I Don’t Think I Have, Actually. I Went And Read The Whole Thing, And Her Main Idea Is People “misusing

I don’t think I have, actually. I went and read the whole thing, and her main idea is people “misusing the word technology”. That’s literally what she says two paragraphs before the above excerpt -

“But [the word technology] is consistently misused to mean only the enormously complex and specialised technologies of the past few decades, supported by massive exploitation both of natural and human resources. This is not an acceptable use of the word.”

That is precisely the sentiment I was responding to - the idea that our modern use of the word “technology” is somehow wrong or misinformed. But it’s not. It has simply progressed as our society has progressed.

She goes on to write that “Its technology is how a society copes with physical reality…” and no, it isn’t. Perhaps it was, centuries ago. But within the modern societal consciousness, that is not what technology means. The meaning has changed. It’s just like how you wouldn’t describe, say, a fantasy magic system as “weird” because “weird” doesn’t have any relation to magic in the modern parlance. But it did - in Shakespeare’s day, that was the word’s primary meaning - magic, power, the occult, fate, witchcraft - though he would have spelled it “weyard”.

The most ridiculous thing is that this is all written in response a review of one of her books, in which the reviewer is very clearly using “technology” in the modern sense. But she still pedantically insists that, actually, his review is incorrect because… she’s working with a completely different definition of the word than everyone else on the planet.

And on a side note, fuck this whole… essay? I hate it. ‘Not an acceptable use of the word’ my ass. That’s the kind of linguistic arch-conservativism that creates institutions like the Académie Française.

— Ursula K. Le Guin, from “A Rant About ‘Technology’”