1)" The most obvious lack in social constructionist writing is an almost total disregard for the social consequences of technological choice. This is a social theory and method geared to explaining how Technology arises, how they are through various kinds of social interaction. What tries to show why it is that particular devices, designs, and social constituencies are the ones that prevail within the range of alternatives available at a given time? But the consequences of prevailing are seldom a focus of study. What is the introduction of new artefacts means for people's sense of self, for the texture of human communities, for qualities of everyday living, and for the broader distribution of power in society- these are not matters of explicit concern"
2)" As regards the analysis of scientific knowledge, the epistemological program of relativism in the sociology of science remains neutral as regards judgement about whether or not the proclaimed discoveries or theories of scientist are true or not. Extrapolating to technology, social constructivist choose to remain agnostic as regards the ultimate good or ill attached to particular technological accomplishments"
3) " The intellectual vogue of social constructivism arises at a crucial time. in the late 20th, a great many people- scholars and ordinary citizens alike- have begun to realize that the key question is not how technology is constructed, but how to come to terms with ways in which our technology-centred world might be reconstructed".
The very idea of the consequence of technology, which is missing in the social constructivist approach, is directly connected to the field of automation and its implication upon the labour and labour force. The technological implications, both in the political and cultural spectrum helps me to understand the response of human agency, especially workers. The question of who is a relevant group is very much important in the relationship between labour and technology, which will give more insights to my upcoming study.
Technological consequences: the very essence of studying technology emerged from the far outcry to stop the technological monster. In the early phase and still, some believed that technology is out of control or technology is determining your life. Upon this perception, the scholars started to scrutinise the technology itself rather than considering it as a component bigger social structure such as capitalism. Later this emphasis misleads to mere unpacking of the 'black box of technology'. Winner criticizes that escape of 'consequence of technology' from scrutiny is the biggest mistake and it should be equally investigated with more emphasis. His contribution is a navigator for upcoming scholars.
The black box of technology: even though winner criticizes the complete focus on unpacking the black box of technology, he agrees with the basic assumption that it is the need of the hour to understand what socially and culturally determines and constitutes the technological innovations and artefacts. The serious debates and response papers popularise this kind of concepts and make better clarity.
Theories of culture and structure: Langdon winner uses the conventional theories of agency, action, structure and culture to fill the gaps emerged out of the negligence from social constructivism. The agency of technology, as a highly debated topic, is clarified through the deep understanding of western epistemological ideas of subordination and control. Rather than opening the black box, winner tries to situate the politically loaded technology in the historical and cultural context.
Theories of power: According to Winner, the Foucauldian perception of power should be used to understand the manifestation of it in the relationship between humans and technology. Winner deconstructs the idea of ' technological determinism and conceptualising it as technological somnambulism is emerging from his account on agency and power.
1) Social consequences of the technology: one of the major criticism levelled against the social constructivist is they conveniently removed their priority to study the consequences of technology, which the earlier scholars like Marx, Heidegger and others have done. The top priority of SCOT scholars was unpacking the black box and describing it rather than understanding the value orientation that technology caused. Because of this, according to Winner, this group of scholars are unaware of the fact that technology itself is political and it leads to power structure and hierarchy.
2) Technology/ science relationship: Langdon winner argues that the very root of the conceptual mistake done by the social constructivist is related to their conception of technology is equal to science or there are no boundaries. This leads them to argue that the sociology of science and its premises can be used for a better understanding of technology and technological change. For example, winner says “As they go about opening the Black box, the historians and sociologists in this school of thought follow methodological guidelines established during the past two decades within the sociology of science, in particular, an approach that studies the sociology of scientific knowledge (Collins, 1983) ".
3) Irrelevant social groups: the major defect of social constructivism, according to Winner, is their misunderstanding of social groups involved and not involved in a technological phenomenon. They have labelled them as 'relevant social group'. The author argues this as a narrowness in both theoretical and analytical understandings. The dominant narratives are rewritten through this representational understanding, but what about those who are outside of this pale. Does he argue that you can make a dichotomy of cyclists and anti-cyclists, but what about who is out of its imagination? Are we going to reduce and generalise them as anti-cyclist? And still, is the cyclist the referral and central point of debate? The winner argues that this kind of beurocratic and pluralistic approach still lead us to issues we deal in understanding the technology.
The main argument of the article rests in the critique of social constructivism and its conceptual basic premises. Like most prominent scholars in STS, Winner also agrees with the larger idea of 'social construction of Technology, but he disagrees with the negation of early scholarly tradition by SCOT Academicians, who firmly believe that the others who studied technology earlier were only able to study the consequence of society. Langdon winner argues that the mere description and direct commentary upon what constitutes a technology and how it works will not complete picture without writing about the direct consequences happening across the contemporary world from Whale to Reactor.
Langdon winner is one among the prolific writers in the area of Science and technology. His works are predominantly focused on the relationship between technology and politics. His book on 'autonomous technology', tries to understand the bigger implications of the technology itself rather than negating it as the social constructivist do. On the other hand, his major ideas are not opposed to social constructivist. For example, Winner argued that technology encompasses social relationships. But what makes him different from others who study technology is, he argues that particular relationships are manifestations of 'power' or power itself. Even though Langdon winner negates then the idea of 'Technological determinism', he admits that the panic emerged from 'Autonomous technology' is a truth. But he stresses that it’s the sheer negligence of Humanity regarding what it produced and inability or amnesia regarding his or her agency and responsibilities of what they created.