Market debates mirror the 1960s technology debates’ false dichotomy of adulation versus refusal.
Evidence
Humanity’s conversations about markets are not just intellectual; they bear on the question of the appropriate role for markets in our societies. Debates about that role sometimes remind me of debates about technology in the 1960s and the 1970s. Technology was then often taken as either to be adulated or to be condemned, and each of the apparent options frequently involved an implicit view of technological change as following an autonomous logic. The surrounding culture could choose to conform to that logic or to reject its products, but could not modify it fundamentally. — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera, 121
Categorization
- XREF: Parallels the ‘autonomous logic of technology’ critiques in Winner, Feenberg, and the social construction of technology literature. — connects to: The greed-versus-regulation framing itself is a false dichotomy — Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, 1774; Neoliberals rejected the pure state-versus-market binary as a false dichotomy — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making…, 9; Free-will debates misfire because both sides miss how motives acquire their status
Broader Connections
- The greed-versus-regulation framing itself is a false dichotomy
#exemplifies(0.90) — Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, 1774 - Neoliberals rejected the pure state-versus-market binary as a false dichotomy
#corroborates(0.72) — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 9 - Free-will debates misfire because both sides miss how motives acquire their status
#corroborates(0.72)