{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"231a69de-8526-4d34-8fa7-231b09af93a8","title":"技术体系：理性的社会生活","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9787552024104","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"231a69de-8526-4d34-8fa7-231b09af93a8","id":"231a69de-8526-4d34-8fa7-231b09af93a8","uuid":"231a69de-8526-4d34-8fa7-231b09af93a8","title":"技术体系：理性的社会生活","normalized_title":"技术体系理性的社会生活","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9787552024104","isbns":["9787552024104"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":328,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/231a69de-8526-4d34-8fa7-231b09af93a8","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/%E6%8A%80%E6%9C%AF%E4%BD%93%E7%B3%BB%EF%BC%9A%E7%90%86%E6%80%A7%E7%9A%84%E7%A4%BE%E4%BC%9A%E7%94%9F%E6%B4%BB","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/231a69de-8526-4d34-8fa7-231b09af93a8/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/231a69de-8526-4d34-8fa7-231b09af93a8/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/231a69de-8526-4d34-8fa7-231b09af93a8","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/231a69de-8526-4d34-8fa7-231b09af93a8/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/231a69de-8526-4d34-8fa7-231b09af93a8/search"},"page":{"printed_page":"117 / 78","pdf_page":133,"physical_index":133,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"08b0e1a22df3f618af93d92652effaaeafd64fd609f1f188c18df85c8cddfd01"},"chapter":"第三章具体化西蒙栋和建构主义","content":"决定论者通常认为，技术沿着单一的轨道发展，从而塑造社会。这种观点与建构主义立场形成对比，根据这种立场，社会力量可以在多种可能的发展路线中进行选择。事实上，大量的案例显示了社会需求对设计过程的影响。这似乎取消了西蒙栋的贡献，但我们会看到，他的立场比他作为决定论者的名声更令人感兴趣。\n\n在《论技术物的存在方式》中，西蒙栋用来自于汽车和真空管设计等领域的政治中立的例子来说明他的理论。他区分了“外在的”和“内在的”发展原因，②这赋予了他的论证具有决定论的色彩。他对技术性和效用的区分往往如此尖锐，以至于技术似乎是社会必须适应的一个自主领域。③他希望实现技术和社会之间的和解，不是依靠社会和政治行动，而是依靠文化和技术变革。\n\n第三章 具体化西蒙栋和建构主义\n\n117\n\n① 参见:Sally Wyatt, “Technological Determinism Is Dead: Long Live Technological Determinism\", in The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, ed. E. J. Hackett, Olga Amsterdamska, Michael E. Lynch, and Judy Wajcman (Cambridge, MA; MIT Press, 2008), 165 – 180; A. Dafoe, “On Technological Determinism: ATypology, Scope Conditions, and a Mechanism\",Science, Technology & Human Values40, no.6(November 1,2015):147-176, doi: 10.1177/0162243915579283。 在主张对某些决定论给予更多同情关注的同时，怀亚特指出，“我们再也不能如此 愚钝以至于对这么多参与者的正当的技术决定论视而不见了。”(176)。这正是批 判理论的强项，它一直关注决定论的意识形态部署。\n\n78\n\n②Simondon, Du Mode d'Existence des Objets Techniques, 23– 36.\n\n③ Bernard Stiegler, \"La Maieutique de L'objet Comme Organisation de L'inorganique\", in Gilbert Simondon : Une pensee de l'individuation et de latechnique, Bibliotheque du College international de philosophie (Paris:Albin Michel,1994),249-250。斯蒂格勒 将西蒙栋与海德格尔而非 STS进行比较；参见：Bernard Stiegler，La technique et le temps: La faute d'Epimethee (Paris: Galilee/Cite des sciences et de l'industrie, 1994).","previous_page":132,"next_page":134}