{"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":70,"pdf_page":86,"physical_index":86,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"73b83c29d9cde218e5f4a7c521489861bdd5f770dab5a1f5a9d11504e5e873c5"},"chapter":"第二章批判的建构主义","content":"正如平奇和比耶克所说：“不同社会群体关于人造物内容的不同阐释将不同的问题与解答链引向了不同的深入发展。”①他们的关键点在于社会对“人造物内容”本身的影响，而不仅仅是对发展速度、表象或使用这些肤浅要素的影响。这表明域境不是外在于技术而是确实渗透了它的合理性，将社会要求带入了工具的生产中。\n\n通过反对战后专家治国论的决定论观点，建构主义的进路能够支持马克思主义关于特殊资本主义技术发展的解释。“合理性社会”不是关于价值和利益的“最好的方法”而是偶然的方法。事实上，建构主义的预期可以在马克思主义技术史家哈里·布雷弗曼和大卫·诺布尔(DavidNoble)的著作中找到。②以影响了这些学者的马克思著作的相同来源为基础，法兰克福学派确证了技术的资本主义本质。例如，阿多诺说：“技术不是灾难性的，但卷入束缚它的社会条件则是…对利润利息和统治的考虑引导了技术的发展：到现在为止它宿命地与控制的需要相符合。破坏手段的发明并非偶然地成为新技术质量的原型。相反，那些背离统治、中心主义和反自然的暴力，并且可以很好地让被技术在字面和比喻的层面所伤害的东西治愈的潜力枯萎了。”①这种观点在马克思主义和建构主义之间架起了可能的桥梁。阿多诺像建构主义者一样，将技术的设计归于控制设计过程的行动者。\n\n47\n\n70\n\n技术体系：理性的社会生活\n\n① Ibid. , 42.\n\n② Harry Braverman, Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century (New York; Monthly Review Press, 1974); David F. Noble, America by Design: Science, Technology, and the Rise of Corporate Capitalism (New York: Knopf, 1977).","previous_page":69,"next_page":71}