| Title |
The Struggle for Technology: Towards a Realistic Political Theory of Technology
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Foundations of Science, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10699-015-9470-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Peter-Paul Verbeek |
| Abstract |
Pieter Lemmens' neo-Marxist approach to technology urges us to rethink how to do political philosophy of technology. First, Lemmens' high level of abstraction raises the question of how empirically informed a political theory of technology needs to be. Second, his dialectical focus on a "struggle" between humans and technologies reveals the limits of neo-Marxism. Political philosophy of technology needs to return "to the things themselves". The political significance of technologies cannot be reduced to its origins in systems of production or social organization, but requires study at the micro-level, where technologies help to shape engagement, interaction, power, and social awareness. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| Italy | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 38 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 28% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 13% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Professor | 2 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 18% |
| Unknown | 10 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 12 | 30% |
| Philosophy | 5 | 13% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 8% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 9 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 April 2019.
All research outputs
#13,013,818
of 22,940,083 outputs
Outputs from Foundations of Science
#128
of 274 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,591
of 284,993 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Foundations of Science
#5
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,940,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 274 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 284,993 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.