badania naukowe - Wyższa Szkoła Umiejętności w Kielcach

badania naukowe - Wyższa Szkoła Umiejętności w Kielcach

BADANIA NAUKOWE
ACADEMIC RESEARCH
Vol. 25, No. 2, 2010
ISSN 1641-8557
www.wsu.kielce.pl
© 2010 Wyższa Szkoła Umiejętności im. Stanisława Staszica w Kielcach
Stanislaw Staszic University of Arts and Sciences
Prawa autorskie zastrzeżone • All rights reserved. Drukowano w Polsce • Printed in Poland
TECHNO-SCIENCE AS A NEW PARADIGM
OF THINKING ABOUT REALITY.
THE ROLE OF CONTEMPORARY
KNOWLEDGE IN ORGANIZATION
Paweł BERNAT
INTRODUCTION
The world has changed. This very poetic statement is certainly a truism that was
rather obvious for our ancestors. However, if we think of this change in
a qualitative sense, this graceful sentence becomes truly profound. In ancient and
pre-modern times life did not, as it seems, change very frequently. It was mainly
determined by nature and a variety of social circumstances. Technological
development, then, was very slow if existent. Real technological revolutions
happened only much later and, even then, relatively seldom. For example, it took
many centuries for humankind to exchange tools made of stone with those made of
metal, oarsmen with sails, and so on. The pace of technological development in the
last two centuries, however, has been constant in its acceleration. In the 20th
century, humankind was already able to transform matter into energy. And
moreover, what is equally significant, man’s natural environment began to change
and lose its natural character. Being surrounded by more and more technical
devices became “natural”1; this is what constitutes the familiar and ordinary
environment of the present-day man. One may risk the metaphorical statement that
technology has supplanted its nature. But, how metaphorical is this claim really? It
seems that with time this statement is becoming less and less metaphorical and
more and more real.
The main aim of this paper is to analyze contemporary scientific knowledge that
has the strongest influence on the world, i.e., so called techno-science. This new
paradigm entirely redefines not only organizations and economies but it is also
a new framework, new environment for humans and their actions. On that account,
1
I refer here, of course, to the contemporary man of the “West”.
20
Paweł Bernat
there is a brief depiction of modern form of technology and its philosophy to be
found in the first parts of the paper, which is followed by introduction of the
techno-science phenomenon. The further elucidation of technology consists of the
discussion regarding its neutrality and autonomy and proper examination of
technology as superstructure, the various usages of the word, and new human
environment that, as it shall be argued is nowadays more cultural (technology
determined) than natural. The article is concluded with a section that in a direct
way addresses how this new technology-based environment (techno-science)
translates into new qualities for organization.
Organization, in this paper, is being considered in its very general and
abstractive sense following the definition proposed by Kotarbiński, namely, as such
a cooperation of the parts that contributes to the success of the whole2. This broad
definition covers both social and economic, less or more institutionalized
assemblies, associations and structures.
1. TECHNOLOGY AND ITS PHILOSOPHY
Technology reveals itself as a complex phenomenon. The definition, or rather
the elucidation of this phenomenon should consist of three basic elements. Namely,
(1) technology must have some concrete component, some material element, in
order that it may be considered technology; (2) it must also contain some set of
praxes – uses – the components of which humans can make of; and finally (3) there
must exist a relation between the technologies and the humans who use, design,
make or modify the technologies3.
Let us consider how for example archery, which was independently developed
at many points in history and in different parts of the globe, fulfills these three
conditions. For, we have an artifact (1), i.e., a bow and arrows, which was used as
a weapon (2), and was deeply culturally embedded (3) – the Anglo-Saxon bow
differs in size and the way of shooting from the one used by certain tribes in jungle.
The latter used a pinch technique to fire the arrow while the Anglo-Saxons
longbow was fired by a four-finger bowstring pull. In other words, one can see the
same technology differently embedded, but the praxes, which extended human
capacities, are instantiated in each cultural variant4.
