interview with andrew feenberg

it was interesting to read what feenberg had to say about user influence on design. as a user, i tend to take for granted that designers/technicians design and create with me in mind. apparently, i tend to be wrong. his anti-deterministic view of technology brings to mind my own thoughts on free will and destiny.

feenberg explains that, often, designers have a pretty narrow view of the functions of the technologies, designing them for one use. users then interpret the new technologies to suit their needs, finding new uses that were never conceived of by the designers. specifically, he says "people who design technologies don't think about human communication in the first instance. They think about other things and communication is added on later under the influence of users." Feenberg gives the example of the Internet's original intended use revolving around information and its evolution into a nexus of communication.

in this way, users contribute to the design of technologies, though it is almost always after the fact.

when feenberg discusses his views on critical theory of technology as a "critique of domination exercised through the organization of technically mediated institutions," he gives the example of broadcasting's allowance for one point-of-view to dominate information dissemination (rupert murdoch is named). he says that broadcasting doesn't allow much room for infiltration of independent voices, but the internet does. this ties into his idea of viewing technology as a "quasi-political institution." when he brings this up he is referring to the feedback loop between user and designer. users' abilities to communicate their needs and the designers' meeting these needs corresponds to the level of democracy found in that technology. when designers fail to meet these needs, users find their own ways to do so, creating "hacks."

he poses the question: "what is going to turn out to be more significant - the momentum of this mass culture of the Internet, or the lobbying and the bribery that corporations will use to get it under control?" i think that we are on the brink of finding out the answer to this question. we're hearing talk of media outlets charging for content, which i think will have major implications as far as the answer to this question. the struggle between free access to information and the ability for organizations who provide this information to survive financially will likely not end anytime soon. users will have to decide whether they want free information that may be of lower quality or if they'd rather pay for high-quality content. this is difficult because it sort of goes against the grain of the beginning of the Internet, when everything was vast and free. it seems the honeymoon is nearly over.