{"title":"Biotechnics and politics: A genealogy of nonhuman technology.","authors":"Matthew Vollgraff, Marco Tamborini","doi":"10.1177/00732753231187676","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article presents a new perspective on the intersection of technology, biology, and politics in modern Germany by examining the history of biotechnics, a nonanthropocentric concept of technology that was developed in German-speaking Europe from the 1870s to the 1930s. Biotechnics challenged the traditional view of technology as exclusively a human creation, arguing that nature itself could also be a source of technical innovations. Our study focuses on the contributions of Ernst Kapp, Raoul Heinrich Francé, and Alf Giessler, highlighting the gradual shift in political perspectives that influenced the merging of nature and technology in their respective visions of biotechnics. From Kapp's liberal radicalism to Francé's social organicism and ultimately to Giessler's totalitarian fascism, their writings increasingly vitalized technology by portraying it as a natural force independent from human influence. The history of biotechnics sheds light on previously unexplored aspects of debates surrounding the sciences and philosophy of technology in Germany, while also foreshadowing contemporary discussions on technocultural hybridity. As a genealogy of the idea of nonhuman technology, the article raises perturbing questions about the political implications of conflating nature and culture.</p>","PeriodicalId":50404,"journal":{"name":"History of Science","volume":" ","pages":"366-390"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00732753231187676","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This article presents a new perspective on the intersection of technology, biology, and politics in modern Germany by examining the history of biotechnics, a nonanthropocentric concept of technology that was developed in German-speaking Europe from the 1870s to the 1930s. Biotechnics challenged the traditional view of technology as exclusively a human creation, arguing that nature itself could also be a source of technical innovations. Our study focuses on the contributions of Ernst Kapp, Raoul Heinrich Francé, and Alf Giessler, highlighting the gradual shift in political perspectives that influenced the merging of nature and technology in their respective visions of biotechnics. From Kapp's liberal radicalism to Francé's social organicism and ultimately to Giessler's totalitarian fascism, their writings increasingly vitalized technology by portraying it as a natural force independent from human influence. The history of biotechnics sheds light on previously unexplored aspects of debates surrounding the sciences and philosophy of technology in Germany, while also foreshadowing contemporary discussions on technocultural hybridity. As a genealogy of the idea of nonhuman technology, the article raises perturbing questions about the political implications of conflating nature and culture.
本文通过考察生物技术的历史,对现代德国技术、生物学和政治的交叉点提出了一个新的视角。生物技术是一种非人类中心的技术概念,从19世纪70年代到30年代在德语区的欧洲发展起来。生物技术学挑战了技术完全是人类创造的传统观点,认为自然本身也可能是技术创新的来源。我们的研究重点关注Ernst Kapp、Raoul Heinrich Francé和Alf Giessler的贡献,强调了政治观点的逐渐转变,这些观点影响了自然和技术在他们各自的生物技术愿景中的融合。从卡普的自由激进主义到弗朗西斯的社会组织主义,最终到吉斯勒的极权法西斯主义,他们的作品通过将技术描绘成一种独立于人类影响的自然力量,越来越振兴了技术。生物技术的历史揭示了德国围绕科学和技术哲学的辩论中以前未被探索的方面,同时也预示着当代关于技术文化混杂性的讨论。作为非人类技术思想的谱系,这篇文章提出了关于将自然和文化混为一谈的政治含义的令人不安的问题。
期刊介绍:
History of Science is peer reviewed journal devoted to the history of science, medicine and technology from earliest times to the present day. Articles discussing methodology, and reviews of the current state of knowledge and possibilities for future research, are especially welcome.