It is also very important to understand the difference between technology and
any calculative and rational technique, which may be (though not necessarily)
improved by the application of a technology. My technique of swimming the
dolphin style might get better when I see a recording of myself swimming and
analyze it frame-by-frame.
2
See: T. Kotarbiński, Traktat o dobrej robocie, Wrocław – Warszawa 1958.
D. Ihde, Philosophy of Technology. An Introduction, Paragon House, New York 1993, s. 47.
4
Ibidem, s. 50.
3
Techno-Science as a New Paradigm of Thinking About Reality
21
Philosophy of technology is one of the most recent of the sub-specializations in
philosophy. In spite of the fact that the philosophy of technology as such appears in
the works of Heidegger and Dewey at the beginning of 20th century, the 1970s and
1980s have seen a virtual explosion of philosophical works on technology, which
have exclusively dealt with the nature of technology and its effects on human life
and society5.
However, as Peter Kroes writes, the philosophy of technology as a coherent field
of research does not yet exist6. It is generally stated that the philosophy of technology
deals with the nature of technology and its effects on human life and society:
the subject [of philosophy of technology] covers studies from almost every
branch of thinking in philosophy and deals with a great variety of topics
because of a lack of consensus about the primary meaning of the term
‘technology’, which may, among others, refer to a collection to artifacts,
a form of human action, a form of knowledge or a social process7.
And it is probably due to precisely this generality that its (philosophy of
technology) parameters have not been set and recognized, as of yet.
On a metaphysical level, the essence of technology is examined, whereas, the
social philosophy focuses on the relations between technology and social,
economic and political structures. Finally, there are broad ethical studies
concerning technologies, especially the new ones, which create new moral
problems.
2. TECHNO-SCIENCE
Nowadays, the term techno-science is used to describe laboratory science, in
which experimentation constitutes the main method8. This notion was introduced to
show the fact that modern technology and science have merged to such a degree
that even the demarcation between them has become problematic. Modern
technology is science-based and modern science, technology-based.
In general, the problem of the relationship between science and technology is
crucial for both the philosophy of science and the philosophy of technology. The
most influential model for this “science – technology relation” is the technologyas-applied-science model that considers technological knowledge to be a derivative
kind of scientific knowledge9.
5
D. Ihde, Instrumental Realism. The Interface between Philosophy of Science and
Philosophy of Technology, Indiana Univ. Press, Bloomington 1991, s. 4-6.
6
P. Kroes, Philosophy of Technology, w: Rutledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward
Craig, Rutledge, London 1998, Vol. 9, s. 284.
7
Ibidem, s. 284.
8
D. Ihde, Instrumental Realism, s. 128-129.
9
P. Kroes, Philosophy of Technology, s. 286.
22
Paweł Bernat
However, this approach is not free of difficulties. It is historically inadequate
since it makes technological progress wholly dependent on scientific development.
Moreover, it is also highly problematic from a cognitive point of view because it
assumes that there is a logically deductible path from scientific knowledge to
technological designs10.
The alternative for the technology-as-applied-science model is an understanding
of technological knowledge as prescriptive that consists of procedures, which
describe what actions have to be performed in order to achieve practical ends.
According to this interpretation, technology is a knowledge that deals with the
design and production of artifacts11.
3. INSTRUMENTAL VS. SUBSTANTIVE THEORIES OF TECHNOLOGY
There are several established theories of technology, although, these fall into
two major types, i.e., Instrumental and Substantive Theory. The former treats
technology as subservient to the respective values established in other social
spheres (e.g., politics or culture), while the latter attributes an autonomous cultural
force to technology that overrides all traditional or competing values. The
Substantive Theory claims that “what the very employment of technology does to
humanity and nature is more consequential than its ostensible goals”12.
