Social Construction of Security Technology: An Analyses of the German debate about armed drones

(1)

Universiteit van Amsterdam Master Thesis

Msc Political Science (Specialization: European Politics and External Relations) ___________________________________________________________________________

Social Construction of Security Technology

An Analyses of the German debate about armed drones

___________________________________________________________________________

Author: Supervisor:

Nico Peter Gütlhuber Dr. Beste Isleyen

Student Number: 12784990 B.Isleyen@uva.nl

nicoguetlhuber@yahoo.de

26.06.2020

Date of Completion: 26.06.2020 Second assessor:

Dr. Rocco Bellanove

(2)

Abstract: This paper provides an analysis of the German debate about the acquisition of

armed drones for the Bundeswehr. Therefore the social debate about the issue is analysed and the relevant social actors get identified. Next to this all the perceived problems and their solutions presented by the relevant social groups are illustrated according to the Social

Construction of Technology approach presented by Bijker and Pinch (1984). This approach is slightly changed to apply it to the field of security technology. This paper aims to provide an overview of the social ideas about armed drones for the Bundeswehr and highlight possible solutions to the problems. Germany is chosen particular, because it represents a rather unique case, as it holds a public debate on the issue.

Keywords: Armed Drones, Bundeswehr, Critical Security Studies, Germany, Social Construction of Technology

(3)

List of Abbreviation

AfD Alternative für Deutschland

CDU Christlich Demokratische Union

CSU Christlich Soziale Union

EU European Union

FDP Freie Demokratische Partei

GDP Gross Domestic Product

HALE High Altitude Long Endurance

MALE Medium Altitude Long Endurance

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization

SCOT Social Construction of Technology

SPD Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands

STS Science and Technology Studies

TD Technological Determinism

UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

UAS Unmanned Aircraft System

UN United Nations

US United States

(4)

1. Introduction

Unmanned aerial vehicles exist for over 150 years, but in the last 40 years, their technological development increased significantly. From flying objects for target training to high-tech surveillance and semi-autonomous aircraft. Modern warfare without the usage of drones is unimaginable for most military officials. They deliver live-time surveillance of a combat area, provide national intelligence agencies with data about fugitives, reduce the risk for pilots to get shoot done or captured and can even be used for target assassinations of enemies, with a low political profile, because no troops in the foreign territory are needed. It seems almost like drones are the future of modern warfare. The drone sector within national militaries is one of the fastest-growing sectors and there is no end in sight. A market study by the Teal Group estimates that private firms and national militaries will spend €143 billion on the production and development of new UAV until 2029 (Teal Group, 2019). This makes it to the fastest growing sector in the aviation field. But the usage of drones is not without its criticism. Especially armed drone programmes like the one of the US face huge criticism by human rights organisations and the NGO’s. The US-led Coalition alone in Iraq and Syria claims more than a thousand civilian casualties between 2014 and 2018 (AirWars, 2020). The high numbers of civil casualties and their massive spread in the military create an image of ‘killer-drones’, which fly around and when they see a potential target the pilot just fires without considering the risk for the civil population in the area. Refugee children, which fled from countries with a civil war like in Yemen or Syria, draw pictures with drones in the sky and say that they are afraid off the blue sky because of drones. Such images influence the social debate about drones all around the world and make it a hot button issue for many politicians. Germany is such a country. So far the German military only possess non-lethal drones, like small and midsized drones for tactical surveillance and one MALE type the Heron 1 for information gathering and to convoy German soldiers on patrols outside of basecamps in Mali and Afghanistan. But in 2019 the German government signed an agreement to lease five drones of the type Heron TP. The Heron TP is an Israeli drone and the successor of the Heron 1, which the Bundeswehr already uses. The big difference between the two types is that the Heron 1 can potentially be equipped with

(6)

air-to-surface missiles. The debate is not new in Germany since 2013 all German Defence Ministers talked about obtaining armed drones for the military. But the issue always failed to gain a majority in the parliament and hence so far Germany does not possess armed drones. With the new deal, it is different, Germany also did not acquire armed drones, but a drone which can potentially be armed. Thus the basis for armed drones does now exist. As this obstacle has been overcome the new debate shifts to whether the Heron TP should be armed or not. But the parliament has learned from its mistakes in the past and does not want to decide about the question before holding a broad civil debate about the issue. To outline the debate, this paper focuses on the following Research Question: What social ideas/constructs about armed drones influence the debate about armed drones in Germany?

This thesis claims that social ideas about armed drones influence the decision making of actors in the field of security and that the largely pacifistic society is one reason that Germany has no armed drones yet.

The scientific relevance in this paper lies in-between the academic gap of Science and Technology Studies and Critical Security Studies. Also, some work in the field has been conducted, the social construction of security technology is relatively new, most authors so far have focused their work on the social construction of security but the social construction of security technology is mostly untapped.

The political relevance of the paper stems from the analysis of the German armed drone debate offers new insight on possible solutions and conflicts within the debate. Thereby showing actors in the field, as well as politicians a way to solve the debate.

Next to the scientific and political relevance this paper also provides social relevance. The usage of armed drones in a war with an already vulnerable population towards terrorism can increase the problematic. And so armed drones cannot just offer additional security to German soldiers, but also incite hatred within such a society against Germany, which in the end can lead to an increase in terrorist attacks. The society should be aware of such problems of the usage of armed drones.

Besides the political and social reasons, why is this paper focusing on the debate in Germany and not in a different state? First, Germany can be considered as a unique case in this situation, compared to other European states, like France or the UK, Germany so far does not possess armed drones and so no political decision happened yet. Second, Germany tries to hold a national debate about exactly this issue in 2020 to see how the population feels about the issue (#DrohnenDebatte2020). And third, it is concerned with the special relationship between the

(7)

German military and the civil society, due to its problematic history and other reason, which will be explained later on in the paper.

This paper is structured in the following way, first, it offers a summary on the relevant literature on Science and Technology Studies and Critical Security Studies. Followed by the theoretical framework presented through Bijker’s and Pinch’s (1984) approach to the Social Construction of Technology. The next part shows the development process of drones and especially illustrates the German case. After this, the methodology for the analysis is introduced. The methodology will then be used to analyse the drone debate in Germany and show possible solutions, as well as perceived problems by the civil society about the acquisition of armed drones. The last part of the paper is the conclusion. In this section, the main findings of the analysis will be presented again to answer the research question: What social ideas/constructs about armed drones influence the debate about armed drones in Germany?

