What do you think?
Rate this book
The Real World of Technology
In this expanded edition of her bestselling 1989 CBC Massey Lectures, renowned scientist and humanitarian Ursula M. Franklin examines the impact of technology upon our lives and addresses the extraordinary changes since The Real World of Technology was first published.
In four new chapters, Franklin tackles contentious issues, such as the dilution of privacy and intellectual property rights, the impact of the current technology on government and governance, the shift from consumer capitalism to investment capitalism, and the influence of the Internet upon the craft of writing.
In four new chapters, Franklin tackles contentious issues, such as the dilution of privacy and intellectual property rights, the impact of the current technology on government and governance, the shift from consumer capitalism to investment capitalism, and the influence of the Internet upon the craft of writing.
210 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1990
50 people are currently reading
1558 people want to read
About the author
Ursula Martius Franklin
5 books14 followersUrsula Martius Franklin was a German-Canadian metallurgist, research physicist, author, and educator who taught at the University of Toronto for more than 40 years. She was the author of The Real World of Technology, which is based on her 1989 Massey Lectures; The Ursula Franklin Reader: Pacifism as a Map, a collection of her papers, interviews, and talks; and Ursula Franklin Speaks: Thoughts and Afterthoughts, containing 22 of her speeches and five interviews between 1986 and 2012. Franklin was a practising Quaker and actively worked on behalf of pacifist and feminist causes. She wrote and spoke extensively about the futility of war and the connection between peace and social justice. Franklin received numerous honours and awards, including the Governor General's Award in Commemoration of the Persons Case for promoting the equality of girls and women in Canada and the Pearson Medal of Peace for her work in advancing human rights. In 2012, she was inducted into the Canadian Science and Engineering Hall of Fame. A Toronto high school, Ursula Franklin Academy, has been named in her honour.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 51 reviews
February 1, 2015
Every person even remotely responsible for public policy (from the municipal to the international level) should read and learn from this.
"To give just one general example of unmet needs: The field of accountancy and bookkeeping is in urgent need of redemptive technologies. In order to make socially responsible decisions, a community requires three sets of books. One is the customary dollars-and-cents book, but with a clear and discernable column for money saved. The second book relates to people and social impacts. It catalogues the human and community gains and losses as faithfully as the ongoing financial gains and losses documented in the first book. In the third book, environmental accounting is recorded. This is the place to give detailed accounts of the gains and losses in the health and viability of nature, as well as the of the built environment."
"To give just one general example of unmet needs: The field of accountancy and bookkeeping is in urgent need of redemptive technologies. In order to make socially responsible decisions, a community requires three sets of books. One is the customary dollars-and-cents book, but with a clear and discernable column for money saved. The second book relates to people and social impacts. It catalogues the human and community gains and losses as faithfully as the ongoing financial gains and losses documented in the first book. In the third book, environmental accounting is recorded. This is the place to give detailed accounts of the gains and losses in the health and viability of nature, as well as the of the built environment."
October 23, 2021
My sociology teacher was a bitch but i am so glad she recommended this book to me. Really outs a lot of things in perspective with respect to technology and it’s impact. A very insightful read.
May 3, 2021
Soft spoken, very Canadian, and wonderfully insightful historical perspective on the social role of technology made by an experimental physicist, a politically active pacifist, and a feminist.
Professor Franklin brings to bear her particular combination of allegiences and expertise to provide a completely unique take on technology that is both complimentary to and quite distict from the likes of EF Schumacher, Lewis Mumford, Ivan Illich, and Jacques Ellul. She has quite a lot of interesting things to say about the relation between women and technology, between war and technological development, and ultimately on the fact that only a radical transformation of valuesat the ethical level will ensure that we live in a society able to put technology in the service of people rather than the other way around.
She begins by distinguishing between prescriptive (those which people are controlled by the production/consumption process, performing fragmentary tasks in assembly line fashion) and holistic (those in which people control the production/comsumption process in an integral fashion) technologies, noting that historically the former have increasingly tended to predominate over the latter. The rest of the book comprises of an excellent analysis of the implications of this distinction.
She lays a great stress on reciprocity in human relations and the way development based on prescriptive technologies militates against this. The situationists, in their critique of the society of the spectacle, of urbanism and bureaucratisation, placed a similar emphasis on the ability of ordinary people to create the situations in which they lived in terms of the real material, sensuous world around them, as the basis by which humans become creators of their own history in general:
´It is necessary to transcend the barriers that technology puts up against reciprocity and human contact. One of the reasons why I dwelt so much on non-communications technologies and on the concept of reciprocity is that one has to realize just how technology makes it very difficult for people to talk to each other. People rarely work together on regular, non-technologically interrupted projects. Because of this we have to make the time to create the occasion — be it on the bus, or in the waiting room — to talk to each other not about the weather, but about our “common future.“
How do we speak to each other? Here much can be learned from the women’s movement — from the way women got together to talk about their status, about the oppression of women historically, politically, and economically. Let us begin with a principled stand and develop a fresh sense of justice.
