To machines, citizens!

Already author ofAndré Gorz. Work, economy and freedom (Canopé-CRDP2013), Adeline Barbin offers with The democracy of techniques An important work, first title in the collection “ Technologia »Newly created by Hermann editions. Coming from a doctoral work under the direction of Catherine Larrère, the book is distinguished by the clarity of its words and the intelligence of its argument. As Andrew Feenberg sums up in the preface, the philosopher defends the double thesis according to which a democracy of techniques is desirable and possible, against the technocratic ideology of political and scientific elites. Its starting point is that innovations and inventions are oriented by culture and social interests and have an impact on them. Since the technique concerns us all, it is a matter of democracy. This observation requires developing systems promoting discussion and decision -making for the benefit of the whole company. What Barbin undertakes to demonstrate with great rigor.

The contingency of techniques

The philosopher begins by recalling the classic perception of technique as an autonomous phenomenon having its own purpose. This design is experiencing several variants. The first, vitalism, designs technical development on the model of a deterministic biological evolution, techniques that are always more complex by modifying their environment. The second variant, which could be described as anthropocentric, makes the technique the extension of the physical and mental faculties of the human. Arnold Gehlen (2009) popularized a version of this thesis with his theory of “ discharge trend “: Human beings would be more and more painful physical and intellectual tasks. Rejecting technological optimism, other thinkers nevertheless adhere to determinism. This is the case of Jacques Ellul (2012), for whom the technique makes system, the inventions and innovations linked to an inexorable journey, without concern for ethical values. This made Ellul say that technocracy is necessarily totalitarian and that democracy must be a refusal of the technique. The problem of this conception, notes Barbin, is that it ignores the cultural context of technical development, reducing it to the sole search for instrumental efficiency. Following Herbert Marcuse and Philippe Descola, the author stresses that this way of seeing the technique corresponds to a socio-historical and cultural project specific to the modern West, which is not inevitable. Mobilizing the theory of the actor-network (Akrich et al., 2006), it argues the need to think of technical objects as partly contingent social phenomena.

For a technique policy

Since the techniques structure societies, they constitute a political object. Technical systems lead to objective constraints and all techniques are not compatible with any company. This implies that the techniques are carrying values and orientations for action or in other words, that technical standards are still also social standards: the doors of the first metro trains could open up, allowing the bolds to go before stopping ; Domestic washing machines are designed for the needs of a nuclear family ; Designed to be sterile, the seeds GMO must be bought every year … “ The techniques, written Barbin, are thus co -producers of our relationship to the world, they delimit and organize the possible interactions between individuals and what surrounds them, human, living and material environment (P. 92). A strong example is that of the development of machinism to XIX^e century. Through industrialization, develops the author, the worker is not only alienated to his employer, he is also in his production tool, which prints his pace of work. In addition, the complexity of the machine requires specialists for maintenance and repairs. The worker thus becomes a simple operator without room for maneuver. This explains the numerous workers’ initiatives to reclaim production systems. If these attempts were failures, Barbin advances, it is because of an ideology of dominant progress in liberal thought and in Marxism, which makes technical development the necessary path towards well-being and prosperity.

Industrialization being seen as evidence, the only possible political action is to try to overcome pollution, nuisances and other negative effects. In this perspective, democracy is reduced to allowing the greatest number to access consumption. But not to production, equality of consumers, and gradually voters, going hand in hand with a technocracy where power is monopolized by scientific elites, in the name of the neutrality of the technique. To describe this strategy, Barbin borrows from Ulrich Beck (2008) the concept of subpolitics, which designates an implicit policy (and not an absence of policy): innovation and the dissemination of techniques occur below the political sphere, but nevertheless exercise an impact on it.

Have experts and laymen collaborate

After having shown that the technique is dependent on the history of societies and that it exerts a political influence, Barbin explores the existing proposals in matters of democratic supervision of the technique. The best known model, says “ deficit “, Is based on the idea that the public must be informed by experts presenting reality in a neutral manner. Based on the separation between facts and values, and on the dissymmetry of knowing between experts and laymen, this model is fundamentally technocratic. He has given way for a few decades to “ Consultation model ” Or “ public debate “, Who takes care to collect the views of citizens, local committees and other discussion groups. More participative than the previous one, this model, however, maintains the idea of a separation between facts and values, and keeps for the purpose of the acceptability of technical innovations. For example, complying with this logic of public debate, the European Union obliges manufacturers of the food sector to label GMO so that each citizen is enlightened on their consumption choices, but it does not allow you to think about the merits of GMO. However, says Barbin, the challenge of democracy is to “ be able to collectively decide on the type of society to be built (P. 168), which goes far beyond the right to information and consumer protection.

Proposal for a democracy of techniques

To think of a true democracy of techniques, alleys Barbin, it is important to clarify what we mean by “ democracy ». A first way of thinking this is to see a decisions system where everyone has an equal right to express themselves. However, notes the author, democracy is not limited to this procedural aspect. It is also a set of guidelines, such as freedom of opinion, equality of all or the aim of a good life. However, technical systems can promote these values or harm them. They condition social choices, which can increase dependence or on the contrary increase conviviality (term borrowed by the author to Ivan Illich (1990) to express the faculty of a technique to maintain or raise the autonomy of its users and that of other individuals). We are here at the heart of the democratic debate:

The democratic nature of techniques is defined in terms of the possibility for individuals to actively participate in the determination of individual and collective values which must be incorporated or, at least, be allowed. (p. 208)

To do this, it is important that citizens are associated as soon as possible with the technical innovation process. They also have to have their say to scientific research, not to rule on scientific results of course, but to decide the purposes to be aimed, subjects to be tackled and methods to authorize. The proposal may appear extreme to scientists but Barbin advances two arguments of weight. First, she asserts, we do not see why only the scientific community-and in practice a minority of scholars-should fix the priorities of research when the whole society is concerned. Second, scientific research is already the subject of political management, as any researcher has had to complete a funding request. The question is therefore not to submit research to politics but to make management more democratic. Citizens, assures the author, should be able to participate (1) in the formulation of research policies, (2) in the production of scientific knowledge and technical innovations, (3) in the preservation and increase in political power articulated with knowledge and innovations. They should also be able to participate in decisions concerning the control of links between industry and the public authorities, in order to safeguard the common good. A true democracy of techniques does not consist in making innovations desirable or to silence criticisms by more information, concludes Barbin. It is based on a collective choice of values, which involves escaping the alternative between technical progress or nothing: “ The challenge of the democracy of techniques is to organize the articulation of citizenship to these questions, because on their answer depends the autonomy and the capacity of each and the collective to participate in the definition of the conditions of a good life, the justice and the history of a society (P. 238). It is not certain that the lesson is heard of political decision -makers, neither of the scientific community, nor of technological companies. But the demonstration is convincing.