Instrumental Theory offers the most widely accepted view of technology. It is
based on the commonsense idea that technologies are “tools” which stand ready to
serve the purposes of their users. Technology is deemed “neutral”, without
valuative content of its own. The neutrality stands for technology being pure
instrumentality that as such is indifferent to the variety of ends it can be employed
to achieve. A hammer is a hammer, a steam turbine is a steam turbine, and such
tools are useful and are being used, although, they stand essentially under the norm
of efficiency in any and every context. That means that other more efficient tools
will replace them the moment these will appear.
Despite the commonsense appeal of the Instrumental Theory, a minority view
denies the neutrality of technology. The Substantive Theory, best known through
the writings of Jacques Ellul13 and Martin Heidegger, argues that technology
constitutes a new cultural system that restructures the entire social world.
Heidegger claims that technology is overtaking us; we are engaged in the
10
Ibidem, s. 286.
Ibidem, s. 286.
12
A. Feenberg, Transforming Technology. A Critical Theory Revised, Oxford Univ. Press:
Oxford 2002, s. 5.
13
See: J. Ellul, The ‘Autonomy’ of the Technological Phenomenon, w: Philosophy of
Technology. The Technological Condition. An Anthology, Ed. R.C. Scharff and V. Dusek,
Blackwell, Malden, MA 2003, s. 386-97; and J. Ellul, The Technological Society,
Vintage Books, New York 1964.
11
Techno-Science as a New Paradigm of Thinking About Reality
23
transformation of the entire world, ourselves included, into “standing reserves”,
raw materials to be mobilized in technical process14.
4. THE ELUCIDATION OF “TECHNOLOGY”
Heidegger’s theory of technology, although very insightful, does not exhaust all
the features of the phenomena. Now, I shall try to elucidate technology the way it
is understood nowadays. I share the opinion of Arnold Gehlen who claims that in
order to reach the fruitful analysis of technology one needs to work with its general
definition. Gehlen writes:
It is evident, then, that just as one cannot precisely define “art,” it is
difficult to determine exactly what “technology” is, especially when one
includes organic surgical interventions of a medical-therapeutic sort – not
to mention the fairly predictable effects of attempts at mental
manipulation, in which one cannot always clearly distinguish between
advertisement, propaganda, and education. It is therefore necessary to
stick with a rather general definition, and above all to keep in mind that
this concept includes still others15.
Heidegger characterizes technology as a means to an end. This definition,
however broad, does not cover all of usages of the name “technology,” however,
– in time it has become to narrow a definition16. For nowadays, the most common
usage of this word is to denote artifacts17. Thus, if one wants to stay attached to the
“real,” they must either reject, or develop the definition further.
4.1. Technology as a Superstructure
Moreover, the traditional idea of technology that with regard to their effects one
deals with applied natural science does not seem to be correct. This definition does
not take into account the interaction between the various components of the
superstructure. This superstructure consists of four factors the coexistence of which
constitutes, according to Gehlen, the primary difference between our culture and all
previous cultures18. These components may be characterized by the fact that
(1) every particular technology is related to the natural sciences, but also (2) to
14
M. Heidegger, The Question Concerning Technology, Harper and Raw, New York 1977,
s. 17.
15
A. Gehlen, A Philosophical-Anthropological Perspective on Technology, “Philosophy of
Technology”, s. 213-220.
16
It must be stated that all these linguistic divagations concerning understanding of
“technology” refer and are limited only to English language.
17
S.J. Kline, What is Technology, “Philosophy of Technology”, s. 210-212.
