Bernard Stiegler’s Transcendental Philosophy of Technology Beyond the Reciprocal Determination of Technology and Pedagogy

پژوهش نامه مبانی تعلیم و تربیت

Article 1, Volume 15, Issue 1 - Serial Number 29, July 2025, Pages 5-32   

Document Type: پژوهشی

DOI: 10.22067/fedu.2025.89200.1361

Authors

Ali Vahdati Daneshmand^{* 1}; Mohammad Amiri²

¹Assistant Professor, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

²MA in History and Philosophy of Education, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Abstarct
This paper, drawing on Bernard Stiegler’s transcendental philosophy of technology, offers an in-depth analysis of two dominant paradigms in the relationship between pedagogy and technology: technological determinism and pedagogical determinism. It explores the dynamic tension and oscillation between these opposing poles, which have generated a broad range of responses—from enthusiastic acceptance to cautious skepticism—toward emerging technologies. This tension has also contributed to a state of uncertainty within the Iranian education system regarding the adoption of a coherent and appropriate approach. The paper begins with a critical examination of the foundational assumptions underlying both technological and pedagogical determinism, offering a nuanced critique of how each framework manifests within educational practice. It then shifts to a constructive approach, developing theoretical frameworks and strategies for mediating the interaction between technology and pedagogy, grounded in Stiegler’s philosophical insights. Stiegler’s thought, which integrates phenomenological and post-structuralist perspectives, introduces the concept of pharmacological co-creation, emphasizing the reciprocal and co-constitutive relationship between technology and pedagogy. This concept challenges hierarchical or isolated views of either domain, advocating instead for a relational and interdependent understanding. The discussion is further enriched by examining key triadic relationships: between humans and technical objects; between tékhnē, phrónēsis, and epistēmē; and between reflective and anticipatory educational thought. These relationships illuminate the complexity of educational technology use and underscore the need for a balanced, integrated approach. Ultimately, the paper calls for a holistic educational vision in which technology and pedagogy are not adversaries but co-evolving forces that together enhance the learning experience.
Synopsis
One of the key challenges in Technological advancements and transformations is articulating a well-grounded and balanced relationship between pedagogy and technology. Existing explanations have largely gravitated toward two opposing positions: either prioritizing technology over pedagogy (technological determinism) or considering pedagogy as the primary determinant in the use of technology (pedagogical determinism). The Iranian educational system, however, has yet to adopt a coherent and well-calibrated stance on this matter.
The study critiques each paradigm on its foundational assumptions. Four key consequences of technological determinism in education can be briefly outlined. First, it reduces the focus from the fundamental nature and purpose of educational technologies to merely their functional aspects, leading to a superficial adaptation of technology in the hope of transforming educational practices. Second, it prioritizes the adaptation of educational actors to technology rather than fostering a reflective and critical appropriation of it. Third, it reinforces a binary mode of thinking about learners, rigidly categorizing them into fixed and unalterable groups. Fourth, it narrows educational objectives to purely technological goals, overlooking broader pedagogical and developmental considerations.
On the other hand, pedagogical determinism—rooted in an instrumentalist view of technology—also carries three significant consequences. First, by emphasizing the application of technology, it largely disregards the design phase of educational technologies, treating them as predetermined and immutable tools rather than as entities that can be critically shaped. Second, when a technology fails to achieve its intended educational goals, teachers become the primary scapegoats, as they are presumed to lack the necessary skills for its proper use. Third, the instrumentalist approach to technology assumes a linear relationship between users (teachers and students), technology, and educational outcomes, implying that technology produces only the effects intended by its users, thereby neglecting unintended or emergent consequences.
In critiquing these opposing forms of determinism, the authors turn to Bernard Stiegler’s transcendental philosophy of technology. First, Stiegler emphasizes the primordial connection between humans and technology, rejecting any fundamental opposition between the two as a false dichotomy. In his view, what distinguishes humans from animals is their capacity for technological exteriorization—the creation of prosthetic extensions to mediate their relationship with the external world. Second, he argues that the technological dimension of technē cannot be separated from its conceptual (epistēmē) and ethical (phronēsis) dimensions. This interconnectedness implies that technology is not merely a set of tools but is inherently tied to knowledge and moral considerations. Third, drawing on his reading of Plato’s Protagoras, Stiegler reinterprets the myth of Prometheus and Epimetheus. If Epimetheus symbolizes humanity and its inherent deficiency, and Prometheus represents technology as the means to compensate for this lack, then these two figures should not be seen as opposing forces but rather as complementary ones. Epimetheus, characterized by retrospection and past-oriented thinking, only realizes his shortcomings when confronted with the proactive and future-oriented nature of Prometheus. Their encounter is what enables the recognition of human limitations and the technological efforts to overcome them. Fourth, Stiegler conceptualizes technology as pharmakon, a term influenced by both Plato and Derrida. He views technology as simultaneously both a cure and a poison. All technologies, when understood as acts of exteriorization in humanity’s engagement with the world, possess a dual structure: they can serve as instruments of liberation or mechanisms of alienation.
Conclusion
In concluding the discussion, from the foundational connection between humans and technology, it becomes evident that the meaning of being human is continuously redefined with the emergence of new technologies in each historical period. Therefore, if pedagogy is fundamentally concerned with the human condition and seeks to maintain primacy over technology, it cannot begin by assuming a fixed and ahistorical definition of human nature that exists independently of technological developments. Rather, pedagogy must recognize that technology is not merely an external factor to be incorporated into predefined educational frameworks but is itself constitutive of how humanity evolves. Consequently, any pedagogical approach that seeks to engage meaningfully with technology must remain open to the ongoing transformation of what it means to be human in a technologically mediated world.
Furthermore, the interconnectedness of technē, phronēsis, and epistēmē—and the emergence of technology’s meaning through their interaction—cautions us against isolating or prioritizing one at the expense of the others. In technological determinism, educators tend to focus solely on the functional and operational aspects of technology, reducing it to a mere tool without considering its broader epistemological and ethical implications. Conversely, in pedagogical determinism, educators emphasize phronēsis and epistēmē while neglecting the practical and material dimensions of technē.
Moreover, the interplay between Prometheus and Epimetheus suggests that the appropriate approach to emerging educational technologies—such as the rise of AI-based systems—requires a reflective stance. Instead of uncritically embracing new technologies, we must first ask: What have we done with previous technologies? How do we now assess their unintended and unforeseen consequences? What specific problem is this new technology intended to address?
Ultimately, a pharmacological perspective on educational technology necessitates that our pedagogical engagement with it be structured through a dialectic between remedy (adoption) and harm (adaptation). The only thing that teachers and policymakers can do in response to educational technologies in this digital age is to adopt heuristic approaches and strategies to prioritize one form of positive pharmacology over the negative one.

