For example, the German media theorist Friedrich Kittler expands on McLuhan’s
determinism by stating that ‘media determine our situation’
85 but contests the
notion of media as extensions of man by highlighting the autonomy in technology. Kittler perceives humans as extensions of technology, where machines have
required the skill to connect and manage information without any reference to
human consciousness.
86 In one of his interviews Kittler reverses the importance
of the Internet for promoting human interaction by stating that ‘the development of the internet has more to do with human beings becoming a reflection of
their technologies . . . after all, it is we who adapt to the machine. The machine
does not adapt to us’.
87 Kittler’s autonomy of technology, which acknowledges
the disruptiveness of technology even further than McLuhan, demonstrates that
the relationship between technological form, culture and human interaction is
multifaceted and reciprocal, if the distinction between technology and humans is
even feasible any longer.
In summary, conceptualisations of technology should include elements of both
deterministic and constructivist approaches but these should not be considered
exhaustive. Focus on disruptive qualities emphasises McLuhan’s determinism, but
disruptive qualities are often created through interplay between technology,
markets, law and society. The constructivist approach detaches the examination
from the technical artefact to its social implications, which is vital for our
examination of dispute resolution technology, as we are interested in the ways
in which this technology reflects and changes existing ideologies embedded in
law’s justificatory structures. Highlighting that the disruptiveness of technology
results from its social element, that the use of technology is created through
communication, is necessary for understanding how technology becomes relevant
within social systems such as the legal system.
2.5 Technology and systems theory
2.5.1 How does technology enter law?
Surprisingly, Luhmann discusses the relationship between technology and social
systems relatively briefly. In The Reality of Mass Media Luhmann considers
the system of mass media as its own social system that operates based on the code
information/non-information. For Luhmann, media provide the means for creating a portrait of reality that other social systems can then tap into without losing
their internal stability; media adopt the role of memory, in a manner of speaking.
However, Luhmann sees mass media as the one-sided relationship between sender
and receiver, where there is no real interaction between the sender and receiver.
88
As discussed in the previous section, such notions disregard the complexity and
reciprocity of technology and society. Although Luhmann downplays the importance of technology by perceiving them as ‘invisible machines’, he admits that any
societal theory needs to reserve sufficient place for further technological development and its impact on society. This necessary indeterminacy, theoretical space for
future technology, can be found in structural couplings:
46 Theoretical implications of dispute resolution technology
determinism by stating that ‘media determine our situation’
85 but contests the
notion of media as extensions of man by highlighting the autonomy in technology. Kittler perceives humans as extensions of technology, where machines have
required the skill to connect and manage information without any reference to
human consciousness.
86 In one of his interviews Kittler reverses the importance
of the Internet for promoting human interaction by stating that ‘the development of the internet has more to do with human beings becoming a reflection of
their technologies . . . after all, it is we who adapt to the machine. The machine
does not adapt to us’.
87 Kittler’s autonomy of technology, which acknowledges
the disruptiveness of technology even further than McLuhan, demonstrates that
the relationship between technological form, culture and human interaction is
multifaceted and reciprocal, if the distinction between technology and humans is
even feasible any longer.
In summary, conceptualisations of technology should include elements of both
deterministic and constructivist approaches but these should not be considered
exhaustive. Focus on disruptive qualities emphasises McLuhan’s determinism, but
disruptive qualities are often created through interplay between technology,
markets, law and society. The constructivist approach detaches the examination
from the technical artefact to its social implications, which is vital for our
examination of dispute resolution technology, as we are interested in the ways
in which this technology reflects and changes existing ideologies embedded in
law’s justificatory structures. Highlighting that the disruptiveness of technology
results from its social element, that the use of technology is created through
communication, is necessary for understanding how technology becomes relevant
within social systems such as the legal system.
2.5 Technology and systems theory
2.5.1 How does technology enter law?
Surprisingly, Luhmann discusses the relationship between technology and social
systems relatively briefly. In The Reality of Mass Media Luhmann considers
the system of mass media as its own social system that operates based on the code
information/non-information. For Luhmann, media provide the means for creating a portrait of reality that other social systems can then tap into without losing
their internal stability; media adopt the role of memory, in a manner of speaking.
However, Luhmann sees mass media as the one-sided relationship between sender
and receiver, where there is no real interaction between the sender and receiver.
88
As discussed in the previous section, such notions disregard the complexity and
reciprocity of technology and society. Although Luhmann downplays the importance of technology by perceiving them as ‘invisible machines’, he admits that any
societal theory needs to reserve sufficient place for further technological development and its impact on society. This necessary indeterminacy, theoretical space for
future technology, can be found in structural couplings:
46 Theoretical implications of dispute resolution technology