SOCTEC 2Science, Technology and Society 2

Power & Social RelationsST and the Human Person and Communities

TOPIC/THEME: Science, technology and the human person and communities: impacts of science and technology to the human personhood, social institutions and practices and power relations

KEY CONCEPT POINTS FOR UNDERSTANDING:

Power and power relations in societyo Power could be defined as the capacity to do something. A person has power

when s/he can achieve something, and that something could either be bad or good, right or wrong. All persons have potential power, in that all have the capacity to do/achieve something.

o A person can convert potential power into actual power, and this is a function of the context within which such person exists.

o Such context could be characterized by variables within which the person is differentiated and acquires his/her identity. Some of these variables are those in which the person is born into (ascribe), and others are those in which the person become through social processes of learning and achieving (acquired). These variables influence people’s capacity to convert potential power into actual power, and become basis for the emergence of power differentials.

o Class, gender and ethnicity/race are some of these variables. Rich people have more power than the poor; men may posses more power than women; and dominant racial/ethnic groups may posses more power than those who are in the minority.

o People are born to become part of a community and a larger society. Groups exist within these communities and societies. Each group possesses a set of characteristics and interests which are common to each member, but are distinct from other groups. Like individuals, a particular group also possesses power, which is expressed as its capacity to do something. Such power emanates from the nature of its members.

o Individuals and groups in a community or society interact with each other through a complex and intricate web of social power relations. Here, it is always possible that conflict emerge since common grounds are contested. These could come in the form of conflicts emanating from certain forms of entitlements over which individuals and groups compete—such as access to benefits, resources, and privileges. In such situation, some individuals and groups eventually become “winners” and some become “losers.” However, the situation may not always be a zero sum condition wherein conflict producers only “winners” and “losers.” Other individuals and groups may not even be directly involved in the conflict, while others could become free riders, or become passive spectators waiting for collateral benefits that may accrue them.

14

Approaches to the Analysis of Powero Reputational Approach in assessing who has power in a community—basing

assessment on the reputation of the group, as perceived This is a helpful tool, but there is a limitation in the sense that what you

perceive to be the reputation of the group may simply be just a façade. Real power may not be actually possessed by such a group in terms of

their actual ability to achieve certain goals. Reputation could be an externally projected image that may evoke

power, but may not necessarily be a reliable determinant of who has actual capacity and influence.

o Decisional Approach In a situation when different groups and individuals interact, there is

always the possibility that common grounds are being contested. These usually come in the form of entitlements to which individuals and

groups compete—access to benefits and resources, access to privilege. Conflict may eventually ensue.

In this context, power is analyzed as manifested in relations between A and B vis-à-vis a conflicting situation emanating from competition over entitlements.

Power in this approach is analyzed vis-à-vis actors with different preferences.

Unlike the reputational approach, the identification of those who have power can be done by analyzing the conflicts that emerge, the parties involved, and the outcome of such conflict.

Distribution of Powero Pluralist—when power is relatively dispersed within the community or social

collectiveo Elitist—when power is relatively concentrated to a few elite groups within the

community or social collective Dimensions of power

o First Dimension The most visible manifestation of power occurs when A is able to make

B do things that B would not otherwise do. Robert Dahl defined power in this way, wherein the focus is on the outcome of overt conflicts, seen in the winners and losers, and the ability of one to influence the outcomes.

The assumption in this dimension of power is that overt conflict is resolved through a decision making process.

o Second Dimension Another dimension of power is seen in situations when A is capable of

influencing the process in a manner wherein conflict may not even exist. This is attained by creating or reinforcing social and political values and institutional practices which limit the scope of contested issues to those which are safe to A’s interests. This effectively prevents B from contesting the claim of A to such entitlement.

In this dimension of power, A mobilizes structural biases to confine the decision making process to issues in which A holds an advantage, or are advantageous to his/her interests. In this context, B is still aware of his/her interests contrary to A’s, but is prevented from articulating it, or is denied a forum to express it, thereby shutting it out from the decision making process.

