Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of
Anthropology.
http://www.jstor.org
Annu.Rev.Anthropol.1992. 21:491-516
Copyright? 1992 byAnnualReviews Inc. All rights reserved
SOCIALANTHROPOLOGY
OF
TECHNOLOGY
Bryan Pfaffenberger
which people establish their viability, given the constraints imposed upon
them by theirenvironmentandthe demandsof social integration.It follows, as
Binford argued in 1965 (8), that every artifacthas two dimensions, the pri-
mary,referringto the instrumentaldimensionrelatedto the artifact'sfunction,
and the secondary, related to the artifact's social meaning and symbolism.
Echoing this view, Dunnell makes explicit the connection that is assumed
between an artifact's function and group survival: The artifact's function is
that which "directly enhances the Darwinian fitness of the populations in
which they occur" (23:199). Style, in contrast, is something added on the
surface,a burnishor decoration,that might play some useful role in symboliz-
ing group solidaritybut is decidedly secondary.In the Modernistview, there
are universalhumanneeds, and for each of these there is an ideal artifact.For
the primitive technologist, discovering such an artifact is like discovering
America: It was there before the explorersfinally found it-and to the extent
that anyone bothersto look, it will be found, and inevitablyadopted(although
it might be resisted for a time). The tale of Man's rise, then, is the story of
increasing technological prowess, as digging sticks develop into ploughs,
drumsinto telephones,cartsinto cars.
The StandardView of technology offers a seemingly "hard"or "tough-
minded" view of artifacts and technological evolution, but there is ample
evidence that its "hardness"dissolves when examined critically. What seems
to us an incontrovertibleneed, for which thereis an ideal artifact,may well be
generatedby our own culture's fixations. Basalla (4:7-11) demonstratesthis
point forcefully with respect to the wheel. First used for ceremonialpurposes
in the Near East, the wheel took on militaryapplicationsbefore finally finding
transportapplications.In Mesoamerica,the wheel was never adoptedfor trans-
portfunctions, given the constraintsof terrainand the lack of draughtanimals.
Even in the Near East, where the wheel was first invented, it was gradually
given up in favor of camels. Basalla comments, "A bias for the wheel led
Western scholarsto underratethe utility of pack animals and overestimatethe
contributionmade by wheeled vehicles in the years before the camel replaced
the wheel" (4:11). Against all Modernist bias, Basalla's view echoes the
findings of recent social anthropologistswho have arguedthat it is impossible
to identify a class of "authentic"artifactsthat directly and rationallyaddress
"real"needs (2, 22:72; 87). Culture,not nature,defines necessity. One could
reassert that a "hard"or "tough-minded"approachrequiresthe recognition,
after all, that people must eat, and so on, but it is abundantlyevident that a
huge varietyof techniquesand artifactscan be chosen to accomplishany given
utilitarianobjective (91).
The supposedfunctionsof artifacts,then, do not providea clearportraitof a
human culture's needs (38), and what is more, one cannot unambiguously
infer from them precisely which challenges a humanpopulationhas faced. The
natives of chilly Tierradel Fuego, after all, were content to do without cloth-
ing. Accordingly, some archaeologistsand social anthropologistswould break
OFTECHNOLOGY497
SOCIALANTHROPOLOGY
concept, see 68, 81). According to Hughes, those who seek to develop new
technologies must concernthemselves not only with techniquesand artifacts;
they must also engineer the social, economic, legal, scientific, and political
context of the technology. A successful technological innovationoccurs only
when all the elements of the system, the social as well as the technological,
have been modified so thatthey work togethereffectively. Hughes (45) shows
how Edison sought to supply electric lighting at a price competitive with
naturalgas (economic), to obtain the supportof key politicians (political), to
cut down the cost of transmittingpower (technical),and to find a bulb filament
of sufficiently high resistance (scientific). In a successful sociotechnical sys-
tem, such as the electric lighting industry founded by Edison, the "web is
seamless": "the social is indissolubly linked with the technological and the
economic" (60:112). In short, sociotechnical systems are heterogeneouscon-
structs that stem from the successful modification of social and nonsocial
actors so that they work together harmoniously-that is, so that they resist
dissociation (60:166-17)-i.e. resist dissolving or failing in the face of the
system's adversaries.One or more sociotechnical systems may be found in a
given humansociety, each devotedto a productivegoal.