Keywords

technology determination; pedagogy determination; Bernard Stiegler; Pharmakon

References

Bagheri Noaparast, K. (2002). Philosophy of technology and teaching technology. Journal of Psychology and Education, 32(1), 75-98. https://jpsyedu.ut.ac.ir/article_10621_0f1f1d345bfb778664ff2d2772beeed2.pdf

Berg, M. (1998). The politics of technology: On bringing social theory into technological design. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 23(4), 456-490. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399802300406

Blin, F., & Munro, M. (2008). Why hasn’t technology disrupted academics’ teaching practices? Understanding resistance to change through the lens of activity theory. Computers & Education, 50(2), 475-490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.017

Bradley, J. P. N. (2021). On the gymnastics of memory: Stiegler, positive pharmacology, and illiteracy. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 56(1), 5-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-021-00196-2

Broudy, H. S. (1955). How philosophical can philosophy of education be? The journal of Philosophy, 52(22), 612-622. https://doi.org/10.2307/2022169

Chen, R. J. (2011). Preservice mathematics teachers' ambiguous views of technology. School Science and Mathematics, 111(2), 56-67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2010.00061.x

Choi, E. J., King, G., & Duerden, E. G. (2023). Screen time in children and youth during the pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Global Pediatrics, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gpeds.2023.100080

Costa, C., Hammond, M., & Younie, S. (2019). Theorising technology in education: An introduction. 28(4), 395-399. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2019.1660089

Costa, C., & Harris, L. (2017). Reconsidering the technologies of intellectual inquiry in curriculum design. The Curriculum Journal, 28(4), 559-577. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2017.1308260

Dewey, J. (1958). Experience and nature. New York. Dover Publications.

