From: Michael Hoover <hoov-AT-freenet.tlh.fl.us> Subject: M-I: post-materialism & "technology in itself" Date: Sat, 8 Nov 97 17:24:32 18000 the freenet I use has been on the fritz so other listers may have received a reply I sent to m-i regarding James Heartsfield's (apologies in the event of misattribution) comments about Ronald Inglehart's post- materialism hypothesis and his use of the phrase "technology in itself"... my post hasn't appeared on my screen, so apologies as well if this is a duplicate... re: Inglehart...while there appears to be comparative and longitudinal opinion data confirmation, one shouldn't exaggerate the extent of post-material values (even on RI's terms - i.e., more say on the job, more beautiful cities, more personal society)...the average proportion of people who have scored as postmaterialist is about 10% and the percentage has declined slightly over time...these folks may well have served as basis for Green and other social movements..but post-WW2 affluence and economic security were not so entrenched...and sizeable numbers of the "post-materialist" generation to turn to Kohl, Reagan & Thatcher - presumably more concerned with economic growth...it was Thatcher's poll tax not her environmental and military record that eroded support in '89-90... re: "technology in itself"...technological development occurs in a context of class conflict...the design and use of particular technologies reflect decisions of social groups and institutions with power...of course, technologies may be used in unintended ways (i.e., camcorders, marketed as middle-strata toys, have potential political importance stemming from their site of display, use of sound, and narrowing of the quality gap)...but as David Noble indicates, it is crucial to show how technical possibilities have been delimited by social constraints...there is no "technology in itself"...Michael -- --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005