[ABSTRAK
Teknologi bisa memiliki dampak terhadap masyarakat setara dengan pengaruhundang-undang atau kebijakan pemerintah, karena itu keputusan teknis, menurutAndrew Feenberg, harus masuk dalam ranah demokrasi. Yang menjadi perintangdemokratisasi teknologi adalah pandangan bahwa pengembangan teknologisepenuhnya mengandalkan nalar tanpa pengaruh faktor-faktor sosial, sehinggateknologi dianggap mempengaruhi tetapi tidak dipengaruhi nilai dan budayamasyarakat. Kajian teknologi dan pemikiran konstruktivisme sosial membuktikanbahwa teknologi dan masyarakat memiliki hubungan saling mempengaruhi.Feenberg berusaha memadukan esensialisme teknologis dan konstruktivismesosial dalam teori dua-tingkat. Namun, disertasi ini berargumen bahwaesensialisme teknologis tidak perlu dipertahankan karena peristiwadekontekstualisasi yang mengambil obyek alam dari konteksnya untuk menjadiobyek teknis tetap mempengaruhi lingkungan manusia, dan dalam reduksionismeyang memangkas sifat-sifat yang tidak diperlukan suatu obyek teknismenghasilkan limbah yang bisa berbahaya bagi manusia. Sebagai gantinya penulismengajukan teori yang menjelaskan perkembangan teknologi secara serentakdipengaruhi oleh susbistem teknologis, ekonomi dan sosial, yang masing-masingmemiliki dualitas struktur-kepelakuan dan semua subsistem ini salingmempengaruhi yang menyebabkan spiral perubahan teknologi, ekonomi danmasyarakat.;
ABSTRACT
Technology may have a significant impact comparable to the impacts ofregulations or policies of a government, therefore technical decision, according toAndrew Feenberg, should belong to the democratic sphere. The constraint todemocratization of technology is the thought that technology is fully developedbased on reason, without experiencing the influence of social factors. It impliesthat technology is influencing but not being influence by society. The field oftechnology studies and social constructivism prove that technology and societyare constituting each other. Feenberg has reconciled technological essensialismand social constructivism in his two-level theory. But, the dissertaion argues thatwe should not keep technological essentialism because the moment ofdecontextualization, which takes object from its natural context, influences theenvironment, and the moment of reductionism, which strips technically uselessqualities of technical object, disposes wastes that may be harmful to humanbeings. Therefore the dissertation suggest an alternative theory that explains thatthe development of technology is simultaneously influenced by technological,economic and social subsystems each of which has the duality of structure-agentand all subsystems are influencing each other which in turn cause the spiral of thedevelopment of technology, economy and society;Technology may have a significant impact comparable to the impacts ofregulations or policies of a government, therefore technical decision, according toAndrew Feenberg, should belong to the democratic sphere. The constraint todemocratization of technology is the thought that technology is fully developedbased on reason, without experiencing the influence of social factors. It impliesthat technology is influencing but not being influence by society. The field oftechnology studies and social constructivism prove that technology and societyare constituting each other. Feenberg has reconciled technological essensialismand social constructivism in his two-level theory. But, the dissertaion argues thatwe should not keep technological essentialism because the moment ofdecontextualization, which takes object from its natural context, influences theenvironment, and the moment of reductionism, which strips technically uselessqualities of technical object, disposes wastes that may be harmful to humanbeings. Therefore the dissertation suggest an alternative theory that explains thatthe development of technology is simultaneously influenced by technological,economic and social subsystems each of which has the duality of structure-agentand all subsystems are influencing each other which in turn cause the spiral of thedevelopment of technology, economy and society, Technology may have a significant impact comparable to the impacts ofregulations or policies of a government, therefore technical decision, according toAndrew Feenberg, should belong to the democratic sphere. The constraint todemocratization of technology is the thought that technology is fully developedbased on reason, without experiencing the influence of social factors. It impliesthat technology is influencing but not being influence by society. The field oftechnology studies and social constructivism prove that technology and societyare constituting each other. Feenberg has reconciled technological essensialismand social constructivism in his two-level theory. But, the dissertaion argues thatwe should not keep technological essentialism because the moment ofdecontextualization, which takes object from its natural context, influences theenvironment, and the moment of reductionism, which strips technically uselessqualities of technical object, disposes wastes that may be harmful to humanbeings. Therefore the dissertation suggest an alternative theory that explains thatthe development of technology is simultaneously influenced by technological,economic and social subsystems each of which has the duality of structure-agentand all subsystems are influencing each other which in turn cause the spiral of thedevelopment of technology, economy and society] |
D2107-Ikbal Maulana.pdf :: Unduh