18
A. Gehlen, A Philosophical-Anthropological Perspective, s. 213-220.
24
Paweł Bernat
industrial machine production; then, (3) that these first two spheres are bound
together by a complicated relationship of mutual influences. These three realms,
closely linked with (4) the entire sphere of information can be seen as forming the
“superstructure”19. The traditional definition does not truly recognize contemporary
science as it is, i.e., techno-science. The sequence of technological changes,
approached historically, has led to this qualitative change in the science-technology
relation and, consequently, in our thinking of it. Nowadays, any progress in the
natural sciences depends on technology, on devices for sensing and measuring, as
well as the entire sphere of technical practice within the special world of the
various types of apparatuses. Technology cannot be understood anymore as
a certain superstructure built on science, but it forms one big unity together with
science. This cooperation between natural science and technology is clearly seen in
almost every physics experiment today. The scientists must come up with and
design non-existing equipment to produce observable natural processes, which will
confirm or falsify the hypothesis in question. For instance, in 2007 or 2008, the
Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at Europe’s CERN in Geneva, will begin to search
for new particles. Physicists hoped that his collider would help lead to the
discovery of important “exotic” particles, like Higg’s boson and “supersymmetric
partners” of known already particles20. In this case, like in many others today,
machines which stand in the service of the natural sciences do not produce goods,
but phenomena. The project of LHC cannot be exclusively numbered neither
among scientific, nor technological achievements, but falls into the category of
techno-scientific accomplishments.
4.2. The Meanings of “Technology”
The best way, it seems, to deal properly with the definition of technology, is to
report the most common usages of the word. In contemporary English, there exist
four common usages of “technology”: socio-technical system of manufacture,
methodology (technique), artifacts, and a socio-technical system of use21.
The first most common usage of “technology” is the process of manufacturing
hardware, i.e. artifacts. This usage generally refers to the manufacturing
equipment and the people who operate it. Moreover, besides the machines and
people handling them, this first usage of technology also includes what Stephen
Kline calls a socio-technical system of manufacture22: the ‘complete system for
manufacturing,’ planes, motorbikes, telescopes, etc., for instance. Thus, this usage
covers all the elements required to produce a particular piece of hardware; it refers
19
Ibidem, s. 214.
Ch. Seife, Next Linear Collider. Physicists Pick a Cold Road for Accelerator Project,
“Science”, vol. 305, 27 August 2004. s. 1223.
21
S.J. Kline, What is Technology, s. 210-212.
22
S J. Kline, What is Technology, s. 210.
20
Techno-Science as a New Paradigm of Thinking About Reality
25
to the complete working system: its inputs (i.e. people, machinery, resources,
processes), but also its legal, economic, political and physical environment.
A second usage of “technology” is the range denoted by words like “technique”,
“methodology”, or “know-how”. In other words, this usage is employed to
designate knowledge within a socio-technical system of manufacture. This
meaning may be a source of much significant confusion when one tries to make
a clear distinction between technology and technique23. However, there is a strong
tendency in common parlance to practice this usage. Very often “technology” is
used to denote methodology for accomplishing any given task, as in, “we have the
technology to do the job”24. In other words, “technology” in this case refers to the
information, skills, processes, and procedures for accomplishing tasks, which are
applied to support the system of manufacture.
The third usage is perhaps the most common one, and denotes artifacts (or
hardware) – manufactured articles, i.e. things made by humans that do not occur
naturally on earth, for instance, bows, heavy suits of armor, quills, type writers,
computers, airplanes, mines, roads, soap, bicycles, and many more. In sum,
“technology” in this sense refers to all kinds of non-natural objects. Engineers
usually call these objects “hardware”, while philosophers and anthropologists
recognize them as “artifacts”25.
The last connotation of “technology” pertains to what we do with the hardware
after producing it; let us call it the “socio-technical system of use.” For example,
due to cars we construct a system of roads, gas stations; we define laws of
ownership and operation, etc., and we use this resulting combined system (i.e., the
cars plus all the rest) to extend our human capacity to move around and transport
ourselves and our possessions26.
23
Such confusion may occur especially in case of translation. For example, Heidegger’s
“Techik” just like Ellul’s “La Technique” is translated into English as “technology”. This
seems to be the reason why some of the usages of the word in English appear to sound
inappropriate for not native speakers. The range of English “technology” is much broader
than German relatively new word “Technologie”. The former actually contains the ranges
of both “Technik” and “Technologie”. This interesting fact demonstrates how important it
is here to elucidate clearly the key terms. On the other hand, it proves that philosophy of
technology as independent domain of knowledge has still long road ahead. For
comparison, let me call again the example of art as similarly indefinable, but as it appears
rather obvious, none of the problems of aesthetics come from lack of inter-linguistic
communication.
