Technological determinism
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 the United States 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.
The first major elaboration of technological determinism came from the German
philosopher and economist Karl Marx, whose theoretical framework was based upon the
idea that changes in technology and productive technology are the primary influence on
the organization of social relations, and that social relations and cultural practices
ultimately revolve around the technological and economic base of a society. Marx's
position has become embedded in contemporary society, where the idea that fastchanging
technologies alter human lives is all-pervasive.[1]
Origin
The term is believed to have been coined by Thorstein Veblen (1857–1929), an American.
Veblen's contemporary, popular historian Charles A. 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."[2]
Explanation
Technological determinism seeks to show technical developments, media, or technology
as a whole, as the key mover in history and social change.[3]
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"' (Rosalind 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 [technology]" (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.[4]
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 Daniel Chandler's "inevitability thesis", 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 literacy
without mass production.[clarification needed] 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."[5]
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 an 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 (Autonomous Technology). The 20th century French philosopher and social
theorist Jacques Ellul could be said to be a hard determinist and proponent of
autonomous technique (technology). In his 1954 work The Technological Society, Ellul
essentially posits that technology, by virtue of its power through efficiency, determines
which social aspects are best suited for its own development through a process of natural
selection. A social system's values, morals, philosophy etc. that are most conducive to the
advancement of technology allow that social system to enhance its power and spread at
the expense of those social systems whose values, morals, philosophy etc. are less
promoting of technology. Theodore J. Kaczynski (the Unabomber) can be essentially
thought of as a hard determinist. According to Kaczynski, "objective" material factors in
the human environment are the principle determining factors in the evolution of social
systems. Whereas geography, climate, and other "natural" factors largely determined the
parameters of social conditions for most of human history, technology has recently
become the dominant objective factor (largely due to forces unleashed by the industrial
revolution) and it has been the principle objective and determining factor.
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.[6] 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 [7] 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 has produced (Green, 2001). This view is
also referred to as technological instrumentalism.
In what is often considered a definitive reflection on the topic, the historian Melvin
Kranzberg famously wrote in the first of his six laws of technology: "Technology is
neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral."
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. 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 not a form of determinism but the various
sources of the politics of technologies. Those politics can stem from the intentions of the
designer and the culture of the society in which a technology emerges or can stem from
the technology itself, a "practical necessity" for it to function. For instance, New York
City urban planner Robert Moses is purported to have built Long Island's parkway
tunnels too low for buses to pass in order to keep minorities away from the island's
beaches, an example of externally inscribed politics. On the other hand, an authoritarian
command-and-control structure is a practical necessity of a nuclear power plant if
radioactive waste is not to fall into the wrong hands. As such, Winner neither succumbs
to technological determinism nor social determinism. The source of a technology's
politics is determined only by carefully examining its features and history.
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.[8] 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 evolve over time, and how their 'invention' is mediated and controlled by
society and societal factors which suppress the radical potential of a given technology.
Technological determinism and the stirrup
Main article: Great Stirrup Controversy
One continued argument for technological determinism is centered on the stirrup and its
impact on the creation of feudalism in Europe in the late 700s, early 800s. Lynn White is
credited with first drawing this parallel between feudalism and the stirrup in the novel
Medieval Technology and Social Change, stating that as “it made possible mounted
shock combat,” the new form of war made the soldier that much more efficient in
supporting feudal townships (White, 2). According to White, the superiority of the
stirrup in combat was found in the mechanics of the lance charge: “The stirrup made
possible- though it did not demand- a vastly more effective mode of attack: now the rider
could law his lance at rest, held between the upper arm and the body, and make at his
foe, delivering the blow not with his muscles but with the combined weight of himself
and his charging stallion (White, 2).” White draws from a large research base,
particularly Heinrich Brunner’s “Der Reiterdienst und die Anfänge des Lehnwesens” in
substantiating his claim of the emergence of feudalism. In focusing on the evolution of
warfare, particularly that of cavalry in connection with Charles Martel’s “diversion of a
considerable part of the Church’s vast military riches…from infantry to cavalry”, White
draws from Brunner’s research and identifies the stirrup as the underlying cause for such
a shift in military division and the subsequent emergence of feudalism (White, 4). Under
the new brand of warfare garnered from the stirrup, White implicitly argues in favor of
technological determinism as the vehicle by which feudalism was created.
