Technology and Emancipation: A Critical Approach

Introduction

Since the Enlightenment, technology has emerged as a tool that promises to liberate humans from ignorance and the limitations of nature. This belief in technological progress was strengthened during the Industrial Revolution, when productive power and mechanization were seen as liberating humans from physical fatigue and promoting human well-being (Castoriadis, 1978; Marcuse, 2020). This promise, however, came with a corresponding challenge: the relationship of human dependence on the very tools and machines they created.

The view that technology is a neutral tool and that its use depends only on the people who manage it is strong in public discourse and academic thought. According to this approach, technology in itself does not bear moral, political or social characteristics. These arise only when used within specific social conditions and institutional frameworks. However, this view is open to challenge and criticism. Technology depends on the social institutions that shape and govern it, and thus the relationship between humans and technology is neither simple nor unambiguous.

This article argues that technology, detached from a critical social and institutional reflection, does not fulfill its promise of emancipation. On the contrary, it can limit the ability of humans to self-determine, interact and actively participate in the formation of society. In an era where dependence on technological tools is constantly increasing, it is important to ask ourselves whether and how technology can truly serve humans, without binding them or alienating them from the essential content of their existence.

Background of the theory of neutrality

The notion that technology is neutral was largely embodied and cultivated from the 18th century onwards, through the philosophical and scientific developments of the Enlightenment (Habermas, 1993). The sciences brought to the fore the idea that knowledge and progress are possible only through objective study and impartial observation of the world. This trend reinforced the belief that technology, as an outcome of scientific knowledge, can be developed and utilized independently of social and moral values, that is, as a neutral tool.

The Industrial Revolution was a crucial stage in promoting the idea of ​​liberation through technology, as large production machines and the emerging industrial system promised to increase productivity and facilitate human labor (Marcuse, 2020). Technology as a means of liberating man from physical fatigue was subsequently seen as a means of improving the standard of living. On the basis of this view, societies accepted technological progress as an end in itself, without questioning its nature and role in relation to human values ​​and the needs of society.

However, this approach began to be criticized in the 20th century. Major scientific discoveries, especially information technologies and nuclear weapons, revealed that technology is neither isolated nor neutral, but is directly linked to the political and social structures that produce and direct it (Adorno & Horkheimer, 1996). Through the works of critical thinkers such as Horkheimer, Adorno and others, the neutrality of technology began to be deconstructed, and technology was recognized as a complex factor that influences and is influenced by political and social conditions. The emergence of this critical perspective raised the question: is technology truly neutral or does it embody social, political and ethical values ​​that influence structures of power and control?

The social dimension of technology

On a deeper analysis, one can observe that every technological development expresses the needs and priorities of the society that creates it. For example, the development of heavy industry in the early 20th century was closely linked to the demand of industrial states for productivity, exploitation of natural resources and strengthening of military power. Technology in this case served the increase of economic and military power, thus constituting not a neutral means but a tool that embodies the needs of the state and the market for control and imposition (Habermas, 1993).

At the same time, however, it would be a bold abstraction to consider that technology functions simply as a mirror of social institutions, as this would remove from it the dimension of shaping social structure and reshaping power relations. The spread of information and communication technologies is a typical example. These technologies have created new possibilities for communication, collaboration and access to knowledge, but at the same time they have allowed the expansion of mechanisms for controlling, monitoring and exploiting users (Foucault, 2011). A more specific example is the use of social networks and digital platforms, such as Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. On the one hand, these platforms provide new possibilities for communication, networking and information exchange, making participation in public debates and social initiatives more accessible; however, these same technologies allow the collection of personal data and the monitoring of users, which can be exploited for commercial or political purposes, controlling and directing their behavior. Thus, technology facilitates social hierarchies and the prevalence of specific forms of power.

We therefore understand that technology must be studied not only as a technical object but also as a phenomenon that influences and is influenced by the socio-historical environment. In the modern world, technology is usually driven by the pursuit of productivity and efficiency, reinforcing economic structures based on the exploitation of nature and growth without limits. Moreover, its development, especially in bureaucratic or centralized systems, is often used to reinforce power relations, distancing the citizen from the possibility of active and authentic participation in social processes.

At the same time, the idea that technological progress is equivalent to social and human emancipation is clearly misleading. The mere development of technology does not ensure a more just or free social system, as technology can just as easily be used to reinforce inequality, alienation and oppression. In fact, the connection of technological development with the logics of production and consumption reinforces coercion and the logic of exploitation, promoting an ideology of unlimited development without social or ecological constraints.

The need to reconsider technology through Autonomy

But could technology be a real means of emancipation? Personally, I believe so, but under very specific conditions, as we must proceed with a radical reexamination of the social meaning attributed to it. Technology does not develop in a vacuum, but is guided by imaginary meanings and collective projects that place it in specific cultural and value contexts. Society must therefore ask questions about what it seeks through technology and how it can be used as a means of real participation and authentic collective self-institution.

The concept of autonomy presupposes the ability of a society to shape and choose its own laws and institutions. Technology can become a vehicle for such social autonomy only if it is integrated into a framework where society takes responsibility for its choices and determines the orientation of technological development based on its values ​​and not on the anonymous market or centralized power structures. This approach expresses the view that social change, to be meaningful, must be based on a redefinition of collective goals and forms of political participation.

Furthermore, the pursuit of perpetual growth and efficiency, which dominates contemporary technological applications, should also be discussed as it reproduces an instrumental logic that sees the world as an object to be exploited. This logic is in conflict with autonomy, as it creates a relationship of dominance between humans and nature and reinforces structures of dependency and inequality. A redefinition of this relationship would require the institutional cultivation of a new meaning, where technology serves collective and sustainable goals, rather than promoting linear and perpetual accumulation.