2. Literature Review

In academic literature, the influence of the social world on technological development was long neglected. Next to this until the late 20th-century security studies were mostly conducted with the nation state as a prime actor. Critical Security studies offer a different light on the perception of security, risk and threat. Therefore, this literature review aims to highlight the discussion on the social influence towards technological progress as well as its influence on the understanding of security. By doing so the literature review provide useful insight into the current debates in the fields. This will help later on to answer the RQ: What social ideas/constructs about armed drones influence the debate about armed drones in Germany? The following part summarises the discussion on Science and Technology Studies and critical security studies.

2.2 Science and technology studies

Science and Technology Studies is a relatively new field of studies, which emerged in the interwar period after the WW2 and the Cold War, as the interest of scientist, historians and sociologist of science in the interaction between society, scientific knowledge and technology increased. On the first notion combing social theories of science and technology seems counterintuitive, because of scientific knowledge and technology in a common-sense separate it from the social world. Science and technology are fact-driven and originates from fixed natural laws, whereby social sciences rather focus on individuals and groups and their

(8)

interaction. But under closer consideration combining the two field can yields some new insights on the development of science and technology as well as the effect it has on the ethical and political aspect of change. Before explaining STS further some basic concepts need to be clarified.

Science: Investigation of the physical world and the objects we produce

Technology/Artefact: Development of objects through the dissemination of science

Society: The total sum of our interactions as human beings, including the interactions we have to produce new artefacts

All of the three concepts are deeply intertwined in Science and Technology Studies. A pioneer work in STS is the work of Thomas S. Kuhn (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. His work pathed the way for a new approach to social studies of science and history, whereby scientific discovery is not only seen as a representation of natural laws and the advancement we generate from them, but rather as a product of socially conditioned investigation of scientists. One of the most important aspects of Kuhn’s work is he analyses how social scientist influence scientific discovery and its technical applications to interact with politics, ethics, culture, public policy and social groups (Kuhn, 1962).

This linkage between Social Sciences and Science offers new tools on how to assess technological advancements and its effects on society. Within social sciences, the scope and scale of experiments and theories are an important factor. The first dimension, therefore, is scale, which usually captures the size, duration and complexity under which the phenomenon happens. The focus on the different levels of scale is crucial for social science, that is to focus on small population size or individuals, or rather on a big population or an entire social system. The second dimensions concern the scope of the investigation, this means comparing the effects the phenomenon has on small sample size or a big population as well as the differences between short and long term duration. Other features of scope are assessing the interaction of social groups and social institution and its effects on ethics and politics. The question of the effect of certain social groups or norms on certain outcomes/phenomena transcends within STS towards technology and scientific advancement, as for scholars in STS the idea that the stakeholders involved in new technology shape the artefact according to their ideas is the core focus of STS. Understanding technology as social shaped and not vice versa creates a new understanding of

(9)

technological progress and moves away from the formerly idea of Technical Determinism. Before STS the general idea was not that social groups shape technology, but rather that technology shapes the society. This approach is known as Technological Determinism, which will be explained more detailed in the next section. Many early scholars, whose dedicated their work on the interplay between society and technology, as Lewis Mumford (1934) in his book Technics and Civilization struggled with the idea of TD and looked for a way out of the dilemma. This paved the way for new approaches of critical theories going against TD and acknowledging the effect social groups or the society as a whole has on an artefact. However, this new approach struggled with a new problem at the start. The concerning question of it was whether the social structure solely has an impact on the social organisation of the new technology or do social groups also affect the content and details of technological progress. Due to this problem, two different streamings crystallised out of it. On the one side are the internalists, which see technological progress as resilient to all influence of the social world and focus on the internal logic of development. And on the other side are the externalist, which acknowledges the essential impact of society on scientific and technological change (Winner, 1977).

The latter of the two streamings created the base for STS studies. Thomas Kuhn (1962) developed this idea further and closed the gap between social and technological determinism by his idea of paradigm and paradigm shift. The notion of his approach is that in moments of transition and controversy nor the social or the technical aspect is the primary force of change and adaptation. These moments rather show that both the scientific and the social world are present in times of change or technological progress (Kuhn, 1962, p. 77-84). Karin Knorr-Cetina’s and Micheal Joseph Mulkay’s (1983) idea of the symmetric principle, which developed from Kuhn’s notion of paradigm and paradigm shift, added another layer to STS. The symmetric principle, states that both true and false beliefs should be used for the analysis of social science. Hereby true beliefs are seen as facts derived from the natural law and false beliefs are considered as reflections of the interests of scientist and society. Their idea of the symmetric principle offers a useful tool for STS and can be transferred to the field of analysing the interplay of technology and society. Inspired by their work Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar (1986) redefined the symmetric model further and adapted it special to STS by using the term technoscience. They use the term to describe the phenomena of technology and science interacting with the material world.

All of these insights on the connection between the social sphere and the technological sphere lead to a new method of analysing the connectives between social sciences and technology,

(10)

the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT). The SCOT approach will be explained later on the paper in the theoretical framework, first the main literature within Critical Security Studies will be shown.

2.3 Critical Security Studies

This section focuses first on the central schools of critics security studies, by highlighting the three mainstreaming within the field, the Copenhagen School, the Paris School and the Welsh School. These three streaming distinguish from traditional security studies, due to their incorporation of social factors and power relation concerning security. Among themselves, they differ in the form of how security is conceptualised. In the Copenhagen, School security is characterised as a discursive process, by which language and pictures are the main focus of discussion. In contrast to the Copenhagen School, the Paris School follows a more sociological and practical oriented approach, whereby practise and activeness is essential to understand security and insecurity. The Walsh School considers security as an emancipation process, in which security is creation through the absence of insecurity (Binder & Stachowitsch, 2017). The second part of the section highlights how critical security studies and STS can be combined and offers an outlook on recent developments in combing the two fields.

