Technology is the combination of various human skills, techniques, tools, and methods employed in the development of goods and services or in the achievement of specific goals, for instance scientific research. In addition, technology includes the application of computers and other associated technology to facilitate business operations and to improve productivity. The development of new technology must be accompanied by an expansion of the knowledge base and by the creation of new industries, for instance the telecommunications industry. This article briefly defines what technology is and then goes on to describe some typical examples of technological developments.
The term technology was first used by German linguist Carl Schatzberg during the First World War. Schatzberg distinguished the term from language use and called it the ‘means of livelihood’, ‘language of the marketplace’, ‘technological principle’ or ‘field of research’. According to Schatzberg, technology can be defined as the combination of different human skills, the expression of those skills in various forms and the making of the use of those forms in order to meet specific needs. Schatzberg also pointed out that technology is a process not a thing, for it can never be ‘taught’ or institutionalized. He therefore contrasted technology with the liberal arts, claiming that technology promotes the accumulation of wealth by the rich and by the powerful, leaving the poor behind and offering him only a pittance.
According to Schatzberg, technology is neither a progressive nor a regressive phenomenon but both progressive and regressive in nature. For him, there is a dialectical relationship between technology and culture, between technology and society, between technology and reality, between technology and creativity, and between technology and power. In his view, technology is not a progressive force, but rather a reabsorbing, disempowering, inhibiting, reactionary force, since it tends to extract value and creativity from the people who use it. According to him, the culture that surrounds technology is the leftovers of the dispossession of human creativity by the technology, since the technology does not homogeneously homogenize the cultures, as the sciences and other liberal disciplines would have us believe.
In his book, The Politics of Technology, J.W. Oberholte maintains that although the leftovers from the dispossession of human creativity are important to our existence, “a new center of power has come to replace the dispossession… through technology.” The term technology, according to Oberholte, is a neologism that signifies anything that appears artificially, a device, a machine, a tool, or a piece of abstract art. The idea of technology, according to Oberholte, is determined by the history of capitalism, because as soon as capitalism disappears, technology will also disappear.
On the other hand, according to J.W. Oberholte, the term technology is not an analytic category at all, but rather a structural category, which he equates with the term culture. Oberholte claims that, in general, there are three major trends in technology: technological change, technological progress, and artistic production. According to Oberholte, art forms are themselves a part of the change in culture, just as music is a part of the change in technology, just as dance is a part of the change in technology. Therefore, he suggests that techne is more than just a vague term, and it is a more specific description of cultural practices and their impact on society more than the history of technology per se.
The difference between Schatzberg’s and Oberholte’s conceptions of technology can be briefly summarized by referring to Schatzberg’s definition of schizosmechanism as a ‘superior art form’ which combines the technical arts and the more practical sciences. By contrast, Oberholte claims that technology is the means to an end, that it serves a practical end in history (and the future), by producing greater social cooperation and by becoming the mediator between science and the masses. This perspective completely contradicts Schatzberg’s definition of schizosmechanism, which he characterizes as a ‘folk belief’. Thus, Schatzberg’s view of techne is more complex and less clear than Oberholtes’, but both are highly relevant to understanding the relationship between techne and culture.