For the next step on the way to understanding technology, I simply looked the word up in the dictionary. To be more specific, I looked it up on Merriam-Webster Online. Perhaps the dictionary definition can more accurately sum up the complexities of technology in a way I couldn't.
Merriam-Webster states that technology is "the practical application of knowledge in a particular area." (Merriam-Webster). Of the three definitions included, this is the most relevant to this issue. This definition covers I wide range of technological achievements. Unfortunately it fails to address the fact that technology doesn't have to be practical. Let's look at the modern SUV. Now, I'm all for the use of gasoline as a fuel source. I say use it until its gone, then find something else. But despite the fact that Americans love their gas guzzlers, they aren't practical. If we were doing the practical thing, car companies would all come out with the most gas efficient car they could. Yet millions of people are willing to pay more at the pump for a bigger, flashier vehicle. That may be their prerogative, and if they willing money for size, then more power to them. However, it is not practical. Even if we were to take the word practical out, this definition still fails to address the purpose of technology. It may incompletely sum up what, but not why. I had hoped to find a way to articulate why we develop technology.
It seems as if I still have more research to do. However, I have not been without progress. I may have found the beginning of my working definition of technology. It's vague and rather two dimensional, but at least it's a start. Perhaps I will be able to build on this definition and make it more complete.
1 comment:
Hey Zack....
this is what I said in response to Andy's blog entry from *ebster's Dictionary..... I have some comments for you after what I've pasted.
**********************
Andy,
What precisely made you turn to the dictionary here? I wonder if something from the previous source left you with a question that made you want to turn to Websters. That might be a way to refine and direct your conversation with this dictionary source.
I like how you try to tangle with definitions of high technology versus low technology, but my concern with the use of dictionaries here is that they will be used as an uncritical crutch….. that people turn to them when they are out of ideas as an easy solution. Who died and made Webster god and final judge on words we use in everyday conversation? I think you at least intuit this problem with your first three sentences, and it might be something worth reflecting on even further– all the “authority” we generally grant to the “professionals” who work as “gatekeepers to the language.” (Sorry for all the quotation marks, but as you can tell, I am somewhat ambivalent about this constructed sense of authority.) But why should we turn to them for words that are vibrant, dynamic, not living between the entries Aardvark to Zephyr, but living in the everyday uses by common folk like you and me? I’m not saying you can’t or shouldn’t use Webster here, but I’d at least want you to reflect on some of these points (after all, isn’t a dictionary also a type of technology? And, therefore, couldn’t it be critiqued?)
Have you tried looking at the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition. I think there’s an online version. Try http://dictionary.oed.com.
**********
And that's also how I'd advise/caution you. Can you think more about *why* you decided to turn to a dictionary? After all, they themselves are a type of "technology-- even moreso since you are using an online version, where the information is almost instantaneously available. Yet, the "authority" we're willing to grant these types of technologies seems disturbing for me, particularly w/r/t why smart people seem to turn to them. You all have heard ans used the term "technology" before, so who dies and Made Meriam Webster god? So go ahead and use it if you want, but perhaps you cold be even more critical not only of what it says, but even *why it exists* as an authority/technology pulling static definitions out of seemingly thin air. Why do we even have them?
Hope this helps some.
Post a Comment