2.3.1 Central Aspects of Critical Security Studies

In recent decades the notion of security evolved to central socio-political phenomena, including the international, national and regional level and civil and military concepts of security, as well as the politicisation and institutionalisation around the issue of security. In the same, the structural and cultural conditions of security have changed. The previous situation, in which the world was divided between a liberal west and a socialist east ruptured after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1990. The power vacuum originated from the dissolution of the old power structure could not be filled by the USA alone, new powerhouses, like China, are on the rise. Next to these new actors enters the field of security. Formerly security was primarily defined by the state, but the break of the old structures allowed new actors, as NGO’s, private security companies and transnational actors to enter the field. Not only new actors entered the field, but also previous issues, which have not been considered under the aspect of security, like migration, gender-politics or globalisation, become perceived through security aspects. This means that the concept of security is in a study exchange with social and economical issues, developing the conception of security new. Through these developments new critical concepts

(11)

of security in the academic world arose in recent years, namely critical security studies, human security, (in)security theories and feminist security studies. The lines within the new fields are fluent and borders are not clearly defined. The common aspect of them is that the notion of security cannot be considered as neutral, which can be achieved without social influences. This new concept stands in contrast to the old understanding of security, whereby the notion of international and national security is based on a strong military and the surviving of the state. Another aspect differentiating them from the traditional concept is the inclusion of a various range of actors in the analysis of security, moving away from international national institution as the constructer of security and rather access the impact of individuals and groups on the notion of security. This allows for an expansion of the security issue into new domains, as the destruction of the environment, global warming and economical disintegration. This change of the perspective of security also was enhanced by an increase in interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research in recent years. Within the new interdisciplinary character of security, military conflicts are not the only source of analyses anymore, rather social factors are seen as a key point in a successful analysis of security. Social aspects hereby are considered with traditional security issues and show the interplay between them. Another distinction between critical security studies and traditional security studies is the strong reliance on risk assessment in critical security studies. Traditional security studies focused on terms of security, prevention and threats, in critical security studies the focus shift more to an evaluation of possible risks. This means not a sole focus on the defence of threats, but the anticipation with new risk/threats by collecting data and the formulating of possible future risks. Concepts like prevention and resilience characterise critical security studies (Binder & Stachowitsch, 2017). After highlighting the central aspects of critical security studies the next part is devoted to giving a more detailed distribution of the main streamings within critical security studies, the Copenhagen School, the Paris School and the Welsh School.

2.3.2 Copenhagen School of critical security studies

The Copenhagen School is a fundamental school of critical security studies. Its basic approach can be traced back to Alexander Wendt’s (1992) Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics and its description of agency process and social structure in international relations. Buzan et al. (1998) development this approach further and used it for a critical analysis of security studies. In their work, they use a constructivist approach, whereby in contrast to Anglo-American approaches to security studies, security cannot be defined as a

(12)

preexisting condition. For them, the issue of security is created through securitisation of an issue. It is a discursive process, in which language and imagery play a role in creating a security problem around an issue. Peoples and Vaughan-William (2015) formulate the basic logic on how securitisation of an issue occurs like the following. First, there is a non-politicised issue, this issue will be through a certain usage of imagery and language politicised and then once the issue reached the political arena and receives further attention by a wider audience the issue becomes securitized. Within this logic there often a perceived threat by the ‘we-group’ from another group or phenomena. This perception of a threat allows the actors dealing with issue to a securitization of the issue (Table). Peoples and Vaughan-William (2015) identified three condition, which increase the likelihood of a successful securitization. First an existential threat is perceived, which allows the usage of exceptional measure to deal with the threat. Second, the actors dealing with the threat have enough power/authority to convince their audience of the existential threat and third, a similar threat has already been perceived before, so that it is easier to imagine the threat and its possible consequences. Hansen (2006) uses the Bosnian War (1992-1995) as an example how the usage of imagery and language transforms the previous non-securitised humanitarian aspects of the war became securitizied and so western states reacted to the conflict. The approach of the Copenhagen School is not without it critics, Balzacq (2008) critics that securitization of an issue does not solely happens by discursive methods, but also through practices of ‘security professionals’. Hence security also needs to be considers as a practised process.

Table 1.

(13)

2.3.3 Paris School of critical Security Studies

The Paris School addresses the criticism of Balzacq (2008) and uses for their approach the concept of governmentality by Micheal Foucault and the concepts of social field and habitus by Pierre Bourdieu. Governmentality describes an approach to the study of power, whereby governing of people should rather be done through positive means, as by the simple legislation of new laws (Huff, 2020). The concept of habitus, means all the cultural knowledge actors gained over their lifetime, a frequently used example of the concept are professional athletes, which know exactly which part of their body they have to use in any situation during a game. The concept of field describes the environment an actor sees himself. Bourdieu divided the world in various distinct fields of practice, in which each of them has its special rules of the game and set off knowledge and only if an actor knows the rules of the fields he acts in can master it (Routledge, 2020). Didier Bigo (2002) one of the primary representative of the Paris School, depicts how through actions and practices in the field of security conception of insecurity emerges which lead to governmentality of unease. This governmentality of unease then leads to insecurities within society. Huysmann (2006) uses the debate about migration in Europe as an example of how insecurities via actions and practices get produced. A central aspect of the Paris School is the understanding of security not as purely state-owned, it sees rather as a social process. Cause of such an understanding of the concept of security, the Paris School combines internal and external security issues. External security issues are external threats directly aimed against the state and its development process and internal security issues are characterised as threats, which originate within the state (Knelangen, 2014). The combination of internal and external security issues goes against the old classification, whereby external and internal security issues are divided. This has the consequence that scholars within the Paris School mostly focus on security practises and thereby the concept of habitus, by Bourdieu, is from utter importance for them.

