Technology: Myth and Divide
Architectural institutions have long operated within pre-assumed frameworks of technology, often reinforcing regimented boundaries rather than critically examining their embedded conditions. This calls for a necessary re-evaluation of how technology is understood and taught—moving beyond conventional categorizations to explore its deeper philosophical and sociological implications.
At the core of this inquiry is the need to distinguish between the philosophy of science and the philosophy of technology. While the former functions as a meta-theory that interrogates the nature of theoretical constructs, the latter is far more complex, as it is inherently embedded in social life. The way architectural discourse frames technology often overlooks this embeddedness, treating technological knowledge as an isolated domain rather than an evolving sociotechnical construct.
A key issue is the intellectual scaffolding that perpetuates the divide between “high science,” “high technology,” and “low technology.” Technical solutions in rural or indigenous settings are frequently labeled as “low-tech,” despite their sophisticated sociological dimensions. This reductionist view ignores the ways in which technology is shaped by human activities, social structures, and cultural contexts.
Revisiting the conceptual and interdisciplinary tools used to understand technology is crucial. There has been ongoing debate about the ways in which technology and science have been framed within architectural education. This discussion should extend beyond mere technical proficiency and problem-solving to engage with the underlying myths and constructs that shape our understanding of technology itself.
Ultimately, thinking about technology is thinking about the self. It is not just about solving concrete problems but about understanding the relationship between self, society, and technological responses. Since conceptions of society vary across different contexts, technological solutions cannot be reduced to universal classifications—they must be seen as expressions of how societies construct and negotiate their realities.
Myth of Autonomy
The idea that technology develops according to its own internal logic, independent of external social, political, or cultural influences. This belief aligns with technological determinism, which assumes that technological progress is inevitable and self-propelling. It creates an illusion that technology exists in an autonomous realm, where adaptation happens in a neutral, value-free manner.
The assumption that technology is an objective and value-free tool, unaffected by human biases, interests, or social conditions. This view ignores how technology is shaped by and, in turn, reinforces existing power structures and societal values.
The Division
The division of techniques often dictates the way in which technology is integrated within the architectural education. The distinction between traditional techniques and modern technology is often framed as a rupture brought about by the Industrial Revolution. This shift marked the emergence of a new regime of production, where techniques, mechanized production, and social organization became intertwined, fundamentally altering how technology is understood and applied. A key concern is the appropriateness of technology—how technological solutions align with social, economic, and environmental conditions. Instead of imposing a universal technological model, it is crucial to engage with the context-dependent nature of technology, recognizing that its relevance and impact are shaped by the specific realities of place and time.
The Binary: Obsolescence vs Novelty
The argument attempts to dismantles the rigid binary between obsolescence and novelty, showing how modern constructs this distinction rather than technology itself. The idea that older technologies simply disappear ignores their capacity for transformation and reintegration into new contexts.
It is all about how architectural practice and pedagogy engage with technological continuity. Obsolescence is an inherent concept within modernity. It is not merely about the disappearance of old technologies but about the systematic framing of certain technologies as outdated to sustain a cycle of constant renewal and consumption. This is particularly evident in industrial production, where the acceleration of technological change is often driven by economic imperatives rather than genuine functional necessity.
However, older technologies do not simply vanish. They contain ideas, techniques, and knowledge that persist, waiting to be reinterpreted and re-integrated into new contexts. Rather than dying out, they are often re-born in new forms, adapted to contemporary needs and re-imagined within new frameworks of application. This challenges the linear notion of technological progress and calls for a more nuanced understanding of how technological knowledge evolves across time
The text draws inspiration from Prof. Dhurv Raina’s Keynote address. | Image Credit: Manoj Parmar Architects
Leave a comment