| Revision as of 17:25, 15 December 2010 edit98.14.147.217 (talk) →Bibliography← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:27, 15 December 2010 edit undo98.14.147.217 (talk) →BibliographyNext edit → | ||
| Line 93: | Line 93: | ||
| *{{cite book | first = Sarah| last = Miller| authorlink = | coauthors = | year = 1997| month = January| title = Social Alternatives| chapter = Futures Work - Recognising the Social Determinants of Change | editor =| others = | edition = vol.1, No.1 | pages = 57–58 | publisher = | location = | id = | url = }} | *{{cite book | first = Sarah| last = Miller| authorlink = | coauthors = | year = 1997| month = January| title = Social Alternatives| chapter = Futures Work - Recognising the Social Determinants of Change | editor =| others = | edition = vol.1, No.1 | pages = 57–58 | publisher = | location = | id = | url = }} | ||
| *{{cite book | first = Andrew | last = Murphie| authorlink = | coauthors = and Potts, John | year = 2003| month = | title = ''Culture and Technology''| chapter = 1 | editor =| others = | edition = | publisher = Palgrave | location = London| id = | url =| page = 21 }} | *{{cite book | first = Andrew | last = Murphie| authorlink = | coauthors = and Potts, John | year = 2003| month = | title = ''Culture and Technology''| chapter = 1 | editor =| others = | edition = | publisher = Palgrave | location = London| id = | url =| page = 21 }} | ||
| ⚫ | Ong, Walter J (1982). Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. New York: Methuen. *{{cite book | first = Neil | last = Postman| authorlink = Neil Postman| coauthors = | year = 1992| month = | title = ]| chapter = | editor = | others = | edition = | pages = 3–20| publisher = New York | location = Vintage| id = | url = }} | ||
| *{{Noble1984}} | |||
| Walter J. Ong, Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. New Accents. Ed. Terence Hawkes. (New York: Methuen, 1988). | |||
| ⚫ | *{{cite book | first = Neil | last = Postman| authorlink = Neil Postman| coauthors = | year = 1992| month = | title = ]| chapter = | editor = | others = | edition = | pages = 3–20| publisher = New York | location = Vintage| id = | url = }} | ||
| *{{cite book | first = Merritt Roe| last = Smith| authorlink = Merritt Roe Smith| coauthors = and ], eds.| year = 1994| month = | title = Does Technology Drive History? The Dilemma of Technological Determinism| chapter = | editor = | others = | edition = | pages = | publisher = MIT Press| location = Cambridge| id = | url = }} | *{{cite book | first = Merritt Roe| last = Smith| authorlink = Merritt Roe Smith| coauthors = and ], eds.| year = 1994| month = | title = Does Technology Drive History? The Dilemma of Technological Determinism| chapter = | editor = | others = | edition = | pages = | publisher = MIT Press| location = Cambridge| id = | url = }} | ||
| *{{cite book | first = John M.| last = Staudenmaier, S.J.| authorlink = | coauthors = | year = 1985| month = | title = Technology's Storytellers: Reweaving the Human Fabric| chapter = The Debate over Technological Determinism| editor = | others = | edition = | pages = 134–148| publisher = The ] and the MIT Press| location = Cambridge| id = | url = }} | *{{cite book | first = John M.| last = Staudenmaier, S.J.| authorlink = | coauthors = | year = 1985| month = | title = Technology's Storytellers: Reweaving the Human Fabric| chapter = The Debate over Technological Determinism| editor = | others = | edition = | pages = 134–148| publisher = The ] and the MIT Press| location = Cambridge| id = | url = }} | ||
Revision as of 17:27, 15 December 2010
Technological determinism is a reductionist theory that presumes that a society's technology drives the development of its social structure and cultural values. The term is believed to have been coined by Thorstein Veblen (1857-1929), an American sociologist. The most radical technological determinist in America in the twentieth century was most likely Clarence Ayres who was a follower of Thorstein Veblen and John Dewey. William Ogburn was also known for his radical technological determinism.
Origin
The term is believed to have been coined by Thorstein Veblen (1857-1929), an American. Veblen's contemporary, popular historian Charles Beard, provided this apt determinist image, "Technology marches in seven-league boots from one ruthless, revolutionary conquest to another, tearing down old factories and industries, flinging up new processes with terrifying rapidity."
Explanation
Most interpretations of technological determinism share two general ideas:
- that the development of technology itself follows a predictable, traceable path largely beyond cultural or political influence, and
- that technology in turn has "effects" on societies that are inherent, rather than socially conditioned or produced because that society organizes itself to support and further develop a technology once it has been introduced.