2.3.4 Welsh School of critical security studies

The Welsh School of critical security studies developed around in the 1990s around the same time as the Copenhagen School, but with a clear dissociation from it. Within the Welsh School

(14)

scholars, like Richard Wyn Jones and Ken Booth did not only try to understand how security is contracted in intersubjective processes but also presented a normative alternative to the Copenhagen School. The central aspect of the Welsh School is to counter the traditional state-centred perspective on security, by reconceptualising security as a human emancipation process (Booth, 1991). This approach is called security as emancipation. For scholars of the Welsh, School security does not stand in opposition to freedom, rather a freedom can be seen as the foundation of security. Hence their approach aims to remove the negative conception of the term security and use it with a positive connotation. This change in the way security is perceived allows expanding the term security away from the old state centred perception to a new issue, which have not been considered under the aspect of security before. By characterising new issues, like global healthcare or environment policies under security issue, these issues should become more aware to a wider spectrum and so receive an increase in resources to fight them. Research following the approach presented by the Welsh School can lead to change in the perception of security as a positive concept and a stronger focus on the human individual. For scholars of the Welsh School, this needs to be possible without the negative consequences of actions and practises of the Copenhagen and Paris School of critical security studies, namely the construction of the we against them feeling and the use of extraordinary military solutions to fight the perceived threats (Binder & Stachowitsch, 2017).

2.4 Science and Technology studies and critical security

studies

Science and technology studies and security studies have theoretically various intersection. As especially the development of new technologies always played an important role in traditional security studies. New and better technologies helped to gain a competitive advantage over adversaries and so could decide over the future of a state. Using critical security studies with its strong socio-political approach to security and combine it with science and technology, especially its social understanding of the development of technology offers a new dimension for the analyse of technology and security. In science and technology studies a social constructivist approach is used to explain the development of scientific knowledge and technology, a similar approach is used by critical security studies to highlight the understanding of security. The social environment in which technologies emerges and the influences the social world has on the development of technology or knowledge is an essential part of STS as explained before in the paper. This understanding goes against technological determinism,

(15)

whereby technology influences the social and political sphere and not vice versa. Same can be said about critical security studies, in which the perspective on security moves away from the traditional state-centred view on security and shifts security more towards the individual understanding of security and the actions and practises of the actors in the field. Hence by combining the two fields of study it offers a way to combine the social process in which technology origins and the social understanding of security issues. Within this context, critical security studies focus on the wider environment security technologies can be used and so go against the traditional understanding os security and technology, whereby technology serves as an instrument to the realisation of security policies. Ceyhan (2008) for example argues that artefacts not just perform security tasks, but also enable a different perception on security issues and its politicisation, by the increased usage of biometric data on our borders. For him, technologies, like biometrics, act as a security enabler, through an ongoing process of the technologisation of security. The concept of sociotechnical imaginaries provided by Sheila Jasanoff and Sang-Hyun Kim (2009) offers a new perspective on the interplay between national policies supporting the development of technology and the social imaginaries around an artefact related to the national policy. As it describes the influence of social conceptions of threats and risks on the development of technology. The impact of sociotechnical imaginaries on the development of technology can be used to describe the influence of terrorism attacks and the shift in technology we see with it. Terrorist attacks produce a strong feeling of insecurity, as they can happen in any place without prior knowledge and so everybody is vulnerable. Recent attacks all over Europe, like Paris 2015 or in Germany 2016 produce a new threat environment for the society. Previously the danger of physical violence against individuals in Europe was almost absent, as violent offences and homicides are almost every in Europe in the decline over the last fifteen years (Eurostat, 2016). By bringing terror back into the state people feel more insecure even if the data about actual crime in Europe tells a different story. Actors in the security field pick this notion of a new threat environment up and act upon it, by developing new security systems and technologies to counter the new situation and give citizens the feeling of safeness back. Also, Amicelle et al. (2015) look at the interdependency between a broader concept of security and technology. In their work, they describe that in technologies, in which the social context of its development is embodied also reproduce the social context and hence they cannot be simple considers as pure technical artefacts, but as artefacts embedded in their social surrounding. This section elaborated on the interplay between science and technology studies and critical security studies, as it shows there are not just theoretically intersections among the two fields also in academia authors like Amicelle et al. (2015) Ceyhan (2008) or

(16)

Jasanoff and Kim (2009) have based their works on analysing the influences of the one field on the other. Especially the development of technologies for security issues seems to play a crucial role in their works. Besides the notion that some scholars are already working on the intersection between STS and critical security studies, there still has some research to be done. The role of new technologies for our society is increasing with every day and so as well as the understanding of the development process of artefacts to grow. Particularly as security in our modern days can almost not be defined without the technology providing it. Hence there is a great need for further studies of security technologies and the way it is designed, to fully cope with the unintended consequence of such technologies.

The next part of the paper will explain the main methods of SCOT, its history and contemporary issues concerning SCOT.

3. Theoretical Framework

Social Construction of Technology has emerged in the fields of Science and Technology studies and social constructivism. The term can be used in two similar ways, a broad definition and a more narrowed definition, which will be used later on in the paper. For the reason of clarification, this section examines both definitions to show the full range of research conducted. The broad definition of the social construction of technology describes an environment in which, technological development, the crafting of new artefacts and the meaning associated with new technology is shaped by multiple social factors and forces. The narrow definition defines an interactive process or discourse among the scientific world and relevant social groups, it can be summed up as an interactive socio-technical process that shapes all forms of technology. The basic logic behind this is the following new artefacts shape the world and our social life, individuals decide which artefacts are useful and profitable and groups of people, which have a stake in the artefact (stakeholders) working together to innovate the artefact. These social groups include politicians, scientists, technologists, economists, entrepreneurs and social advocates. Each of the stakeholders characterises the new technology with a set of problems and solutions, by resolving the problem set the stakeholders to work together to fix the problems and give in to a certain degree to different social groups. Hence the social shapes the artefact and the interactive process can be defined as socio-technical (Bijker & Pinch, 1984). For a better understanding of SCOT, it is also important to understand its counterpart Technological Determinism. Therefore before a more in-depth analysis of SCOT follows the next section explains briefly the logic of TD.

(17)

3.2 Technological Determinism

Technological Determinism can be understood as the counterpart of Social Construction of Technology, whereby technology developed by society shapes its societal values and structures. It describes the concept of human evolution in which human history is determined by technological developments. Early ideas of a technological determinism can be traced back to Karl Marx, due to his work on the effect of technological progress on the life if humans of his time and his structured and nomological account of human history. Since then many scholars like, Robert Heilbroner (1961), William H. Shaw (1979), Jürgen Habermus (1970), Gerald A. Cohan (1978) and Langdon Winner (1977) have tried to define technological determinism more in-depth. Within the academic literature exist three main approaches towards technological determinism, 1) Norm-Based Accounts, 2) Unintended Consequences Accounts and 3) Logical Sequence Accounts (Bimber, 1990).

