The article explores the myth that technology is neutral, focusing on how blockchain can either decentralize power or reinforce inequalities, depending on its design and use.
In an era when digital technologies shape nearly every aspect of our lives, it is easy to assume these tools are neutral — just a means to an end. Be it smartphones, social media, or the latest blockchain innovation, the overall presumption is that these are all just tools, ready to be used for good or bad according to human intentions. But what if that assumption is wrong? What if these technologies were indeed inherently political, meant to orchestrate our ways of living, working, and interacting, whether we realized it or not?
The Myth of Technological Neutrality
For many of us, the idea that technology is neutral is a comforting notion. It lets us focus on the exciting benefits of innovations without worrying too much about the potential downsides. However, some scholars argue that this belief is simply a myth. Technologies, they say, are not just passive tools. They are active agents in shaping society and carrying with them values, ideologies, and power dynamics.
One of the best arguments against technological neutrality came from the political theorist Langdon Winner. He asked, "Do artifacts have politics?" Work like Winner's has argued that technologies are far from neutral—they can enforce specific social structures and power relations simply by how they are designed and implemented.
For instance, blockchains are a digital ledger technology that has swept the planet by storm for their purported potential to decentralize politics by removing the need for central authorities like banks or governments. On the face of it, blockchain technology could serve as a perfect candidate to promote equality and fairness. However, things start getting complicated once we get beyond the surface level.
Blockchain: A Tool for Decentralization or a New Means of Control?
Blockchain technology, which is best known for powering cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, has been widely hailed as potentially revolutionary—a tool that will democratize access to financial services and empower individuals. By allowing peers to transact with each other without having to go through an intermediary, blockchain promises to reduce reliance on centralized institutions and give people more control over their assets.
Yet, as with any technology, the way blockchain is used and who controls its implementation can lead to very different outcomes. For instance, though it has the potential to disrupt traditional power structures, it can also entrench existing inequalities. If only a tiny tech-savvy elite can understand and control blockchain systems, then the technology may actually serve to further centralize power rather than distribute it.
This brings us to an important question: How can we ensure that blockchain and other digital technologies are used to empower people, rather than just serving the interests of those already in power?
The Civic Potential of Blockchain: The Case of CommonsHood
One intriguing example of blockchain being used for social good is the project in Turin, Italy. Developed by the Computer Science Department at the University of Turin, CommonsHood is a blockchain-based wallet app designed to empower local communities by enabling them to manage resources in a decentralized way.
In contrast to many blockchain applications that focus on global financial markets, CommonsHood is based on the specific needs of local communities. The project aims to equip citizens, local businesses, and civic organizations with a tool to issue and manage digital tokens for several uses: fundraising for a community project, trading services among residents, or even rewarding volunteers.
Its focus on social equality and inclusion sets CommonsHood apart from other blockchain projects. The project is designed to be accessible to everyone, not just those with advanced technical skills. This design choice ensures that all members of the community, from small business owners to civic organizations, can participate in and benefit from the decentralized economy that CommonsHood seeks to create.
For instance, a local civic association could use CommonsHood to crowd-fund a new community center. Instead of using something like Kickstarter, which takes a significant cut of the funds raised on its platform, the association could issue cryptographic tokens through CommonsHood. These could be redeemed by people who want to access services from the new center. By offering an alternative to traditional fundraising and resource management platforms, CommonsHood is hoping to foster a sense of shared ownership and community engagement, ultimately working to build stronger, more resilient local economies.
Challenges of Blockchain in Civic Applications
However, the potential to use blockchain for social good has its challenges. One of the most important concerns is that not all people possess sufficient digital literacy or access to technology, such as smartphones, or a reliable internet connection to meaningfully engage in a blockchain-based system. Instead, this raises important questions about who those technologies will empower and who might get left behind.
Moreover, in addition to the democratic and equity-promoting potential of projects like CommonsHood, they also point to a larger question of how market forces can co-opt digital technologies. Even in well-meaning projects, there still remains a possibility that the technology will simply serve the interests of private interests over the public good.
The Politics of Technology Design
At the heart of these challenges lies the fact that the design of technology is never neutral. Decisions made in developing a technology, in what it is designed to do, who it is designed for, and how it is is deployed are inherently political. These decisions reflect value judgments and priorities that the technology reinforces, which can have far-reaching implications for society.
In the case of blockchain, this means that the way the technology is designed and implemented will determine whether it leads to greater democratization or increased centralization of power. Suppose we want blockchain to live up to its potential as a tool for social good. In that case, we should look carefully at design choices to ensure that they align with principles of fairness, accessibility, and democratic control.
Conclusion: Toward a More Equitable Digital Future
With the continued development of blockchain technology, we need to be vigilant not to lose sight of the social and political outcomes of the innovations. Projects like CommonsHood offer a glimpse of how blockchain can empower communities and foster social equity. But for it to become effective, more than just technical innovation has to be done. A commitment must be made toward designing technologies that are inclusive, transparent, and accountable.
Ultimately, the future of blockchain and any other digital technology lies in the decisions that are made today. Recognizing the political nature of these technologies and taking steps to ensure they will be put into use for the public good can help shape this future to be more fair and democratic.