Though an accomplished work, White’s Medieval Technology and Social Change has
since come under heavy scrutiny and condemnation. The most volatile critics of White’s
argument at the time of its publication, P.H. Sawyer and R.H. Hilton, call the work as a
whole “a misleading adventurist cast to old-fashioned platitudes with a chain of obscure
and dubious deductions from scanty evidence about the progress of technology (Sawyer
and Hilton, 90).” They further condemn his methods and, by association, the validity of
technological determinism: “Had Mr. White been prepared to accept the view that the
English and Norman methods of fighting were not so very different in the eleventh
century, he would have made the weakness of his argument less obvious, but the
fundamental failure would remain: the stirrup cannot alone explain the changes it made
possible (Sawyer and Hilton, 91).” For Sawyer and Hilton, though the stirrup may be
useful in the implementation of feudalism, it cannot be credited for the creation of
feudalism alone.
Despite the scathing review of White’s claims, the technological determinist aspect of the
stirrup is still in debate. Alex Roland, author of “Once More into the Stirrups; Lynne
White Jr, Medieval Technology and Social Change”, provides an intermediary stance: not
necessarily lauding White’s claims, but providing a little defense against Sawyer and
Hilton’s allegations of gross intellectual negligence. Roland views White’s focus on
technology to be the most relevant and important aspect of Medieval Technology and
Social Change rather than the particulars of its execution: “But can these many virtues,
can this utility for historians of technology, outweigh the most fundamental standards of
the profession? Can historians of technology continue to read and assign a book that is,
in the words of a recent critic, “shot through with over-simplification, with a progression
of false connexions between cause and effect, and with evidence presented selectively to
fit with [White’s] own pre-conceived ideas”? The answer, I think, is yes, at least a
qualified yes (Roland, 574-575).” Objectively, Roland claims Medieval Technology and
Social Change a variable success, at least as “Most of White’s argument stands… the rest
has sparked useful lines of research (Roland, 584).” This acceptance of technological
determinism is ambiguous at best, neither fully supporting the theory at large nor
denouncing it, rather placing the construct firmly in the realm of the theoretical. Roland
neither views technological determinism as completely dominant over history nor
completely absent as well; in accordance with the above criterion of technological
determinist structure, would Roland be classified as a “soft determinist.”
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 Handmill 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.[9]
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).
Media Determinism as a form of Technological Determinism
Media determinism is a form of technological determinism, a philosophical and
sociological position which posits the power of the media to impact society. [10] Two
foundational media determinists are the Canadian scholars Harold Innis and Marshall
McLuhan. One of the best examples of technological determinism in media theory is
Marshall McLuhan’s theory “the medium is the message” and the ideas of his mentor
Harold Adams Innis. Both these Canadian theorists saw the media as the essence of
civilization. The association of different media with particular mental consequences by
McLuhan and others can be seen as related to technological determinism. It is this
variety of determinism that is referred to as media determinism. According to McLuhan,
there is an association between communications media/technology and language;
similarly, Benjamin Lee Whorfs argues that language shapes our perception of thinking
(linguistic determinism). For McLuhan, media is a more powerful and explicit
determinant than is the more general concept of language. McLuhan was not necessarily
a hard determinist. As a more moderate version of media determinism, he proposed that
our use of particular media may have subtle influences on us, but more importantly, it is
the social context of use that is crucial. [11]See also Media ecology. Media determinism is
a form of the popular dominant theory of the relationship between technology and
society. In a determinist view, technology takes on an active life of its own and is seen be
as a driver of social phenomena. Innis believed that the social, cultural, political, and
economic developments of each historical period can be related directly to the
technology of the means of mass communication of that period. In this sense, like Dr.
Frankenstein’s monster, technology itself appears to be alive, or at least capable of
shaping human behavior. [12] Langdon Winner However, it has been increasingly subject
to critical review by scholars. For example, scholar Raymond Williams, criticizes media
determinism and rather believes social movements define technological and media
processes. [13] With regard to communications media, audience determinism is a
viewpoint opposed to media determinism. This is described as instead of media being
presented as doing things to people; the stress is on the way people do things with media.