When, on the basis of principled objections, an established social practice has become less and less acceptable, then, and maybe only then, will alternatives be found. From then on tasks that need to be done will be carried out differently and by more acceptable means.
I firmly believe that when we find certain aspects of the real world of technology objectionable we should explore our objections in terms of principle, in terms of justice, fairness, and equality. It may be well to express concerns as questions of principle rather than to try to emphasize merely pragmatic explanations — for instance, that objectionable practices may also be inefficient, inappropriate, or polluting.The emphasis on a pragmatic rationale for choice tends to hide the value judgements involved in particular technological stances.
Today the values of technology have so permeated the public mind that all too frequently what is efficient is seen as the right thing to do. Conversely, when something is perceived to be wrong, it tends to be critiqued in practical terms as being inefficient or counterproductive (a significant term in its own right). The public discourse I am urging here needs to break away from the technological mindset to focus on justice, fairness, and equality in the global sense. Once technological practices are questioned on a principled basis and, if necessary, rejected on that level, new practical ways of doing what needs to be done will evolve.´
It is important to note that justice is not necessarily the only or even the most significant value by which technology is to be assessed. Women´s dissatisfaction in post-war affluent countries stemmed not merely from a sense of injustice but from a deep sense of anxiety concerning the basic meaning of their lives, an anxiety most clearly elucidated by Nietzsche as the crux of the crisis of modern man. The mastery over the world by modern man has led in no sense to mastery over himself, and is directed towards trivial and destructive ends. That technology plays a central role in this mastery is obvious, that the central fault of the role it plays is a question of injustice is far less obvious. The transvaluation of all values that Nietzsche advocates, which the Situationists took up in their way, and which the global rebellion in late 20th century capitalism, of which second-wave feminism was one aspect, expressed, embodied a deeper revolt than simple questions of equality and justice, throwing into question the very purpose of efficiency, mastery and life itself, that are ultimately existential and as such "beyond good and evil".
Professor Franklin brings to bear her particular combination of allegiences and expertise to provide a completely unique take on technology that is both complimentary to and quite distict from the likes of EF Schumacher, Lewis Mumford, Ivan Illich, and Jacques Ellul. She has quite a lot of interesting things to say about the relation between women and technology, between war and technological development, and ultimately on the fact that only a radical transformation of valuesat the ethical level will ensure that we live in a society able to put technology in the service of people rather than the other way around.
She begins by distinguishing between prescriptive (those which people are controlled by the production/consumption process, performing fragmentary tasks in assembly line fashion) and holistic (those in which people control the production/comsumption process in an integral fashion) technologies, noting that historically the former have increasingly tended to predominate over the latter. The rest of the book comprises of an excellent analysis of the implications of this distinction.
She lays a great stress on reciprocity in human relations and the way development based on prescriptive technologies militates against this. The situationists, in their critique of the society of the spectacle, of urbanism and bureaucratisation, placed a similar emphasis on the ability of ordinary people to create the situations in which they lived in terms of the real material, sensuous world around them, as the basis by which humans become creators of their own history in general:
´It is necessary to transcend the barriers that technology puts up against reciprocity and human contact. One of the reasons why I dwelt so much on non-communications technologies and on the concept of reciprocity is that one has to realize just how technology makes it very difficult for people to talk to each other. People rarely work together on regular, non-technologically interrupted projects. Because of this we have to make the time to create the occasion — be it on the bus, or in the waiting room — to talk to each other not about the weather, but about our “common future.“
How do we speak to each other? Here much can be learned from the women’s movement — from the way women got together to talk about their status, about the oppression of women historically, politically, and economically. Let us begin with a principled stand and develop a fresh sense of justice.
When, on the basis of principled objections, an established social practice has become less and less acceptable, then, and maybe only then, will alternatives be found. From then on tasks that need to be done will be carried out differently and by more acceptable means.
I firmly believe that when we find certain aspects of the real world of technology objectionable we should explore our objections in terms of principle, in terms of justice, fairness, and equality. It may be well to express concerns as questions of principle rather than to try to emphasize merely pragmatic explanations — for instance, that objectionable practices may also be inefficient, inappropriate, or polluting.The emphasis on a pragmatic rationale for choice tends to hide the value judgements involved in particular technological stances.