15

In both the first and second dimensions of power, conflict still exists. However, in the first dimension, conflict is overt and evident, while in the second, it is covert considering the fact that despite its existence, it is prevented from entering the public agenda for decision-making.

o Third Dimension A third dimension of power exists when A is able to influence the way B

thinks so that the latter no longer consider his/her interests as in conflict with A’s. Here, B’s consciousness is manipulated in a manner contrary to his/her real interests, of which s/he may no longer be aware of.

This dimension of power produces a form of latent conflict, wherein there exists a possible conflict wants or preferences between A and B if B was aware of its interests.

This third dimension of power operates through ideology, and the ideological institutions that attend to it. Ideology is the collection of belief systems that justifies the existence of a certain social arrangement or action. A dominant ideology justifies the present prevailing system, while a counter-ideology justifies the challenges to the prevailing system. Ideologies are manifested in the operations of ideological institutions which shape people’s consciousness. Religion, which is a powerful institution that conditions people’s way of thinking about things, is one of these institutions. Religion can influence people to accept things as they are, in which case they act as a venue for the operation of dominant ideologies to operate. The natural power of religion lies in its capacity to preach humility, acceptance of fate, forgiveness, poverty as a virtue, and the privileging to the male. This serves as a strong influence on people to accept their fate as God-ordained. However, religion could also serve counter-ideological functions, in as much as it could also become a bearer of challenges against the present state of affairs.

There are certain methods for analyzing power relations within households, as well as in communities, such as

o Stakeholder Analysiso Access and control profiling

The details of how these are done are given in Box 1 below.

Box 1.

Stakeholder Analysis

Stakeholders refer to individuals, groups or organizations with an interest in a given action or situation. There are three types of stakeholders:

Primary stakeholders—there are the direct impact recipients, either as direct beneficiaries, or those who will directly bear the costs of negative impacts

Secondary stakeholders—there are third party mediators, and are usually not based in the locality where the action or situation occurs

Key stakeholders—there are either primary or secondary stakeholders whose involvement is significant

16

Key stakeholders could be analyzed for their relative power and social influence. The following are the key steps for using stakeholder analysis in analyzing power:

Identify the stakeholders For each stakeholder, specify their specific interest in the action or situation Identify the primary, secondary and key stakeholders For the key stakeholders, conduct an access and control profiling (discussed below)

o Stakeholders are most powerful if they have access to and control over resources, benefits and burdens, and decision-making

o Stakeholders are less powerful if they only have access to but no control over resources, benefits and burdens, and decision-making

o Stakeholders are least powerful if they do not even have access to resources, benefits and burdens, and decision-making

Another method of stakeholder analysis that could facilitate the analysis of power is through conflict analysis. Stakeholders are most powerful if they are able to determine the mechanisms for conflict resolution and/or if they benefit from the resolution.

o Identify key conflicts that occuro Identify the stakeholders that are involved in the conflicto Identify how the conflict was resolvedo Identify from among the stakeholders the following:

Who determined the means for conflict resolution? Who benefited from the resolution? Who did not?

17

Box 1. Continued

Access and Control Profiling

This is done both at the household and the community levels of analysis.

There are three types of profiles: a) resource access and control, b) decision making profiles, and c) benefits and burdens.

Resource Access and Control Profile—A profile of who has access and control over productive and reproductive resources

o Resource—refer to any material entity that can be used for productive and reproductive activity

Productive resource—a material entity used to generate income for the household or the community

Reproductive resource—a material entity used to conduct household maintenance activities, including the provision of services to the welfare or leisure of its members

o Access and Control to resources Access—the ability of a member to use a resource Control—the ability of a member to control the use, i.e., to decide over

the use, of a resourceo Presented in Tabular form, wherein the main row headings are the resources

(productive, reproductive) while the column headings are the members of the households, or the major stakeholders in a community