Dishon, G. (2017). New data, old tensions: Big data, personalized learning, and the challenges of progressive education. Theory and Research in Education, 15(3), 272-289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878517735233

Dusek, V. (2006). Philosophy of technology: An introduction. Oxon. Blackwell Publishing.

Farag, A., Greeley, L., & Swindell, A. (2023). Freire 2.0: Pedagogy of the digitally oppressed. In Paulo freire centennial (pp. 62-75). Oxon. Routledge.

Fawns, T. (2022). An entangled pedagogy: Looking beyond the pedagogy—technology dichotomy. Postdigital Science and Education, 4(3), 711-728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-022-00302-7

Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning technology. London. Routledge.

Fuggle, S. (2013). 12. Stiegler and foucault: The politics of care and self-writing. In Stiegler and technics (pp. 192-207). Edinburgh. Edinburgh University Press. https://doi.org/doi:10.1515/9780748677030-015

Fullan, M. (2013). Stratosphere: Integrating technology, pedagogy, and change knowledge. Toronto. Pearson.

Haggerson, N. L. (1991). Philosophical inquiry: Ampliative criticism. In E. C. Short (Ed.), Forms of curriculum inquiry (pp. 43-60). Albany. State University of New York Press.

Hamilton, E., & Friesen, N. (2013). Online education: A science and technology studies perspective/éducation en ligne: Perspective des études en science et technologie. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 39(2). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1007076.pdf

Hayes, D. (1977). Rays of hope: The transition to a post-petroleum world. New York. Norton.

Heidenreich, F. (2022). Bernard stiegler: Elements of pharmacology: An interview with felix heidenreich and florian weber-stein. The Politics of Digital Pharmacology: Exploring the Craft of Collective Care, 83-116. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783839462492-006

Hernández, S. M. V. (2018). Pedagogy of the digitally oppressed: An analysis of e-learning from a philosophy of technology perspective [Master Thesis, University of Twente]. Enschede. https://essay.utwente.nl/76035/1/Valenzuela_MA_BMS.pdf

Howells, C., & Moore, G. (2013). Introduction: Philosophy – the repression of technics. In C. Howells & G. Moore (Eds.), Stiegler and technics (pp. 1-16). Edinburgh. Edinburgh University Press.

Introna, L. (2024). Phenomenological approaches to ethics and information technology. In E. N. N. Zalta, Uri. (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2024/entries/ethics-it-phenomenology/

Iran Supreme Council of Education. (2010). Theoretical foundations of fundamental reform document [in persian]. Tehran: Supreme Council of Education

Kanuka, H. (2008). Understanding e-learning technologies-in-practice. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of online learning (pp. 91-120). Athabasca Athabasca University Press. https://doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781897425084.006

Kerschner, C., & Ehlers, M.-H. (2016). A framework of attitudes towards technology in theory and practice. Ecological Economics, 126, 139-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.02.010

Kruger-Ross, M. J. (2013). Connecting critical theory of technology to educational studies. Journal of Transformative Education, 11(4), 297-311. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344614538521

Lemmens, P. (2011). ‘This system does not produce pleasure anymore’. An interview with bernard stiegler. Krisis| Journal for Contemporary Philosophy, 31(1), 33-41. https://krisis.eu/article/view/39064/36843

Lemmens, P. (2014). Bernard stiegler on agriculture as a technical system. Sustainable Agriculture Research, 3(3), 76-81. https://doi.org/10.5539/sar.v3n3p76

Mehrban, Z. (n.d.). A synthesis of researches on technological education. Tehran: Supreme Council of Education Retrieved from https://sce.ir/media/note_file/%D8%B3%D9%86%D8%AA%D8%B2_%D9%BE%DA%98%D9%88%D9%87%DB%8C_%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A8%DB%8C%D8%AA_%D9%81%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%87.pdf

Mehrmohammadi, M. (2013). Speculative thoughts on education. Tehran. Tarbiat Modarrres University.