The first approach is embossed by Jürgen Habermus (1970), and his perception that societies can address norms of practice involved in technical progress. Hereby technological progress is an essential human activity derived from multiple individual working together. The progress is driven by goals which are informed by norms of practice, next to that the progress also has to sanctioned by a legitimate political power. If then in the further progress the guiding norms of practise in which it advanced are replaced by new norms as pure efficiency and through that, the discourse over progress removes from the political and ethical discourse the technology can be considered autonomous and deterministic. The main feature of the Norm-Based Account is the lack of willful control over practice, as well as the exchange of ethical norms with goals of efficiency and productivity.

The second approach focuses less on the norms involved in the development of the technology, but rather puts the unintended consequences of technological development in the spotlight. An example of this is the invention of the car. In the beginning, people thought that cars would free streets in cities horse manure. Hence cars would be cleaner and environmentally friendlier as horse carriages, but nobody in these times knew about the toxic gasses an engine produces and its effects on the environment. The general idea of this approach is that technological progress is accompanied by unintended consequences, which are unable to foresee and control. Therefore technological progress is partly autonomous and hence is determining to some degree social outcomes (Winner, 1977).

(18)

The third approach claims that technology on its exercise causal relations on social practices. An example therefor is the establishment of railways, through this progress other developments like the telegraph have been established. The main premise of this Logical Sequence Approach is that technology changes cultural and societal norms, by adapting to the new technology (Cohan, 1978). Robert Heilbroner (1961), explained this dynamic even more by stating that the path of technological development is naturally given and that it autonomous drives social change as it is the primary cause for social change. The logic behind this is that history is predetermined by scientific laws. These laws will sequentially be discovered by and produce according to their knowledge of new technology, which will again change the social structure and values.

All of the three approaches presented upon aim to describe the logic behind technological determinism. Each of them offers a different logic how technology determines cultural and societal change, either through the absence of the political and ethical discourse over new developments as described by Habermus (1970), unintended consequences of new artefacts or the idea that scientific achievement is predetermined, due to the scientific laws. Also if the three reasonings differ in their approach they follow the same core idea that technological advancement changes structural and societal norms and values. From these three approaches two main statements can be derived, first technological progress develops independently from society and second technological development has structural and societal effects on society. As described above technology develops through the discovery of scientific laws and the transformation of the new knowledge into artefacts or through enhancements of existing techniques. For technological determinism, progress is seen as separate from the influence of social forces (Habermus, 1970). The second tenet describes metaphorically speaking a cultural lag, which the society needs to catch up too and therefore adapt and change with the new artefact.

3.3 Origin of Social Construction of Technology

The theory Social Construction of Technology has been introduced by Bijker and Pinch (1984) in their article The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit. It developed out of a combination of three distinct streamings the sociology of scientific knowledge, history of technology and science and technology studies, whereby the SCOT method generally is attributed to science and technology studies, which is explained in the section above. The first ideas to combining the

(19)

previous preponderant streamings started in the 1970s in the western hemisphere, mainly in the USA, Uk, Scandinavia and the Netherlands.

In their paper, Bijker and Pinch (1984) identified a model of how the function of an artefact depends mainly on the social process leading to its creation, as well as on the views of various social groups whether the artefact is useful for them or not, as they are the end-users of such a new technology.

This new view on the creation and advancement of technology was made possible by applying the concept of social constructivism towards the progress of technology. For social constructivists, knowledge is a social construction and not an ultimate truth. Hence science and technology can be interpreted in different ways. The same applies to technology, as different social groups attach diverse meanings or interpretation to an artefact. Bijker and Pinch (1984) presented an example to highlight their idea of how social forces shape technological progress - Bakelite. Bakelite was an early plastic invented as an artificial substitute for varnish. It was not a huge success and could not replace varnish, but through the accidental deformation of materials made up of Bakelite under heat, it was discovered that it could be moulded and used as plastic. This was not the purpose of the artefact at its origin, but due to it, its usage was reinterpreted as plastic and all its applications, which could not have been foreseen by its inventor.

3.4 Central Constructs

The theory of SCOT has some central constructs, which are from utter importance to conduct a full analysis of the process of change in the tradition of SCOT. These are 1) Relevant Social Groups 2) Interpretive Flexibility 3) Controversies 4) Closure Mechanism 5) Stabilisation. This next section will explain all of the five mentioned central constructs.

The first construct are the relevant social groups, this are social groups which are involved in the development of the new technology and share meaning about the artefact. Usually, these groups have different opinions about the usage and meaning of the artefact, by expressing their various opinions and meaning over the project in the development process each group depending on the power of influence of the social group can affect the path the artefact is taking in its development. A social group, for example, can be composed of consumers, NGOs, politicians, scientists, or economists. The key fact hereby is that a relevant social group shares the same meaning, idea or design of the artefact (Bijker & Pinch, 1984).

(20)

The second construct captures the interpretative flexibility of each social group. It is deeply based in the tradition of social constructivism, whereby the meaning of the artefact can be differently interpreted by various social groups. So it relates to the specific meaning an artefact is attached by each of the social groups involved in the development process of the technology. In other words, what does the artefact mean and whats the usage for a consumer, an economist or a politician. Interpretative flexibility is not only limited to the meaning of an artefact but also how the artefact is designed (Bijker & Pinch, 1984).

The next construct is controversy. Controversy has for Bijker and Pinch (1984) quite the same meaning as it has in our daily lives, it is a clash of different ideas, meaning or designs. The speciality hereby is that the controversy is not just a simple struggle over the right path, but it is defined by the diverse ideas of the artefact attributed by the relevant social groups involved in the process. Vehement debates take place among the relevant social groups, due to their diverse ideas about the artefact or because one group has more to lose or gain from a specific meaning of the artefact.

