ºÚÁÏÍø

Academy Research Fellow Johanna Ahola-Launonen from the Department of Management Studies at the School of Business has spent much of the last decade studying technological hopes, fears, expectations, and imaginaries. Over the past couple of years, that work has crystallised into this paper, which is probably the closest thing to a synthesis of where her thinking currently stands. The paper has been published in Minerva, which is an academic journal focusing on ideas, traditions, cultures, and institutions in science, higher education, and research.

A few ideas from the paper:

1. Techno-optimism and techno-pessimism seem to be surprisingly little about technology

They are different ways of making sense of what counts as a responsible, credible, and realistic technological future. They combine evidence, emotions, values, and assumptions in ways that are situated in particular social and institutional contexts: what counts as rational technological optimism in one setting may appear naïve in another, while skepticism may be treated as responsible critique in one context and emotional obstruction in another.

2. Neither side has a monopoly on reason – or emotion

Some of today's strongest techno-optimistic visions draw not only on Enlightenment ideas of science and progress, but also on distinctly Romantic ideas of redemption, transcendence, and technological salvation. In other words, even people insisting they are "just following the science" occasionally sound suspiciously like they are waiting for the technological Messiah.

3. What counts as rational in debates about technology is political

Techno-optimism often acquires epistemic privilege not because it explicitly demonstrates superior rationality, but because it is already received as the rational position. The problem is not that technological futures rely on imagination. They have to. 

The more interesting question is why some imaginaries enjoy the privilege of travelling as rational realism, while others are dismissed as ideological, unrealistic – or simply "too emotional". This means that even highly speculative technological futures may come to appear responsible and realistic when they align with established institutional norms, while alternative ways of framing the problem are more easily dismissed as unrealistic.

4. Every orientation contains the seeds of its own excess

Enlightenment techno-orientations depend on epistemic humility: the willingness to revise commitments as knowledge evolves. Romantic techno-orientations depend on resisting the temptation to turn authenticity, nature, or meaning into absolutes. Without that self-reflexivity, both begin to mistake their own starting points for self-evident truths.

5. The typology is almost a side effect

To make these dynamics visible, I develop a typology distinguishing Enlightenment and Romantic forms of both techno-optimism and techno-pessimism, resulting in twelve recurring variants. I know, I created a monster. Unexpectedly, whenever I've presented it, people immediately start locating themselves – or their disciplines and organisations – in the typology. Apparently, everyone wants to know which box they're in. The boxes are not personality types: orientations can overlap, shift across contexts, and coexist within the same person, discipline, or organisation. 

‘The point is to make these orientations visible – and therefore available for critical reflection. If the framework is useful, I hope it helps make disagreements about technological futures a little more explicit about their underlying assumptions,’ says Johanna Ahola-Launonen.