#Did #You #Tweet #Me?

: A contemporary examination of technological determinism Brandon Allwood 211977014 York University AP/COMN 2500

Contemporary examination of technological determinism

The idea that technology drives progress is one that becomes more relevant each day. In contemporary times, one is never hard-pressed to find examples of technology's influence in the individual lives of people; it is also easy to conclude that these examples of influence ipso facto explain technologys role in society and that technology is the primary actor in causing historical changewhich includes social and cultural changes. This is the argument that technological determinists are making, that technology necessarily, intrinsically and autonomously determines the progression and development of our world. This description above is admittedly oversimplified; it does no justice to the various different theories of technological determinism, but it gives us is a basic understanding of the crux of technological determinism. A fulsome definition is outlined elsewhere in this paper, however there is an important housekeeping matter that should be discussed first. This paper differs somewhat from the research proposal; indeed this paper still critically explores technological determinism but employs sources that divaricate from those originally identified. The intended sources are not necessarily weak, however, they did not lend themselves to the kind of critical examination this paper endeavours to undertake. The general critique of technological determinism is two-fold. Firstly, it is said that this view imposes a fixed linear axis on which history develops. This what saying history follows a determinate course means; that it follows an exact path with discernable outcomes. Secondly, technological determinists are also criticised for the disregard of social actors in the course of history; it is a necessity that technological determinism rationalises social actions as mere responses to a particular technologys presence. Contemporary examination should endeavour to be more investigative. Indeed, it is fair to say that technologys role in any epoch is difficult to discern; however modern technology has allowed for much more to be accomplished than has

Contemporary examination of technological determinism

ever been thought possible. The sources relied on for this paper were chosen because they allow for such a contemporary critique to be made. Bruce Bimbers (1994) Three Faces of Technological Determinism delineated an excellent way for us to look at theories of technological determinism that exist. Agreeing with G.A. Cohen, Bimber (1994) argues that a working definition must take the two words literally if the theory is to have any meaning. As such, technological determinism must first hold that history is deterministic in its very nature, and is therefore decided by laws or by physical and biological conditions rather than by human will; this makes it deterministic. (Bimber, 1994; 86). Secondly, technological determinism must be technological in meaning; Bimber (1994) takes technology to mean any physical artifact (as well the machines and other material elements involved in its production) and that these are implements of the physical laws, some of which we can learn through science, [that] shape the course of human events. (Bimber, 1994:87) These strict qualifiers allow, especially for the purpose of this essay, the overlooking of off-shoot theories of technological determinism that bend to fit circumstances. Without a doubt, Bimber (1994) was right in asserting that ideas such as soft and hard determinism only weaken any attempt to prove that technological determinists are right about historical change. Using Bimbers work, we can look at some of the leading scholars on the topic, starting with the very alarmist Ellul. In Ellul's morbid outlook, there is no question that technology is superior. In fact, he sees technology as having replaced nature as environment of human existence. For Ellul (1984), technology (or as he calls it technique) is an artificial, autonomous, and self-determining closed organization, established by accumulation of means; a system with all parts integral to the operation of the whole. Finally, Ellul (1984) holds that his technique has become the basic superstructure, which supports the political, the economic and the cultural.

Contemporary examination of technological determinism

With technology as societys foundation Ellul (1984) warns us that human beings are losing their freedoms while technology gains more and more importance and is further situated at the centre of the social base. Robert Heilbroners seminal piece Do Machines Make History (2008) looks at technology in a different way. He argues that although technologys development is determinate, that has no bearing on its role in human development. For Heilbroner, technological determinism is thus peculiarly a problem of a certain historic epoch in which the forces of technical change have been unleashed, but when the agencies for the control or guidance of technology are still rudimentary (Heilbroner, 2008:104). He argues that any theory of technological determinism must take into consideration that technological progress is a social activity, that technologys development is responsive to social direction and that technological change must be compatible with the existing social order (Heilbroner, 2008). By this, Heilbroner is saying that determinists must realise that humanity across the globe is not technologically homogenous and that invention and innovation have largely been the ideas and notions of some nations. In addition to that, the whole process of invention and innovation is dependent on the kinds of environment and incentives provided by society. Lastly, technology cannot be introduced to societies that havent mastered the technologys predecessor. Both these ideas of technologys role in historical change offer different ideas of the role of humans in the complex tapestry that is called development. Marshal Mcluhan, another prominent determinist, has argued that printing technology altered the very structure of human consciousness and thought (Grossberg, et al, 2006:42). Similar sentiments about contemporary communications technology have been expressed about everything associated with modern technology; from the Internet to the mobile phone. Of note is that Mcluhan famously argued that

Contemporary examination of technological determinism

the way in which people perceive reality is mediated by the communications technologies available at the time (McLuhan, 1964). Since this essay looks at technological determinism in a contemporary light, an examination of a more modern deterministic expression would be useful. For this, we look to the Internet and contend that social networks like Twitter have altered the way we socialise. Ellul would probably agree with the example put forward here. Social networks have replaced and reformatted natural conversation in many respects, augmenting the way we communicate with each other (eg, #hashtags, #trendingtopics, condensed expressions) and this would suffice Elluls first test, that it has replaced nature. Social networks are also non-tangible as they can only be accessed through an electronic portal, which lends to its strength as a separate area of communication technology. In these ways, social networks are both artificial and autonomous. Social networks are owned by private corporations and were dependent on owners having access to already existing technology as well as other material elements. Here, social networks satisfy Elluls test of technique being both established by acquired means and selfdetermining. Lastly, social networks depend on other equipment to allow access to the technology, e.g. a computer or mobile phone, which meets Elluls requirement that technique is a system with all parts being integral to the whole. Heilbroner would also agree with the expression. Social networks can be said to gave developed in a somewhat determinate way; from forums, to instant messaging, to chat rooms to the early examples of social networks, to the complex framework that exists today. In this way, social networks meet Heilbroners test of technologies being developed in a linear way. The creation of social networks were in part espoused by the cultural excitement surrounding developing spaces on the Internet for socialisation. Social networks also entered the sphere as

