My theses both discuss the ideas of common misconceptions in regards to certain technology, an area both Marx and Winner seem to specialize in. Marx believes technology and advances in that field have gradually shifted over the past 200 years. Originally, technological innovations were made in order to advance society as a whole, but as time progressed, they were made self-servingly and to make a profit. I feel Marx would respond most to my argument about television and how it has helped to increase the intelligence of the American viewing public. If Marx looked at the beginnings of television and how far it has come, he could easily apply his theory to the timeline. Television, he might argue, was originally intended to help inform the public with domestic and international news items, but the fierce competition to attract viewers caused the television stations to appeal more to the entertainment side of the brain than the intellectual side. Winner, on the other hand, would respond more strongly to my argument about recycling and how it is an energy waste rather than an energy saver. Winner's essay focuses more on the political nature of technology and those who operate it. Winner might find recycling a prime example of how there needs to be a centralized administrative system in place in order to direct it, much like the railroads or nuclear energy plants. And if those in charge have some sort of political or social agenda, like Robert Moses with his Long Island overpasses, the administration could easily manipulate policies and processes for their own designs. For example, if a foresting magnate is on the administrative board, he could easily declare that recycling paper was a waste and all paper must be made from scratch instead of recycled.
