Heidegger, Technology and Sustainability

Between Intentionality, Accountability and Empowerment

Angela Lacerda Nobre

, Rogério Duarte

and Marc Jacquinet

Economics and Management Department, Escola Superior de Ciências Empresariais, Instituto Politécnico de Setúbal,

Campus do IPS, Estefanilha, 2910-761 Setúbal, Portugal

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Escola Superior de Tecnologia, Instituto Politécnico de Setúbal, Campus do IPS,

Estefanilha, 2910-761 Setúbal, Portugal

Department of Social Sciences, Universidade Aberta, Rua da Escola Politécnica 141-147, 1269-001 Lisboa, Portugal

Keywords: Heidegger, Human-computer Interaction, Industry 4.0, Information Science, Techno-science,

Hypermodernity, Post-industrial Society, Resilience, Collaborative Work and Learning, Social Tradition,

Social Theory.

Abstract: Transition is the adequate term for characterising contemporary societies. Norms and values are in transit, led

by a technological revolution, which is, in itself, the tip of the iceberg of millenary social and cultural changes.

Heidegger, one of the leading philosophers of the twentieth century, captured this tension between social

change and innovative technology and showed that the Western civilisation was captive of ontological

instances whose role was already pin-pointed by Greek Antiquity philosophy but which went underground

with Modernity. The product of Heidegger’s work was a revolution in Western thought, which found echoes

across all areas of society. Taking Husserl’s call for “back to the things themselves”, Heidegger’s impact has

empowered the calls for more sustainable and resilient societies. Sustainability models, with its three pillars

of environmental, economic and social sustainability, are directly dependent upon the role of technology and

of information science in shaping current patterns of production and consumption in contemporary societies.

Industrial, academic and political discourses already voice such taken for granted assumptions. Nevertheless,

it is crucial to clarify and to highlight the links between economic evolution and progress, social change and

the catalysing role of technology, taken as an enabler of human action.

1 INTRODUCTION

The richness and diversity of interpretations of

technology – of what technology is, means or

represents - is an open challenge for academia. Such

challenge has impacts for practitioners in industry and

in policy-making.

Not only the signification of technology needs to

be clarified but also the clarification process itself, the

double-loop learning that it uses, must be spelt out

(Argyris, 2002, Stamper, et al, 2000). Crystal clear

distinctions and oppositions between contrasting

perspectives on technology should be connected to

the consequential arguments regarding other spheres

of human action.

This is the case, in particular, of how specific

interpretations on technology will guide and

circumscribe specific worldviews. Consequently, the

assumption is that what is said about technology will

have structuring effects upon other aspects of reality.

The issue is how such interpretations on

technology condition epistemic, anthropological and

ideological perspectives about society. Epistemic

shifts do emerge and offer alternative positions

regarding the meaning of reality and how it may be

accessed; different and contrasting perspectives of

human reality co-exist and are often at the basis of

warlike action; the doctrines, postulates and

principles that guide political action are themselves

determined by taken for granted value systems.

In short, technology is key. Consequently, it is

relevant to assume this hypothesis regarding the

fundamental social role of technology in formatting

societies and in reflecting their core modes of

operation and of functioning, i.e. their patterns and

practices of language use and of participation in

social action. Meaning making is intrinsically a

186

Nobre, A., Duarte, R. and Jacquinet, M.

Heidegger, Technology and Sustainability - Between Intentionality, Accountability and Empowerment.

DOI: 10.5220/0006372401860190

In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2017) - Volume 3, pages 186-190

ISBN: 978-989-758-249-3

social process, which can be studied at organisational

and institutional levels (Rego et al, 2010).

Taking an exploratory view and drawing on the

interdisciplinary production of diverse collective

post-doctoral projects, it is relevant to present a

synthetic reflection that adequately mirrors

ethnographic, practice-based, action-research

regarding the social power of technology.

The envelop of such exploratory task is the social

tradition stance of sustainability models, taking

evolutionary, pragmatism, interactionist and

institutionalist perspectives on economics relations

(e.g., Goldkuhl, 2007, Bateira, et al, 2002, Brugman,

et al, 2007, Almeida, et al, 2014).

Three sections will be developed below,

articulating the links between practical philosophy

and the sustainable development paradigm (e.g.,

Penha-Lopes, 2010, Grimble, 2002) namely, through

the instances of intentionality, accountability and

empowerment.

2 INTENTIONALITY

Heidegger’s work on technology has had a long-

lasting effect in current research across different

fields of study (e.g., Filipe, et al, 2004, Borges-

Duarte, 2005, Baranauskas, et al, 2016).

