<p style="text-align: left;">
<font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">if anyone is in melbourne next thursday, this lecture might be of interest:</span></font></p><p style="text-align: left;"><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><br>
</span></font></p><p align="CENTER"><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><b>University of Melbourne Media and Communications Program
presents a guest lecture</b></span></font></p><p align="CENTER"><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><b>
Reconstructivism versus Critical Theory of Technology: <br>
Alternative Perspectives on Activism and Institutional Entrepreneurship
in the Czech Wireless Community<br>
</b></span><font size="5"><span style="font-size: 18pt;">Johan Söderberg<br>
</span></font></font><font face="Helvetica, Verdana, Arial"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Thursday 13th May 2010 4.30 – 6.00pm Old
Arts-Theatre C
</span></font>
</p><p>
<span style="font-size: 11pt;"><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica,
Arial">The once dominant position of constructivist STS theory looks
increasingly tenuous, and the question has been raised what will come
after constructivism (Sterne & Leach, 2005). A number of proposals
for future research avenues have been put forward in recent years. One
candidate for a reinvented, more partisan STS program continues to build
on constructivist theory. It retains the basic insight that knowledge
and technology are constructed, but gives a political spin to that
statement by asking how things could be re-constructed in a better way
(Woodhouse, Hess, Breyman, Martin, 2002; Woodhouse, 2005). Another
avenue goes back to the writings of the first generation of members of
the Frankfurth school. A number of contemporary scholars have, for most
part independently of each other, adopted critical theory as their
starting point when reflecting over science and technology (Feenberg,
1999; 2008, Cooper, 2002; Kirkpatrick, 2008; Brey, 2008; Radder, 2008). <br>
<br>
The objections raised by reconstructivist and critical theory
perspectives against constructivist STS are rather similar and
underpinned by the same political concerns. Nevertheless, the
philosophical traditions which reconstructivism and critical theory of
technology build on are distinct. It is this difference which stands at
the centre of my investigation. I will argue that from these two
philosophical traditions have followed, among other things, varying
estimations about the relevance of over-arching, analytical categories.
Suspicion against general truth claims is part and parcel of the
intellectual current to which the many constructivist STS schools
belong. In contrast, the inclination in critical theory to use
'totalising' concepts goes back to its roots in Hegel and Marx. A
theoretical understanding of commodity exchange as a relation which
permeates the whole of capitalism is the startingpoint of an analysis of
science and technology conducted in the tradition of critical theory. I
believe that such an approach is useful for adressing some of the more
urgent, political concerns which awaits a normative, STS discipline
”after constructivism”. My argument will be developed through a case
study of the Czech wireless network community and specifically around
the commercialisation of the free space optics device called "Ronja".</font></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica,
Arial">
</font></span><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><font size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><i>Johan Söderberg</i>
<font color="#ff5304"><a href="http://www.sts.gu.se/" target="_blank">http://www.sts.gu.se</a></font>
<<a>http://</a><a href="http://www.sts.gu.se/" target="_blank">www.sts.gu.se/</a>>
Göteborgs Universitet, Avdelningen för Teknik och Vetenskapsstudier,
Sweden<br>
Johan Söderberg has been working on the emergent free hardware movement
and on how hackers provide a new angle to on-going discussions within
STS on how politics is folded into technological design. The central
claim is that whatever political consequences that hacking might have
stems from the challenge it poses to the control of firms and government
institutions over innovation processes. Published books include: Allt
Mitt är Ditt – Fildelning, Upphovsrätt, Försörjning (2008) Atlas Förlag.
Hacking Capitalism – The Free and Open Source Software Movement (2007)
Routledge. Published papers include: ”A Mis-User Centred Innovation
Model – Hackers, Crackers & Filesharers”, Science as Culture
”Hacking as Labour Struggle”, Capital & Class, January 2009,
co-autor George Dafermoes ”Long Wave Theory and Information
Technologies”, Technovation 25, 2005, pp. 203-211, co-author Bo
Göransson ";Copyleft vs. Copyright";, First Monday, 7 (3), 2002</span></font></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br>
</span></font>
</p>All welcome.<br><br><br>best<br><br clear="all">Nate Tkacz <br><br>Research Fellow,<br>RMIT University<br><br>Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/__nate__" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/__nate__</a><br>Homepage: <a href="http://www.nathanieltkacz.net" target="_blank">www.nathanieltkacz.net</a><br>
Current project: <a href="http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/about-2/" target="_blank">http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/cpov/about-2/</a><br>