Engineered Violence: Confronting the Neutrality Problem and Violence in Engineering

Abstract

Engineering educators continue to challenge the social/technical dichotomy by framing engineering as a set of non-neutral activities. Faced with the historical realities that engineers are often “hired-guns” for the military interventions and capital accumulation, educators have sought to establish new canons for engineering ethics that are based on paradigms of peace and critically engaged pedagogies. We aim to situate nuanced understandings of violence—as understood by 21st century social movements—into the larger goal of reorienting engineering ethics for a more peaceful and socially just world. Literature is presented about particularly challenging what we identify as the “neutrality problem” in engineering education. We argue that theories of interpersonal and structural violence will better help engineers confront the neutrality problem in classrooms and workplaces. Our ultimate goal is to open up a larger research agenda on violence for engineering educators and practitioners.

Civil engineering students as avoidant actors: Using culturally relevant problem‐solving to increase critical action attitudes

“…This is problematic as history is replete with examples of engineering as being political and not neutral (Riley, 2008). At times, civil engineers are situated within violent circumstances as a result of geopolitical conflict, and there are disputes over resources and materials, unfair allocation of benefits, and economic or authoritarian issues in projects (Banks & Lachney, 2017; Muscat et al, 2015). In another example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) involvement in the canal wall failures that caused colossal flooding during Hurricane Katrina (Banks & Lachney, 2017; Rogers et al, 2015) contributed to the death and displacement of nearly 1800 people (Knabb et al, 2011).…”

“…In fact, one study showed that civil engineering students' concern related to the welfare of the public decreased over the course of their engineering education (Cech, 2014). Some attribute this to the focus on technicality (Cech, 2014; Conlon, 2008) and neutrality (Banks & Lachney, 2017; Riley, 2008) as the dominant curriculum (Baillie & Armstrong, 2013; Leydens & Lucena, 2017; Niles et al, 2020). Others discussed the need to require ethics courses (Herkert, 2011).…”

“…The neutrality problem (Banks & Lachney, 2017) has been critiqued at length by engineering educators who are critically engaged (Catalano, 2006a(Catalano, , 2006bCatalano & Baillie, 2006;Nieusma & Blue, 2012;Riley, 2008;Riley et al, 2015). Central to the neutrality problem is the common belief that engineering is apolitical (Banks & Lachney, 2017;Riley, 2008) reinforced by a decontextualized engineering education system (Breslin & Camacho, 2021). This is problematic as history is replete with examples of engineering as being political and not neutral (Riley, 2008).…”

Engaging the social: Community engaged pedagogy in the context of decolonization and transformation at the University of Cape Town

“…One of the papers we draw on in the Social Infrastructures course that speaks to this issue in very concrete ways is that of Banks and Lachney (2017). The authors talk about the nonneutrality and even the 'violence' of engineering knowledge in particular contexts and sets of power relations.…”

The Responsibility of Engineers

“…Here, relationships of domination, the structured violence enacted by those relationships and their artifacts, and their dissolution are the focus, rather than seeking definitions of violence or nonviolence as inBanks and Lachney (2017).…”