Resource Access and Control Profile Template

Resources Household Members or Community Stakeholders

Productive Resources 1. 2. ….Reproductive Resources 1. 2. …

Legend: A = access; C = control

18

Box 1. Continued

Decision Making Profile—A profile of who has access to and control over decision-making in the household or in the community

o Decision-making—involves the process of disposing of issues that require decision; includes decision issues related to:

Productive activity-related issues—issues that involve the generation of income for the household or the community

Reproductive activity-related issues—issues that pertain to the everyday maintenance and welfare of the members; include matters of education, health, and social-psychological welfare of members

Community management-related issues—issues that pertain to the participation in community and societal activities; includes participation in social, cultural and political activities and processes

o Access to and Control of Decision-Making Access—the ability to participate in the process of making a decision on

an issue Control—the ability to have the final authority to decide over an issue

when there is divergence of opinions or in the event of conflict; also includes the ability to exclude/include members in the decision making process

o Presented in Tabular form wherein the main row headings are the decision issues (productive, reproductive, community-management) while the column headings are the members of the households or stakeholders in the community

Decision Making Profile Template

Decision-Making Issues Household Members or Community Stakeholders

Productive Activity Related 1. 2. ….Reproductive Activity Related 1. 2. …Community Management Related 1. 2. …

Legend: A = access; C = control

19

Box 1. Continued

Benefits and Burdens Profile—A profile of who has access to benefits and burdens in the households or in the community

o Benefits and Burdens Benefits are the positive entitlements that a household or community

receive in their participation in productive, reproductive and community management activities

Burdens are the negative factors (risks, obligations and duties) that a household or community incurs or are exposed to in their participation in productive, reproductive and community management activities

o Presented in Tabular form wherein the main row headings are the benefits and burdens while the column headings are the members of the households

Benefits and Burdens Profile Template

Household Members or Community StakeholdersMale

Adult 1Female Adult 1

Child 1 …… Etc.

Benefits 1. 2. ….Burdens 1. 2. …

Science, technology and power relationso A can use science and technology as resources to make B do things against B’s

interests. A’s control of technology could enable A to influence the policy agenda through the first dimension of power.

o In the context of the second dimension of power, A’s control of technology can enable A to manipulate processes or to prevent others from participating in such processes. Examples of this include the use of sophisticated technologies which would effectively bar the participation of other parties who are not used to or familiar with the technology (e.g. computerization which would bar those who do not have computers or are not computer literate), or could prevent others to access vital information which they would need.

o Through the third dimension of power, science and technology can also enable A to manipulate the consciousness of some people through ideological mechanisms. This would influence them to accept the present power arrangements as unproblematic, even if such are against their real interests. Examples of these include technologies of mass communication.

The following box (Box 2) presents detailed discussions of how power relations, in terms

20

of class, gender and cultural relations could be influenced by science and technology. The texts here are drawn from the module on Science, Technology and Society published by the UP Open University, written by Antonio Contreras.

Box 2.

Science, technology and class relations

One of the most fundamental power relations in society exists across classes.

What are social classes? There are two ways to interpret classes. One is to see them in terms of social positions vis-à-vis wealth. Thus we speak of income classes. A variation of this is to see them in terms of power positions in society—that is, as elites and non-elites.

Another way of interpreting social classes is to see them in the context of their role in the mode of production, particularly in terms of their position vis-à-vis the productive process. For example, in capitalism, there are two fundamental classes—the capitalist class and the working class.

How do we see science and technology in the context of class relations?

Definitely, and as applied in both definitions of classes, science and technology are resources that are usually in the hands of the elites or those who control the production process (that is, the capitalists). In fact, the class position of the capitalist is achieved through the ownership of the means of production, which include technology.

The development of capitalism, as a mode of production, depended on technology. And it can now be said that the development of capitalism was not without its victims. Critical theorists such as Horkheimer and Adorno have argued that science and scientific knowledge eventually became part of the system of domination that is inherent in capitalist systems. Science became formal, conformist and instrumental in its support of the interest of the present system, thereby losing its potential for critic and for fostering alternative ideas. Lukacs, another critical theorist, explains this by saying that science is an important ingredient for capitalist development, in that its main ethic is consistent with the requirements of capitalist for control and rationality.

