In his essay "Artifacts/Ideas and Political Culture", Winner takes a different view on technology than most analyists. By contrasting his unique view with the conventional view, Winner is able to effectively demonstrate the advantages of viewing technology from this new point of view.
Winner begins his essay by stating the conventional view of technology that most people take. He then leads in to describing his unique way of viewing technology and giving an example of this view that everyone can relate to, the Answering Machine. The example is used to demonstrate that most people realize that artifacts have politics, if we stop and think about it. The answering maching demostrates that humans relegate social roles to technology.
Winner continues his argument to show another example, one where technology relegates social roles to humans. He uses the example of a telephone operator fired for being inefficient, as the computer monitoring showed. This shows how technology can aquire political attributes, such as authoritarian, or injust. The example of simple technology having politics is also shown, demonstrating that these politics are present in most things, if we stop and look for them. Winner lists a few common ideas present in today's technology. He explains that most of these ideas are covert, as they "provide a mask for persons and groups who wish to exercise power while avoiding responsibility."
To keep these technologies in control, Winner suggests that we follow "three guiding maxims" so that the future will be one where technology is democratic and fair for all the people it effects.
Throughout the paper, Winner uses convincing arguements and logical examples to back them up, such as the answering machine, the operator, and the short hoe. Only once did I question his argument and support. This was in his third maxim, no means without ends. I do not agree that computer in schools are a "means looking for an ends." I don't see them as unnecesary, and Winner does not address this argument as thoughly as he should, given it is something that not everyone will just accept.
Other than a few small points, Winner leads the reader through a convincing, well laid out argument that is very thought provoking for the reader.