Strict adherents to technological determinism do not believe the influence of technology differs based on how much a technology is or can be used. Instead of considering technology as part of a larger spectrum of human activity, technological determinism sees technology as the basis for all human activity.
Technological determinism has been summarized as 'The belief in technology as a key governing force in society ...' (Merritt Roe Smith). 'The idea that technological development determines social change ...' (Bruce Bimber). It changes the way people think and how they interact with others and can be described as '...a three-word logical proposition: "Technology determines history"' (Raymond Williams) . It is, '... the belief that social progress is driven by technological innovation, which in turn follows an "inevitable" course.' (Michael L. Smith). This 'idea of progress' or 'doctrine of progress' is centralised around the idea that social problems can be solved by technological advancement, and this is the way that society moves forward. Technological determinists believe that "'You can't stop progress', implying that we are unable to control technology" (Lelia Green). This suggests that we are somewhat powerless and society allows technology to drive social changes because, "societies fail to be aware of the alternatives to the values embedded in it " (Merritt Roe Smith).
Technological determinism has been defined as an approach that identifies technology, or technological advances, as the central causal element in processes of social change (Croteau and Hoynes). As a technology is stabilized, its design tends to dictate users' behaviors, consequently diminishing human agency. This stance however ignores the social and cultural circumstances in which the technology was developed. Sociologist Claude Fischer (1992) characterized the most prominent forms of technological determinism as "billiard ball" approaches, in which technology is seen as an external force introduced into a social situation, producing a series of ricochet effects.
Rather than acknowledging that a society or culture interacts with and even shapes the technologies that are used, a technological determinist view holds that "the uses made of technology are largely determined by the structure of the technology itself, that is, that its functions follow from its form" (Neil Postman). However, this is not to be confused with the inevitability thesis (Daniel Chandler), which states that once a technology is introduced into a culture that what follows is the inevitable development of that technology.
For example, we could examine why Romance Novels have become so dominant in our society compared to other forms of novels like the Detective or Western novel. We might say that it was because of the invention of the perfect binding system developed by publishers. This was where glue was used instead of the time-consuming and very costly process of binding books by sewing in separate signatures. This meant that these books could be mass-produced for the wider public. We would not be able to have mass literary without mass production. This example is closely related to Marshall McLuhan's belief that print helped produce the nation state. This moved society on from an oral culture to a literate culture but also introduced a capitalist society where there was clear class distinction and individualism. As Postman maintains
"the printing press, the computer, and television are not therefore simply machines which convey information. They are metaphors through which we conceptualize reality in one way or another. They will classify the world for us, sequence it, frame it, enlarge it, reduce it, argue a case for what it is like. Through these media metaphors, we do not see the world as it is. We see it as our coding systems are. Such is the power of the form of information."
Hard and soft determinism
In examining determinism Hard determinism can be contrasted with Soft Determinism. A compatibilist says that it is possible for free will and determinism to exist in the world together while a incompatibilist would say that they can not and there must be one or the other. Those who support determinism can be further divided.
Hard determinists would view technology as developing independent from social concerns. They would say that technology creates a set of powerful forces acting to regulate our social activity and its meaning. According to this view of determinism we organize ourselves to meet the needs of technology and the outcome of this organization is beyond our control or we do not have the freedom to make a choice regarding the outcome.
Soft Determinism, as the name suggests, is a more passive view of the way technology interacts with socio-political situations. Soft determinists still subscribe to the fact that technology is the guiding force in our evolution, but would maintain that we have a chance to make decisions regarding the outcomes of a situation. This is not to say that free will exists but it is the possibility for us to roll the dice and see what the outcome is. A slightly different variant of soft determinism is the 1922 technology-driven theory of social change proposed by William Fielding Ogburn, in which society must adjust to the consequences of major inventions, but often does so only after a period of cultural lag.
Technology as neutral
Individuals who consider technology as neutral see technology as neither good nor bad and what matters are the ways in which we use technology. An example of a neutral viewpoint is, "guns are neutral and its up to how we use them whether it would be 'good or bad'" (Green, 2001). Mackenzie and Wajcman believe that technology is neutral only if it's never been used before, or if no one knows what it is going to be used for (Green, 2001). In effect, guns would be classified as neutral if and only if society were none the wiser of their existence and functionality (Green, 2001). Obviously, such a society is non-existent and once becoming knowledgeable about technology, the society is drawn into a social progression where nothing is 'neutral about society' (Green). According to Lelia Green, if one believes technology is neutral, one would disregard the cultural and social conditions that technology was produced (Green, 2001). This view is also referred to as technological instrumentalism.