Today the values of technology have so permeated the public mind that all too frequently what is efficient is seen as the right thing to do. Conversely, when something is perceived to be wrong, it tends to be critiqued in practical terms as being inefficient or counterproductive (a significant term in its own right). The public discourse I am urging here needs to break away from the technological mindset to focus on justice, fairness, and equality in the global sense. Once technological practices are questioned on a principled basis and, if necessary, rejected on that level, new practical ways of doing what needs to be done will evolve.´
It is important to note that justice is not necessarily the only or even the most significant value by which technology is to be assessed. Women´s dissatisfaction in post-war affluent countries stemmed not merely from a sense of injustice but from a deep sense of anxiety concerning the basic meaning of their lives, an anxiety most clearly elucidated by Nietzsche as the crux of the crisis of modern man. The mastery over the world by modern man has led in no sense to mastery over himself, and is directed towards trivial and destructive ends. That technology plays a central role in this mastery is obvious, that the central fault of the role it plays is a question of injustice is far less obvious. The transvaluation of all values that Nietzsche advocates, which the Situationists took up in their way, and which the global rebellion in late 20th century capitalism, of which second-wave feminism was one aspect, expressed, embodied a deeper revolt than simple questions of equality and justice, throwing into question the very purpose of efficiency, mastery and life itself, that are ultimately existential and as such "beyond good and evil".
November 8, 2016
Ursula Franklin provides an important 'alternative reality' voice to the dominance of what she calls 'technology' today. Even more impressive that the book was written nearly 30 years ago.
Unfortunately, her book only looks at one side of the coin. On the opposite end of any sweatshop laborer are potentially hundreds of people clothed. It doesn't exactly work like that, but it's hard to make the case that the sewing machine has caused more harm than good by 'enslaving sweatshop laborers.' She is a thinker, not an economist, and her writing evokes more of the philosophical treaties of the 1950s than a practical guide to change.
She highlights in her book the need to consider the environment, the changing social norms (in particular the lack of 'reciprocity' that technology enables). She envisions solutions that don't keep us captive. However, she never does more than rally against these developments.
Technology and human society works in permutations and increments on what is currently there. Zipcar was seen as a social revolution in car sharing, but they failed to realize the ultimate 'car sharing' would be Uber, with a decidedly less 'egalitarian' bent towards its riders and drivers.
Good technologies inspire awe and then become entrenched in our daily lives because of that awe, not because of some insidious corporate agenda. Here's what Ursula misses: our desires drive our 'enslavement' (via habit) to our machines. We want to do spreadsheets faster and easier, so we rely on our computer and take care of it--not because of some lurking, unthinking presence, but because of our needs and desires.
It is useful to question the needs, but invariably email provides more communication than memos and meetings; Facebook and Slack provide more communication still, with generally positive effects (though we'll have to have a more nuanced view there).
The economy does not play favorites - it's in many ways a race to the bottom. The reason we don't have telephone operators anymore (another example) is basic cost benefit. There's no doubt having a human touch on the telephone line made it more 'human' and allowed a richer interaction. However, not having telephone operators allowed many more people to afford more minutes on the phone - creating more bridges, saving more lives, etc. She doesn't argue that the costs outweigh the benefits, only that we don't accurately measure or choose the costs.
She talks about 'telephone dating' (you could say the same about Tinder) in terms of swiping profiles and sending messages without seeing the other's reaction. But here again, while I agree that it changes the character of dating, it merely leverages human behavior. We aren't 'slaves' to this technology as much as willing participants.
Her most extravagant claim comes 2/3rds of the way of the book where she suggests government is 'nothing but a bunch of managers, who run the country to make it safe for technology.' A kind of overstatement that undercuts tens of thousands of people who serve their communities (and themselves, to be fair) everyday.
She ultimately proposes a 7 step checklist for any project
1) Does it promote justice?
2) Does it restore reciprocity?
3) Does it confer benefits to all or to some?
4) Does it favor people over machines?
5) Does it maximize gain or minimize disaster?
6) Does it favor conservation over waste?
7) Does it favor the 'reversible' over the 'irreversible'?
In the end it's interesting because intellectually she seems to understand: "The world of technology is the sum total of what people do." There's the key.
Unfortunately, her book only looks at one side of the coin. On the opposite end of any sweatshop laborer are potentially hundreds of people clothed. It doesn't exactly work like that, but it's hard to make the case that the sewing machine has caused more harm than good by 'enslaving sweatshop laborers.' She is a thinker, not an economist, and her writing evokes more of the philosophical treaties of the 1950s than a practical guide to change.
She highlights in her book the need to consider the environment, the changing social norms (in particular the lack of 'reciprocity' that technology enables). She envisions solutions that don't keep us captive. However, she never does more than rally against these developments.
Technology and human society works in permutations and increments on what is currently there. Zipcar was seen as a social revolution in car sharing, but they failed to realize the ultimate 'car sharing' would be Uber, with a decidedly less 'egalitarian' bent towards its riders and drivers.
Good technologies inspire awe and then become entrenched in our daily lives because of that awe, not because of some insidious corporate agenda. Here's what Ursula misses: our desires drive our 'enslavement' (via habit) to our machines. We want to do spreadsheets faster and easier, so we rely on our computer and take care of it--not because of some lurking, unthinking presence, but because of our needs and desires.