Contemporary examination of technological determinism

concerns were starting be raised about chatroom safety, privacy along with people demanding more from the Internet experience. These two elements of the social networks meet Heilbroners test that technologys development must be responsive to social direction as well as being compatible with social wants. Not all social networks that have ever been established still exist; earlier examples (such as hi5.com and myspace.com) exist on the fringes of the Internet. This meets Heilbronner's last test, that technology cannot be introduced ahead of the social order. The differences between these two definitions become clear when we look at our contemporary example. Ellul sees the change in societys behaviour as a necessary result of social networks. Heilbroner sees the relationship between society and social networks as reciprocal, albeit with the social network having greater importance in the process of historical change. However, technological determinism does not lend itself to explaining the various social phenomena involved with invention. Even though Heilbroner acknowledges social actors, he cannot explainfor example why social networks introduced before their time failed; he can only say that it did. Elluls rigid idea of determinism leaves no room to explorefor examplewhy people use social networks the way they do. The difficulties in applying technological determinism to explain the many layers of historical progress leads us to look for more critical ways to explain technologys role in society. Indeed, technological determinism seems to be very beholden to binaries, though some definitions of determinism present very complex binaries. In the end, however, they seem to offer a view of development that leads towards a structuralist school of thought. This further challenges the theorys relevance in this contemporary, poststructuralist era; technological determinism cannot explain why people use technology differently, the inequalities in access or

Contemporary examination of technological determinism

the social factors in the corporate distribution of contemporary technology. It can only provide a view that shows a relationship between technology and historical change exists; but as Heilbroner (1994) said: A recognition that the technological structure is inextricably entwined in the activities of any society does not shed light on the connection between changes in that structure and changes in the socioeconomic order (70). Thomas P Hughes (2008) argues that neither social constructivism nor technological determinism can adequately explain the special relationship that exists between society and technology. He insists we must consider technology and technical as more open terms; for him, technology represents technological or socio technical systems and technical represents physical artifacts and software (Hughes, 2008). Hughes (2008) views the social as the non technical world, made up of the various institutions, classes, values and other social forces. When the social and the technical interact, for Hughes a technological system is formed and those things that remain outside of this technological system remains a part of the environment (Hughes, 2008). Importantly, Hughes (2008) says, though the environment and the technological system may interact, the environment is not a part of the system because it is not under the control of the system as are the system's interacting components (142). The interaction of technological systems with various aspects of society gives birth to what Hughes calls technological momentum. Technological momentum provides room for us to examine what social and technological determinist theories cannot. It can explore, using our social network example, how social networks can be at once causes and effects of historical change as well as shape and be shaped by society (Hughes, 2008). Technological momentum can provide explanations for technological systems being non-symmetrical in their development andespecially in the case of those that

Contemporary examination of technological determinism

are still evolving technological systemshow and why they are time dependent. (Hughes, 2008). This can provide explanations for why social networks are now providing different experiences and services as well as why some systems get phased out over time. As we can see, technological momentum negotiates the binary between social constructivists and technological determinists, providing a more flexible mode of interpretation and one that is in accord with the history of large systems (Hughes, 2008:148). Technological momentum presents us with a better investigative tool to explore the relationship of technology and societys multi layered systems and institutions. However, the idea of technology naturally possessing the tools with which humanity changeswith or without our say so is one that should not be continued to dominate contemporary endeavours to discern and concretise the relationship between society, development and technology. It is very necessary to account for the complex social productions that allow for technology to be developed including the agency of humans. Admittedly, more should be done to study the role of technicians in the role of technology. Famed inventor Sir Robert Watson-Watt had something to say about the role of human in technological development:
Unless the extension of technological devices for the material use and convenience of man is directed by stringently ethical and profoundly humanitarian policies, the Ellulian pessimism may well be justified. (31)

Watson-Watt contended that while constantly seeking to gratify our insatiable curiosity, we must do willful harm to none; we must seek increasing benefit, through a fuller life, to all and moral selectivity is indispensable; all knowledge is good knowledge; not all application is good application (31). Moving forward, contemporary discussions of technologys role in society must do away with the structured, rigid explanations of its role in human development. It must engage more the social influences responsible for technologys own development, and embrace a more

Contemporary examination of technological determinism

poststructuralist critique; an investigation of the interplay of all the material factors that shape our world.

Contemporary examination of technological determinism

10

References

Bimber, B. (1994). Three Faces of Technological Determinism. In Does technology drive history?: the dilemma of technological determinism /. MIT Press,. Ellul, J. (1962). The Technological Order. Technology and Culture, 3(4). Grossberg, L., Wartella, E., Whitney, D. C., & Wise, J. M. (2006). Mediamaking: mass media in a popular culture. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. Heilbroner, R. L. (1994). Technological Determinism Revisited. In Does technology drive history?: the dilemma of technological determinism /. MIT Press,. Heilbroner, R. L. (2009). Do Machines Make History? In Technology and Society: Building Our Technical Future (pp. 97106). The MIT Press. Hughes, T. P. (2009). Technological Momentum. In Technology and Society: Building Our Technical Future (pp. 141150). The MIT Press. Watson-Watt, S. J. (1962). The Technological Order. Technology and Culture, 3(4).