The Artefact [II]

Summary

This chapter offers an analysis of the identity of technological artefacts. This is not only important for getting a better view of the character of our technological society but also for deeper insight into the various aspects of the process of designing. The analysis shows that a technological artefact is the product of the forming activity of human beings (foundational function), that it performs a particular duty or has an operation (operational function), and that it functions within a certain context (qualifying function). The qualifying function in particular is of great importance since it guides the process of designing. This chapter also describes the relationship between technological artefacts, modules, parts and materials. The term ‘interlaced structures’ is introduced, since we are dealing with different structures incorporated into one greater entity. Three different relationships can be identified: between technological artefacts, between artefacts and modules and parts, and between parts and materials. Each one of these relationships has its own particular features.

It is important to have an understanding of the many aspects of technology. On the basis of the ‘universal’ analysis in Chapter 4 we have already made some critical remarks about the role of technology in our society (critical function of philosophy) and about the way in which technology should be developed (directional function of philosophy). We have pointed out that the various (latent) functions of technology should be disclosed in a normative way. The idea of disclosure fits in with the thought that human beings are responsible for the development of technology, that technology has to be embedded in society as a whole, and that several groups are involved in its development.

So far we have investigated different phenomena encountered in technological artefacts without paying attention to their specific structure. That is to say, we did 90not probe into the identity of technological artefacts. We all know the difference between, for instance, a drilling machine, a robot, a television, a corkscrew and a pacemaker. We can also easily identify a motor car although they come in various different kinds, sizes and forms. Even when essential parts are missing, like the engine, the steering wheel, the tyres and the seats, we can still see that it is a car. In other words, a technological artefact has a certain identity. An identity that is distinct from that of other artefacts (identity-in-diversity) that is recognisable within a series of products (unity-in-diversity) and that can be denoted in spite of changes (constancy-in-variability). But how can one characterise this identity? We know there is a difference between a seam of iron ore and raw steel. We also sense that there is a difference between an industrial robot and a medical robot. Further we are convinced that a church hall and a courtroom differ substantially from each other. The question is whether we can somehow describe these differences. Can we express the identity of these various artefacts in a satisfactory manner and will that lead to a deeper insight into the requirements we have to set for the process of designing technological artefacts? In this chapter we offer a philosophical analysis of the structure of technological artefacts. ¹