According to Richard Sclove, polypotency is the ability of technologies to exhibit a remaining feature that distinguishes them from other social structures and increase their relative political salience in a given society. Richard Scloves posits that it is important to acknowledge this characteristic of technology because of several reasons. Firstly, technologies function as social structures independent of their intended aims and goals. However, the conventional view of technology does not bring out this phenomenon and thus the need to understand this feature. Furthermore, various studies profess a huge interest in the political impacts of technology but can only discuss technologies that are designed to function explicitly in a political way. These technologies include telecommunications, military and police technologies, computer databases and voting machines. Secondly, understanding this feature allows people to grasp the truth that all technologies serve as social structures. Therefore, understanding this feature is essential since people get to know that technologies, irrespective of their design exhibit superfluous efficacy based on their functions, impacts, and meanings. Again, knowing this characteristic is important for a better understanding of the various social structures that technologies affect in society.
I agree with Sclove that technology is polypotent since technologies have demonstrated that they can be used for unintended or secondary outcomes. For instance, many social historians on technology postulate that a latent but purposed function of some innovations in the manufacturing technology is to replace low-paid unskilled labor for higher-paid skilled workforce. However, these innovations have also weakened workers’ unions and perhaps disciplined other employees. Conversely, these innovations have not served their focal function of improving productivity and the production process. Therefore, they become polypotent for society and destroy the existing social structures because of their long-term impacts. It follows that focal functions of technology must serve the intended purpose. On the other hand, non-focal refers the complicated additional, though recessive functions, impacts and meanings. It suffices to note that sometimes these technologies serve as social structures by virtue of their focal purposes.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Essentially, as Sclove states, it is important that society addresses this aspect in relation to our relationships with technologies based on varying reasons. For instance, technologies have the tendency to achieve both focal and non-focal functions. Their latent polypotency accounts for their structural performance. The ability of these technologies to achieve these two aspects implies that they affect how we relate to them and their functions in our lives. Good illustrations include the use of computer toys by children. These toys’ focal function is to entertain children. However, they unexpectedly change and influence their psychological development in several ways. Therefore, Robert is right when he states that technologies which are focally designed to function structurally are apt to function non-focally in some instances. Another illustration of the polypotency of technologies denotes to nuclear weapons. These weapons are focally designed to deter, coerce or even destroy other societies that are perceived as enemies. However, they can be used in a non-focal manner in legitimizing dictatorial regimes and government institutions in societies that possesses them. In doing so, the nuclear technology displays its polypotent characteristic.
It suffices to note that technology must be viewed in its broad perspective based on the impacts that it will have on societies in the long-term, especially when it demonstrates its remaining or hidden feature. Therefore, we should not be blinded to the social origins of technologies and their social effects because of the myths and misconceptions.
