83
technology transformed into a function-oriented activity associated with productive forces (Szerszynski 2005,
55-56).
8] Drawing on Heidegger, Feenberg also calls for “an appreciation of the role of the technical lifeworld in which
we live with devices, not merely controlling them but also finding meaning through them” (2000b, 446). From
this standpoint, promising dialogues between critical theory and post-phenomenology become possible (e.g.
Ihde, 1990).
9] Personal translation.
10] I am not suggesting that politics is reducible to the Schmittian concern with drawing the line between friends
and enemies – nor that it is or should be primarily concerned with such an operation. However, drawing that line
has undeniable political consequences.
11] See Dussel (2013, 402-403).
References
Argue, Robert. 1978. The Sun Builders: A People's Guide to Solar, Wind and Wood Energy in Canada. Toronto:
Renewable Energy in Canada.
Bantwal Rao, Mithun, Joost Jongerden, Pieter Lemmens, and Guido Ruivenkamp. 2015. “Technological Medi-
ation and Power: Postphenomenology, Critical Theory, and Autonomist Marxism.” Philosophy and Tech-
nology 28: 449–474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-015-0190-2.
Carpenter, Stanley. 1992. “Instrumentalists and Expressivists: Ambiguous Links between Technology and De-
mocracy.” In Democracy in a Technological Society, edited by L. Winner, 161-175. Springer, Dordrecht.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1219-4_10.
Celikates, Robin. and Rahel Jaeggi. 2018. “Technology and Reification: ‘Technology and Science as ‘Ideology’
(1968).” In The Habermas Handbook, edited by H. Brunkhorst, R. Kreide, & C. Lafont, 256-271. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Dussel, Enrique. 2013. Ethics of Liberation in the Age of Globalization and Exclusion. Translated by Eduardo
Mendieta, Camilo Pérez Bustillo, Yolanda Angulo, Nelson Maldonado-Torres, and Alejandro Vallega.
London: Duke University Press.
Engels, Friedrich. 1872. “On Authority.” Marxists Internet Archive. https://www.marxists.org/ar-
chive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm.
Feenberg, Andrew. 1996. “Marcuse or Habermas: Two Critiques of Technology.” Inquiry 39 (1): 45–70.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00201749608602407.
Feenberg, Andrew. 2000a. “Constructivism and Technology Critique: Replies to Critics.” Inquiry 43 (2): 225-
237. https://doi.org/10.1080/002017400407771.
Feenberg, Andrew. 2000b. “The Ontic and the Ontological in Heidegger's Philosophy of Technology: Response
to Thomson.” Inquiry 43 (4): 445-450. https://doi.org/10.1080/002017400750051242.
Feenberg, Andrew. 2017. Technosystem: The Social Life of Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Fernandes, Mauricio. 2020. “The Question of Technique in Jürgen Habermas’ Thought: elements for a Theoret-
ical, Conceptual and Referential Framework.” Unisinos Journal of Philosophy 21 (1): 114-123.
https://doi.org/10.4013/fsu.2020.211.11.
Gehlen, Arnold. 1984. L’Uomo nell’era della tecnica. Prefaceby Antonio Negri, Translated by A. Burger Cori.
Milano: Sugarco.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1968. “Technology and Science as ‘Ideology’.” In Toward a Rational Society: Student Pro-
test, Science and Politics. Translated by J. Shapiro (1970). Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1982. “A Reply to My Critics.” In Habermas Critical Debates, edited by J. B. Thompson and
D. Held, 219-283. London: The MacMillan Press LTD.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. I: Reason and the Rationalization of Society.