It is useful to question the needs, but invariably email provides more communication than memos and meetings; Facebook and Slack provide more communication still, with generally positive effects (though we'll have to have a more nuanced view there).
The economy does not play favorites - it's in many ways a race to the bottom. The reason we don't have telephone operators anymore (another example) is basic cost benefit. There's no doubt having a human touch on the telephone line made it more 'human' and allowed a richer interaction. However, not having telephone operators allowed many more people to afford more minutes on the phone - creating more bridges, saving more lives, etc. She doesn't argue that the costs outweigh the benefits, only that we don't accurately measure or choose the costs.
She talks about 'telephone dating' (you could say the same about Tinder) in terms of swiping profiles and sending messages without seeing the other's reaction. But here again, while I agree that it changes the character of dating, it merely leverages human behavior. We aren't 'slaves' to this technology as much as willing participants.
Her most extravagant claim comes 2/3rds of the way of the book where she suggests government is 'nothing but a bunch of managers, who run the country to make it safe for technology.' A kind of overstatement that undercuts tens of thousands of people who serve their communities (and themselves, to be fair) everyday.
She ultimately proposes a 7 step checklist for any project
1) Does it promote justice?
2) Does it restore reciprocity?
3) Does it confer benefits to all or to some?
4) Does it favor people over machines?
5) Does it maximize gain or minimize disaster?
6) Does it favor conservation over waste?
7) Does it favor the 'reversible' over the 'irreversible'?
In the end it's interesting because intellectually she seems to understand: "The world of technology is the sum total of what people do." There's the key.
May 17, 2017
This is a rather gentle introduction to a staggeringly anti-establishment and humanist way of thinking about technology, expanding our understanding beyond "the sum of its artifacts" to "a system ...involv[ing] organization, procedures, symbols, new words, equations, and most of all, a mindset. ...it includes activities as well as a body of knowledge, structures as well as the act of structuring" that have cultural, social, and political implications for concepts such as privacy, freedom, power, control, war, and justice.
Franklin is not against technology; she is against not thinking critically about technology (against not thinking critically in general), and this book (mostly based on lectures delivered in the late-80s) is a master class in doing just that. It is excessively relevant despite being 30 years on. Franklin is cautionary but in more of a "be alert to" than "consider yourself warned" kind of way. In other words, she is advocating for us to be vigilant users of technology, providing essential frames of understanding and equipping us with language and values that clarify its objectives and consequences, or rather those expected by its creators and zealots, and to basically just not settle for being unassuming and unquestioning end-users.
After reading this, do yourself a favor and research this fascinating woman's life. Listen to her give the actual lectures. Ursula Franklin has gifted us with a classic of the field. She is someone who endlessly rewards the serious and curious among us. Hers was a towering intellect and she is a towering figure in the history of public intellectuals who deserves to be much better known.
Franklin is not against technology; she is against not thinking critically about technology (against not thinking critically in general), and this book (mostly based on lectures delivered in the late-80s) is a master class in doing just that. It is excessively relevant despite being 30 years on. Franklin is cautionary but in more of a "be alert to" than "consider yourself warned" kind of way. In other words, she is advocating for us to be vigilant users of technology, providing essential frames of understanding and equipping us with language and values that clarify its objectives and consequences, or rather those expected by its creators and zealots, and to basically just not settle for being unassuming and unquestioning end-users.
After reading this, do yourself a favor and research this fascinating woman's life. Listen to her give the actual lectures. Ursula Franklin has gifted us with a classic of the field. She is someone who endlessly rewards the serious and curious among us. Hers was a towering intellect and she is a towering figure in the history of public intellectuals who deserves to be much better known.
November 27, 2013
وحشیترین و نگفتنیترین تصوراتم از تکنولوژی و شهوت به اون رو از زبان ِ نویسنده و با متانت و دقت ِ یک محقق در این کتاب خوندم.
September 6, 2020
She excuses herself for not trying to be a philosoper yet she spins up grand categorizations like vernacular reality or extended reality. I couldn't shake up the fact she sounded like an amateur blogger who is so desperate to sound smart.
This is rather a criticism for modern pop-humanity people. It's extremely under researched. Franklin, please do some homework. If you want to make a granular narrative about technology, don't act as if you are an outside observer merely touching its bare surface. Instead, at least try to understand how the technology works or what kind of thoughts had been put forward by inventors/implementors (who're usually much more thoughtful and deeper than her shallow "impression").
My last point is my personal claim. Overall she seems to suggest the corporations/technologists to carry more responsibility in questioning the implication. That may be true. Some technology implementations could bring catastrophe. BUT, much more she has a responsibility to understand how technology works at least one or two steps underneath the surface. Our 12 year education system has a long period of humanity. But how often do we learn about how the internet works or water runs underground the city in the history class? There's a minimum due diligence in each of us to understand those surrounding environments. This book is a revolt of the fearful who have grown up in their bubbles.