Individuals need to be aware that the term “deterministic” is a negative one for many
social scientists and modern sociologists; in particular they often use the word as a term
of abuse. [14]
See also
Footnotes
[as cited in Croteau, D. and Hoynes, M. (2003) Media Society: Industries, Images and
Audiences (third edition), Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks pp. 305–306]
References
1. ^ Smith & Marx, Merrit Roe & Leo (June 1994). Does Technology Drive History? The
Dilemma of Technological Determinism. The MIT Press. ISBN 978-0262691673.
2. ^ Charles A. Beard, “Time, Technology, and the Creative Spirit in Political Science,”
21 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 1, 5 (Feb., 1927).
3. ^ Kunz, William M. (2006). Culture Conglomerates: Consolidation in the Motion
Picture and Television Industries. Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
p. 2. ISBN 0742540669.
4. ^ Croteau and Hoynes, 2003
5. ^ Postman, Teaching as a Conserving Activity (1979), p. 39)
6. ^ Huesemann, Michael H., and Joyce A. Huesemann (2011). Technofix: Why
Technology Won’t Save Us or the Environment, “The Myth of Value-Neutrality”, pp.
235-241, New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada, ISBN
0865717044.
7. ^ (1997)
8. ^ Green, Linda 2001, Technoculture, Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest pp.15
9. ^ Technological or Media Determinism, Daniel Chandler
10. ^ Media Determinism in Cyberspace, Regent University
11. ^ http://beforebefore.net/80f/s11/media/mcluhan.pdf
|last=McLuhan|first=Marshall | title=Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man |
12. ^
http://www.academia.edu/1789051/One_tweet_does_not_a_revolution_make_Technol
|last=Hist|first=Martin |title= One tweet does not a revolution make: Technological
determinism, media and social change| Deakin University
13. ^ Williams, Raymond (1974). Television: Technology and Cultural Form. London
and New York: Routledge. p. 133. ISBN 0-415-31456-9. Retrieved 28 May 2013.
14. ^ http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/tecdet/tecdet.html |last=Chandler|
first= Daniel | title=Technological or Media Determinism | 1995. 18 September 1995
Bibliography
G.A. Cohen, Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence, Oxford and Princeton, 1978.
Cowan, Ruth Schwarz (1983). More Work for Mother: The Ironies of Household
Technology from the Open Hearth to the Microwave. New York: Basic Books.
Croteau, David; Hoynes, William (2003). Media Society: Industries, Images and
Audiences ((third edition) ed.). Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press. pp. 305–307.
Ellul, Jacques (1964). The Technological Society. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Green, Lelia. Technoculture. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin. pp. 1–20.
Huesemann, Michael H., and Joyce A. Huesemann (2011). Technofix: Why
Technology Won’t Save Us or the Environment, New Society Publishers, Gabriola
Island, British Columbia, Canada, ISBN 0865717044, 464 pp.
Miller, Sarah (January 1997). "Futures Work – Recognising the Social Determinants
of Change". Social Alternatives (vol.1, No.1 ed.). pp. 57–58.
Murphie, Andrew; Potts, John (2003). "1". Culture and Technology. London:
Palgrave. p. 21.
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.
Roland, Alex. Once More into the Stirrups; Lynne White Jr, Medieval Technology and
Social Change” Classics Revisited. 574- 585.
Sawyer, P.H. and R.H. Hilton. “Technical Determinism” Past & Present. April 1963:
90-100.
Smith, Merritt Roe; and Leo Marx, eds. (1994). Does Technology Drive History? The
Dilemma of Technological Determinism. Cambridge: MIT Press.
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.
Winner, Langdon (1977). Autonomous Technology: Technics-Out-of-Control as a
Theme in Political Thought. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Winner, Langdon (1986). "Do Artefacts Have Politics?". The Whale and the Reactor.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 26.
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.
White, Lynn (1966). Medieval Technology and Social Change. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Furbank, P.N. “The Myth of Determinism.” Raritan. [City] 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"