Intentionality is a strong instance in Husserl’s

work. As father of modern day phenomenology,

Husserl deeply analysed the emergent science of his

time – psychology, one hundred years ago - in order

to reinvent science itself. Intentionality represented

the impetus for creation present in reality, in every

day phenomena. This implied a non-anthropocentric

perspective and a mind-set open to questioning all

taken for granted assumptions regarding Western

thought.

Heidegger, the close disciple of Husserl, moved

his focus to dasein, to being-in-the-world. This

rejection of Husserl’s intentionality created a schism

and an unsolved tension, which is still present today.

Dasein forces the note of that, which is prior to

intentionality, that which is intrinsic to all reality, its

ontic manifestation and expression in the concrete

real. In other words, it argues that humans

acknowledge and become aware of the power of their

tools – language or a hammer – through a process that

is prior to such recognition, i.e. it is a given, it is

already present, already there, “ready at hand”

(Heidegger’s terminology, used extensively; e.g.,

Dotov, et al, 2010).

Language is already being used, mastered and

interiorised, as it gradually becomes an intentional

voice in a community. Children spontaneously play

with stones. The hammer represents the evolution of

humankind until the perfect hammer is created.

This process is unavoidably regional, local and

geographically circumscribed, as each culture would

develop its perfect image of a perfect hammer. This

concrete real is, then, intrinsically evolutionary and

historical.

The emergence of historicity in the twentieth

century and the raise of the importance of the history

and of the philosophy of science is a crucial by-

product of Heidegger’s work. Abstraction,

theorisation and analytical generalisations, present in

science, are extended in order to capture the

complexity of techno-science and of human sciences.

Contemporary societies are immersed in a techno-

scientific territory and landscape. Public affairs’

decision-making processes are captive of closed-loop

vicious circles, which hinder progress.

Hypermodernity reflects the unstable nature of post-

industrial societies (e.g., Brandon, 2015, Armitage,

2001).

The revolution that Heidegger’s work inaugurated

has moved the focus of attention from the conscious

and autonomous individual, which was the subject to

Modernity, to the community based sharing of

common understandings, practices and values.

Present day technology, designing an information

system or imagining the perfect hammer, may be

catalysed and inspired by Heidegger’s work.

Collectively, that is the role of models such as the

sustainable development goal (e.g., Seyfang, 2007).

Today one may argue that the split between

intentionality and dasein, taken as a still active and

fertile tension, may be integrated and solved in the

holistic view of ecological models. Indeed, there is

the need for the impetus and the energy for change, as

well as the acknowledgement and empowerment of

local communities, the core of informed and effective

action.

3 ACCOUNTABILITY

Accountability is a crucial concept in current times. It

concentrates, in a single package, the relationship

between seller and buyer, or producer and consumer.

According to Alain Tourraine (1971), writing in

the seventies, programmed societies represent the

cultural and symbolic domination of all spheres of

economic activity. This imperialist and colonialist

power of signs and of signification processes, as it is

witnessed by the raising importance of semiotics in

order to make sense of present day societies, is

Heidegger, Technology and Sustainability - Between Intentionality, Accountability and Empowerment

187

intrinsically a technological enabled process (e.g.,

Stamper, 2001). That is, it is technology the enabler

of social change. The turbulence and paradoxical

nature of the common interpretations of present times

reflects the ambiguous power of technology. Standard

uses of information technology, from the personal

computer to mobile technology, are the means

through which social revolutions are shaped.

As a manifestation of such changes, there is a

wide range of examples, including cyberpolitics (e.g.,

Dader, 2009) and the growth of massive open online

courses (MOOCs)(e.g., Jermann, et al, 2014,

Dillenbourg, et al, 2009). These social changes

represent shifts in power and submission patterns,

which have a lasting effect at institutional level,

including organisations, industries, markets and

policy-making international bodies.

One way of capturing these emergent changes is

through the clash between two different schools of

thought regarding the reality of the fourth industrial

revolution, the so-called Industry 4.0 (I 4.0)(e.g., Lee,

et al, 2014). Taking steam engine, electricity and

digital as the first three revolutions of modern times,

connectivity represents the current phenomenon of

empowering populations in institutional contexts in

order to make the optimal use of their available

competencies and resources.

There is a clash between certain North American

academic perspectives on this concept, I 4.0, and

some of the German scholars’ interpretation,

probably as the result of the lessons learnt post

German integration (e.g., Gorecky, 2014, Heng,

2014). Indeed, such contrast is present in terms both

of economic models and in terms of competition and

regulatory law (e.g., Mendes, 1997), i.e., theory and

practice, and both economics and law.