Capitalism was launched through the exploitation of natural resources and, in some cases, through forced occupation of territories and relocation of peoples, particularly those living in regions needed for their resources. These processes have had severe social consequences on the class relations between elites and non-elites, with the former benefiting from the process even as the latter became victims unable fully enjoy the benefits of industrialization. For example, the developments in agricultural technologies (such as machines, chemicals, and biotechnology) led to the growth of agribusiness enterprises and enhanced the production of capital. However, these same developments further drove a wedge between the rich and the poor in the rural areas. Agricultural mechanization and the use of chemicals have only created burdens to poor farmers who cannot afford the costly technologies.

21

Box 2. Continued

In the development of bureaucratic organizations, the use of the scientific management principle espoused by Taylor is an example of the application of scientific theory to control the working class through the mechanisms of monitoring and evaluation. The conveyor belt system of production not only made it easier to monitor workers; it also increased their efficiency.

One of the impacts of technological development on class relations is what Marx termed “alienation” of the working class. This emanates from the loss of control by the working class of the technologies of production. The industrialization process, coupled with science, has considered labor as simply an object and the worker as a factor of production in addition to land and capital.

The mechanization of work brought about by developments in machines as well as in information technology has also had adverse impacts. These include reduction in the natural skills of the labor force, and the emergence of technological unemployment wherein workers are displaced by machines. Furthermore, while the use of machines has increased the productivity necessary to foster capitalist development, it also greatly reduced the level and quality of social interactions among workers in the workplace. Work has become a mechanized, impersonal process.

However, it should also be mentioned that scientific knowledge and technological advances have also created developments that have improved the welfare of workers. The development of technologies in the workplace has created new methods that have reduced the stress that comes with work. Office equipment and gadgets and developments in information technology such as the Internet and e-mail have brought convenience to workers.

In terms of benefits, science and technology have improved the production process and the work environment, increasing the efficiency of the worker and reducing stress in the work environment.

In terms of the negative impacts, the following can be said:

• Agricultural technologies widened the gap between the poor farmers and the rich.• The worker was “alienated” as a result of loss of control technology, which is now in

the hands of the technocratic elites.• Technological unemployment brought about by the displacement of manual labor by

mechanical labor.• Alteration of the social nature of work and its transformation into an impersonal,

mechanical process.

22

Box 2. Continued

Science, technology and gender relations

We now turn to the next domain of power differentiation—that of gender.

Gender relations refer to the relationships between men and women in society.

What is the role of science and technology in gender relations? Has science and technology brought equality between men and women?

Surely, science and technology have in some ways fostered gender equality and promoted the welfare of women.

For example, advances in medical science, particularly in the field of obstetrics and gynecology, have greatly reduced the cases of maternal mortality during pregnancy and childbirth. Medical advances have also increased the capacity of couples, particularly women, to have control over the timing, frequency and possibility of pregnancy. These medical advances include in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination, as well as birth control technologies, in both their natural as well as artificial variants.

There are also technological developments that have fostered equality in the sense that tasks previously dominated by mothers are now made easier and more attractive to fathers, who traditionally shied away from these tasks. For example, developments in the technology for child care, such as disposable diapers, instant baby foods, instant milk formula, and even artificial breasts that contain milk to simulate breastfeeding, make it easier from women and allow men to participate more in child rearing. Also included in this category is the Lamaze method, which allows men to participate more actively in the process of birthing. Furthermore, there are now birth control pills for men.

In the domain of housework, technological advances, such as microwave ovens, washing machines, ready-to-eat foods, and others, have reduced the drudgery of domestic work for women, and has increased the participation of men in performing house chores.

