For more than 20 years, sustainable development has been advocated as a way of tackling growing global environmental and social problems. The sustainable development discourse has always had a strong technological component and the literature boasts an enormous amount of debate on which technologies should be developed and employed and how this can most efficiently be done. The mainstream discourse in sustainable development argues for an eco-efficiency approach in which a technology push strategy boosts efficiency levels by a factor 10 (...) and more in industrialised and developing countries. A minority argues for a socio-cultural lifestyle switch, relying on new values, quality of life, sufficiency and redistribution strategies, with calls for appropriate and soft technologies. It is remarkable, however, that the articles, books and policy debates on sustainability seldom explicitly draw in a discussion of the nature of technology, how technology influences and is influenced by society, and what this implies for sustainable development. The mainstream interprets technology as neutral and instrumental: technology is no more than an instrument to reach a goal; it cannot be judged on its intrinsic characteristics, only on its use. The alternative view often builds on an autonomous and substantive interpretation of technology: technology is an autonomous, almost uncontrollable power that fundamentally reshapes our culture. A more balanced approach seems to be growing in the research on socio-technical sustainability transitions where the focus shifts to the co-evolution of technology and society, and to the networks, seamless webs and complex multi-actor processes that may carry a sustainability transition forward. This approach builds on insights from recent traditions in the philosophy and sociology of technology, in particular the social construction of technology (SCOT) and actor-network theory (ANT). While this provides for a better understanding of the nature and potential role of technology in sustainability policies, it remains to be seen whether it will actually influence the choice between technologies. This article investigates the different conceptualisations of technology in the sustainability debate. It first distinguishes between different approaches of sustainability and how these are related to differing views on technology. It then moves on to how the socio-technical transitions research incorporates insights from contemporary philosophy and sociology of technology. It reflects on the potential of transitions research to give guidance in technology choices, suggesting that the transition approach might be strengthened by drawing in insights from critical theory of technology and by taking a more political stance in defining sustainable development. (shrink)

The thoughts that Michel Puech formulates on wisdom, technology and the art of living are timely at a moment when social, ecological and economic problems are pressing upon our societies and the speed of technological development seems to overwhelm our ability to integrate and adapt new technologies in our lives and societies. However, he restricts his concept of wisdom too much to a personal endeavor and overestimates the relevance of non-confrontation. I argue that his project can only be of value (...) when it is embedded in a broader societal and political strategy for change. (shrink)

Opening up the in-between: Ihde’s Postphenomenology and Beyond Content Type Journal Article Pages 101-107 DOI 10.1007/s10699-011-9229-8 Authors Gert Goeminne, Centre Leo Apostel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Krijgskundestraat 33, 1160 Brussels, Belgium Erik Paredis, Centre for Sustainable Development, Ghent University, Poel 16, 9000 Ghent, Belgium Journal Foundations of Science Online ISSN 1572-8471 Print ISSN 1233-1821 Journal Volume Volume 16 Journal Issue Volume 16, Numbers 2-3.

This article is a short reaction to the comments of Vergragt (Found Sci, 2012) and Bos (Found Sci, 2012) on my article “Sustainability transition and the nature of technology” (Paredis in Found Sci 16(2–3):195–225, Paredis 2011). I start by situating current transition research in the sustainability debate. The relation between the two is simultaneously specific and vague: specific about processes at work during transitions, vague about the content and direction of the change. I then move on to a discussion of (...) how a better conceptualisation of technology could strengthen the transition framework. I want to thank the two reviewers for their critical remarks, that stimulated me to better explain my position. (shrink)