If you want to open the eyes and try to understand what technology is really, the recommendations are what Technology Wants by Kevin Kelly and The Shock of the Old by David Engerton. The latter is rather anti technology, but he actually studied various implications as a technology historian.
This is rather a criticism for modern pop-humanity people. It's extremely under researched. Franklin, please do some homework. If you want to make a granular narrative about technology, don't act as if you are an outside observer merely touching its bare surface. Instead, at least try to understand how the technology works or what kind of thoughts had been put forward by inventors/implementors (who're usually much more thoughtful and deeper than her shallow "impression").
My last point is my personal claim. Overall she seems to suggest the corporations/technologists to carry more responsibility in questioning the implication. That may be true. Some technology implementations could bring catastrophe. BUT, much more she has a responsibility to understand how technology works at least one or two steps underneath the surface. Our 12 year education system has a long period of humanity. But how often do we learn about how the internet works or water runs underground the city in the history class? There's a minimum due diligence in each of us to understand those surrounding environments. This book is a revolt of the fearful who have grown up in their bubbles.
If you want to open the eyes and try to understand what technology is really, the recommendations are what Technology Wants by Kevin Kelly and The Shock of the Old by David Engerton. The latter is rather anti technology, but he actually studied various implications as a technology historian.
October 20, 2018
3.5/5.
This book reminded me a lot of Neil Postman's "Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology," which also came out in the early 1990s. Many of the remarks and warnings that Ursula Franklin makes I had already read in Postman's book, but this was still a good book. I appreciate that Franklin often focused specifically on the Canadian scenario, using Canadian examples to illustrate her point. With technology becoming so much a part of fabric of our everyday lives, I appreciate Franklin's cautions about how it can affect us NEGATIVELY and the simple, but profound, observations she makes (e.g. that technology has helped humans overcome constraints in time and space).
This book reminded me a lot of Neil Postman's "Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology," which also came out in the early 1990s. Many of the remarks and warnings that Ursula Franklin makes I had already read in Postman's book, but this was still a good book. I appreciate that Franklin often focused specifically on the Canadian scenario, using Canadian examples to illustrate her point. With technology becoming so much a part of fabric of our everyday lives, I appreciate Franklin's cautions about how it can affect us NEGATIVELY and the simple, but profound, observations she makes (e.g. that technology has helped humans overcome constraints in time and space).
August 29, 2020
An incredibly lucid and accessible argument for creating community and human centred technology. As relevant now as it was when it was originally published in 1989.
June 24, 2023
perfect Baby’s First Book for those who are looking to read their first book
July 13, 2025
I came across this book in the iconic MacLeod’s books, Vancouver. For theory it was so fun and easy to read, perhaps as it was originally recorded as a series of lectures. My favourite point was the way she distinguished between holistic and prescriptive technologies in their relationship to labour, and the influence of the latter in creating a society accustomed to being controlled. I found her advocacy for listening to the experiences of the everyday users of technology rather than experts indebted to both the Marxist and Feminist traditions.
May 18, 2020
When I feel very lonely in the world, there's a few little clips on youtube of Ursula Franklin that I turn to. Her voice, raspy and German and carefully pronounced with all the intent of a scientist, is the sound of a friend's love.
This person was one of those souls you hope sticks around after death to prevent global catastrophe. If we'd listened to this Ursula (and also the more science fiction Ursula), we'd be living in a brighter world than we now inhabit.
This person was one of those souls you hope sticks around after death to prevent global catastrophe. If we'd listened to this Ursula (and also the more science fiction Ursula), we'd be living in a brighter world than we now inhabit.
July 18, 2021
A very interesting read which - despite having been published in 1989 - still resonates a lot with the tech-driven reality most of us live in today. Very dense and insightful yet accessible. This book should be a mandatory read for any policy maker in charge of protecting the public interest from corporate greed.
April 7, 2019
This book, especially the first six chapters delivered in lecture in 1989 is simply prophetic. Ursula Franklin's synthesis continues to resonate.
July 25, 2023
The book brims with intriguing analyses and insights, many of which remain persistent today. Among these insights is the distinction between holistic and prescriptive technologies, as well as the realization that technological production isn't solely about output, but also involves control – of workers, workflows, and technology-related environments.
The author delves into how communication technology creates pseudo-realities, influencing our perception of the actual reality. For example, the alteration of videos by news and television networks can manipulate our psyche, or when models post photoshopped images of themselves that can affect our self-esteem. She further discusses the one-way nature of traditional communication technology, such as news, television, and radio. This aspect, however, seems less applicable to newer technologies like social media and the internet.
A key point she emphasizes is the necessity for caution around the excitement of new technology. She cites the sewing machine as an example, originally expected to liberate women by providing a quicker, more efficient tool, replacing hand sewing. Instead, it ended up being used for mass production in factories, leading to low wages, long hours, and poor working conditions for many women. Thus, the sewing machine became more of a curse than a liberator.
