We propose a conceptual framework for analysing the relationship between social emancipation and alternative technology development. Key is the “functional autonomy” of the collective of users and developers of the technology vis-a-vis state and capital. We draw on previous empirical work about three hacker projects to substantiate the claim that the functional autonomy of hackers rests on three “pillars of autonomy”: technical skill, shared values, and collective memory. These three pillars sustain the autonomy of a community of hackers so that it may successfully resist recuperation attempts by capital. We make this claim in contradistinction to looser constellations of users, citizen scientists, DIY hobbyists, etc., where the functional autonomy tends to be much weaker. Hence, in the latter case, we should expect the actors to be recuperated in short time. The emancipatory promises that they make in regard to their practices, and are often mirrored in the academic literature about user innovation, citizen science, etc., will then turn sour. From this observation, we develop a second-order reflection on the role of the scholar studying purportedly emancipatory technology projects. As against the popular “follow-the-actors” approach, we defend the continued need for scholarly critique. We do so with the caveat that critique must in part be conducted as self-critique.

我们提出了一个概念框架，用于分析社会解放与替代技术发展之间的关系。关键是该技术的用户和开发人员相对于国家和资本的“功能自主权”。我们利用关于三个黑客项目的先前经验工作来证实这种说法，即黑客的功能自主性取决于三个“自主性支柱”：技术技能，共享价值和集体记忆。这三个支柱维持了黑客社区的自治权，因此它可以成功地抵御资本的恢复尝试。我们将此声明与用户，公民科学家，DIY爱好者等较松散的星座相对，后者的功能自主性往往弱得多。因此，在后一种情况下，我们应该期望演员在短时间内康复。他们根据自己的实践做出的解放性承诺，并经常反映在有关用户创新，公民科学等方面的学术文献中，将会变得酸痛。从这个观察中，我们对学者研究据称是解放性技术项目的角色产生了二阶思考。与流行的“跟随演员”方法相反，我们捍卫了对学术批评的持续需求。我们这样做的警告是，批判必须部分以自我批判的方式进行。我们对学者研究据称是解放性技术项目的角色进行了二次反思。与流行的“跟随演员”方法相反，我们捍卫了对学术批评的持续需求。我们这样做的警告是，批判必须部分以自我批判的方式进行。我们对学者研究据称是解放性技术项目的角色进行了二次反思。与流行的“跟随演员”方法相反，我们捍卫了对学术批评的持续需求。我们这样做的警告是，批判必须部分作为自我批判来进行。