자끄엘륄용어집

technique 과 technologie

손화철 1 5,323
첨부한 논문은 제가 2004년에 발표한 것입니다.

제목 : Reading Jacques Ellul's <The Technological Bluff> in Context

출처: Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 24 Nr. 6 pp. 518-533

영어로 두 용어를 표기하는 것과 관련해서는 각주 2에 나와 있습니다. 모임에서 말씀드렸듯이 영어의 경우 "technique"은  "technology"로, "technologie"는 "techno-logy"로, 한국어의 경우 "기술"과 "기술담론"으로 번역했습니다.

  English translations of Ellul's books are in agreement to translate the French word "technique" as "technique" and "technologie" as "technology." The problem is that the usage of these terms does not always convey Ellul's crucial distinction strictly, nor are they used consistently. In addition, there are many occasions where using "technique" does not sound right in English. The translated title of La technique ou l'enjeu du si&egrave;cle, "The Technological Society," is a good example. Here "technique" is translated as "technology" instead of "technique" as it should have been (1990: xi - translator's note). See I.1 of this paper.
  In this paper, I will use "techno-logy" to emphasize "technologie" in terms of "discourse on technique," which is faithful to the Ellulian distinction from "technique"; and "technology" to respect the conventional usage of the word (e.g. "philosophy of technology," "information technology") and already stabilized translations (e. g. "technological society," "technological system"). Thus, I will use "techno-logical bluff" rather than "technological bluff," while keeping "Technological Bluff" as a book title. When "technology" is used, therefore, one does not need to pay too much attention whether it means "technique (technique)" or "technologie (techno-logy)." It could mean either of them, but is being used in a more loose, general, neutral, and conventional way.


본문 중 관련 내용은 제 1절입니다. 아래에 첨부합니다.

1. Technique and Techno-logy
What does Ellul mean by "techno-logical bluff" and why does it matter? In order to answer these questions, one has to first figure out the difference between "technique" and "techno-logy" in Ellul's philosophy of technology.
Ellul emphasized the distinction between "technique (technique)" and "techno-logy (technologie)." "Technique" refers to "the totality of methods rationally arrived at and having absolute efficiency (for a given stage of development) in every field of human activity" (TSoc: xxv, emphasis original). It should also be noted that Ellul's "technique" mainly refers to modern techniques.
  Ellul explained that "techno-logy" means the "discourse on technique" (TB: xv-xvi). This has a broader meaning than other possible definitions of the term, for example, "systematic inquiry of technique" or "invention, development and cognitive deployment of tools and other artifacts," as Hickman suggests in his definition of "technology" (2001: 11-12). Whereas Hickman's notions of technology are more closely related to the actual deployment of technique, "discourse on technique" could mean "what people think about technique" or even the philosophy or sociology of technique (TB: xv).
Accordingly, the project of TB is different from those of TSoc and TSys in the sense that TB focuses on the discourse that sustains technological society and technological system, not on the phenomenon of techniques itself. In other words, the prime concern of TB is, for example, not whether technology is autonomous or not, but how and why people come to view technology being completely under the control of human beings.
In the remainder of this section, I elaborate the notion of "techno-logical bluff" further, by presenting Ellul's own exposition and comparing it with similar concepts and approaches in philosophy of technology.

Comments

배용하
여러 가지를 검토해보았지만, 타당성이 있는 것 같습니다.