The reshaping of technology is not simply a technical or economic issue, but a deeply political and cultural one, concerning the very autonomy of societies and their ability to self-establish themselves in harmony with the goals they themselves set.

Participatory Institutions as a Prerequisite for Emancipation

The institutional structure of a society is a key factor that can determine whether technology will function as a means of autonomy or heteronomy. Creating participatory institutions, where citizens have control and say in technological decisions, is essential to promoting an emancipatory use of technology. Active citizen participation in decision-making regarding technology and its structures can prevent the risk of concentration of expertise and power in a few hands and strengthen a true social democracy.

Current technological governance clearly operates in a way that excludes the participation of the wider society. The hierarchical configuration of technological governance institutions creates inequalities in knowledge and power, leading to technocratic control that often ignores collective needs. The need for a different model of governance is evident: a system where communities retain direct access to and control over technological applications and decisions that affect their lives. This framework reinforces the principles of autonomy, allowing collective will to co-shape the manner and purpose of technological development.

Technology has the potential to function as a network of collective cooperation, enhancing interaction and solidarity between citizens and communities. The creation of open, decentralized networks of knowledge and information can promote forms of horizontal governance and sharing of technology, giving people the opportunity to co-create and co-decide. Technology can thus be used to support communities that act collectively and self-determine, breaking down traditional power relations and centralized control.

To achieve truly democratic technology governance, societies must develop institutions and practices that facilitate decentralized participation and social control. These proposals include the creation of citizen assemblies to evaluate and guide technological development, the institutionalization of open-source structures that allow citizens to have full access to technology and the ability to contribute to its design and development, and the strengthening of technology education to reduce dependence on experts.

Challenges and Prerequisites

One of the main obstacles to the adoption of participatory institutions is the existing hierarchical power structures that prevail in many sectors. Technocratic logics, which want technology to be governed by professionals and experts, limit the ability of citizens to actively participate. In addition, the economic dimension of technological development is also an important factor. The commercial goals of technology companies often conflict with the needs of communities. The pursuit of profit can lead to innovations that serve only narrow interests, reinforcing inequality and social exclusion.

Education also plays a crucial role in the ability of citizens to actively participate in the technological process. Access to knowledge and understanding of technological processes must be accessible to everyone, regardless of social or economic status. This means that education programs are needed that focus not only on technical training, but also on critical thinking and analysis of the social impacts of technology (Habermas, 1993). Building a culture of participation and solidarity is a necessary condition for the success of participatory institutions (Castoriadis, 1978).

Perspectives on the Future of Technology and Empowerment

As technological innovations advance, it is important to consider the prospects they offer, as well as the challenges they may pose.

Artificial intelligence is one of the most radical innovations of our time, with the potential to drastically change the way we interact with technology. While its applications can offer significant benefits, such as automating everyday processes and improving efficiency, they also raise serious ethical questions.

The reliance on algorithms for decision-making, from managing personal data to autonomous driving, requires a critical dialogue about power and responsibility. How can we ensure that artificial intelligence is used to promote social justice and not to reproduce inequalities? The vision of “technology for the good of all” must be accompanied by transparency, accountability and recognition of the need for direct human intervention and oversight.

Social movements have proven resilient in using technology as a means of organizing and mobilizing. With the continued development of digital tools, citizens can take action at the local and international levels, expanding their possibilities for participation. The development of social networks allows the dissemination of information and the organization of actions at an unprecedented speed. However, this assistance comes with the challenges of digital illiteracy and fake news. Digital literacy education is essential to ensure that citizens can make critical use of the tools at their disposal. In today’s digital world, critical thinking and the reexamination of technological achievements are essential. Societies need to reexamine the impact of technologies on their lives and ensure that technology works to benefit social goals. This ongoing critical process is important for developing an ethical and responsible orientation towards technology that supports empowerment and social justice.

Conclusions

Technology, as presented, is not a neutral tool; it embodies and reflects the needs, values, and priorities of the social groups and institutions that shape and use it. Each technological innovation brings to light specific sets of values, which, depending on the context of use, can strengthen or weaken different social groups. Technology affects not only daily life, but also the structure and organization of society, as it reshapes the way we communicate, work, and interact. It is therefore crucial to approach technological progress with a critical attitude, aware of the positive and negative consequences it can have on social cohesion, economic equality and cultural expression.

The need for a critical and responsible framework for the development of technology is becoming increasingly evident as its impacts become deeper and wider. The uncritical acceptance of technology as an inevitable advance hides the risk of alienating individuals from society, due to the increasing dependence on technological means that are not accessible or understandable to everyone. Social inequalities may widen when access to new technologies remains a privilege of specific groups, instead of promoting fair and equal access for all.

Technology is not an end in itself, but a tool that can indeed contribute to the promotion of human well-being and social justice. The success of this idea, however, depends on our own will and ability to incorporate collective values ​​into the development and use of technologies.

 

Bibliography

Castoriadis, K. (1978). The Imaginary Institution of Society. Athens: Kedros.

Adorno, T. W., & Horkheimer, M. (1996). Dialectic of Enlightenment. Philosophical Excerpts. Athens: Nisos Publications.

Foucault, M. (2011). Surveillance and Punishment. The Birth of the Prison. Athens: Plethron.

Habermas, J. (1993). The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Twelve Traditions. Athens: Alexandria.

Marcuse, H. (2020). The One-Dimensional Man. Athens: Pedio Publications.