Human-Technology Interface in Philippine People Power

Abstract

Social psychologist Albert Bandura (2001) suggests that new technologies play a major role in changing the very nature of human influence. Bandura further claims that human functioning and technology form a duality in that "the very technologies they create to control their life environment, paradoxically, can become a constraining force that, in turn, controls how they think and behave" (Bandura, 2001, p. 17). Human agency in the form of nonviolent civic engagement has arisen alongside rapid developments in new technologies. In this age of pervasive and ubiquitous computing, peace scholars as well as technology researchers have delved into the relationship between information and communication technologies (ICTs) and their potential role in active nonviolence (Ackerman & Duvall, 2000; Downey & Fenton, 2003; Eng, 1998; Foss & Larkin, 1986; Martin, 2001; Rheingold, 2002; Wilhelm, 2000). Pool (1984) recognized that technologies are not neutral. Weapons of mass destruction and mass persuasion have been used to gain power and control over states. In the same way, civilian armed struggle presupposes the use of guns and ammunition to fight the state and the military. In essence, technology can serve both the oppressor and the oppressed (Martin, 2001). Consequently, the same technologies intended for science, military, and business have made their way into other aspects of civilian life, including use of technologies as a tool for active nonviolent action. This chapter examines the nature of the interaction between nonviolent collective human agency on the one hand and the use of technology on the other. We use the Philippines People Power I of 1986 and People Power II of 2001 as cases in point. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved). (chapter)