There are also technologies that build the self-confidence of women, and lately, men. These include vanity products and plastic surgery, as well as other technologies in health and recreation. The increasing number of men patronizing these products is evidence of the gender-equalizing effect of these technologies.

23

Box 2. Continued

However, there are also disadvantages, particularly for women and for the cause of gender equality. Feminists who are critical of science and technology point out that science and technology foster a patriarchal system in society, where social relations are structured in such a way that women are subordinate to and controlled by men. The following are the arguments of feminist critics of science and technology.

• Science and technology are masculine disciplines dominated by men. While there are some women in the fields of science (such as Marie Curie and Barbara McClintock), most of the scientists, particularly the ones who are more recognized, are men. In fact, the women who thrive in the field of science eventually adopt a “male” perspective. Also, most of them are scholars (that is, they teach science) in the biological sciences, and very few are in the other fields of science.

• The male domination of science and technology stems from the fact that the scientific ethos thrives on control and rationality. These are “male” attributes. The scientific work ethic subsists on the need to predict, control and dominate nature, propensities associated with the masculine ethic as opposed to the feminine ethic that rests on emotions, feelings, and solidarity.

• Science and technology also become instruments for the objectification of women. Objectification is a process wherein women are seen as objects. Vanity products, for example, affirm the societal bias on women’s appearances and reproduce the view of women as objects of sexual desire.

In the development process, the emergence of agricultural mechanization has also had some adverse impacts on women. In some cases, the entry of machines, most of which are designed by male engineers with the image of a “male” farmer as its user, could displace women farmers from their productive work.

Science, technology and cultural relations

Another domain of power relations lies in what can be called as, for lack of a better term, cultural relations, or the manner by which different people possessing different cultural beliefs due to race/ethnicity, creed, or lifestyle interact within society.

The very first, and most obvious, effect of science and technology on cultural relations is in the way science and technology have altered the way of life of traditional communities. Science and technology were bearers of, as well as were borne by, colonialism. That is, they were instruments as well as outcomes of the imposition of alien and modern cultures on traditional societies.

The ethos of science and technology in this context were based on control not only of peoples, but also of nature. It is based on the establishment of a universal worldview that upholds the scientific method as the only valid source of knowledge. This naturally did not consider as legitimate the traditional systems of knowledge that existed in traditional societies.

24

Box 2. Continued

Technological developments produced artifacts that were used to facilitate the process of colonization. Colonizers liberally used technologies of violence and modern warfare in their expansionist projects in the new world, other artifacts that were used to tantalize and seduce the natives to acquiesce to the modern worldview, even to a point that images of power were created by their mere possession.

For one, modern technologies possessed the power to alter the foundations of society. Cultural symbols were radically altered, and traditional logic lost meaning as these succumbed to the power of the new technologies. This eventually led to the transformation of social relations of production, as well as the power relations in society. The traditional leaders lost their power; traditional production practices yielded to modern agricultural technologies; traditional rituals yielded to modern lifestyles.

For example, the entry of mechanized farming not only displaced the indigenous farming systems, but also altered the social relations of production. Traditional relations of reciprocity wherein kinship ties were relied upon to provide collective labor, such as the Bayanihan, were displaced by a more commodified system of work.

The entry of new technologies can also create new problems. For example, the entry of canned goods in traditional societies has led to the emergence of what can be called as diseases of “modernity”, such as hypertension and diabetes.

Modern technologies also operate on assumptions that may be radically different from those that existed in traditional societies. Let me cite a funny example here: Families in Samoa have relatives in New Zealand, in the same way that Filipinos in the Philippines have relatives in the US. Samoans, like Filipinos, have strong kinship ties and like to maintain contacts with their relatives. Cognizant of this, the Samoan government invested in the installation of a direct-dial system between Samoa and New Zealand. The innovation was a hit...well, initially, at least. Relatives in Samoa called relatives in New Zealand. However, since the New Zealand relatives were perceived to be richer, calls were made by the Samoan relatives on a collect basis. This was fine, until the New Zealand relatives got their bill. This is when they started refusing to take the calls. This hurt the feeling of the relatives in Samoa. The result was tragicomic. A technology designed to bridge the distance between relatives even caused that distance to further widen. This is because the technology forgot one important factor—that of cost. Conversations are usually free. But not when you use a telephone service, particularly long distance.