In the last four chapters, she discusses new technologies, specifically the internet, predicting it will disrupt how people connect to time and space. She proposes that this will result in individuals being less grounded in reality, with an altered connection to nature, creating a sense of displacement. She fears that transitioning work and education to the internet will disturb our routines and potentially impact our social skills, as these are primary spaces for human interaction.
Here's my analysis:
1. The book's most commendable aspect is the author's thought process. Her deep analyses and insights are eye-opening.
2. The author seems to emphasize the negatives of prescriptive technology, neglecting its benefits. Yes, factory jobs with long hours can be monotonous, but we must consider the historical context. Before the Industrial Revolution, famine was rampant. For many in developing nations, factory jobs are a step up. Similarly, while some women ended up working in factory-like sewing settings, many were liberated from the tediousness of hand sewing.
3. Her advocacy for holistic technologies appears idealistic and impractical for the average person. It suits talented individuals who can handle a project's entire cycle, but how many can realistically start a watchmaking business from scratch?
4. She expresses anxiety about new technologies, such as the internet, disrupting traditional ways, which is ironic. Isn't the newfound control over time and place - away from fixed workplace hours - what she criticized older technologies for restricting?
5. She tends to demonize technology, forgetting that it is ultimately people who use and decide on its applications. Even when exploited, people have the capacity to use technology to resist such exploitation. It seems like an ongoing human conflict, just dressed in new clothes.
All in all, while she offers valuable insights, readers must remain critical, as she may compel you to view things from her perspective, which may not always align with your own beliefs.
The author delves into how communication technology creates pseudo-realities, influencing our perception of the actual reality. For example, the alteration of videos by news and television networks can manipulate our psyche, or when models post photoshopped images of themselves that can affect our self-esteem. She further discusses the one-way nature of traditional communication technology, such as news, television, and radio. This aspect, however, seems less applicable to newer technologies like social media and the internet.
A key point she emphasizes is the necessity for caution around the excitement of new technology. She cites the sewing machine as an example, originally expected to liberate women by providing a quicker, more efficient tool, replacing hand sewing. Instead, it ended up being used for mass production in factories, leading to low wages, long hours, and poor working conditions for many women. Thus, the sewing machine became more of a curse than a liberator.
In the last four chapters, she discusses new technologies, specifically the internet, predicting it will disrupt how people connect to time and space. She proposes that this will result in individuals being less grounded in reality, with an altered connection to nature, creating a sense of displacement. She fears that transitioning work and education to the internet will disturb our routines and potentially impact our social skills, as these are primary spaces for human interaction.
Here's my analysis:
1. The book's most commendable aspect is the author's thought process. Her deep analyses and insights are eye-opening.
2. The author seems to emphasize the negatives of prescriptive technology, neglecting its benefits. Yes, factory jobs with long hours can be monotonous, but we must consider the historical context. Before the Industrial Revolution, famine was rampant. For many in developing nations, factory jobs are a step up. Similarly, while some women ended up working in factory-like sewing settings, many were liberated from the tediousness of hand sewing.
3. Her advocacy for holistic technologies appears idealistic and impractical for the average person. It suits talented individuals who can handle a project's entire cycle, but how many can realistically start a watchmaking business from scratch?
4. She expresses anxiety about new technologies, such as the internet, disrupting traditional ways, which is ironic. Isn't the newfound control over time and place - away from fixed workplace hours - what she criticized older technologies for restricting?
5. She tends to demonize technology, forgetting that it is ultimately people who use and decide on its applications. Even when exploited, people have the capacity to use technology to resist such exploitation. It seems like an ongoing human conflict, just dressed in new clothes.
All in all, while she offers valuable insights, readers must remain critical, as she may compel you to view things from her perspective, which may not always align with your own beliefs.
August 3, 2018
The problem of technology is that we don't see technology (ies) as problematic anymore than we see
any other tool such as a screwdriver or pliers as being a problem. We know how much of a time sink technology can be for children and adults. While technology can do things for us to make work easier, or calculation both easier and more accurate, or iterative thinking easier, it has been shown that it can and does let us go thoughtless and creationless (?) while using it to pass the time or to collect myriads of banal photos or personal entries or minimal or any significance.
She says the technological imperative (i.e. what technology commands of us) is that if technology can be used it will be used.
If there were no enemy (ies) we would not need our army or military structure. We spend so much developing weapons whose only use is for war that if we diverted this to science, or health, or conveniences even we could make the world a nicer place rather than more intimidating or ominous.
instead of a war tax how about a peace tax fund from which to improve our lives.
Technology brings about for people a lack of control, a lack of skill (not needed as technology does it, e.g. 3d construction of models, guns, etc.), and a lack of autonomy as we must serve the technology rather than it serving us.
