The 29th Design Fundamentals Seminar, Science and Technology as Cultural Identity: on the case of East Asia

Science and technology sometimes reinforce the cultural identity of a country or society, such as the former Japanese home appliances and the US space exploration, to name but a few examples. While they have a high impact because of their obvious results, science and technology also have negative consequences, such as promoting patriotism. Using Taiwan as a case study, this talk examines the image of science and technology as a cultural icon and the role played by design.

Lecturer

Osamu SAKURA

Born 1960, Tokyo. PhD, Graduate School of Science, Kyoto University. After working as a visiting researcher at the University of British Columbia, Mitsubishi Kasei Institute of Life Sciences, Yokohama National University, and the Institute of Information Society at the University of Freiburg, he is currently a professor at the Interfaculty Initiative in Information Studies, University of Tokyo and a team leader at RIKEN Center for Advanced Intelligence Project. His specialty starts from evolutionary biology, but recently his main area of research is the study of the relationship between science, technology and society. His fundamental interest is to locate human science and technology from the long, long human evolution perspective.

Date

Feb. 14 (wed), 2024. 17:00~19:00（open at 16:50~）

Venue

Kyushu University, Ohashi Campus, Design Library 1F, Reading Hall + Online

*All interested parties are free to attend. If you wish to attend, please apply using this application form (lectures will be given in Japanese only).

*If you wish to participate online, the URL and other information will be sent to the address you entered in the form above on the day of the event. Please download the latest version of Zoom in advance.

Host

Center for Design Fundamentals Research, School of Design, Kyushu University

Co-host: Future Design Course, Faculty of Design, Kyushu University

Review

In Taiwan, an identity as a “country” is indeed complex. One often perceives the image of Taiwan being friendly to Japan and off late, political tensions with China have been frequently reported. Like Japan, Taiwan’s composition as an island country makes it easy to imagine physically, but I am ashamed to say that I did not (and still do not) know enough about its history.

Naturally, there are indigenous people in this land. After being ruled by the Dutch in the 17th century, Taiwan became a stronghold of the Ming Dynasty resisting the Qing Dynasty on the mainland, which was soon taken over by the Great Qing Empire. After the Sino-Japanese War, the Japanese Empire ruled Taiwan from 1895. After the World War II, Taiwan entered the era of the Republic of China, which began with Chiang Kai-shek. Despite experiencing various disruptions in this situation as well, they have recently been receiving many immigrants, mainly from Southeast Asia.

At the risk of sounding superficial, I have reflected on the history of Taiwan briefly, with its ethnic and linguistic mix, because the relationship between science/technology and society, which is the subject of Mr. Sakura’s research, is deeply related to the origins and history of the “country.” While science and technology have different historical origins and transitions, they have developed under the banner of “progress” and are closely interrelated especially since the Modern Era. Even if a particular technology is invented based on some scientific findings, the intentions and aims originally envisioned are rarely applicable to society as is, and unique values and functions are formed instead in close interaction with the lifestyles and users of each era and region. Mr. Sakura’s specialty, Sociology of Science and Technology, deals with specifying this process.

As a clear example of this, science and technology have often been described as symbolic of the countries that have made them their main industry since the modern era. During the Cold War, the U.S. demonstrated its national power through space exploration, and the automobile and aircraft industries, and it has been pointed out that this “pioneering” spirit has been carried over to the current IT industry. In Europe, German automobiles, which are of higher quality and more durable than those of other countries, are often associated with the national character of the country. In Asia, the Japanese consumer electronics, automobile, and animation industries and Korea’s recent information and communication technology (proprietary applications) are typical examples. Clearly, each country has its own unique “design,” whether in functional form or engineering structure.

Mr. Sakura, who proceeded with his fieldwork in East Asia based on this understanding, candidly confided that he encountered difficulties during his research in Taiwan from September 2023. In this essay, he describes in detail the process of trying to explain how AI and robots are culturally shaped, and I quote an impressive passage from it: In Taiwan, “a mesh of ethnic and cultural pluralism, intertwined with time axis and regional differences, flows like a muddy river at the bottom of society, swirling here and there.” What does this mean?

