1. WHAT IS IT?

1.1. What is technorealism?
Technorealism is an attempt to assess the social and political implications of technologies so that we might all have more control over the shape of our future. The heart of the technorealist approach involves a continuous critical examination of how technologies -- whether cutting-edge or mundane -- might help or hinder us in the struggle to improve the quality of our personal lives, our communities, and our economic, social, and political structures.

1.2. Is it a whole new philosophy of technology?
Though the name and organizing conceit are new, technorealism is not a new intellectual discipline. Many individuals, past and present, have asked the same questions we are asking and done the type of work that we hope to do. We're offering technorealism as a convenient lens through which to focus this ongoing investigation into the intersection of technology and humanity. In doing so, we are trying foster a shift in contemporary dialogue -- away from utopian/dystopian extremes, away from cyber-libertarian fantasies, and towards a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the role technologies play in society.

1.3. How does technorealism differ from other critical responses to technology?
The realist approach stands in stark contrast to the more extreme responses -- the reactionary dismissal, the visionary proclamation, the blase acceptance -- some of which can make for entertaining reading but also can amount to reckless social policy. Visionaries have an important and honorable place in the discussion of technology, to be sure, but their dreams can be dangerous if interpreted as blueprints for the future. Aspirations of what technology *can be* must be counterbalanced by more realistic considerations of what they really are.

1.4. Isn't much of this "nuanced understanding" just plain common sense?
We'd like to think so. It is our belief that there is a silent majority out there that finds the reductionist "Are you a technophile or technophobe?" approach to technology inconsistent with its experience and beliefs. As we wrote in the Overview, "even as the debate over technology has been dominated by the louder voices at the extremes, a new, more balanced consensus has quietly taken shape. This document seeks to articulate some of the shared beliefs behind that consensus ...."

That said, technorealism includes many ideas that are far from universally accepted. In the weeks following the launch of technorealism, there was a spirited debate about some of our claims -- for example, that technologies are political, or that high-tech standards are too important to be left up to markets alone, or that the traditional balance between copyright and fair use should be retained in a digital world.

1.5. Is technorealism a type of "techno-centrism?"
The idea of balance is crucial to technorealism -- balance between competing values such as innovation and tradition, individualism and community, freedom and responsibility -- but that doesn't always translate into centrism. There are two ways in which technorealism could be fairly characterized as "the middle ground" of technology criticism. Technorealism is a centrist approach when it comes to (A) considering how people respond to technology (between techno-utopianism and techno-luddism), and (B) how to manage technology's relationship between the market and the state (between libertarians and interventionists).

But when it comes to the questions of (C) whether technology encourages certain social conditions, and (D) whether technology is of great social importance, technorealism is far from a centrist position. We believe that all tools are imbued with certain political potentials, and we disagree with and those who think technology is neutral, that the politics of technology comes solely from how it is used. Technorealism asserts that we must pay attention as much to design and development as to use, and that therefore technology decisions should be analyzed critically and skeptically in public debate, and, in some instances, should even be subject to democratic scrutiny.

1.6. How come technorealism seems so U.S.-centric when the Internet is a global, borderless medium?
One of the important points we're trying to make about technologies like the Internet is that no matter how revolutionary the technology is, geographical communities and nation-states still matter. Some are hoping that the Internet is the harbinger of a stateless society. We do not share that goal.

At the same time, we don't advocate subjecting the diversity and breadth of the Internet solely to an American viewpoint. We wrote about U.S.-based concerns because that's the country we happen to live in and understand the best. We encourage others to adapt technorealism to their cultures and viewpoints, and are very pleased that some French Canadian journalists have already done so.

top

2. WHERE DID IT COME FROM?

2.1. How did technorealism get started?
The original Overview and Statement of Principles, introduced on March 12, 1998, was a collaboration of twelve technology writers -- David Bennahum, Brooke Shelby Biggs, Paulina Borsook, Marisa Bowe, Simson Garfinkel, Steven Johnson, Douglas Rushkoff, Andrew Shapiro, David Shenk, Steve Silberman, Mark Stahlman and Stefanie Syman -- based on a concept and draft document by Shapiro, Shenk and Johnson.

The March 12 debut included an open invitation for any interested individuals to endorse the technorealism statement. Additionally, we asked people to join a series of discussions, online and off, about the technorealist approach and how it might contribute to our understanding of technology.

2.2. Was there a specific audience in mind?
Primarily, the document was aimed at the general public, which we feel has often been ill-served by extreme and simplistic rhetoric about the significance of new technologies (for example, the combination of boosterism, hype, and doomsday talk surrounding the Internet). To reach this broad public, many of whom are not online, we sent announcements about the launch of technorealism to technology-beat reporters in the mainstream media. (We also participated in a free public forum sponsored by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School on March 19. Transcripts of that forum are available here).

We also wanted to share our approach with as many technology insiders as possible -- writers, technologists, and Net-aficionados -- most of whom already possess a sophisticated understanding of technology and its impact. Accordingly, we sent online notices to technology journalists and prominent online discussion groups. For this group, our hope was that the Overview would serve as a kind of tuning fork, one that would prompt like-minded folks to say, "Yes, this is consistent with my thinking." We thought these people would find it helpful to have a convenient rubric which described their general beliefs about technology. Of course, we also expected that many people would strongly disagree with at least some of the ideas in the document, and that this substantive disagreement would help to propel the debate forward in constructive ways.

top

3. WHAT HAS BEEN THE RESPONSE?

3.1. How was technorealism reported in the media?
The reaction to technorealism has been overwhelming and heartening. Both the mainstream and tech media picked up on technorealism immediately, with coverage ranging from wildly enthusiastic to the curiously hostile (for a fairly complete review of press coverage, go here).

3.2. What about everyone else?
The site was visited tens of thousands of times within the first few weeks, and over a thousand people have added their names to the list of signatories. Supporters came from all over the world and a wide variety of vocations -- journalists, educators, activists, artists, investors, factory workers, ministers, policy-makers and technologists.

Scores of people became intensely involved in the discussion of how to build on what had begun. The original twelve writers were joined most actively by Howard Rheingold, Gary Chapman, Jon Lebkowsky and Mitch Kapor.

top

4. WHAT NOW?

4.1. Is the original Overview static, or will be it updated?
The original document was always seen as a foundation from which we might build out. Over the next few months, we will be both revising and expanding on it with hyper-links to a number of short elaborative essays on specific points.

4.2. Is there a plan for some kind of technorealism journal?
David Shenk is editor of an infrequent email newsletter called TR Update, which alerts people to relevant articles and public events.

To subscribe to TR Update, send an email to [technorealism [at] technorealism.org]. If you have already added your name to our site, you will be automatically subscribed to the mailing list, with an easy way to unsubscribe.

4.3. Isn't there also a book in the works?
At this time, there is not. An unfortunate misunderstanding between one of the technorealists and a journalist started a false rumor about this.

4.4. What about the "Readings" section? Is that still in process?
The plan is to continue to add to the Readings section, and to annotate it so that it could serve as a truly useful resource.

4.5. How do I become a technorealist?
If you've read this far, you probably already are one -- since technorealism is more a state of mind than anything else. But we'd be thrilled to have you add your name to our signatories list if you haven't already done so. You can be an important part of the process simply by spreading the word about this approach, to friends, family, colleagues.

4.6. How do I get more involved?
Contact information for the founders can be found here.

top

http://www.technorealism.org

overview | faq | signup | journal | readings