Siinviidatu leidis oma koha peamiselt kahel põhjusel. Esiteks, tehnoloogia käsitluse minuni jõudvates organisatsioonipraktikates, on kohati äärmuseni lihtsustatud. Teiseks, erinumber haarab ja pakub süsteemse ning avara vaate organisatsiooni ja tehnoloogia mõtestamisele ning on väga kasulik kõikidele organisatsioonihuvilistele aga ka uurijatele-tudengitele.
What technology ‘is’, what we understand it to be, seems self-evident. But is it? Etymologically, ‘technology’ connects techne (skill, art, cunning of hand) to logia (study).
Suhe on üsna huvitav:
According to Bruno Latour, however, it is astonishing how little reflection there is on technology as a mode of existence – or mode of organizing, we might say – and the ways its organized inorganic matter mediate organized life. There is, he claims, a ‘singular silence imposed on technologies’ (Latour, 2013, p. 207). How do we manage ‘to miss the strangeness, the ubiquity, and yes, the spirituality of technology (…) its sumptuous opacity?’ (Latour, 2013, p. 210).
… ja väga praktiline:
With the development of information processing technology we have a growing capacity to consider interactions and trade-offs amongst alternatives and consequences; to cumulate our understanding of fragments of the whole problem by embedding these fragments in comprehensive models. (Simon, 1973, p. 277)
Tuleks kasuks siiski eristada:
Technology has no agency, it is the condition of agency, and is as categorically imperative to organization as doubt was to René Descartes’ idea of ‘cogito’, or intent was to Héloïse d’Argenteuil’s idea of ‘love’.
Technology is machination, not machinery: it is the orienting, unifying (yet also fracturing) and conditioning force of mediation by which everyday life is being continually and deliberately handled.
Rather than something contemporary or new (Simpson, Harding, Fleming, Sergi, & Hussenot, 2021), organization has been posthuman all along, ‘theorized and fabricated hybrids of machine and organism’ (Haraway, 2004b, p. 8), or ‘cyborganization’ (Parker & Cooper, 2016). Max Weber, for one, directly related the forces of rationalization and bureaucratization (and thus of disenchantment) to ‘technical and economic conditions of machine production which today determine the lives of all individuals who are born into this mechanism’ (1958, p. 181).
Technological mediation affects how organizational experiences, emotions and moods take shape in ways beyond technical, disembodied and operational understandings.
As has been well attested, certainly since Karl Marx, the relation of technology and organization is invested with power. While we need to follow technological objects and infrastructures, presuming symmetry between human and non-human actors is a pretty piece of fiction. Through organization technology assumes the role of the subject and governs what is proper to the subject.
Drawing upon a heuristic that French sociologist Didier Eribon (2016) recently suggested (itself of course predicated on a long history of reflecting how to reflect critically, and its media-technological conditions), we might say that a technological theory of organization interweaves a principle of determinism and a principle of immanence.
Beyes, T., Chun, W. H. K., Clarke, J., Flyverbom, M., & Holt, R. (2022). Ten Theses on Technology and Organization: Introduction to the Special Issue. Organization Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406221100028