It is common in society to think that technologies are just things, that they are in and of themselves value-neutral. In fact, all technologies are value-laden. They reflect the values of the designers (e.g., the problem or opportunity to address), embody trade-offs, and are introduced in a way meant to attract. In addition, technology can be value-laden in a more profound way )t can embody, following Langdon Winneràphrase, /litical qualities.®bsp;

A technology has political qualities if it necessarily influences how a society seeks to govern itself. Here are three ways technology may do this: ?    

• by altering social routines pertinent to social choice processes )nfluencing who may participate in: naming problems or opportunities; formulating choices with implications for the lives of many/most/all; contributing arguments and narratives for various options in this social choice; and entering directly in the decision-making process.
• by disrupting the social order 4he collection of primary groups in the society who understand themselves to be groups, and who have a stance toward other groups. To disrupt the social order is to create new groups (new actors), or marginalize some, change the relative relationships among some (e.g., power or wealth or status), or alter available mechanisms enabling people to organize themselves. ?    
• by installing defining conditions that favor a particular groupàinterests 3uch as putting in place conditions and organizations and institutions that are highly influential and that cannot easily be ndone,3uch as the nuclear energy and weapons complex; setting the rules for how society overall will make key decisions; creating a narrative (e.g., around a historical event or a current social problem) that orients decisions in a given way; or installing oneàpartisans in positions where they can make influential decisions that favor a given perspective and values. Sometimes critical events become defining conditions going forward, such as the use of nuclear weapons in war. This can have the form of worsening the lives of others, may be mainly a way to defend a status quo that favors a group or groups, or (in rare cases!) may be for the benefit of all.

A technology has nherently political qualities)f it is certain, or nearly certain, that its introduction will have a substantial influence the social order, and social choice processes, and (perhaps) important conditions that must favor the values/interests of some … i.e., it substantially changes all elements of social configurations involved in social governance. Equally, a technology is inherently political if we cannot imagine its introduction apart from a significant impact on social choice processes 4he choices that may arise, participants, decision-makers, and premises (‘truths’) that all must take into account. Further, it is inherently political only if we find that it biases the transition into a narrow range of possible follow-on societies )t does not simply disrupt; it constrains the evolution of society in a particular direction.

E.g., nuclear energy and weapons cannot be created without a substantial and centralized authority !nd there is no effective way to choose not to have them (so the direction of change, in terms of authority, is highly constrained). In terms of the triad above, creating them meant
      social order: a new bureaucratic apparatus to secure everything (a new and exceptionally powerful actor), and shifts in power among actors (e.g., elevation of intelligence agencies, rise of the “defense contractor”)
      social choice processes: the original choice to introduce this technology was in the hands of a very few extremely powerful actors who decided unilaterally … and further, present-day choices must be about this system in place and must take it as given and fixed in any ‘connected’ choice situations (e.g., conduct of any war, adherence to treaties)
      defining conditions: the fact of nuclear weapon use irrevocably shifts the discussion and strategies toward prevention of another use; further, the presence and form of this complex, including its ongoing expense to maintain, cannot be undone (at least not presently)

In contrast, note that bridges and freeways are not inherently political. R. Moses had to distort standard practice greatly to deploy them to further his segregationist and racist interests.  So a technology is inherently political only if this is so for its nominally intended or native use. 

It is important to consider the entry and uptake of technology in society for its ethical qualities. We can define ethics as (ose beliefs and actions that generally promote the flourishing of all. or example, honesty by leaders, fairness in law enforcement, and justice in the courts, are ethical because they generally benefit everyone. In contrast, when some benefit in a way that necessarily harms others, this is unethical. Technology can influence the social order, governance, or key context conditions in ways that are ethical (e.g., increase freedom, equality, or self-determination) or unethical (e.g., transfer wealth in a way that creates an underclass). 

For this assignment, you will consider whether or not some technology possesses inherently political qualities. Do research on how your selected technology has influenced the political organization and behavior of another country’s people outside of the US and Canada, regardless of where that technology was first designed and developed. You may choose any technology other than nuclear energy/weapons and timekeeping. Also, please restrict your choice of example to the history of the 19th-21st centuries. 

Answer these questions:
   1)    Describe the relevant factual details of the case you will be discussing (i.e., the technology, where it was first developed, how people are using it in another country, etc.).

   2)    State your conclusion about whether or not the technology possesses inherently political qualities. Give an argument that establishes your conclusion based on the relation of the technology to specific social factors. That is, do you find (for the population taking up the technology) that it has had a substantial impact on the social order, on social routines pertinent to social choice processes around how we govern ourselves, and/or on defining conditions that likely serve the interests of a particular population? 

   3)    State your conclusion about whether or not it was ethical to introduce the technology into the country that assimilated the technology. Then give an argument for your conclusion that relates the use of the technology (perhaps by only a distinct population) to social factors that resulted, and then that those factors are either exhibits of general flourishing (and so ethical), or that some actors have been harmed (e.g., less justice, equality, freedom to determine one’s course, etc., and so unethical).