테크노크라시에 關한 序說的 硏究 : 槪念定立을 위한 모델의 設定을 中心으로 = A Study on Technocracy

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study is to discuss the interaction between modern society and technology, concentraiting in particular on the forces which control this interaction. The application of scientific knowledge through technology has been seen by most modern societies as fundamental to the advance of civilization, and to the well-being of the members of the society.
It has often been suggested that we are faced weth a new technological and scientific priesthood of experts i. e. technocrats, who, by virtue of their specialized knowledge, control the direction and advance of technology, and of society generally. Science and technology are by their nature complex disciplines with a relatively closed membership. The language and methodology is specialist and the preserve of an educated élite of experts.
According to J.K. Galbraith, whereas ownership of and control over land was crucial for power in the feudal era, and ownership of and control over capital was crucial for power in early days of capitalism, nowadays the crucial resource is knowledge or information, for this is the factor of production ‘that is the hardest to obtain or hardest to replace.’ In its early days, the ideology of ‘technocracy’ was dominated by religious fervour. The ‘religion’ was that of ‘positivism’ of Auguste Comte. But the ideology implicit in positivism, or at least certain eliments of it, has played a crucial role in the subsequent development of the concept of ‘technocracy.’ Crucial aspects of this ideology are:
1. A belief that all laws of science embody an absolute truth, and that all processes, social, natural, physical, are reducible to laws of science. In the face of this concepts like ‘free will’ and ‘choice’ become meaningless.
2. An emphasis on the diminishing importance of political as compared to technical and scientific processes and a consequent tendency to concentrate on ‘means’ or technique to the exclusion of ‘ends’ or ‘goals’. (This is frequently referred to as the ‘end of ideology’ thesis)
3. A belief, following from point 2 above, in the need for control by a select group of ‘benevolent’ or ‘liberal’ experts or technocrats who understand the laws of science.
4. A belief that all scientific or technical progress is for the good of all mankind that ‘progress’ is in fact synonymous with ‘improvement’.
Certain aspects of this ideology are frequently referred to a scientism. Scientism has been called ‘the transformation of positivism into a social philosophy, the basis on which man explains and interprets the nature of society.
For the sake of ‘conceptualization’ of technocracy, we present four discrete and differentiated models of it, althongh there are in reality many other possible interpretations of the word which fall between or overlap these models.
The writes label these models for convenience of identification:
a. ‘Benevolent technocracy’ model; The Saint-Simonian model of benevolent technocracy promoting the interests of all sectors of the community.
b. ‘Self-interested élite’ model; A class model of technocracy dominated by the interests of an élite of technocrats.
c. ‘Servents of power’ model; A class model of technocracy dominated by the interests of an elite of capitalists.
d. ‘Autonomous technology’ model; The ‘uncontrolled’ model of malevolent technology, dominated by autonomous technological momentum.
To recapitulate, it would seem, generally, that although technicians and experts exert considerable power and influence within their own sphere of competence through the techniques they employ, the majority of them are not however in positions that enable them to control overall policy decisions, or the ‘ends’ to which these ‘means’ are directed. For some technicians, indeed, it is part of their ‘professional ethic’ that are concerned with ‘means’ rather than ‘ends’; they present their techniques as neutral tools at the service of the policy-maker, who can decide to what ends they should be directed. For other technicians, a belief that science and technique will necessarily preoccupation with ‘means’ on the assumption that the ‘ends’ will look after themselves.
Finally, We would emphasize that human beings do have power to control technology, but that this power is not at present evenly distributed between individuals and groups in society. We would rather emphasize the point that within any type of society ‘technocratic power usually results in bolstering up the existing socioeconomic system whatever this may be’.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 序論
• 1. 問題의 提起
• 2. 硏究의 範圍 및 目的
• Ⅱ. 本論
• 1. 테크노크라시의 이데올로기
• 2. 槪念定立을 위한 모델의 設定
• a. 모델 Ⅰ―慈愛的 테크노크라시 모델
• b. 모델 Ⅱ―自己利益的 엘리뜨 모델
• c. 모델 Ⅲ―權力의 侍女 모델
• d. 모델 Ⅳ―自律的인 데크놀로지 모델
• 3. 比判
• Ⅲ. 結論