This clash of perspectives has created a century

old tradition of opposing views regarding the

meaning of abuse of dominant position and of market

power. Whereas in the other side of the Atlantic,

competition takes a linear, cause-effect, reductive

stance, taken as a zero-sum game, “if you win, I

loose”, the Continental school of thought has

gradually promoted and developed the vision of

collaborative and participative competition, taken as

a win-win game. The need to open circles of sharing

and creating knowledge and to help produce

inclusive, resilient and diversified modes of

production and of consumption has become an urgent

agenda for social change.

4 EMPOWERMENT

To empower something or someone implies to enable

its maximum potential to be developed and made

concrete. Making a difference in someone’s life is an

example of an impact of something or someone that

was empowered to act in such positive way.

This terminology has been connoted to the desire

to promote more just societies and, consequently, as

a critique to the hegemonic vision of capitalism.

However, it is possible to argue that there are diverse

forms of capitalism, taken as a plural and diversified

reality. Market operations may be directed towards

creating more sustainable outcomes at a global level.

What is indeed remarkable to notice is the fact that

there is a common discourse, which rapidly moves

from the periphery to the centre and vice-versa,

concerning ideas related to common good and to

ways to achieve it, i.e. normative and positive

economic analyses of reality. There is evidence that

consumer behaviour intrinsically and unavoidably

incorporates the value system that is represented by a

dynamic and diversified whole (e.g., Miller, et al,

2005, Porfirio, 2010). In other words, it is not a black

and white opposition, between a set of values for

those who claim for more market freedom versus

those who claim for more empowering and effective

public policies.

The idea of a society that is safer and inclusive,

freer and socially responsible, market oriented but

deeply committed to sustainable development, is

becoming evidently possible and, indeed, visible.

Multinational corporations compete with public

international institutions as the defenders of the most

elaborate and sophisticated values, norms and

procedures.

In synthesis, there is a common and collective

race, not of different schools of thought but of how to

help create the most effective and powerful vision for

the future. The fight for common good is as much part

of the ideological discourse of an election campaign

as it is the goal of a garage band, which then becomes

a high-tech born-global start-up.

5 CONCLUSIONS

Computing science has been one of the most fertile

areas for the integration, articulation and alignment of

a wide spectrum of disciplinary inputs, from the

humanities to the hard sciences. This capacity to

elaborate synthesis and synergies is recognisable in

the variety of topics that characterise the scope of

ICEIS 2017 - 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

188

academic conferences, curricula, research and public

policy-making. However, it is in practice, in

formatting procedures and in creating inquiring

cultures, that information technology’s impact has

been paramount. The links between technology and

practical philosophy, including the links between

philosophy and so-called public affairs, represent an

accumulated set of knowledge, which needs to be

disseminated and shared in order to explore its full

potential. The role of academic research encompasses

the analysis of different schools of thought and the

promotion of public debate over the need to guarantee

sustainable development across all areas of

contemporary societies.

Heidegger’s work had a decisive impact in

denouncing the reductive and fatally self-destroying

nature of Western thought, diagnosing Modernity and

its relationship with technology as an alienation from

what it means to be human. That is, an

anthropological position that cherishes human’s

creativity and communal power to design and

organise itself in an autopoietic way, manifesting

humanity’s potential to contribute to common good.

The present paper has taken an exploratory stance.

It has highlighted the items that are at stake when

discussing the role of technology in empowering

present day societies to, indeed, achieve their optimal

and sustainable developmental pattern.

Consequently, it voices a call for action, namely

through the people, the practitioners and the

academicians, involved in current problem solving

and decision-making for public affairs.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Transition Portugal (TP) is a powerful enabler of

sustainable and resilient global societies, through its

academic militancy and its political and civic action.

Lusophony is a community of people who are

culturally and linguistically linked to Portugal, either

historically or by choice. TP helps to empower the

Lusophony world. The authors wish to acknowledge

this work and are thankful to this vibrant community,

namely to: Sara Serrão, Annelieke van der Sluijs,

Cristina Chafirovirch, Luís Coentro, Gil Penha-Lopes

and André Vizinho. And to Rita Sampaio, Sara Silva,

Catarina Cardoso, Eleanor O’Gorman, Vitor Dinis,

Miguel Santos, Miguel Cornejo and Olaf Brugman,

for their academic and civic activism.

REFERENCES

Almeida, A.J. and Marques, M.A., 2014. Promoting

training and skills development for international

employability: the motivations of ERASMUS students

in the field of management.

Argyris, C., 2002. Double-loop learning, teaching, and

research. Academy of Management Learning &

Education, 1(2), pp.206-218.

Armitage, J., 2001. Project (ile) s of hypermodern (organ)

ization. ephemera: critical dialogues on organization,

1(2), pp.131-48.

