Imaginary magnitude

Anne Galloway is also commenting on Alex Soojung-Kim Pang’s post on the present state of STS (related post here). Among other things, she argues about studying emerging tech, rather than other technology that “the primary advantage of studying emerging tech is to identity points of intervention before products are built and sold”. While that may be so, I think the critique about a pre-occupation with emergin technologies has something to it.

Presently, I am engaged in a study of the food industry sector from 1940 until today. In some ways, it is an emerging tech sector: irradiation, deep freeze, microwaves ovens, longer chains of transport, nutrition science entered the scene or became more useful. On the other hand, it is - at least in Sweden since the 1960’s - a quite stable sector. And I think it is important to analyze these things, even thought they are already made and sold (and how ’stable’ is a product, even after it has been designed and sold, that’s what I would like to know).

Even though the products - a package of sausages - are “built and sold”, the surrounding policy landscape can change, and in some cases such as the food sector it also ought to change, and perhaps faster than what is the case. Non-change plays into the hands of the big companies in this sector. Non-study of this “non-emerging tech” sector by STS people is not a very good thing. I do have the feeling that the STS heard that run off to the next new technology every once in a while is a bit too large.