Technological change even at present can alter the way people live their lives, from the way they produce commodities to the way they entertain themselves. Technological developments in popular culture have altered the lifestyles of people to a point that there are even some who argue that technology, far from being a mere instrument of human beings, now have the power to shape human behavior. Here I cite myself as an example. The advent of computers and of word processors has drastically changed the way I write. Prior to this development, I used to write using my “hand.” Now, I am so helpless when I do not have my laptop with me. My flow of thought seems to hit a snag when there is no keyboard and computer screen in front of me. Furthermore, my handwriting, which was already bad before, has become worse, to a point that sometimes, and to my horror, I cannot even read it anymore.

25

Box 2. Continued

Cellular phones also illustrate the profound way in which technologies can alter social and cultural relations in society. On the positive side, it is now easy to connect with people. On the negative side, the heavy use of cellular phones has drastically altered “face to face” communication to a point that some people find more meaning in texting their thoughts than in expressing it personally. Texting has also created a new language that though ingenuous, also threatens to further erode the grammatical skills of students. I have encountered student essays with some words spelled out in encrypted texts.

I am not saying that modern technologies are bad or good. In fact, the issue is complex and there are no easy answers.

REFERENCES:

Agger, Ben. 1998. Critical Social Theories: An Introduction. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Aronowitz, Stanley. 1988. Science as Power: Discourse and Ideology in Modern Society. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.

Bachrach, P. and M.S. Baratz. 1970. Power and Poverty. New York: Oxford University Press.__________. 1963. “Decisions and non-decisions: An analytical framework.” American

Political Science Review 57.__________. 1962. “Two faces of power.” American Political Science Review 56.Contreras, Antonio. 2003. Locating the Political in the Ecological: Globalization, State-Civil

Society Articulations, and Environmental Governance in the Philippines. Manila: De La Salle University Press.

Dahl, Robert. 1961. Who Governs?. New Haven: Yale University Press.__________. 1957. “The concept of power.” Behavioral Science 2.Gaventa, John. 1980. Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian

Valley. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Ham, C. and M. Hill. 1984. The Policy Process in the Modern Capitalist State. New York: St.

Martin’s Press.Hill, Stephen. 1988. The Tragedy of Technology: Human Liberation versus Domination in the

Late 20th Century. London: Pluto Press.Hollinger, Robert. 1994. Postmodernism and the Social Sciences: A Thematic Approach.

California: Sage Publications.Handelman, Howard. 2000. The Challenge of Third World Development. New Jersey: Prentice-

Hall.Kellner, Douglas. 1989. Critical Theory, Marxism and Modernity. Baltimore: The Johns

Hopkins University Press.Lukes, Stephen. 1974. Power: A Radical View. London: MacMillan.Munck, Ronaldo and Dennis O’Hearn (Eds.). 1999. Critical Development Theory:

Contributions to a New Paradigm. London and New York: Zed Books.Pertierra, Raul. 2003. Science, Technology and Everyday Culture in the Philippines. Quezon

City: Institute of Philippine Culture.

26

Pingol, Alicia. 2001. Remaking Masculinities: Identity, Power, and Gender Dynamics in Families with Migrant Wives and Househusbands. Diliman, Quezon City: University Center for Women Studies, University of the Philippines.

So, Alvin. 1990. Social Change and Development: Modernization, Dependency and World System Theories. London: Sage Publications.

Tornquist, Olle. 1999. Politics and Development. London: Sage Publications.Viotti, Paul R. and Mark V. Kauppi. 2001. International Relations and World Politics: Security,

Economy and Identity. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Wolff, Richard D. and Stephen Resnick. 1987. Economics: Marxian versus Neoclassical.

Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

27