24
S.J. Kline, What is technology, s. 211.
25
Ibidem, s. 210.
26
Ibidem, s. 211.
26
Paweł Bernat
4.3. Technology as Human Environment
Almost every newly designed artifact has a specific purpose within the existing
socio-technical system. Every time we introduce new hardware, we change the
system a little, making it faster, more efficient, safer, etc. However, this system is
a system that uses combinations of artifacts and people to accomplish tasks that
humans cannot perform unaided by such systems. In other words, we extend our
capacities and go beyond our natural boundaries by using the hardware. Nowadays,
these systems make up, at least for the Western man, the status of our environment.
Maybe it is not an exaggeration to say:
that the apparatus which we once handled freely have now started to
become part of our biological make-up to such an extent that it looks as if
mankind no longer belongs to a species of mammals, but has instead
turned into some kind of shellfish. If we conjoin this thought with the (…)
view that an instinct-like, unconscious process has propelled the various
epochs of technology, this would lead to an acknowledgement of
Heisenberg’s idea (…) to the effect “technology in fact no longer appears
‘as the product of a conscious effort to enlarge material power, but rather
like biological development of mankind in which the innate structures of
the human organism are transformed in an ever-increasing measure to the
environment of man’” in biological process which is no longer subject to
human control27.
The socio-technical systems are used as well by other beings, e.g., ants, bees,
beavers, etc., but only humans are capable of purposefully make innovations in the
socio-technical systems in order to improve their functioning. However, humans
are themselves part of these systems and are being affected and changed by them.
As it was stated already, technology makes a difference. It strongly influences who
we are and what we become. The socio-technical systems of usage of artifacts turn
out to be our environment that appears at this point to be much more natural than
nature itself, and by responding to this surrounding we have become different from
our ancestors.
5. TECHNO-SCIENCE AS A NEW QUALITY IN ORGANIZATION
Human activity nowadays is bound to technology. Surely, we can think of
situations when a person has no contact whatsoever with artifacts, devices,
products. Those are, however, nothing more but marginal cases or even simply
thought experiments. There are still primitive tribes living on the globe whose
members produce and rely on rather simple artifacts but the majority of world
population is already significantly technology-embedded. Considering the
27
A. Gehlen, A Philosophical-Anthropological Perspective, s. 219-220.
Techno-Science as a New Paradigm of Thinking About Reality
27
representative of our every-day-experience-humanity, however, we are left with
a simple observation of the fact demonstrated above, namely, that contemporary
knowledge in its rich variety of manifestation has become, as Gehlen puts it, our
biological make-up. All-covering techno-science of today that expands its growing
influences even to the spheres not so long ago reserved for the domains of religion
of spirituality has affected all aspects of human activity. Every level and type
organization understood as a cooperation of the parts that contributes to the success
of the whole, i.e., social groups, governments, states, schools, civil and economic
institutions, nongovernmental organizations, etc. have changed drastically during
last couple of decades. To point at just a few example, we observe enormous
alteration when it comes to ways we communicate. It is not merely the massively
increased availability of out potential interlocutor on the account of mobile phones
but also the phenomenon of conveying the message within 160 characters have
changed the ways we not only think but how interact within the organizations we
are part of. These changes refer to our thinking about privacy, thinking about
ourselves, thinking in general28.
