“There's an App for That”: Technical Standards and Commodification by Technological Means [Book Review]
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy and Technology 25 (1):87-103 (2012)
Though the term “commodification” is used broadly, a theory of the processes by which goods become exchangeable and in fact objects of monetized exchange reveals a key site for technological politics. Commodities are goods that are alienable, somewhat rival, generally with low exclusion costs, and that are often consumed in use. Technological advances can affect all of these traits for certain goods, effectively bringing about a process of commodification by technological means. However, in order to function with specific contexts, technologies are designed and manufactured according to technical standards, standards that in turn take on features of what David Grewal ( 2008 ) has called “network power.” As such, standard setting processes become the potential locus for political argument over the legitimacy of a commodification process. Theorists hoping to develop more democratic theories of technological governance should thus recognize the significance of standards and the role they play in either promoting or controlling social relations organized according to the norms of monetized exchange
|Keywords||Technical standards Innovation Political economy Critical theory Networks Animals|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Lawrence Busch & Kyle Whyte (2012). On the Peculiarity of Standards: A Reply to Thompson. Philosophy and Technology 25 (2):243-248.
Merle Jacob (2009). On Commodification and the Governance of Academic Research. Minerva 47 (4):391-405.
Paul Thompson (2007). Theorizing Technological and Institutional Change. Techné 11 (1):19-31.
Peter Fleissner (2006). Commodification, Information, Value and Profit. Poiesis and Praxis 4 (1):39-53.
Asle H. Kiran (2012). Technological Presence: Actuality and Potentiality in Subject Constitution. [REVIEW] Human Studies 35 (1):77-93.
Jeroen de Ridder (2006). The (Alleged) Inherent Normativity of Technological Explanations. Techné 10 (1):79-94.
Adrian Mackenzie (2005). Problematising the Technological: The Object as Event? Social Epistemology 19 (4):381 – 399.
Charles Cambridge (2001). Compassion Versus Competitiveness: An Industrial Relations Perspective on the Impact of Globalization on the Standards of Employee Relations Ethics in the United States. Ethics and Behavior 11 (1):87 – 103.
León Olive (1986). Representación Y Resistencia Al Cambio Científico. Theoria 1 (3):621-640.
Dayna Simpson, Damien Power & Robert Klassen (2012). When One Size Does Not Fit All: A Problem of Fit Rather Than Failure for Voluntary Management Standards. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 110 (1):85-95.
Alan J. Richardson (2008). Due Process and Standard-Setting: An Analysis of Due Process in Three Canadian Accounting and Auditing Standard-Setting Bodies. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 81 (3):679 - 696.
Bryan R. Warnick (2004). Technological Metaphors and Moral Education: The Hacker Ethic and the Computational Experience. Studies in Philosophy and Education 23 (4):265-281.
Philip Brey (2008). The Technological Construction of Social Power. Social Epistemology 22 (1):71 – 95.
Asle H. Kiran & Peter-Paul Verbeek (2010). Trusting Our Selves to Technology. Knowledge, Technology and Policy 23 (3-4):409-427.
Added to index2011-05-11
Total downloads12 ( #104,666 of 1,006,576 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,735 of 1,006,576 )
How can I increase my downloads?