Reevaluating the Term ‘Technology’: A Call for Precision in Language
In a recent letter to the Financial Times, Jem Eskenazi, a Chief Information Officer from London, expressed his agreement with Guru Madhavan’s critique of the modern misuse of the term “technology.” (ft.com) Eskenazi highlighted that many traditional business sectors—such as banking, hospitality, and transportation—are now branded as “tech” companies simply for applying existing information technologies more effectively. He criticized the narrow public perception of “technology” as solely information technology, noting that significant innovations are also occurring in medicine, construction, energy, and transportation, which are not necessarily IT-driven. As a chief information officer, Eskenazi even suggested retiring the term “technology” altogether unless it adheres to Daniel Hillis’s definition: “Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn’t quite work yet.”
This perspective aligns with a broader discussion on the evolving and often ambiguous use of the term “technology.” (ft.com) Originally signifying treatises on technical subjects or skilled crafts (technē), the term has expanded to encompass everything from basic tools to complex digital platforms. This broad usage, common since the late 19th century, often obscures accountability and precision in discussions about innovation, ethics, and responsibility. Euphemisms like “tech company” allow firms to evade legal and moral scrutiny, while generic language implies inevitability in changes like automation, masking corporate decisions. Though subdivisions like “biotech” or “fintech” reintroduce some specificity, they still often group disparate things together. The author calls for a return to more precise, meaningful terminology that emphasizes human agency and ethical responsibility. Drawing on distinctions made in other languages like German, Tamil, and Japanese, the article urges reclaiming language that accounts for intentional creation and practical purpose. The writer concludes that retiring “technology” would promote clarity and moral accountability in how society understands and uses its tools.
The conversation around the term “technology” underscores a critical need for clarity in language, especially as technological advancements permeate various aspects of society. By refining our terminology, we can foster more precise discussions about innovation, responsibility, and the ethical implications of technological progress.
Source: Financial Times
Date Published: 2025-08-04
URL: https://www.ft.com/content/c2017966-ddf3-4236-ab22-30dd5957d141
–>