Extending Hughes's concept, Law (60) and Latour (57) emphasize the
difficulty of creating a system capable of resisting dissociation. A system
builder is faced with naturaland social adversaries,each of which must be
controlled and modified if the system is to work. Some of them are more
obdurate,and some of them more malleable, than others. In illustratingthis
point, Law shows that the sociotechnical system concept applies fruitfullyto
the study of preindustrialtechnology, in this case the rise of the Portuguese
mixed-rigged vessels in the 14th and early 15th centuries. The real achieve-
ment, argues Law, was not merely the creation of the mixed-rigged vessel,
with its increased cargo capacity and storm stability. Equally importantwas
the magnetic compass, which allowed a consistent heading in the absence of
clear skies; the simplification of the astrolabe, such that even semieducated
marinerscould determinetheir latitude;explorationthat was specifically in-
tended to producetables of data, against which position could be judged; and
an understandingof Atlantic tradewinds, which allowed ships to go forth in
one season and come back in another.To achieve the necessaryintegrationof
all these factors,the system buildershad to get mariners,ship builders,kings,
merchants, winds, sails, wood, instruments,and measurementsto work to-
getherharmoniously.The system they createdresisted dissociation;they were
able to sail out beyond the Pillars of Hercules, down the coast of Africa, and
soon aroundthe globe.
Although it is no easy trick to constructa system resistantto dissociation,
sociotechnical systems are not inevitable responses to immutableconstraints;
they do not provide the only way to get the job done. People unfamiliarwith
technology usually gravely understatethe degrees of latitudeand choice open
to innovatorsas they seek to solve technical problems (48). More commonly,
SOCIALANTHROPOLOGYOF TECHNOLOGY 499
one sees a range of options, each with its tradeoffs, and it is far from obvious
which, if any, is superior.In virtuallyevery technical area,there is substantial
latitude for choice. For instance, Lemonnier (62) points to the apparently
arbitraryvariationof techniques as one moves across the New Guinea high-
lands; such variation is to be found, Lemonnier notes, even among those
"functional"(as opposed to "stylistic") aspects of a tool that are directly
implicatedin its action upon material(62:160). It would be wrong to attribute
a system's "success"(i.e. in resisting dissociation) to the choice of the "cor-
rect"techniqueor social-coordinationmethod.
By analogy to the sociology of scientific knowledge (11), this point can be
formulatedas a principle of symmetry.In the sociology of scientific knowl-
edge, this principlecounteredan older sociology of science that explainedthe
success of a theoryby its conformityto the Truth,while ascribingthe failureof
anothertheoryto social factors(bias, influence, "interests,"etc). The principle
of symmetrycalls for precisely the same kind of social explanationto be used
in accountingfor the success as well as the failure of a theory-or, by exten-
sion, of a sociotechnicalsystem. Accordingly,it would violate the principleof
symmetry to argue that one system succeeds because its builders chose the
"right"techniques,the ones that really "work."Of apparentlysuccessful sys-
tems, we can say only that the system buildershave apparentlysucceeded in
bringing to life one out of a range of possible systems that could achieve its
goal (e.g. trapping wild pigs, growing rice, or sailing down the coast of
Africa). Such a system could be viewed as an adaptation,in line with cultural
ecology, but only by abandoningthe post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy of
functionalism.That a sociotechnicalsystem develops does not imply that it is
the logical system, or the only possible system, that could have developed
underthe circumstances;social choice, tactics, alternativetechniques,and the
social redefinition of needs and aspirations all play a role in the rise of
sociotechnicalsystems.
An additionalexample, south Indiantemple irrigation,should help to clar-
ify the sociotechnicalsystem concept and its implications.A markedcharac-
teristic of agriculture in medieval south India was the royal donation of
wastelands to communities of Brahmans,who in turn were encouraged to
organize and supervise agriculturalproduction.They did so by investing the
lands in newly constructedtemples, which provided a locus of managerial
controlfor the construction,maintenance,and managementof complex irriga-
tion systems (42, 67) that successfully resisted droughtand led to a majestic
efflorescence of south Indian Hindu culture. The heterogeneous quality of
such a system is immediately evident. The system linked into a cohesive,
successful system actors such as kings, canal-diggingtechniques,dams, flow-
ing water,modes of coordinatinglaborfor rice production,agriculturalrituals,
deities, notions of social rankand authority,conceptionsof meritflowing from
donations,conceptions of caste relations and occupations,conceptions of so-
cially differentiatedspace, religious notions of the salutaryeffect of temples
500 PFAFFENBERGER
Here we see yet anotherreason for the invisibility of such systems within the
compass of Westernsocial theory,which excessively privileges languageover
nonverbalcognition and behavior(10).
A successful sociotechnical system achieves a stable integrationof social
and nonsocial actors,but it is no static thing:Keepingthe networkfunctioning
requires constant vigilance, and it may also require additional technical or
social modification.Every sociotechnicalsystem must cope with whatHughes
calls reverse salients, areas of obduracyor resistancethat preventthe system
from expanding or threatenit with dissociation. On reaching the Indies, the
Portuguesefound thatMuslims had monopolizedthe tradewith Hinduprinces;
the Portugueseresponse was to work a good deal to make the cannon lighter
and more powerful (60:127-28). Sociotechnicalsystems also betraya charac-
teristic life cycle (46) as they grow from invention, small-scale innovation,
growth and development, and a climax of maximum elaborationand scope,
followed by senescence and decay, until the system disappearsor is replaced
by a competing system. Such life cycles may be visible in the myriadcycles of
innovation,growth,efflorescence, and decay thatcharacterizethe archaeologi-
cal record.
