The task of defining technology has had an unhappy history. It seems that agreement about what technology is—and even if a definition should be sought at all—has not been reached. This article argues that a definition is possible and should be sought. The etymology of the word technology suggests that it has long had a socio-technical meaning and, furthermore, Foucault’s definition of four types of technologies suggests a framework in which a socio-technical definition of technology can be usefully detailed. In this case the definition helps to provide a broad and deeply contextual understanding of what technology is (in its tangible and intangible forms), the processes which it influences and the processes which influence it.

PAGES
399 – 407
DOI
All content is freely available without charge to users or their institutions. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission of the publisher or the author. Articles published in the journal are distributed under a http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Issues
Also in this issue:
-
Agnes Horvath, Magic and the Will to Science: A Political Anthropology of Liminal Technicality
-
Gibson Burrell, Ronald Hartz, David Harvie, Geoff Lightfoot, Simon Lilley and Friends, Shaping for Mediocrity: The Cancellation of Critical Thinking at our Universities
-
Bas de Boer, How Scientific Instruments Speak: Postphenomenology and Technological Mediations in Neuroscientific Practice
-
Bjørn Lomborg, False Alarm
-
How does innovation arise in the bicycle sector? The users’ role and their betrayal in the case of the ‘gravel bike’
A Contextualising, Socio-technical Definition of Technology: Learning from Ancient Greece and Foucault
PAPERS