The argument for the change in organization due to the progress of technoscience is really simple here. As it has been demonstrated the contemporary
knowledge with the new world of artifacts, devices, smart buildings, computers,
clothes, things has changed human environment. What used to be the domain of
nature has become the kingdom of techno-science, our ways of life and thinking
have evolved along, and that, in a significant way contributed to the way we
organize and think about organization.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Ellul J., The ‘Autonomy’ of the Technological Phenomenon, w: Philosophy of
Technology. The Technological Condition. An Anthology, Ed. R.C. Scharff and
V. Dusek, Blackwell, Malden, MA 2003.
2. Ellul J., The Technological Society, Vintage Books, New York 1964.
3. Feenberg A., Transforming Technology. A Critical Theory Revised, Oxford Univ.
Press, Oxford 2002.
4. Gehlen A., A Philosophical-Anthropological Perspective on Technology, w:
Philosophy of Technology. The Technological Condition. An Anthology, Ed. R.C.
Scharff and V. Dusek, Blackwell, Malden, MA 2003.
5. Heidegger M., The Question Concerning Technology. The Question Concerning
Technology and Other Essays, Ed. W. Lovitt, Harper and Row, New York 1977.
6. Ihde D., Instrumental Realism. The Interface between Philosophy of Science and
Philosophy of Technology, Indiana Univ. Press, Bloomington 1991.
28
See: Sh. Turkle, How Computers Change the Way We Think, “The Chronicle Review”,
30.01.2004.
28
Paweł Bernat
7. Ihde D., Philosophy of Technology. An Introduction, Paragon House, New York
1993.
8. Kline S.J., What is Technology, w: Philosophy of Technology. The Technological
Condition. An Anthology, Ed. R.C. Scharff and V. Dusek, Blackwell, Malden, MA.
2003.
9. Kotarbiński T., Traktat o dobrej robocie, Wrocław – Warszawa, 1958.
10. Kroes P., Philosophy of Technology, Rutledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Ed.
Edward Craig. 10 vols., Rutledge, London 1998.
11. Seife Ch., Next Linear Collider. Physicists Pick a Cold Road for Accelerator
Project, “Science” vol. 305, 27 August 2004.
12. Turkle Sh., How Computers Change the Way We Think, “The Chronicle Review”
30.01.2004.
WIEDZA TECHNICZNO-NAUKOWA JAKO NOWY
PARADYGMAT MYŚLENIA O ŚWIECIE.
ROLA WSPÓŁCZESNEJ WIEDZY
W KSZTAŁTOWANIU ORGANIZACJI
STRESZCZENIE
Celem niniejszego artykułu jest analiza współczesnej wiedzy techniczno-naukowej
pod kątem wpływu, jaki wywiera ona na świat. W tym sensie wiedza technicznonaukowa stała się nie tylko paradygmatem całkowicie przedefiniującym organizacje
czy gospodarki, ale także nowym środowiskiem człowieka.
Argumentacja zawarta w tekście rozpoczyna się dyskusją, czym są technika
i technologia z perspektywy fenomenologii. Filozofia techniki/technologii jako
dziedzina refleksyjna jest niezwykłe młoda i sięga lat 70. ubiegłego wieku, a sama
technika – jej przedmiot – okazuje się strukturą niezwykle złożoną. Istnieje wiele
perspektyw wyjaśniania tego fenomenu, a co za tym idzie – wiele opisów, czym jest
technika, w jaki sposób funkcjonuje w świecie, jaki ma wpływ na człowieka.
Po pierwsze, niemożliwy jest już rozdział wiedzy praktycznej od techniki.
Współczesna nauka opiera się na wiedzy techniczno-naukowej, a ta opiera się na nauce
na zasadzie cybernetycznego sprzężenia zwrotnego. Co więcej, wiedza technicznonaukowa ma także coraz większy wpływ na dotąd czysto teoretyczne dziedziny
wiedzy. Przykładów jest wiele. Neurobiologia zmieniła nasze przekonania odnośnie
umysłu, determinizmu, a nawet moralności; współczesna fizyka czy astronomia nie
byłaby możliwa bez zaawansowanych aparatów pomiarowych, takich jak np.
akceleratory cząsteczek, interferometry, mikroskopy elektronowe.
