Technology assessment in ‘imperialist ruins’?: Towards solidarity, conviviality, and care

Karen Kastenhofer; Astrid Schwarz; Krishna Ravi Srinivas; Andrea Vetter

doi:10.14512/tatup.7270

Authors

Karen Kastenhofer Institute of Technology Assessment, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna (AT) https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5843-6489 karen.kastenhofer@oeaw.ac.at
Astrid Schwarz Chair of Technoscience Studies, Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg, Cottbus (DE) https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2511-1538 schwarza@b-tu.de
Krishna Ravi Srinivas NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad; Center for Responsible AI, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Madras (IN) https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1634-0064 ravi.srinivas@nalsar.ac.in
Andrea Vetter Chair of Sociology of Technology and the Environment, Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg, Cottbus (DE) https://orcid.org/0009-0001-7845-9781 vetter@b-tu.de

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.7270

Keywords:

convivial technology, heterodox technology assessment, deep sustainability, solidarity, care

Abstract

Do we need to reconsider technology assessment (TA) scholarship, practice and institutions when values such as human-ecological sufficiency, intra- and intergenerational justice, solidarity, conviviality and care are deeply acknowledged? In line with the previous two Special topics of TATuP this year, this section addresses this challenging question head-on. In this introductory piece, we outline some of the distinct challenges facing TA in the 21^st century and discuss options, but also emerging issues regarding heterodox, yet timely approaches to TA. In terms of conceptual approaches, we draw on Andrea Vetter’s recent work on ‘convivial technology’, as well as earlier alternative conceptions of technology. Our ambition is to foster a dialogue within and beyond the TA community about what contemporary societies might need or even expect from TA, including concrete adjustments that some might call for while others might warn against.

References

Arora, Saurabh; Stirling, Andy (2023): Colonial modernity and sustainability transitions. A conceptualisation in six dimensions. In: Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 48, p. 100733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2023.100733

Arora, Saurabh; Van Dyck, Barbara (2025): Decolonizing technology assessment. Towards a radical transformation of the modern world. In: TATuP – Journal for Technology Assessment in Theory and Practice 34 (1), pp. 15–21. https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.7166

Bialski, Paula (2024): Middle tech. Software work and the culture of good enough. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691257174

Bihouix, Philippe (2014): L’âge des low tech. Vers une civilisation techniquement soutenable. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.

Bloch, Ernst (1986): The principle of hope. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bookchin, Murray (1977): The concept of ecotechnologies and ecocommunities. In: Irene Tinker and Mayra Buvinić (eds.): The many facets of human settlements. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-021994-3.50009-0

Brand, Ulrich; Wissen, Markus (2021): The imperial mode of living. Everyday life and the ecological crisis of capitalism. London: Verso.

Crutzen, Paul; Stoermer, Eugene (2000): The ‘Anthropocene’. In: IGBP Newsletter 41, pp. 17–18.

Daly, Herman (2005): Economics in a full world. In: Scientific American 293 (3), pp. 100–107. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0905-100

Grunwald, Armin (2018): Diverging pathways to overcoming the environmental crisis. A critique of eco-modernism from a technology assessment perspective. In: Journal of Cleaner Production 197, pp. 1854–1862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.212

Hackfort, Sarah; Reinermann, Julia-Lena; Gottschlich, Daniela (2025): Critical perspectives in technology assessment. On the relevance of care for sustainability transformations. In: TATuP – Journal for Technology Assessment in Theory and Practice 34 (1), pp. 9–14. https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.7180

Haraway, Donna (2016): Staying with the trouble. Making kin in the Chtulucene. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11cw25q

Höhler, Sabine (2006): ‘Carrying capacity’. The moral economy of the ‘coming spaceship earth’. In: Atenea. A Billingual Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences XXVI (1), pp. 59–74.

Illich, Ivan (1973): Tools for conviviality. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Laurent, Brice; Violle, Alexandre (2025): Scaling up or deep scaling? Problematizing the scalability imperative in technological innovation. In: Science, Technology, & Human Values 50 (2), pp. 419–446. https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439241259411

Lovins, Amory (1977): Soft energy paths. Toward a durable peace. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.

Martin, Jay; Roy, Eric; Diemont, Stewart; Ferguson, Bruce (2010): Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK). Ideas, inspiration, and designs for ecological engineering. In: Ecological Engineering 36 (7), pp. 839–849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2010.04.001

Meadows, Dennis; Meadows, Donella; Randers, Jørgen; Behren, William (1972): The limits of growth. New York, NY: Universe Books.

Muldoon, James; Graham, Mark; Cant, Callum (2024): Feeding the machine. The hidden human labor powering AI. Edinburgh: Canongate Books.

Moore, Jason (2016): Anthropocene or Capitalocene? Nature, history and the crisis of capitalism. Oakland, CA: PM Press.

Pansera, Mario (2025): What’s left of responsible innovation after Gaza? Ecocide, epistemicide, and genocide in occupied Palestine. In: Journal of Responsible Technology 23, p. 100132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrt.2025.100132

Sardo, Stefania; Kuppler, Sophie; Scheer, Dirk (2025): Navigating the future. Strategies for the long-term governance of socio-technical change. In: TATuP – Journal for Technology Assessment in Theory and Practice 34 (2), pp. 9–14. https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.7223

Schumacher, Ernst (1973): Small is beautiful. Economics as if people mattered. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Schwarz, Astrid (2022): Ecotechnology. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available online at https://oxfordre.com/environmentalscience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.001.0001/acrefore-9780199389414-e-134, last accessed on 10.11.2025.

Sharma, Aviram; Jiménez, Andrea; Smith, Adrian; Boni, Alejandra (2025): Rethinking innovation for a post-growth society. In: Science, Technology & Society 30 (2), pp. 327–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/09717218251327008

Tsing, Anna (2015): The mushroom at the end of the world. On the possibility of life in capitalist ruins. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400873548

Vetter, Andrea (2018): The matrix of convivial technology. Assessing technologies for degrowth. In: Journal of Cleaner Production 197, pp. 1778–1786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.195

Vetter, Andrea (2023): Konviviale Technik. Empirische Technikethik für eine Postwachstumsgesellschaft. Bielefeld: transcript.

Watson, Julia (2020): Lo-TEK. Design by radical indigenism. Köln: Taschen.

Weiser, Mark; Brown, John (1995): Designing calm technology. Available online at https://calmtech.com/papers/designing-calm-technology, last accessed on 30.09.2025.

Zoellick, Jan; Bisht, Arpita (2018): It’s not (all) about efficiency. Powering and organizing technology from a degrowth perspective. In: Journal of Cleaner Production 197, pp. 1787–1799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.234