Closure mechanism describes a way how to solve the controversy and end the struggle over influence in the process of each relevant social groups. Bijker and Pinch (1984) present two mechanisms, which seem to be the best fit as a closure mechanism ‘rhetorical closure’ and ‘closure by redefinition of the problem’. Within the mechanism of rhetorical closure, Bijker and Pinch differentiated between closure in science and closure during the development of an artefact. Closure in science by rhetorical close is concerned with crucial findings or hard facts, which will end the controversy. This method is not meant to fully satisfy the Core-Set of the field, but can rather be seen as a method to end the public debate over the artefact, as the Core-Set has a deeper knowledge and understanding of the topic. Indeed the Core-Core-Set will be more aware of the inadequacies of these crucial findings of the artefact, so rhetorical closure as a method usually has the effect of ending the controversy in the wider community, but not among the Core-Set. The Core-Set are the scientists who are most involved in the scientific topic of the controversy (Collins, 1981). Rhetorical closure for the case of technology involves the stabilisation of the technology and a solution to the problem. The important point hereby is if all relevant social groups see the problem as solved. In technology lobbying or advertising can be seen as a fruitful method to change the perspective of the artefact and so the meaning associated to it by the relevant social groups. For example by advertising that the artefact is perfectly saved in the media or through other channels of communication can be such a rhetorical closure. This simple can be a rhetorical move to end the controversy, even if the inventors know that it is not true. What matters for rhetorical closure is the fact, that the relevant

(21)

social groups perceive the problem as solved, also if it is not and so the controversy around the artefact comes to hold (Bijker & Pinch, 1984). Closure by redefinition of the problem is not separated in two cases, it solely applies to the case of technology. Hereby, as the name already implicate, the closure of the controversy around an artefact can be achieved by applying the artefact to a new problem, which it solves. A frequently used example therefor is the invention of the air tire for bikes. In the beginning, the air tire was not popular among cyclists, due to its technical and aesthetic problems, but as a cyclist, who used air tires, started to win more and more races its popularity increased suddenly significant. The air tire has not overcome fully its technical and aesthetic problems at the beginning, but because it presented a solution to the speed problem it has become widely accepted and substituted the old tires made of wood. This example shows how by redefining the problem the controversy around an artefact can be closed (Bijker & Pinch, 1984).

The last basic construct is closely related to a successful closure mechanism - stabilisation. Stabilisation means overcoming the controversy trough a successful closure mechanism and stabilise the artefact. Basically, one social group overcomes another one, as their opinion, idea or design of the artefact is socially constructed and so widely accepted. Stabilisation differs within the relevant social groups, Bijker and Pinch (1989) used again the example of the invention of the bicycle to illustrate the degree of stabilisation for the relevant social groups. At the beginning of the process, there has been a wide range of different bicycles ranging from the common bike as we know it today to various two and three-wheelers. The development process to a low wheel bicycle with a diamond frame and air tire took nineteen years, but do to its stabilisation process involving interpretative flexibility and a successful closure mechanism this idea of a bicycle was taken for granted and turned out to be a huge market success.

All of the explained basic constructs play an important part in shaping the meaning or design of an artefact, these factors cannot be seen as singular factors in the process, but rather an interplay of all the five constructs, which leads to the stabilisation of an artefact. To explain the interconnectivity of the five constructs the next section will highlight the interplay of them, during the development process.

3.5 Interplay of the basic constructs

In the early days of the sociology of science, the creation of scientific knowledge was treated as a kind of ‘black box’ not exactly knowing the circumstance under which scientific

(22)

knowledge is created (Whitley, 1970). Layton (1977) described the establishment of technology in a quite similar way. He mentions that almost everything is concluded which might influence the technology, besides the technology itself. In his paper, he calls for a more thorough analysis of the technology, including the body of knowledge, as well as the social system around it. Due to the exclusion of the social world in the development of an artefact, the creation of technology was seen as a simple linear model (Figure 1)

The six-stage model of the innovation process is a representation of these simple linear models (Figure 1). Models like this have without doubt helped to explain the innovation of technology, but because they lack the social component in the development process of the technology itself, such models cannot be used for the sociology of technology and especially not for SCOT. For a successful analysis in the tradition of SCOT, the influence of the social world needs to be displayed as well. Therefore this part explains the interplay of the basic constructs explained in the section above and its use for the SCOT model.

The first step here is identifying the relevant social groups, as mentioned before the key requirement for this is that all members of such a relevant social group share the same meaning about the artefact. To find out which socials groups can be perceived as relevant, somebody must ask to which social groups the artefact has relevance and if the entire social group associate the same meaning to the artefact. If the latter is not the case it may be useful for the analysis of the development process to divide a heterogeneous social group into some smaller social groups. As the relevant social groups are identified, there is a need to explain each of them further and include their power relations to each other. This definition is important to illustrate the meaning each group share about the function of the artefact. Figure 2 shows an illustration of the relationship of the relevant social groups and the artefact.

Once the relevant social groups are identified, we need to look for the problems each relevant social group expresses about the artefact (Figure). As well as the possible solutions for each of the problems identified by the relevant social group (Figure). Illustrating the relevant social groups, their problems with the artefact as well as their possible solution shows all possible

Figure 1.

(23)

controversies around the artefact. These controversies include conflicts about the technical requirements among the social groups, conflicts around a possible solution to the same problem and ethical conflicts. This systematic analysis of controversies is possible, because the interests, problems and solutions of the relevant social groups are highlighted at the beginning of the analysis. Hence it shows a wide range of possible solutions to the controversies and conflicts among the relevant social groups. By examining the development process of an artefact like this it shows us different degrees of stabilisation of the artefact within the various social groups. The development process hereby cannot be seen as a singular event it changes over time. Meaning that we can see increasing and decreasing degrees of stabilisation of the artefact over time depending on the interpretative flexibility of the social groups and the successful use of closure mechanism (Bijker & Pinch, 1984).

Figure 2.

(24)

As shown in this and the previous section the SCOT model differs decisively from the old linear model of technological development. It has a multidirectional character going back and forth till all the controversies among the social groups have been overcome. Next to its multidirectional character, the SCOT model also allows us to see directly into the development process and highlight the influences of the social world on the development of an artefact. This happens first by detecting the relevant social groups and then conducting a detailed examination of the social groups, whereby their ideas, controversies and possible solution concerning the artefact are illustrated. Depicting the development process in such a way shows the wide range of solutions leading to the stabilisation of the artefact. After explaining the SCOT model in this section the next part will deal with criticism of the SCOT model.

