Search results for: Thor Axel Stenstrom

Authors: David Schafer

Abstract:

Critical Theory is in sore need of a workable account of technology. It had one in the writings of Herbert Marcuse, or so it seemed until Jürgen Habermas mounted a critique in 'Technology and Science as Ideology' (Habermas, 1970) that decisively put it away. Ever since Marcuse’s work has been regarded outdated – a 'philosophy of consciousness' no longer seriously tenable. But with Marcuse’s view has gone the important insight that technology is no norm-free system (as Habermas portrays it) but can be laden with social bias. Andrew Feenberg is among a few serious scholars who have perceived this problem in post-Habermasian critical theory and has sought to revive a basically Marcusean account of technology. On his view, while so-called ‘technical elements’ that physically make up technologies are neutral with regard to social interests, there is a sense in which we may speak of a normative grammar or ‘technical code’ built-in to technology that can be socially biased in favor of certain groups over others (Feenberg, 2002). According to Feenberg, those perspectives on technology are reified which consider technology only by their technical elements to the neglect of their technical codes. Nevertheless, Feenberg’s account fails to explain what is normatively problematic with such reified views of technology. His plausible claim that they represent false perspectives on technology by itself does not explain how such views may be oppressive, even though Feenberg surely wants to be doing that stronger level of normative theorizing. Perceiving this deficit in his own account of reification, he tries to adopt Habermas’s version of systems-theory to ground his own critical theory of technology (Feenberg, 1999). But this is a curious move in light of Feenberg’s own legitimate critiques of Habermas’s portrayals of technology as reified or ‘norm-free.’ This paper argues that a better foundation may be found in Axel Honneth’s recent text, Freedom’s Right (Honneth, 2014). Though Honneth there says little explicitly about technology, he offers an implicit account of reification formulated in opposition to Habermas’s systems-theoretic approach. On this ‘normative functionalist’ account of reification, social spheres are reified when participants prioritize individualist ideals of freedom (moral and legal freedom) to the neglect of an intersubjective form of freedom-through-recognition that Honneth calls ‘social freedom.’ Such misprioritization is ultimately problematic because it is unsustainable: individual freedom is philosophically and institutionally dependent upon social freedom. The main difficulty in adopting Honneth’s social theory for the purposes of a theory of technology, however, is that the notion of social freedom is predicable only of social institutions, whereas it appears difficult to conceive of technology as an institution. Nevertheless, in light of Feenberg’s work, the idea that technology includes within itself a normative grammar (technical code) takes on much plausibility. To the extent that this normative grammar may be understood by the category of social freedom, Honneth’s dialectical account of the relationship between individual and social forms of freedom provides a more solid basis from which to ground the normative claims of Feenberg’s sociological account of technology than Habermas’s systems theory.

Keywords: Habermas, Honneth, technology, Feenberg

Procedia PDF Downloads 164

Authors: Wenfa Yu, Thuva Gnanasampanthan, John Finlay, Jessica Clarke, Charlotte Anderson, Tony Clare, Axel Rosenhahn

Abstract:

Marine biofouling is a worldwide problem at vast economic and ecological costs. Historically it was combated with toxic coatings such as tributyltin. As those coatings being banned nowadays, finding environmental friendly antifouling solution has become an urgent topic. In this study antifouling coatings consisted of natural occurring polysaccharides hyaluronic acid (HA), alginic acid (AA), chitosan (Ch) and polyelectrolyte polyethylenimine (PEI) are constructed into polyelectrolyte multilayers (PEMs) in a Layer-by-Layer (LbL) method. LbL PEM construction is a straightforward way to assemble biomacromolecular coatings on surfaces. Advantages about PEM include ease of handling, highly diverse PEM composition, precise control over the thickness and so on. PEMs have been widely employed in medical application and there are numerous studies regarding their protein adsorption, elasticity and cell adhesive properties. With the adjustment of coating composition, termination layer charge, coating morphology and cross-linking method, it is possible to prepare low marine biofouling coatings with PEMs. In this study, using spin coating technology, PEM construction was achieved at smooth multilayers with roughness as low as 2nm rms and highly reproducible thickness around 50nm. To obtain stability in sea water, the multilayers were covalently cross-linked either thermally or chemically. The cross-linking method affected surface energy, which was reflected in water contact angle, thermal cross-linking led to hydrophobic surfaces and chemical cross-linking generated hydrophilic surfaces. The coatings were then evaluated regarding its protein resistance and biological species resistance. While the hydrophobic thermally cross-linked PEM had low resistance towards proteins, the resistance of chemically cross-linked PEM strongly depended on the PEM termination layer and the charge of the protein, opposite charge caused high adsorption and same charge low adsorption, indicating electrostatic interaction plays a crucial role in the protein adsorption processes. Ulva linza was chosen as the biological species for antifouling performance evaluation. Despite of the poor resistance towards protein adsorption, thermally cross-linked PEM showed good resistance against Ulva spores settlement, the chemically cross-linked multilayers showed poor resistance regardless of the termination layer. Marine species adhesion is a complex process, although it involves proteins as bioadhesives, protein resistance its own is not a fully indicator for its antifouling performance. The species will pre select the surface, responding to cues like surface energy, chemistry, or charge and so on. Thus making it difficult for one single factors to determine its antifouling performance. Preparing PEM coating is a comprehensive work involving choosing polyelectrolyte combination, determining termination layer and the method for cross-linking. These decisions will affect PEM properties such as surface energy, charge, which is crucial, since biofouling is a process responding to surface properties in a highly sensitive and dynamic way.

Keywords: hyaluronic acid, polyelectrolyte multilayers, protein resistance, Ulva linza zoospores

Procedia PDF Downloads 136