Tools structure our responses by its programmed needs . Technology is subject to viruses but it can not get pregnant so less down time.
Technology does not acknowledge that nature exists.
Technology amounts to external control of us we are slaves (as we respond) to our tech toys.
There are non communicative technologies.
So now our government has a role in making society safe for technology
Technology has a hand in stealing from the commons and from the future with waster of human resources and other resources.
Leaves question of whether or how much people matter or are they just in the way of technology.
We should continue to ask with technology and of technology who benefits from its machinations and who pays an unexpected or undue cost.
We need to have some concern for the demands of ignorance in using technology and set up, for technology, three books -- lst a book of dollars and cents (costs in money, lost jobs, etc.) 2nd. a book of what happens to people with the technology and 3d ecology book or what does technology do to or for nature.
government can turn into an instrument to advance technology, to make the world safe for technology and we must consider whether tech is just and fair to people.
any other tool such as a screwdriver or pliers as being a problem. We know how much of a time sink technology can be for children and adults. While technology can do things for us to make work easier, or calculation both easier and more accurate, or iterative thinking easier, it has been shown that it can and does let us go thoughtless and creationless (?) while using it to pass the time or to collect myriads of banal photos or personal entries or minimal or any significance.
She says the technological imperative (i.e. what technology commands of us) is that if technology can be used it will be used.
If there were no enemy (ies) we would not need our army or military structure. We spend so much developing weapons whose only use is for war that if we diverted this to science, or health, or conveniences even we could make the world a nicer place rather than more intimidating or ominous.
instead of a war tax how about a peace tax fund from which to improve our lives.
Technology brings about for people a lack of control, a lack of skill (not needed as technology does it, e.g. 3d construction of models, guns, etc.), and a lack of autonomy as we must serve the technology rather than it serving us.
Tools structure our responses by its programmed needs . Technology is subject to viruses but it can not get pregnant so less down time.
Technology does not acknowledge that nature exists.
Technology amounts to external control of us we are slaves (as we respond) to our tech toys.
There are non communicative technologies.
So now our government has a role in making society safe for technology
Technology has a hand in stealing from the commons and from the future with waster of human resources and other resources.
Leaves question of whether or how much people matter or are they just in the way of technology.
We should continue to ask with technology and of technology who benefits from its machinations and who pays an unexpected or undue cost.
We need to have some concern for the demands of ignorance in using technology and set up, for technology, three books -- lst a book of dollars and cents (costs in money, lost jobs, etc.) 2nd. a book of what happens to people with the technology and 3d ecology book or what does technology do to or for nature.
government can turn into an instrument to advance technology, to make the world safe for technology and we must consider whether tech is just and fair to people.
December 25, 2024
The last chapter or 2 were good reads, because they summarize everything she had been saying previously with less ramblings.
There are many debatable questions in this book:
1. Are we enslaved by technology?
2. Is it possible to balance technology use in our lives? How so?
3. Should governments intervene in regulating technology use more often?
4. Should everyone (including the poor) care about nature or the environment if exploiting it benefits them and society at large financially?
And probably the larger looming question of
6. What is the alternative economic system to the current one, and how do you go about implementing it?
The last question is probably the most important, as it seems that justifications for technological progress hinges on economic development and reaping the benefits. As a result, it's a good thought-provoking book that questions the status-quo, but the alternative reality presented is not seriously discussed. I believe the fundamental solution the author and many others strive for is a change in ethics and morality, one where economic and technological growth is not necessarily a positive force. For such an ethical view to gain support, evidence of life improvements for the many is not on the author's side (at least short-term, if we consider the last 150 years as short-term). Therefore, the author takes a more conservative approach by appealing to what could be lost, which sounds great for wealthy, stable, and highly educated people. I wonder what a less affluent society might think? I wonder what wealthy people might think if that means losing significant part of their convenient lifestyle?
There are many debatable questions in this book:
1. Are we enslaved by technology?
2. Is it possible to balance technology use in our lives? How so?
3. Should governments intervene in regulating technology use more often?
4. Should everyone (including the poor) care about nature or the environment if exploiting it benefits them and society at large financially?
And probably the larger looming question of
6. What is the alternative economic system to the current one, and how do you go about implementing it?
The last question is probably the most important, as it seems that justifications for technological progress hinges on economic development and reaping the benefits. As a result, it's a good thought-provoking book that questions the status-quo, but the alternative reality presented is not seriously discussed. I believe the fundamental solution the author and many others strive for is a change in ethics and morality, one where economic and technological growth is not necessarily a positive force. For such an ethical view to gain support, evidence of life improvements for the many is not on the author's side (at least short-term, if we consider the last 150 years as short-term). Therefore, the author takes a more conservative approach by appealing to what could be lost, which sounds great for wealthy, stable, and highly educated people. I wonder what a less affluent society might think? I wonder what wealthy people might think if that means losing significant part of their convenient lifestyle?