Figure 3.

The relationship between a social group and its problems with the artefact (Bijker &Pinch, 1984)

(25)

3.6 Criticism of the SCOT Approach

The SCOT model has not been without its criticism. Steward Russel (1986) illustrated several weaknesses of the SCOT model. The first one is the strong reliance on relativism in the approach. He indicates two problems with it, firstly this leads to a tendency whereby the primary focus is on the development process and to ignore content, secondly, relativism can lead to political neutrality, which is not intended by their approach. Next to this he also criticises the concept of relevant social groups. For him it is not sufficient just to categorise social groups towards their opinions to an artefact, they should rather be seen in a structured and historical context. By this, he means putting them in a framework, in which their relations to other parts of the society, as well as to the economy and their political and ideological constraints are shown. For him, this structural location influences the meaning and ideas of the groups about the artefact. Another point is that some social groups can be neglected in the process, due to their lack of influence on the development process. This lack of influence cannot only be seen

Figure 4.

(26)

by omitting some relevant social groups but also shows within the power relations among the various relevant social groups. Some of the social groups just miss some form of power to convince other more powerful groups of their solution to a problem. Let’s take the development of the social credit system in China as an example of this. The social credit system is a policy was announced in 2014 and will be implemented on a national level by the end of 2020 to monitor Chinese citizens and rate their behaviour according to a core. Citizens with a high score receive several advantages in society, like tax breaks or priority for admission and employment. On the other side citizens who have a low score face some disadvantages, like no access to train or plane tickets. Throughout its development phase, the program was harshly criticised by civil right groups, calling for a redirection of the program, but due to their lack of influence on the Chinese government and the relatively strong power the Chinese government holds over its citizens, their voice was neglected in the development process (Trivium, 2019). This example shows the strong influence of power relations among the relevant social groups in the development process. Within the SCOT model, these power relations are not fully considered, but it is also important to highlight them for a full analysis of the influence social groups have on the development of an artefact.

This section provided a small overview of general critics of the SCOT model, as the strong focus on relativism, the neglecting of some social groups and the absence of power relations among social groups in the SCOT model. Dispute its criticism, the model developed to a fruitful method to illustrate the influence of the social world on the development of technology, because its method is deeply empirical and achieved several successful and useful case studies (Clayton, 2002).

The following section will provide an overview of the history of unmanned aerial vehicles hereby the case of Germany is of special interest.

4. Unmanned aerial vehicles

Drones are essentially unmanned vehicles operating ether autonomous or under the control of humans. Every unmanned vehicle can be described as a drone, whereby the types of vehicles are categorised in unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), unmanned ground vehicles, like the Mars Rover and unmanned sea vehicles. For the analysis in this paper, only UAV’s are considered, as they are the most frequent type of unmanned vehicles and as well the most advanced type of drone today. For UAV’s no human on board is needed to operate the aircraft. Typically drones are steered from the ground either with a control panel or on a computer. The basic technology

(27)

of drones does not just consist out of the drone itself, it is just a part of an unmanned aircraft system, composed of the UAV, a ground-based control system and software to communicate between the ground-based control system and the aircraft. In this analysis of the development of drones, the software to communicate and the type of ground-based control system is negligible, as the aim in this section and the analyse of the social impact during the development process of drones lies more in the functioning of the drone itself. UAV’s originally have been developed for military purposes to operate in hostile environments, in which the risk for humans is considered as too high (IWM, 2018). Today more than eighty states have drones in their armoury, most of them are used for surveillance missions, but some forces also them to strike targets (Reichert, 2019). And yet there is no end in sight Teal Group market study of 2019/2020 estimates that the UAV production will steadily increase over the next ten years. In 2019 the worldwide UAV production was roughly around €7.04 billion, whereby in 2029 it should reach a level of €9.5 billion annually. This means a total amount of €88.1 billion over the next ten years, making the UAV sector the fastest growing market in the aviation field, whereby the costs of development of new UAV’s are excluded. Including the costs of development to the costs of production adds another €54.4 billion, accumulating to around €143 billion till 2029 (Teal Group, 2019). Despite its connotation as deadly military technology, drones are not solely used by the military. In recent years small drones have become available for the average human beings. They can be used to take pictures, analyse the surrounding or deliver packages (Reichert, 2019). This type of drones differs significantly from UAV’s used by the military. Hence all these types of drones are not going to be considered in this paper. So when the term drone is used within this paper, it refers to military drones used ether for gathering intelligence or for an attack on a military target. In this section first, the history of drones is highlighted followed by analysing of drones in the German military. The last part of this section highlight the special relationship between the Bundeswehr and the society.

4.2 History of unmanned aerial vehicles

The History of UAV’s can be traced back to the nineteenth century when Austrian forces used unmanned hot-air balloons to drop bombs on Venice during a civil uprising. This first types of UAV’s consisted of an unmanned hot-air balloon equipped with bombs, which ether will detonate with a time fuse or could be controlled manually on the ground through a wire connecting the balloon with the ground. This construction is still miles away from our modern-day understanding of drones, but it shows that the first drones have been developed for military

(28)