Współczesna wiedza techniczno-naukowa, obejmując wszystkie praktyczne
dziedziny życia człowieka, doprowadziła do zrodzenia się nowych pytań o neutralność
techniki. Tradycyjne ujęcie techniki – a raczej wpółuświadomione założenie, że
technologie to nic innego, tylko neutralne narzędzia – ze względu na rozwój wiedzy
naukowo-technicznej oraz jej ciągłą ekspansję w sferze ludzkiej działalności, stało się
Techno-Science as a New Paradigm of Thinking About Reality
29
nieadekwatne. Instrumentalna teoria techniki została więc zastąpiona substantywną,
która przekonuje, że techno-nauka stwarza nowy system kulturowy. System ten
zmienia całą rzeczywistość społeczną człowieka, wliczając naturalnie organizację.
Artykuł ten pośrednio bada rolę współczesnej wiedzy techniczno-naukowej
w kształtowaniu organizacji. Analiza ta nie odnosi się do poszczególnych organizacji,
lecz opiera się na bardzo ogólnej i abstrakcyjnej definicji organizacji, sformułowanej
przez Tadeusza Kotarbińskiego w Traktacie o dobrej robocie jako takie współdziałanie
części, które przyczynia się do powodzenia całości. Pod tę definicję podpada zarówno
organizacja życia społecznego, jak i ekonomicznego, w różnych stopniach
zinstytucjonalizowania.
Zmiany w organizacji, będące skutkiem rozwoju oraz ekspansji współczesnej
techniki, nie są zmianami peryferyjnymi, lecz – ogólnej struktury, kontekstu, podstaw
organizacji. Technika bowiem rozwinęła się w rodzaj superstruktury, obejmującej
cztery główne czynniki, których współistnienie determinuje różnice między naszą
kulturą a kulturami poprzednimi. Są to następujące fakty: (1) każda technologia jest
powiązana z naukami przyrodniczymi, ale także (2) z produkcją przemysłową, a te
dwie sfery (3) wiążą ze sobą skomplikowane relacje wzajemnych interakcji; te trzy
dziedziny są ściśle zintegrowane ze (4) sferą informacji.
Ta superstruktura, otaczająca nas i przenikająca do wszystkich obszarów naszej
działalności (także tych, które intuicyjnie jawią się jako niezależne od niej, jak np. akty
religijne; jednak również i one odbywają się często dzięki pośrednictwu artefaktów
oraz społecznych systemów ich użycia), staje się nowym środowiskiem istnienia
i działania człowieka. Na środowisku naturalnym nabudowane jest środowisko technonauki z jej materialnymi (artefakty) i niematerialnymi (socjo-techniczne modele
użycia) determinantami. Człowiek jako producent, użytkownik, nośnik informacji jest
częścią superstruktury, a jako jej część podlega zmianom, gdy zmienia się system.
A ten zmienia się nieustannie. Zmieniają się sposoby rozumienia (selektywność
informacji wynikająca z ich nadmiaru, fragmentaryczność itp.), komunikacji (e-mail,
telefoniczne wiadomości tekstowe, tekst informacyjny zastąpiony obrazem
telewizyjnym itp.), postrzegania świata (natura jako Heideggerowskie oczekujące
rezerwy, prymat ilościowego ujęcia rzeczywistości itp.), moralności (zmiana
w hierarchii wartości; uznanie efektywności, precyzji, pracy jako wartości moralnych).
W tym kontekście rola współczesnej wiedzy naukowej – techno-nauki,
w kształtowaniu organizacji jest niebotyczna. Zmiany te bowiem nie dotyczą pewnych
peryferyjnych aspektów, ale całego jej kontekstu, co koniecznie wynika ze zmiany
paradygmatu myślenia o świecie, co z kolei jest wynikiem rozwoju i ekspansji technonauki jako superstruktury.
30
Paweł Bernat