discussion

You might remember that Dirk Sijmons mentioned that they use the Martijntje Smits analysis of the impact of new tech on society when they consider solutions to tech issues. Here’s an excerpt from an explanation of that theory:

From Ton’s Interdependent thoughts:

Smits monster theory starts with the notion that a monster is a two-sided being, that within itself unites aspects that seem impossible to unite. (e.g. Frankenstein, with human traits and aspects, but also an artefact built from inanimate parts)

Monsters in this way challenge cultural boundaries. (e.g. genetic modification challenges the distinction between man and animal, cloning challenges the boundaries of natural progenation) At the same time because of that challenge it cannot be dealt with in terms of existing norms within those cultural boundaries, it’s sort of outside the system, which is likely to frustrate debate and discussion. This also creates the space for both fantasies of doom, as well as of imminent paradise, without being constrained by reality.

Smits then goes on to define four forms of dealing with monsters:

killing the monster

adapting the monster

assimilating the monster

embracing the monster

Read more here and in dutch here.

This entry was posted on Thursday, February 14th, 2008 at 8:54 am by Tori and is filed under design, landscape, technology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.