usages. During the First World War between 1914 and 1918, the first unmanned aircraft has been developed by the US Air Force. The Hewitt-Sperry Automatic Airplane was the first aeroplane which could fly without a human being on board. It was controlled via radio communication and could fly on a predefined path and was able to drop bombs after a predefined distance. In the interwar period, the development of drones continued and several tests were conducted by the US and the UK. Besides their short usage in WWI drones were mostly used as a target for practice. The first mass production of drones started in 1932 with the invention of the DH-82 Queen Bee. In the Second World War, the role of drones was insignificant, as they were still mostly used for target practises because the technology was not fully developed at the time. But by the time of the Vietnam War (1955-1975) drone technology reached a stage, which enabled it to use them on a large scale. The USA discovered that small unmanned aircrafts could be used for more than just launching missiles and as flying objects for target practise. Radio-controlled drones equipped with small cameras also could be used to water imagery intelligence. This was especially useful during the Vietnam War, so the US was able to collect information about the territory, without exposing pilots to the risk of getting captured by hostile communist forces on the ground (The Bureau Of Investigative Journalism, 2020). Hence their main task during the war was producing intelligence of the battleground and identifying Vietnamese missile silos, but they were also used for decoys in combats or the launching of missiles (IWM, 2019). After the Vietnam War, also other states besides the US and the UK started programmes to develop UAV’s. After the Vietnam war new drones became more advanced with increased endurance and the ability to operate in greater height. Through technological advancements in the early 1980s, drones got an essential part of modern aerial warfare (Franke, 2013). This development did not just happen overnight, rather it can be characterised in three key technological leaps. First the increase in the endurance of drones in the 1970s by the Israeli military. They developed drones with thin wings and a long body almost looking like gliders, through this design the ability of drones to stay in the air increased drastically. Drones designed in such a way could be in the air for more than twenty-four hours. The key hereby is that drones from there on could just stay in the air and loiter till something happens on the ground, without a pilot getting tired, because the pilots on the ground could just be switched with a new crew. This proved to be invaluable during the Yugoslavian War (1991-2001), as American aircraft pilots struggled to gather good intelligence on troop movements in the thick Balkan forests. Drones like the American General Atomics Reaper could stay in the air much longer as usual manned areal vehicles and loiter until it spots movement. The second key technological advancement is the live transmitting of footage produced by a drone back to

(29)

the generals in command. By combing the longer endurance of drones and the live transmission of intelligence, drones could produce realtime footage of what is happening on the ground and so increase the reaction time of military forces to a new situation. Since then the US developed the system even further, replacing radio waves as a medium to transmit intelligence with a network of satellites. Satellite controlled drones can be controlled from great distances and allow for military officials or politicians to watch a war they are in from everywhere around the world via a television (The Bureau Of Investigative Journalism, 2020). An example of this is the US military base Ramstein in West Germany. US drone pilots flew from it drone strikes in Yemen and Somalia (DW, 2019). The committed drone strikes lead to the third key technological advancement of drones, the configuration of a surface-to-air missile to drones. After the 9/11 terror attacks in New York 2001, the US Air Force and the CIA were the first militaries, which equipped drones with missiles and successfully fired it on a target. Following the first killed person by a modern weaponised UAV in 2002 (Franke, 2013). This closes the loop of the development of UAVâ€™s, first, they were used for bombing a city with unmanned hot-air balloons, then do to limited technological knowledge UAV’s were mostly used for intelligence gathering and target practise and in the end drones reached a stage where they could be used as killing machines again (The Bureau Of Investigative Journalism, 2020). Since then the role of UAV’s for the military, by gathering intelligence, transmitting live feeds from battlegrounds and striking military targets has massively expanded. In at least seven countries the US deployed drones equipped with missiles to kill targets or destroy critical infrastructure. Especially the usage of drones as assassination machines in Jemen and Iraq is hugely criticised by human right organisations around the world (Tayler, 2015). Particularly under the Obama administration (2009-2017) the usage of drones increased drastically leading to ten times more drone strike under his administration as George W. Bush’s administration (2001-2009). The logic underneath the trend can be understood with a new perceived threat environment through terrorist attacks as well as the nature of drone strikes. Drone strikes have a low footprint, as no troops in the country are needed, because of their remote control system, which can be controlled from around the world. This makes it politically easier for states to engine in countries with whose they are not formally at war. Solicitors of drone programmes claim that the usage of drones lives can be saved, as there is no need for messy ground operations anymore (The Bureau Of Investigative Journalism, 2019). The statement has a true core. Fewer soldiers get killed on the battleground, but this is only one side of the story. Drone warfare also has led to an increase in civilian victims, killing hundreds, if not thousands of civilians alone in Iraq and Syria by the US-led Coalition in Syria according to data provided by Airwars an NGO

(30)

monitoring the harm on civilians through airstrikes (Airwars, 2020). The killing of uninvolved citizens in war-torn countries can turn out to be counter-effective for the missions, as it can lead to an increase in the radicalisation of people. If somebody sees a friend or a family member getting killed by drone strikes out of the blue, the chances that this person abhorrence against the country executing the attack grows and so leads to further radicalisation in the country. The events happening in Bagdad at the beginning of 2020 show, how drone strikes can fuel resentments within the civil society. After the killing of an Iranian commander on an Iraqis airbase, by US drones around 250.000 people gathered in Bagdad to protest against American military forces in the country and the usage of drones(Hassan & Rubin, 2020).

The variety of UAV’s has increased throughout its history, whereby today military drones are characterised in four different types. 1) Micro- and Nano-drones, like the Black Hornet PD-100, miniature drones with relatively short-range and low altitude for the usage in direct combats by soldiers to identify the nearby surrounding 2) Small tactical drones, solders can also toss in the air by themselves, this are lightweight surveillance drones 3) Medium-sized reconnaissance drones and 4) Large combat and surveillance. The last two categories are not separated clearly as not just the size matters, but also the altitude. Hence within them, there is another categorisation MALE (medium altitude long endurance) and HALE (high altitude long endurance) drones. MALE drones can reach an altitude from 3000 to 9000 meters and HALE drones from 15.000 to 18.500 flying over the commercial airspace (DW, 2017). The role of HALE drones is still small as only a few states possess the technology and their high altitude poses a risk for commercial air traffic. Hale drones are used for gathering intelligence in a high altitude, whereby they do not transmit live pictures of the battleground, but deliver information of digital data, like from cell phones to locate a target (DW, 2017). The medium-sized reconnaissance drones make up the majority of drones used by the military today, as the primary function of drones still is to gather intelligence, but armed drones are on the rise as the example of the US shows. In 2000 only around seven-teen states had UAV’s in their arsenal none of them which were armed at the time (Franke, 2013) by 2019 already drone technology has spread to around 95 countries worldwide (Pickrell, 2019). Out of the 95 countries, 17 have armed drones in 2020 and eleven are considering buying or developing armed drones in the next years (Dronewars, 2020). As this section shows UAV’s are around for some times reaching back to the 19th century, but in the last 50 years their development increase rapidly, because of technological advancements in the field. This development seems not to stop soon, rather organisations like the Teal Group expect that the sector will grow even faster in the future (Teal Group, 2019) going so far that some experts say drones will be the future of modern warfare,

Social Construction of Security Technology: An Analyses of the German debate about armed drones