Baranauskas, M.C.C., Liu, K., Sun, L., de Almeida Neris,

V.P., Bonacin, R. and Nakata, K. eds., 2016. Socially

Aware Organisations and Technologies. Impact and

Challenges: 17th IFIP WG 8.1 International

Conference on Informatics and Semiotics in

Organisations, ICISO 2016, Campinas, Brazil, August

1-3, 2016, Proceedings (Vol. 477). Springer.

Bateira, J. and Ferreira, L.V., 2002. Questioning EU

cohesion policy in Portugal: A complex systems

approach. European Urban and Regional Studies, 9(4),

pp.297-314.

Borges-Duarte, I., 2005. O homem como fim em si? De

Kant a Heidegger e Jonas. Revista Portuguesa de

Filosofia, pp.841-862.

Brugman, O.L.A.F. and Dankbaar, B., 2007.

Organizational Structure and Competence

Development in R&D Project Careers'. Leading and

Managing Creators, Inventors, and Innovators, pp.193-

216.

Dader, J.L., 2009. Cyberpolitics in political party websites:

experiences in the 2008 Spanish presidential elections

within the context of transnational tendencies. Revista

de Sociologia e Política, 17(34), pp.45-62.

Dillenbourg, P., Järvelä, S. and Fischer, F., 2009. The

evolution of research on computer-supported

collaborative learning. In Technology-enhanced

learning (pp. 3-19). Springer Netherlands.

Dotov, D.G., Nie, L. and Chemero, A., 2010. A

demonstration of the transition from ready-to-hand to

unready-to-hand. PLoS One, 5(3), p.e9433.

Filipe, J. and Cordeiro, J., 2004. Organizational semiotics:

A normative agent-based approach to VE modelling. In

Processes and foundations for virtual organizations

(pp. 271-278). Springer US.

Goldkuhl, G., 2007. What does it mean to serve the citizen

in e-services?-Towards a practical theory founded in

socio-instrumental pragmatism. International Journal

of Public Information Systems, 3(3), pp.135-159.

Gorecky, D., Schmitt, M., Loskyll, M. and Zühlke, D.,

2014, July. Human-machine-interaction in the industry

4.0 era. In Industrial Informatics (INDIN), 2014 12th

IEEE International Conference on (pp. 289-294).

IEEE.

Grimble, R., Cardoso, C. and Omar-Chowdhury, S., 2002.

People and the environment: Issues and linkages.

Natural Resources Institute.

Heng, S., 2014. Industry 4.0: Upgrading of Germany's

Industrial Capabilities on the Horizon.

Heidegger, Technology and Sustainability - Between Intentionality, Accountability and Empowerment

189

Jermann, P., Bocquet, G., Raimond, G. and Dillenbourg, P.,

2014. The EPFL MOOC Factory. Proceedings of the

European MOOC Stakeholder Summit, pp.228-233.

Lee, J., Bagheri, B. and Kao, H.A., 2014. Recent advances

and trends of cyber-physical systems and big data

analytics in industrial informatics. In International

Proceeding of Int Conference on Industrial Informatics

(INDIN) (pp. 1-6).

Mendes, E.F., 1997. Direito da concorrência desleal e

direito da concorrência. Concorrência Desleal,

Coimbra: Almedina, p.87.

Miller, D. and Miller, D. eds., 2005. Acknowledging

consumption. Routledge.

Penha-Lopes, G., Bartolini, F., Limbu, S., Cannicci, S.,

Mgaya, Y., Kristensen, E. and Paula, J., 2010.

Ecosystem engineering potential of the gastropod

Terebralia palustris (Linnaeus, 1767) in mangrove

wastewater wetlands–A controlled mesocosm

experiment. Environmental Pollution, 158(1), pp.258-

266.

Porfírio, J.A., Jacquinet, M. and Carrilho, T., 2010,

October. Business intelligence standardization and

corporate strategy: a paradox. In International

Conference on ENTERprise Information Systems (pp.

128-137). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Rego, A., Ribeiro, N. and Cunha, M.P., 2010. Perceptions

of organizational virtuousness and happiness as

predictors of organizational citizenship behaviors.

Journal of Business Ethics, 93(2), pp.215-235.

Seyfang, G. and Smith, A., 2007. Grassroots innovations

for sustainable development: Towards a new research

and policy agenda. Environmental politics, 16(4),

pp.584-603.

Stamper, R., Liu, K., Hafkamp, M. and Ades, Y., 2000.

Understanding the roles of signs and norms in

organizations-a semiotic approach to information

systems design. Behaviour & Information Technology,

19(1), pp.15-27.

Stamper, R.K., 2001. Organisational semiotics: Informatics

without the computer?. In Information, organisation

and technology (pp. 115-171). Springer US.

Touraine, A., 1971. The post-industrial society: tomorrow's

social history: classes, conflicts and culture in the

programmed society (Vol. 6813). Random House.

ICEIS 2017 - 19th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

190