Criticism
Scepticism about technological determinism emerged alongside increased pessimism about techno-science in the mid-20th century, in particular around the use of nuclear energy in the production of nuclear weapons, Nazi human experimentation during World War II, and the problems of economic development in the third world (also known as the global south). As a direct consequence, desire for greater control of the course of development of technology gave rise to disenchantment with the model of technological determinism in academia.
Modern theorists of technology and society no longer consider technological determinism to be a very accurate view of the way in which we interact with technology, even though determinist assumptions and language fairly saturate the writings of many boosters of technology, the business pages of many popular magazines, and much reporting on technology. Instead, research in science and technology studies, social construction of technology and related fields have emphasised more nuanced views that resist easy causal formulations. They emphasise that "The relationship between technology and society cannot be reduced to a simplistic cause-and-effect formula. It is, rather, an 'intertwining'", whereby technology does not determine but "...operates, and are operated upon in a complex social field" (Murphie and Potts).
In his article "Subversive Rationalization: Technology, Power and Democracy with Technology," Andrew Feenberg argues that technological determinism is not a very well founded concept by illustrating that two of the founding theses of determinism are easily questionable and in doing so calls for what he calls democratic rationalization (Feenberg 210-212).
Prominent opposition to technologically determinist thinking has emerged within work on the social construction of technology (SCOT). SCOT research, such as that of Mackenzie and Wajcman (1997) argues that the path of innovation and its social consequences are strongly, if not entirely shaped by society itself through the influence of culture, politics, economic arrangements, regulatory mechanisms and the like. In its strongest form, verging on social determinism, "What matters is not the technology itself, but the social or economic system in which it is embedded" (Langdon Winner).
In his influential but contested (see Woolgar and Cooper, 1999) article "Do Artifacts Have Politics?", Langdon Winner illustrates a form of technological determinism by elaborating instances in which artifacts can have politics.
Although "The deterministic model of technology is widely propagated in society" (Sarah Miller), it has also been widely questioned by scholars. Lelia Green explains that, "When technology was perceived as being outside society, it made sense to talk about technology as neutral". Yet, this idea fails to take into account that culture is not fixed and society is dynamic. When "Technology is implicated in social processes, there is nothing neutral about society" (Lelia Green). This confirms one of the major problems with "technological determinism and the resulting denial of human responsibility for change. There is a loss of human involvement that shape technology and society" (Sarah Miller).
Another conflicting idea is that of technological somnambulism, a term coined by Winner in his essay "Technology as Forms of Life". Winner wonders whether or not we are simply sleepwalking through our existence with little concern or knowledge as to how we truly interact with technology. In this view it is still possible for us to wake up and once again take control of the direction in which we are traveling (Winner 104). However, it requires society to adopt Ralph Schroeder's claim that, "users don’t just passively consume technology, but actively transform it".
In opposition to technological determinism are those who subscribe to the belief of social determinism and postmodernism. Social determinists believe that social circumstances alone select which technologies are adopted, with the result that no technology can be considered "inevitable" solely on its own merits. Technology and culture are not neutral and when knowledge comes into the equation, technology becomes implicated in social processes. The knowledge of how to create and enhance technology, and of how to use technology is socially bound knowledge. Postmodernists take another view, suggesting that what is right or wrong is dependent on circumstance. They believe technological change can have implications on the past, present and future. While they believe technological change is influenced by changes in government policy, society and culture, they consider the notion of change to be a paradox, since change is constant.
Media and cultural studies theorist Brian Winston, in response to technological determinism, developed a model for the emergence of new technologies which is centered on the Law of the suppression of radical potential. In two of his books - Technologies of Seeing: Photography, Cinematography and Television (1997) and Media Technology and Society (1998) - Winston applied this model to show how technologies evolves over time, and how their 'invention' is mediated and controlled by society and societal factors which suppress the radical potential of a given technology.
Notable Technological Determinists
Thomas L. Friedman, American journalist, columnist and author, admits to being a technological determinist in his book The World is Flat.
Futurist Raymond Kurzweil's theories about a technological singularity follow a technologically deterministic view of history.
Some interpret Karl Marx as advocating technological determinism, with such statements as "The windmill gives you society with the feudal lord: the steam-mill, society with the industrial capitalist" (The Poverty of Philosophy, 1847), but others argue that Marx was not a determinist.
