation analysis
Main idea (Bruno Latour, Don Ihde, Peter‐Paul Verbeek)
When technologies are used they change the context in
which they are used
They shape human actions and human perceptions
• And create thus new practices and ways of living

38

19
 6‐12‐2022

2 important forms of mediation

1. Mediation of perception: “how artifacts mediate human experiences and interpretations
of reality” (Verbeek, 2006, p. 364)
• Amplification ‐ reduction

2. Mediation of action: “how artifacts mediate people’s actions and the way they live their
lives” (Verbeek, 2006, p. 366)
• Invitation ‐ inhibition

39

Annika Knippels,

•My question is; What difference between a ‘ready-to-

hand’- and a ‘present-at-hand’ position?

(group C.5)

40

40

20
 6‐12‐2022

Heidegger: “Vorhanden” vs. “Zuhanden”

‐ Play with German words:

‐ (1) Things how you use them in your authentic experience in daily life (zu‐handen)
‐ (2) Things once you treat them as an “object of investigation” (vor‐handen)

‐ (Phenomenology = focus on (1); science focus on (2))

41

Heidegger: “Vorhanden” vs. “Zuhanden”

• ‘Readiness‐to‐hand’ (Verbeek, 2006, p. 364): e.g. typing on your keyboard

• ‘Present‐at‐hand’ (Verbeek, 2006, p. 364): “when typing on a keyboard a particular key

continuously gets stuck (or produces an unexpected character on the screen) then the
individual key, as a broken key, becomes an object of reflection” (Introna, 1997, p. 4).

42

21
 6‐12‐2022

Mediation of perception

Technology change the way we see the world and the way in which we
interpret reality

Heidegger: how a river is seen by…

• a poet
• …

43

Mediation of perception

Technology change the way we see the world and the way in which we
interpret reality

Heidegger: how a river is seen by…

• a poet
• an engineer

44

22
 6‐12‐2022

A) Technological Mediation of our

Interpretation of the World

A Tree in a landscape

45

A) Technological Mediation of our

Interpretation of the World

Tree in a Landscape and through a Microscope

http://tchester.org/plants/analysis/quercus/srm_horsethief_creek_tree.ht
ml
46

23
 6‐12‐2022

A) Mediation of our Interpretation of the

World

Ultra Sonic Pictures

http://www.mvz‐osthessen.de/fach/frau/rausch.html

47

Example

Ultrasound
• Isolates fetus from the female body (represents it thus as ‘independent’,
rather than as ‘united with the mother’)
• Puts foetus in context of medical norms: pregnancy as a medical process,
fetus as a patient (Emphasizes ‘choices’)
• Parents have now a lot of choices (see mediation of actions)

48

24
 6‐12‐2022

Perception of reality and technology

Don Ihde

Embodiment relation
E.g. glasses: the artifact itself is not perceived (cf. readiness‐to‐hand), but
helps experience reality

49

(2) Representation of Reality

• Thermometer
• Reduction and amplification

50

25
 6‐12‐2022

Representation
(Don Ihde)

Representation always works via amplification and reduction

These “mediation” of perception can have important ethical consequences

(e.g. ultra sound)

51

Technological Mediation
of our Interpretation of the World

“It's like a video game. “I see mothers with children,

It can get a little bloodthirsty. But I see fathers with mothers,
it's fucking cool.” I see kids playing soccer.”

52

26
 6‐12‐2022

Mediation of Action

Human actions are not only determined by their intentions but also by their
environment

Our environment is mainly shaped by technologies

53

Script: Assumptions about how to use the

technology

54

27
 6‐12‐2022

B) Mediation of our Actions

Examples for pre‐scriptions of actions through artifacts

The “sleeping policemen” (speed bump)

55

B) Mediation of our Actions

Examples for prescriptions of actions through artifacts

Speed Camera

56

28
 6‐12‐2022

B) Mediation of our Actions

Examples for prescriptions of actions through artifacts

Speed Camera after a not prescribed “action”

57

B) Mediation of our Actions

More Examples

a tourniquette in subway station

58

29
 6‐12‐2022

Mediation

59

Mediation of Actions

Compare Amplification and Reduction:

Some actions are invited, others are inhibited

Interesting Type of Mediation of Action: “Persuasive Technologies”,

inbetween informing and forcing.

60

30
 6‐12‐2022

SUMMARY ‐ MORALIZING TECHNOLOGIES

61

Moralizing Technologies

• Technologies shape how we act in the world and how we perceive it.
• “Not humans make decisions, but a combination of humans and
technologies”
• “Moral Decision making is a joint effort of human beings and
technological artifacts”
• Verbeek: We should try to use this to the advantage of ethics!

62

31
 6‐12‐2022

Summary

Role of the Designer / Engineer changes

Beyond 'Functionalism' , e.g. Value‐Sensitive Design

Role of technology changes

Beyond the Paradigm of "neutral tools"
Mediation (Verbeek)

Role of User changes

Delegation of moral responsibility to machines
Beyond Autonomy?
PAGE 63
6-12-2022

63

Questions from the audience

Lieke Schmitz

what is meant exactly with translation of action/transformation of perception? Group

B.2

64

64

32
 6‐12‐2022

65

65

Questions from the audience

Gijs Tuijtel
Group B1:
Verbeek talks about the difficulty of mediation in a technology because of it often
having 'multistability'. He states "this multistability of technologies makes it very
difficult to predict the ways in which technologies will influence human actions and
accordingly to evaluate this influence in ethical terms".