May 17, 2019
Franklin's lectures synthesize a variety of critiques levied by the humanities and social sciences against a cultural value system that equates "technological progress" with "the good." Her summary is concise, well organized, and useful for reviewing these ideas.
However, I found her notion of "the real world of technology" - which is foundational to her analysis - promising in concept but hazy and ill-defined in use.
Having said that, I think this book's great value is twofold. First, Franklin shows lucidly the extent to which technologies transform social relationships, which serves to emphasize the importance of a critical examination of the role technology plays in our lives. Second, she she argues persuasively for a participatory model of technological development.
If technology is to serve human (and not technological) ends, then its designers must listen to the humans we call "end users" and strive to understand their contexts.
However, I found her notion of "the real world of technology" - which is foundational to her analysis - promising in concept but hazy and ill-defined in use.
Having said that, I think this book's great value is twofold. First, Franklin shows lucidly the extent to which technologies transform social relationships, which serves to emphasize the importance of a critical examination of the role technology plays in our lives. Second, she she argues persuasively for a participatory model of technological development.
If technology is to serve human (and not technological) ends, then its designers must listen to the humans we call "end users" and strive to understand their contexts.
July 6, 2021
I enjoyed this book a great deal. Franklin provides a rundown of 20th century technology and its effects on society, while paying particular attention to its potentially negative transformational aspects. A lot of media and technology study from this period tends to underfocus on the human cost and potential dangers of technology, so I really appreciated where she was coming from. The four new lectures at the end didn't quite sit as well; they felt less focused, and brief. (They were certainly shorter than the others.) I think a great deal of that is a problem on my end, that if I had read the lectures more back to back, I'd have gotten more out of them. They're really one of those works that rewards repeat reading, and I look forward to going through them again someday.
October 12, 2025
7/10
“You could do a conference call in 1890.”
Franklin wants more to give the lay of the land than a blueprint for its redesign.
For that, read Christopher Alexander.
The author is also a liberal, framing everything in terms of justice. Why not freedom?
“Should one not ask of any public project or loan whether it:
(1) promotes justice;
(2) restores reciprocity;
(3) confers divisible or indivisible benefits;
(4) favors people over machines;
(5) whether its strategy maximizes gain or minimizes disaster;
(6) whether conservation is favoured over waste; and
(7), whether the reversible is favoured over the irreversible?”
“You could do a conference call in 1890.”
Franklin wants more to give the lay of the land than a blueprint for its redesign.
For that, read Christopher Alexander.
The author is also a liberal, framing everything in terms of justice. Why not freedom?
“Should one not ask of any public project or loan whether it:
(1) promotes justice;
(2) restores reciprocity;
(3) confers divisible or indivisible benefits;
(4) favors people over machines;
(5) whether its strategy maximizes gain or minimizes disaster;
(6) whether conservation is favoured over waste; and
(7), whether the reversible is favoured over the irreversible?”
September 15, 2022
Impressive set of lectures on the societal implications of technology - broadly, from ancient metalworking to sewing machines to electrification to military industrial arms - from a feminist pacifist horizontalist perspective. Franklin highlights ways in which technical choices obscure moving from holistically artisan to hierarchical control, from biological growth and uncertainty to manufacturing's obliviousness to context, and the false claims of liberation or ease from the introduction of new tech which turns to exploitation and makes us dependent on industrial supply and control.
January 10, 2018
If you work in technology, and don’t know much about the humanities (which describes, like me, most people I’ve met in IT), you will find this to be an excellent, insightful read.
Although I must say that the original 6 chapters are better than the 4 that were added later; they feel a bit tacked-on.
Although I must say that the original 6 chapters are better than the 4 that were added later; they feel a bit tacked-on.
March 31, 2021
This was pretty good. Not mind blowing as I had already encountered most of her ideas through a variety of other people. But, outside of possibly Neil Postman, Ursula Franklin is probably the clearest writer on the problem of technology in society that I have read. I could easily recommend her to others.
January 20, 2019
This Massey Lecture series by one of the world's foremost feminist and pacifist scientists changed my thinking about the profound impact technology has in politics, culture, the workplace and personal relationships.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 24, 2022
A dense but succinct analysis of how technology, broadly defined, has transformed our lives and societies (in mostly negative ways) along with a little on what we need to be aware of and do in order to find a better balance and build a better future for all.
Read
November 25, 2024Pretty glaringly dated in many ways, but it's still interesting to see someone thinking about the social implications of modern technology in politics and society at an earlier time! I think I prefer Bruno Latour's reflections on the subject, though.
April 18, 2021
extremely dense, incredibly rich. bears rereading many times.
February 4, 2023
Ursula, ¡¡ole!!
April 9, 2024
ursula m franklin ur words are simply too beautiful and prophetic
October 11, 2025
wish there were more stars to give
Displaying 1 - 30 of 51 reviews