Technological determinist Walter Ong reviews the societal transition from an oral culture to a written culture in his work “Orality and Literacy." He asserts that this particular development is attributable to the use of new technologies of literacy (particularly print and writing,) to communicate thoughts which could previously only be verbalized. He furthers this argument by claiming that writing is purely context dependent as it is a “secondary modelling system” (8). Reliant upon the earlier primary system of spoken language, writing manipulates the potential of language as it depends purely upon the visual sense to communicate the intended information. Furthermore, the rather stagnant technology of literacy distinctly limits the usage and influence of knowledge, it unquestionably effects the evolution of society. In fact, Ong asserts that “more than any other single invention, writing has transformed human consciousness” (Ong 1982: 78).
Subset of Technological Determinism
Media determinism, a subset of technological determinism, is a philosophical and sociological position which posits the power of the media to impact society. As a theory of change, it is seen as a cause and effect relationship. New media technologies bring about change in society. Much like the "magic bullet" theories of mass communication, media determinism provides a somewhat simplistic explanation for very complicated scenarios. Cause and effect relationships are reduced to their most basic premise, and explained as such. Techno-centrist theories make everything explainable in light of the media's relation to technological developments. Two leading media determinists are the Canadian scholars Harold Innis and Marshall McLuhan.
See also
- Determinism
- Hegemony
- Compatibilism and incompatibilism
- Sociocultural evolution
- Techno-utopianism
- Social Constructivism
- Technological Fix
- Inevitability thesis
- Technological Somnambulism
- Democratic Rationalization
- Philosophy of Technology
- Social Shaping of Technology
Footnotes
References
- Croteau and Hoynes, 2003
- Postman, Teaching as a Conserving Activity (1979), p. 39)
- (1997)
- Green, Linda 2001, Technoculture, Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest pp.15
- Technological or Media Determinism, Daniel Chandler
- Media Determinism in Cyberspace, Regent University
Bibliography
- Cowan, Ruth Schwarz (1983). More Work for Mother: The Ironies of Household Technology from the Open Hearth to the Microwave. New York: Basic Books.
{{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters:|coauthors=and|month=(help) - Croteau, David (2003). Media Society: Industries, Images and Audiences ((third edition) ed.). Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press. pp. 305–307.
{{cite book}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - Ellul, Jacques (1964). The Technological Society. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
{{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters:|coauthors=and|month=(help) - Green, Lelia. Technoculture. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin. pp. 1–20.
- Miller, Sarah (1997). "Futures Work - Recognising the Social Determinants of Change". Social Alternatives (vol.1, No.1 ed.). pp. 57–58.
{{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=(help); Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help) - Murphie, Andrew (2003). "1". Culture and Technology. London: Palgrave. p. 21.
{{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|month=(help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help)
Ong, Walter J (1982). Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. New York: Methuen. *Postman, Neil (1992). Technopoly: the Surrender of Culture to Technology. Vintage: New York. pp. 3–20. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coauthors= and |month= (help)
- Smith, Merritt Roe (1994). Does Technology Drive History? The Dilemma of Technological Determinism. Cambridge: MIT Press.
{{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|month=(help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - Staudenmaier, S.J., John M. (1985). "The Debate over Technological Determinism". Technology's Storytellers: Reweaving the Human Fabric. Cambridge: The Society for the History of Technology and the MIT Press. pp. 134–148.
{{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters:|coauthors=and|month=(help) - Winner, Langdon (1977). Autonomous Technology: Technics-Out-of-Control as a Theme in Political Thought. Cambridge: MIT Press.
{{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters:|coauthors=and|month=(help) - Winner, Langdon (1986). "Do Artefacts Have Politics?". The Whale and the Reactor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 26.
{{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters:|coauthors=and|month=(help) - Winner, Langdon. "Technology as Forms of Life". Readings in the Philosophy of Technology. David M. Kaplan. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004. 103-113
- Woolgar, Steve and Cooper, Geoff (1999). "Do artefacts have ambivalence? Moses' bridges, Winner's bridges and other urban legends in S&TS". Social Studies of Science 29 (3), 433-449.
- Furbank, P.N. “The Myth of Determinism.” Raritan. Fall 2006: 79-87. EBSCOhost. Monroe Community College Library, Rochester, NY. 2 April 2007.
- Feenberg, Andrew. "Democratic Rationalization". Readings in the Philosophy of Technology. David M. Kaplan. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004. 209-225
- Chandler, Daniel. Technological or Media Determinism. 1995. 18 September 1995. <http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/tecdet/tecdet.html>
External links
- Colin Rule, "Is Technology Neutral?"
- Megan McCormick, "Technology as Neutral"
- Daniel Chandler, "Technological or Media Determinism"
- Chris Kimble, "Technological Determinism and Social Choice"