Mini-essay 2
Yara Langeveld (2760223) - MPA - MSTS
698 words
Within this essay, the concepts translation and technological mediation are compared and
applied to the example of the smartphone. It concludes by saying that these concepts are like
opposites, but can meet in the middle by recognising that actors and technologies mutually
shape each other and continue to do so to enable co-evolvement.
The concept of technological mediation is best explained by Swierstra1 as followed: “The basic
starting point of this philosophical approach [technological mediation] is that technologies
influence our perceptional and practical relations to the world. Perception is mediated, for instance,
because technologies can highlight some aspects of reality and hide others. Action is mediated, for
instance, because technologies can enable or stimulate us to undertake certain actions, and forbid
or dissuade us to take others.” (p. 14). This illustrates that technologies shape our perception of
the world, by highlighting certain norms, values and actions and hiding others1. In addition,
technologies shape our actions, because they enable and stimulate certain actions and
complicate and discourage others. This way, technologies co-shape and change norms, values
and desirable actions1. Moreover, technology is deeply embedded in our interactions and
co-creates the society we live in by mediating our relation with the world, our perceptions of it
and the choices we make.
Technological mediation can be linked to translation of Actor-Network Theory (ANT), which
indicates that all actors, human and non-human, need to be translated or changed to become
part of an actor-network2. The product of translation is a modified version of an actor, such as a
technology, which is then perceived in a certain way by the other actors in the actor-network.
Both translation and technological mediation assume there is interaction with technologies,
which characterises how the technology is perceived1,2. Thereby, translation and technological
mediation evolve the actor-network or world we are part of. However, there is also a clear
contrast between the concepts. With technological mediation, unlike translation, it is not
assumed that a technology as an actor needs to be changed in order to fit into a network.
Instead, the technology itself changes the network and its actors in it1.
This can be linked to the case of the smartphone. The introduction of the smartphone engaged
different actors actively, such as engineers, users, governmental agencies and the global supply
chain, and caused interactions among these actors and with the technology. Eventually, this
characterised how the smartphone was perceived, namely as an opportunity for rapid and
enhanced communication, entertainment and information dissemination. However, with
translation, the different actors had to negotiate and mediate to align their interests and make
the smartphone as an actor fit into the actor-network, whereas in technological mediation the
smartphone was not changed to become part of the world1,2. Instead, it changed our relation with
the world and still continues to mediate our perceptions and actions. The smartphone, for
instance, highlights accessibility, connectivity and information sharing, but also hides
perceptions of addictions and concerns about privacy and mental health effects. Furthermore,
actions such as social networking, productivity and entertainment are stimulated and
increasingly enabled by the smartphone, while face-to-face interaction and physical activities
