This analysis investigates how technology interacts with sociocultural dynamics, challenging conventional views on resilience.
Technology broadly refers to objects or actions that are linked to tekhne, an ancient Greek term for ‘skill’ or ‘craftmanship’. Anthropologists of technology sometimes employ this understanding as a starting point, but many study technology in a much broader sense. They ask instead how humans and non-humans purposefully make or do things, and how such activity is shaped by broader sociocultural dynamics. Framing the topic in such terms allows anthropologists, among others, to think of technology beyond the machines of Western industrial-capitalism and engage with technologies across time and space—from stone tools to smartphones to satellites—and across human and non-human actors. Anthropologists have also promoted vernacular definitions of technology that emphasise technological effectiveness as understood by the actors involved in creating and using it. This has led them to challenge the analytical usefulness of the concept of ‘technology’ itself, highlighting concepts such as ‘technological systems’, ‘technical ensembles’, or ‘technics’, each time focusing on the complex interaction between technical objects such as tools, technical actions such as gestures, and the milieu or context in which technologies are embedded. Seeking to understand this complexity, anthropologists have highlighted that technologies have a rhythm that entangles diverse actors, resonates within particular milieus or contexts, and challenges the subject-object divide. Focusing on rhythmic resonance is one of several ways in which the study of technology offers unique insights into the dynamics that render some societies and their technological systems more resilient than others.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stephanie Ketterer Hobbis (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: