With respect to the concept of function, the incompleteness of any design of a society is confirmed. The concept of function was linked to the concept of design: the function of a component of a designed entity is the role - not necessarily intended - that the component assumes in the system according to the design. Intended functions are goals of designers that are not necessarily met by actual functions of components. So again, the design of artifacts merely co-designs society. Their actual functions need not coincide with intended functions, and many roles that a technical artifact may assume are not determined by the design of any social system, and therefore cannot be classified as functions. The design of societies is always fragmentary, may change piecemeal, and interferes with non-intended processes of self-organization. It seems to be impossible to design all the relationships between the components of a system. Failure of SSD in many cases is therefore not only - and perhaps even not primarily - a consequence of the complexity of the social system, but of the fragmentary character of the design of any society, and in addition of the neglect of the material components of social systems in the attempt to design functions directly, without focusing on their bearers.111
Achinstein, P., 1970, Function statements, Phil. Sci. 44:341-367.
Allen, C., and Bekoff, M., 1995, Biological function, adaptation, and natural design, Phil. Sci. 62:609-622.
Allen, C., Bekoff, M., and Lauder, G., eds., 1998, Nature’s Purposes: Analyses of Function and Design in Biology, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Banathy, B. H., 1998, Evolution guided by design: a systems perspective, Syst. Res. 20:161-172.
Buller, D. J., 2002, Function and design revisited, in: Functions: New Essays in the Philosophy of Psychology and Biology, A. Ariew, R. Cummins, and M. Perlman, eds., Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 222-243.
Buller, D. J., ed., 1999, Function, Selection, and Design. SUNY Press, New York.
Callon, M., 1986, Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay, in: Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?, The Sociological Review 32, J. Law, ed., Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, pp. 196-233.
Checkland, P., 1981, Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Wiley, New York; quoted from the new ed., Chichester 1999.
Cummins, R., 1975, Functional analysis, J. Phil. 72:741-765.
Davies, P. S., 2001, Norms of Nature: Naturalism and the Nature of Functions, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Emery, F. E., and Trist, E. L., 1960, Socio-technical systems, reprinted in: Systems Thinking: Selected Readings, F. E. Emery, ed., Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1969, pp. 281-296.
Houkes, W., Vermaas, P. E., Dorst, K., and de Vries, M. J., 2002, Design and use as plans: an action-theoretical account, Des. Stud. 23:303-320.
Jablonka, E., and Lamb, M. J., 2005, Evolution in Four Dimensions, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Kitcher, P., 1993, Function and design, Midw. Stud. Phil. 18:379-397.
Krohs, U., 2004, Eine Theorie biologischer Theorien, Springer, Berlin.
Krohs, U., 2005, Biologisches Design, in: Philosophie der Biologie: Eine Einfuhrung, U. Krohs and G. Toepfer, eds., Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main, pp. 52-69.
Krohs, U., 2007, Functions as based on a concept of general design, (Synthese forthcoming).
Laszlo, A., 2001, The epistemological foundations of evolutionary systems design, Syst. Res. 18:307-321.
Latour, B., 1988, The Pasteurization of France, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Lauder, G. V., 1982, Historical biology and the problem of design, J. Theor. Biol. 97:57-67.
Lewens, T., 2004, Organisms and Artifacts: Design in Nature and Elsewhere, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Malinowski, B., 1941, A scientific theory of culture, in: A Scientific Theory of Culture and other Essays, B. Malinowski, with a preface by H. Cairns, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, New York, 1960, pp. 1-144.
Merton, R. K., 1947, The machine, the worker and the engineer, Science 105; reprinted in: Social Theory and Social Structure, R. K. Merton, revised and enlarged edition, 1957, The Free Press, Glencoe, pp. 562-573.
Millikan, R. G., 1984, Language, Thought and Other Biological Categories: New Foundations for Realism, MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
Muller, G. B., and Newman, S. A., eds., 2003, Origination of Organismal Form: Beyond the Gene in Developmental and Evolutionary Biology, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Pickering, A., 1995, The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency and Science, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Popper, K., 1971, The Open Society and Its Enemies, vol. 1, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Preston, B., 2000, The functions of things: a philosophical perspective on material culture, in: Matter, Materiality and Modern Culture, P. M. Graves-Brown, ed., Routledge, London, pp. 22-49.
Ropohl, G., 1999, Philosophy of socio-technical systems, Techne 4:59-71.
Searle, J. R., 1995, The Construction of Social Reality, The Free Press, New York.
Trist, E. L., and Bamford, K. W., 1951, Some social and psychological consequences of the long-wall method of coal getting, Hum. Rel. 4:3-38.
Beyond Inevitability
Emphasizing the Role of Intention and Ethical Responsibility in Engineering Design
Kathryn A. Neeley and Heinz C. Luegenbiehl
Design is “the first signal of human intention."
- William McDonough (1993)
Abstract Much of how humans think about their world and their actions in relation to it is governed by the manner of their speaking. In this paper the authors argue that this has an especially significant impact on the work of engineers and their perception of ethical responsibility. A discourse framework governing the actions of engineers which focuses on the idea of technological development tends to lead toward perceptions of technological inevitability, whereas one focusing on the terminology of engineering design enhances perceptions of choice and, consequently, of individual responsibility. Perceptions of responsibility resulting from design focused discourse thus are not limited to narrow safety and production considerations, but include holistic considerations such as aesthetic and environmental factors, as well as considerations of societal implications of design choices. The authors propose that increased focus on design discourse, in both professional and public settings, will enhance a broader sense of ethical responsibility among engineers.
Engineers usually find it relatively easy to identify issues of professional ethics as they arise in personal relationships and when making individual decisions. It is often more difficult, however, for them to feel responsible for, or even to recognize, the ethical issues associated with technology-based systems and large-scale technologies that are developed by groups and organizations.
111
I wish to thank the discussants at the SPT conference 2005 and Werner Callebaut for helpful comments on the manuscript.