One of the first things I noticed that was wrong with Winner's essay is that, in some places, he makes several rather large claims and doesn't give a single example to back them up. In particular, Winner states that many of the technological advances of our time stand in direct opposition to the ideals of Western democracies. At one point in the essay, he says, "Artifact/ideas can involve astonishing contradictions. In particular, the mapping of the world encountered in the shape of things frequently contradicts the political ideology to which most people in Western societies claim to be committed. In particular, many of the artifact/ideas prevalent in our time stand in flagrant contradiction to the ideology of modern democracy." A little bit later, he says "I take it to be the fundamental failure of modern civilization to have ignored again and again how such questions [of freedom and justice] present themselves in the guise of what appear to be 'neutral' technologies. To a considerable extent the ideas embodied in the realm of material things stand in opposition to the central ideas that we believe describe and guide our political culture." This is the second or third time he's said that technology often contradicts Western democracy, but he still hasn't given any examples. Still later in the essay, he says, "Unfortunately, some of the design strategies that look fabulous from the point of view of efficiency, productivity, and global competitiveness involve what amounts to an ingenious synthesis of oriental feudalism and capitalism." He gives no details as to which strategies are feudal in nature and how they depart from democracy. He really doesn't go into detail at all. He simply makes assertions and then treats them as facts.
There is one point in the essay that I noticed in which Winner's assertions are contradicted by facts. In the essay, Winner lists a few ideas that seem to be present in the way modern-day technology is structured. He says, "Among the many ideas present in the structure of contemporary technological devices and systems are the following:
Ironically, modern-day technology has actually helped to destroy some of these ideas. Consider the assertion that "power is centralized." It has often been said that "knowledge is power." Thanks to the Internet, it is harder than ever for governments to control information. No government has jurisdiction over the Internet, and thus the flow of information can't be prevented. One of the ways communist governments maintain control over their citizens is by controlling information. In George Orwell's 1984, the government had total control over all information, and thus control over all people. With the rise of the Internet, information can no longer be controlled. Knowledge, and therefore power, is available to anyone.
Another assertion is that "there are barriers between the social classes." Technology has greatly weakened the barriers between classes. Bill Gates, the owner of Microsoft and the richest man in America, started out in an ordinary middle-class family. However, with his knowledge of computers, he rose above his ordinary life and became rich and powerful. Nowadays, anyone can start a business with nothing more than an Internet connection and a good idea. It is possible to set up an electronic storefront and market software at no cost. Entrepreneurship is no longer limited to those who have money. It is open to anyone.
However, despite the good that has come out of technology, there have also been negative effects. It is now much easier to monitor employees' activities in the workplace. There are numerous computer programs that allow employers to monitor their employees' Internet usage during work to make sure they're not doing anything that's not work-related. I believe this represents a terrible infringement on workers' rights. I believe that workers should be judged on the amount of work they do, not on the time they spend doing it. If an employee can do eight hours' work in four hours' time, I believe that employee should be allowed to do whatever he/she want with the other four hours. However, my views seem to be in the minority right now.
I have one more problem with Winner's essay. At the end of the essay, he gives three suggestions for improving the political and social effects of technology on society. One of these suggestions is, "No means without ends." In other words, no technology should be developed unless it solves a specific problem. To me, this seems terribly narrow-minded. Many times, technology is developed that at first seems useless, but later proves to be extremely useful. For example, many of the devices that were originally developed for the space program have since found uses in everyday life. Binary algebra, which has proven so useful in the development of computers, was originally conceived as a mental diversion, and was thought to have no application in the real world. The ancient Greeks developed much of the mathematics upon which our science is founded, even though they themselves had no practical use for it. If everyone had followed the principle of "no means without ends," our science would not be nearly as advanced as it is now.
Overall, Winner's essay isn't really bad, and he does make some excellent points. However, it could have been a lot better if Winner had taken a little more time to learn about what he was writing about.