Could you name an examples of a technological artefact where mediation was

intentionally inscribed during the design/engineering process but where that
mediation ultimately proved ineffective because the technology found a different
stability than originally predicted? Or otherwise elaborate on this difficulty?

66

66

33
 6‐12‐2022

Questions from the audience

Mila Ayazyan

Group B.4
What are the dangers or downsides of explicitly building in mediation
in technology?

67

67

Saab Alcohol lock

68

34
 6‐12‐2022

‘Nudge’ (push people in the right direction)

69

69

Autonomy and Technology

Autonomy Sustainability
Self‐Determination Social Values

Liberalism Paternalism

• "Libertarian Paternalism" (Thaler, Sunstein 2008)

•May an engineer deceide how an indiviudal user should
behave?
• Is mediation taking away freedom from the user?
•Does mediation really make the user more moral? Or does
moral behaviour require an individual decision / right intention?

70

35
 6‐12‐2022

Questions from the audience

Elena Appendino

How can imagination create a link between the designer and the technology? (Group
A.4)

Irene Robben

Are the anticipated sources of mediation different for CTA and mediation through
imagination? Is there a way to take all three sources of mediation (users, designers
and technology) into account and if so which way is best suited for this? Group C1

71

71

Questions from the audience

Timo Scholtes
Group C2:

CTA strives to connect all shareholders in the evolution of the technology. The
question connected to this theory is the following: How do you connect with the
shareholders regarding the technology if the effects of the technology are negative
but the technology is a necessity? The involved shareholders only receive the
negative part of the technology so how can they be meaningfully involved in
something they don't want to happen?

72

72

36
 6‐12‐2022

Questions from the audience

Fabrizio Aceto

Group C4:
How are technologies which replace other outdated technologies affected by the
moral values of those older technologies and their associated interest groups?

73

73

Questions from the audience

Janna Bergmans
In the conclusion, Verbeek mentions two ways how designers have to bridge the gap
between the context of use and the context of design to cope with the uncertainty
regarding the future role of technologies in their use context (mediation analysis with
the help of the designer's imagination and an augmented form of constructive
technology assessment in which the connection is also researched in practice). My
question is, isn't this approach a bit outdated? The second option seems to come
close to user testing or involving users and stakeholders in the process of designing,
but a debate with only stakeholders (as described in the paper) is not enough (I
presume). I understand that a big technology (such as designing an underground
storage system for nuclear waste or switching to SAF) is hard to test, but I feel like this
is not how designers (have to) deal with new technologies nowadays.
(Maybe this question is too unrelated or too much about design, if so, just skip it
during the lecture, I will ask after class)
Group
74 D.2

74

37
 6‐12‐2022

Assignment Week 5

75

Mediation and Technology Design

The assignments so far were meant to “analyse” your case from various
perspective
… now the idea is to come up with a creative advise to solve (some) of the
problems you have been analysing so far
(logic of the course: from analysis to “intervention”)

76

38
 6‐12‐2022

Mediation Analysis and Design Suggestion

The second ethical assignment of the course is meant to be a creative

exercise of what ‘could (have) happen(ed)’ in a “better world”.
You will prepare a short mediation analysis based on the prior ethics
assignment and use this analysis to improve the ‘design’ of the technological
artifact/system in your case study.

77

Group Assignment (graded)

Mediation and Moral Design
(1) Make a short ethical mediation analysis per group:
• Think of one way of how your chosen technology mediates human experiences
and interpretations of reality, either in terms of amplification or in terms of
reduction, explain how, and provide (an) argument(s) for this
• Think of one way of how your chosen technology mediates people’s actions
and the way they live their lives, compared to what alternatives there are or
compared to previous situations. Explain how and provide (an) argument(s) for
this also think of the concepts invitation –inhibition

78

39
 6‐12‐2022

Assignment (continued)
Re‐Design
Go back to your ethics analysis (week 4) and identify the values that you found to be
missing or not properly represented in your case.
• (2) Come up with a creative solution of how one could change the technology of
your case so that it does implement the values that you found missing
Try to find a ‘better design’ for at least one values
• (3) Conclude with a short reflection on how this new design might change the
perception and action of users.

79

79

Grading

• For this assignement 50% of the grade will be the grade for the written
assignement; 50 % will be the grade for content of the presentation you
will be giving on Friday
• For the assignement: Try to be creative, make it ‚fun‘. Imagine how the
technology could be ‚morally‘ better
• It is possible to choose different values than last time, if you feel that this
creates a better solution

80

40
 6‐12‐2022

Assignement: The Procedure

Prepare a text (of your own work) and a presentation of your work

(1) write a short document about your assignment, say 2 pages;

(2) you post the document on CANVAS LATEST THURSDAY AT 23.59;
(3) prepare a presentation of your work that one of you will present on friday

81

41