Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 112Cultural Studies and PostmodernismCybernetics and Technology in SocietyReligion and Society Interactions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Technology and Its Discontents: On the Verge of the Posthuman

Dinerstein, Joel·2006·American Quarterly

Abstract

Immediately marized coming war on terrorism as [their] theology versus [our] technology, suicide bomber against nuclear power.1 His statement missed point: is American theology. For Americans, it is not Christian God but that structures American sense of power and revenge, nation's abstract sense of well-being, its arrogant sense of superiority, and its righteous justification for global dominance. In introduction to Technological Visions, Marita Sturken and Douglas Thomas declare that popular imagination, is often synonymous with future, but it is more accurate to say that is synonymous with faith in future both in future as better world and as one in which United States bestrides globe as colossus.2 Technology has long been unacknowledged source of European and Euro-American superiority within modernity, and its underlying mythos always traffics in what James W. Carey once called secular religiosity.3 Lewis Mumford called American belief system mechano-idolatry as early as 1934; few years later he deemed it our mechano-centric religion. David F. Noble calls this ideology the religion of technology in work of same name that traces its European roots to doctrine that combines millenarianism, rationalism, and Christian redemption in writings of monks, explorers, inventors, and NASA scientists. If take into account functions of religion and not its rituals, it is not deity who insures American future but new technologies: smart bombs in Gulf War, Viagra and Prozac in pharmacy,…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1353/aq.2006.0056

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Dinerstein, J.
Corresponding author
Dinerstein, Joel
Venue
American Quarterly
Publisher
Project MUSE
Published
2006-09
Volume
58
Issue
3
Pages
569-595
ISSN
  • 0003-0678 (ISSN-L)
  • 1080-6490
OpenAlex
W2064338257
Cited by
112
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
FWCI
8.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Quarterly (publishedVersion)
  • Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Cultural Studies and Postmodernism
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Cybernetics and Technology in Society
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Religion and Society Interactions
Keywords
posthumanism, religion and technology, secular religiosity, American exceptionalism, technological utopia

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.