Again, using Japan as an example, it has often been pointed out that this country has a unique sensitivity to the advancement of science and technology, as Mr. Sakura has mentioned based on the civilization-theoretical perspective of Tadao Umesao. Although there are certain objections to calling it “techno-animism,” a unique view of science and technology seems to emerge from the fact that while the Japanese produce advanced dog-like robots (AIBO), they also hold a religious ceremony to “offer” these robotic dogs as pets when they break down. However, when Mr. Sakura conducted interviews in Taiwan on the same topic, the conversation not only deviated widely from robots and IT but also failed to delve deeper into the “Taiwanese-ness” of science and technology. According to him, one of the reasons for this may be Taiwan’s diversity as a nation/ethnic group, which stems from its abovementioned historical background. Regarding its national language, Taiwan has faced the issue of being forced to change it with each ruling power. Even with the Chinese language, the standards of the majority, despite being dominant, intermingle with others. As a result, Mr. Sakura has said, cultural stereotypes that represent the country, for better or worse, have proven difficult to establish in Taiwan.

However, if he focused on technology, many Taiwanese people responded “semiconductors.” Indeed, with the construction of a large-scale plant by a world-class semiconductor manufacturer underway in Kumamoto, Japan, it may not be long before such an image of Taiwan is firmly established. However, what are the implications of a material (component) becoming a technology that represents a country? Mr. Sakura concluded his presentation by mapping the relationship between the above countries and the products (as a whole) that have become their cultural symbols.

Later, a participant who works in trade between Taiwan and Japan pointed out that the image of semiconductors is limited to a few people working in the Taiwanese IT industry and is not necessarily widespread among the entire population. This is probably true. Nevertheless, the fact that the technology of “semiconductors” was proposed seemed very suggestive to me. Finally, I would like to consider the following points.

First, semiconductors are generally invisible or unnoticed (I suppose this is also the origin of the question posed by Mr. Sakura). We do not directly see them used as materials for transistors and integrated circuits, and we do not understand the physical principles of their properties, namely, electrical conductivity. However, we know that the electronic and information devices around us operate on integrated circuits, which require semiconductors, and that our daily lives are dependent on them for everything from automobiles, industrial machinery, and home appliances to PCs and smartphones. The reason the semiconductor industry is thriving despite semiconductors lacking an obvious appearance like that of aircraft, automobiles, or robots, is that the devices that utilize them are proliferating unseen all around us. We have experienced this fact through not only the trends of AI but also increasing PCs and electronic devices, including those “made in Taiwan,” which have been increasing on our desks during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This situation that has been brought about by recent science and technology could be called “globalization” for now. However, it is also true that this has resulted in cultural homogenization and fragmentation. In other words, the fact that the science and technology of semiconductors have become representative of a nation indicates that the traditional boundaries that have defined country and culture, or the national identity, are becoming more fluid. As Mr. Sakura pointed out, the subject of culture, not limited to Taiwan, is “not straightforward” because it inherently and potentially possesses a pluralistic nature like a web “intertwined with time axis and regional differences,” regardless of how homogeneous it may seem. A uniform language is enforced and ethnic lines are drawn under the concept of nation and nationhood to make the heterogeneous culture(s) appear homogeneous, and such failures have been repeated. That is called the “modern” era.

This is not to say that I believe that technological advances have eluded or destroyed the traditional framework of nation-states, and the reality is not so simple. In fact, the frequent wars that have been occurring of late can be regarded as a reaction to this change, and the semiconductor industry has become an important point in the negotiations between the major countries. Closer to our life, there is still much talk of technological “nation-revival,” and it is often associated with the character and temperament of nationality in a moralistic way.

However, when trying to answer the question of whether science and technology, which have been led by Western modernity, can have any diversity in the future instead of a singular nature (Mr. Sakura pointed this out based on Yuk Hui’s discussion of “techno-diversity”), the focus on semiconductors indicates that it is necessary to reconsider this issue at the material level, not from a national or an ideological point of view. For example, resources and waste, which inevitably accompany science and technology, have been traversing the artificial borders of nations, and this aspect has been triggering recent anthropological and technological debates that try to reconsider the fundamental boundary between nature and culture. At the very least, we could replace the terms, “science and technology,” with “design” in this text.

*I would like to acknowledge and appreciate that we were able to welcome Mr. Sakura to this seminar thanks to Yurie Suzuki, who was studying design in the U.K. and contacted us.