Can Technology Be Evil? Heroes, Villains, and the Banality of Technology (Poster 7)

• In Event: Teaching Villainification in Social Studies: Pedagogies to Deepen Understanding of Social Evils

Abstract

Can technology be evil? Your answer likely depends on how you perceive technology—either as a neutral tool or environmental force.

In the dominant view, technology is a neutral tool that can be used for good or evil. Our opening question is unnecessary because good and evil reside in human decisions. Humans are the toolmakers. People choose when, how, and why to use technologies. If a person does not want to read, drive, or scroll, then they can choose not to. In society, this view is expressed with phrases like Guns don’t kill people, people kill people or If you don’t like social media, delete your accounts. Individuals have autonomy—new technologies just provide options. This is a common refrain of technologists and educational technology educators alike. This view can be characterized as technological instrumentalism.

In the counterview, technology is a force of its own that shapes people and the environment. As John Culkin (1967) said, “we shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us” (p. 70). Thus, answering “can technology be evil?” is vital to human dignity and agency, particularly in the face of rapid technological change. The dominant technologies of a society influence, mold, and nudge people’s beliefs, thinking, and actions, thus reshaping societies, cultures, and values. People do not simply read books and drive cars and scroll social media; they are book people who think linearly, car people who zoom past places to destinations, and social media people who come to value instantaneity and even outrage. Technology sets the stage for possible human actions and likely directions. Many technology critics believe people, including teachers, may not always see the direction technology is driving them. This counterview is rare in schools and society apart from niche academic areas within media or technology studies. This view is called technological determinism.

In this presentation, we argue that the dominant, instrumentalist view has resulted in a thoughtlessness about technology in schools and society that erodes our dignity and agency, and results in what physicist Fritjof Capra (1996) called a “crisis of perception” (p. 4). We therefore extend van Kessel and Crowley’s (2017) concepts of heroification and villainification beyond people to objects of technology. Following Hannah Arendt (1963/2006), we argue that humans are seduced by the banality of technology into a thoughtlessness about how technologies shape ways of thinking and living. When people fail to recognize the force with which technology acts on us, we are deluded by the myth that we have full control over technology. Thus, we advocate for a technoskeptical disposition in schools and society that encourages a thoughtful civics of technology for the common good.

Authors

• Ryan M. Smits, University of North Texas

• Daniel G. Krutka, University of North Texas