Meniado, J. C. (2023). Digital language teaching 5.0: Technologies, trends and competencies. Relc Journal, 54(2), 461-473. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882231160610

Mozaffaripour, R. (2021). The examination of bernard stigler's philosophy and educational thoughts; from the technological nature of man to the new proletariat. Foundations of Education, 11(1), 47-66. https://doi.org/10.22067/fedu.2022.69684.1035

Mumford, L. (1964). Authoritarian and democratic technics. Technology and culture, 5(1), 1-8. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3101118.pdf

Pavanini, M. (2022). Multistability and derrida’s différance: Investigating the relations between postphenomenology and stiegler’s general organology. Philosophy & Technology, 35(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00501-x

Plato. (1987). Phaedrus (M. H. Lotfi, Trans.). Tehran. Kharazmi.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 2: Do they really think differently? On the horizon, 9(6), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424843

Roehl, T. (2012). Disassembling the classroom–an ethnographic approach to the materiality of education. Ethnography and Education, 7(1), 109-126. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2012.661591

Sajjadi, S. M. (2019). Philosophy of technological education or technologic's philosphy of education: A criticism of educational policymaking in iran higher education. Foundations of Education, 8(2), 5-25. https://doi.org/10.22067/fedu.v8i2.72289

Sankey, M. (2020). Putting the pedagogic horse in front of the technology cart. Journal of Distance Education in China, 5(1), 46-53. https://doi.org/10.13541/j.cnki.chinade.2020.05.006

Sclove, R. (1995). Democracy and technology. London. Guilford Publications.

Stiegler, B. (1998a). Technics and time, 1: The fault of epimetheus (Vol. 1). Stanford. Stanford University Press.

Stiegler, B. (1998b). Technics and time: Disorientation (Vol. 2). Stanford. Stanford University Press.

Stiegler, B. (2010a). Taking care of youth and the generations. Stanford. Stanford University Press.

Stiegler, B. (2010b). Technics and time, 3: Cinematic time and the question of malaise (Vol. 3). Stanford. Stanford University Press.

Stiegler, B. (2016). The formation of new reason: Seven proposals for the renewal of education. In G. Coleman, T. Tembeck, J. Sterne, C. Ross, & D. Barney (Eds.), The participatory condition in the digital age (pp. 269-282). Minnesota University of Minnesota Press.

Stiegler, B. (2017). Philosophising by accident: Interviews with élie during (B. Dillet, Trans.). Edinburgh. Edinburgh University Press.

Stiegler, B., & Ross, D. (2013). What makes life worth living: On pharmacology. Polity Press.

Supreme Council of Education. (2007). Information and communication technology development document in education. Tehran: Supreme Council of Education of Iran Retrieved from https://www.dastour.ir/Brows/?lid=310772

Talaa’ee, E., Ansaari, N., Pahlavaan, M., & Abootaalebi, Z. (2016). Making iranian schools smart: From policy to practice [Research]. Quarterly Journal Of Education, 32(3), 79-105. http://qjoe.ir/article-1-133-fa.html

Thomas, R. A. (2019). Bernard stiegler on a unified vision of humanity and technology in education: An analysis of human/technical ideology in the writings of today's most influential educational leaders [Dissertation, University of Dayton]. https://ecommons.udayton.edu/graduate_theses/6703

Tsui, A. B., & Tavares, N. J. (2021). The technology cart and the pedagogy horse in online teaching. English Teaching & Learning, 45(1), 109-118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-020-00073-z

Wang, H. (2021). A philosophical inquiry into the educational impacts of technology on student agency [Master of Arts, McGill University (Canada)]. Montreal. https://escholarship.mcgill.ca/downloads/1z40kz77q

Winner, L. (2017). Do artifacts have politics? In J. Weckert (Ed.), Computer ethics (pp. 177-192). London. Routledge.

Zarghami Saeed, Attaran Mohammad, Naghibzadeh Mirabdolhossein , & Khosrow, B. (2007). Examining philosophical views about the relationship between information technology and education. Educational Innovations, 6(1), 9-30. https://noavaryedu.oerp.ir/article_78815_f517485665db8a23016eb4185ed81f82.pdf