Ylva Penttilä

Ambivalence is a state in which a subject simultaneously holds two contradictory statements as true. It is commonly experienced in eating disorders and can become an obstacle to recovery. Early recognition and behavioral changes are crucial for recovery. However, making lasting changes is easier said than done, and ambivalence can intensify these challenges. That is why it is crucial to explore and develop new perspectives on how ambivalence could support the recovery from eating disorders. While there is a substantial body of research on ambivalence in the context of eating disorders, it lacks a philosophical approach that could complement existing frameworks by analyzing how interactions with artifacts constitute ambivalence and facilitate recovery. In this paper I will employ postphenomenology to investigate how ambivalence, as a technologically mediated phenomenon, opens a possibility for recovery.

Huippu-urheilijat kehittävät suorituskykyään erilaisten välineiden avulla. Suorituskyvyn kehittämisellä pyritään takaamaan urheilijoiden henkiseen hyvinvointiin kytkeytyvää menestystä. Suorituskyvyn kehittyminen ja menestys eivät kuitenkaan takaa hyvinvointia. Artikkelin keskeinen tutkimuskysymys on millaisia piirteitä urheilijoiden pahoinvoinnista saadaan esiin, kun huomio kiinnitetään teknologisiin suhteisiin ja teknologioiden eri käyttötapoihin? Hyödynnän tutkimuksen teoreettisena ja metodisena viitekehyksenä postfenomenologiaa ja siihen kuuluvaa variaatioanalyysiä. Havainnollistan Don Ihden ja Peter-Paul Verbeekin näkökulmista käsin, ettei suorituskyvyn kehittäminen ole vain urheilijasta riippuvaista vaan teknologisten suhteiden mahdollistamaa. Lisäksi toteutan urheilukellon käytöstä variaatioanalyysin, jonka pohjalta totean ensinnä, että psykologisen joustavuuden ja joustamattomuuden taitoja on perusteltua mieltää urheilukellon käytön mahdollistamina käyttötapoina ja merkityksenantoina eikä pelkistää urheilijan mielen taidoiksi. Toisekseen avartuu näkemys siitä, että joustavuus ja joustamattomuus ovat yhteydessä urheilukellon tiedolliseen rooliin ja hyvinvointia koskevaan arvonantoon. Siispä, suorituskykyä kehittävät teknologiset suhteet muovaavat urheilijoiden käsityksiä urheilukellosta relevanttina tietolähteenä ja käsityksiä hyvinvoinnista arvona. Urheilijoiden pahoinvoinnin ennaltaehkäisemisen näkökulmasta on huomiota kiinnitettävä urheilijoiden omien teknologisten suhteiden lisäksi valmentajien teknologisin suhteisiin, jotka voivat vaikuttaa urheilijalle muodostuviin käsityksiin suorituskyvystä, menestyksestä ja hyvinvoinnista. Elite athletes develop their performance with different technologies, and performance development is connected to success, i.e., reaching different goals. Gained success is linked to well-being of athletes. However, performance optimization and success do not guarantee well-being. This notion leads to the central question of the article. How can we better understand ill-being of athletes when we consider the issue from the perspective of technological relations and multistability of technologies? In answering this question, I apply Don Ihde's concepts of embodiment and hermeneutic relations, Peter-Paul Verbeek's notion of composite intentionality, and Robert Rosenberger's variational cross-examination. I demonstrate that performance development is a matter of unified practice consisting of an athlete and a sport-watch, and then conduct a variational analysis on a sport-watch usage. The analysis reveals that athletes’ psychological flexibility and inflexibility are different stabilities of a sport-watch usage and connected to epistemic roles of the sport-watch and values regarding the importance of well-being. In sum, technological relations shape athletes’ understanding of sport-watches and their bodies as relevant sources of information, and of well-being as a value.

Don Ihde’s postphenomenological theory of technological relations has proven its value for understanding the role material artifacts play in our lives. However influential it may be, some of his key concepts have remained ambiguous. In this paper, we analyze and critically evaluate how Ihde describes one of these concepts, namely, alterity relation (Alterity). Alterity describes how technologies appear to subjects as humanlike others, or, as Ihde calls them, quasi-others. We identify and discuss three key problems with Ihde’s account of Alterity, namely, objectness, focality, and continuum. We argue that an overarching issue is prevalent in his account of Alterity: a subtle and possibly unintended emphasis on the subject’s role in constituting technological otherness. This emphasis runs counter to the interrelational ontological foundations of postphenomenology. Moreover, it hinders postphenomenological research from fully addressing the ethical and moral dimensions of its framework. By clarifying these problems, we aim to provide a fruitful groundwork for further reconsiderations of the framework’s key concepts and for the improvement of postphenomenological investigations concerning the nature of artifacts: our multifaceted engagements with, in and through them.