The sociotechnical system concept, in sum, suggests that mere necessity is
by no means the motherof invention,just as productionalone is by no means
the sole rationale for the astonishing linkages that occur in sociotechnical
systems (cf 5). To be sure, sociotechnical-systembuildersreact to perceived
needs, as their culture defines them. But we see in their activities the essen-
tially creative spirit that underlies sociogenesis, which is surely among the
supreme modes of human culturalexpression. Basalla (4:14) puts this point
well: A human technology is a "materialmanifestationof the various ways
men and women throughouttime have chosen to define and pursue existence.
Seen in this light, the history of technology is partof the much broaderhistory
of humanaspirations,and the plethoraof made things are a productof human
minds replete with fantasies, longings, wants, and desires." Basalla's point
suggests that no accountof technology can be complete that does not consider
fully the meaningof sociotechnicalactivities,and in particular,the nonproduc-
tive roles of technical activities in the ongoing, pragmatic constitution of
human polities and subjective selves. Sociotechnical systems can be under-
stood, as I arguein the next section, only by acknowledgingthat they produce
power and meaningas well as goods.
CONCLUSIONS
Against the StandardView's exaggeratedpicture of technological evolution
from simple tools to complex machines, the sociotechnical system concept
puts forwarda universalconceptionof humantechnologicalactivity, in which
complex social structures,nonverbal activity systems, advanced linguistic
communication,the ritual coordinationof labor, advanced artifactmanufac-
ture, the linkage of phenomenallydiverse social and nonsocial actors, and the
social use of diverse artifactsare all recognized as parts of a single complex
thatis simultaneouslyadaptiveand expressive.
The sociotechnical systems of the Machine Age do differ from theirprein-
dustrialpredecessors,but the StandardView grossly exaggeratesthese differ-
ences. For example, most modem definitions of technology assert that, unlike
theirpreindustrialpredecessors,modem technologicalsystems are systems for
the application of science, drawing their productive power from objective,
linguistically encoded knowledge (e.g. 16). But on closer examinationwe see
here the influence of StandardView mythology. Historiansof technology tell
us that virtually none of the technologies that structureour current social
landscape were producedby the applicationof science; on the contrary,sci-
ence and organized objective knowledge are more commonly the result of
technology. The principlesof thermodynamics,for example, were discovered
as scientists sought to determinehow devices actually worked and what their
operatingparameterswere (26). The notion that moderntechnology is efffec-
tive because it is foundedin objective, "true"knowledge violates the principle
of symmetryadvancedearlierin this essay, even as it denigratesthe achieve-
ments of preindustrialsociotechnicalsystems. As Lansingnotes (56), Balinese
water temples were more effective managersof irrigationthan the all-but-dis-
astrousGreenRevolutiontechniqueshave been.
By jettisoning material-culturestudies in the early 20th century,anthropol-
ogy lost one means of developing a holistic, multi-disciplinaryapproachto
culture. By reinstatingthe social anthropologyof technology and material
culture, we lay the foundationonce again for fruitful communicationamong
social anthropologists,ethnoarchaeologists,archaeologists, and students of
human evolution. Besides challenging certain myths about technology that
social anthropologistsoften take for granted,I hope this essay helps to raise
the level of such interdisciplinarydiscourse. For example, efforts are now
514 PFAFFENBERGER
LiteratureCited
1. Ames, K. 1978. Meaning in artefacts:hall Critique of the Judgementof Taste. Lon-
furnishingsin VictorianAmerica.J. Inter- don: Routledgeand Kegan Paul.
dis. Hist. 9:19-46 15. Bradbury,M., McFarlane, J. 1976. The
2. Appadurai,A. 1986. Introduction:com- nameandnatureof modernism.InModern-
modites and the politics of value. In The ism, ed. M. Bradbury,J. McFarlane,pp.
Social Life of Things: Commodities in 19-55. Harmondsworth:Penguin
Cultural Perspective, ed. A. Appadurai, 16. Bruzina,R. 1982. Art and architecture,an-
pp. 3-61. Cambridge:Cambridge Univ. cient and modern. Res. Philos. Technol.
Press 5:163-87
3. Attwood, D. 1979. Why some of the poor 17. Burke, P. 1978. Popular Culturein Early
get richer:economic change and mobility ModernEurope.London:Temple Smith
in rural Western India. Curr.Anthropol. 18. Clifford,J., Marcus,G., eds. 1986. Writing
20:495-514 Culture:The Poetics and Politics of Eth-
4. Basalla, G. 1988. The Evolution of Tech- nography.Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press.
nology. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. 19. Condominas,G. 1986. Ritualtechnologyin
Press swidden agriculture. In Rice Societies:
5. Baudrillard,J. 1975. TheMirrorof Produc- Asian Problemsand Prospects, ed. I. Nor-
tion, transl. M. Poster. St. Louis: Telos lund, S. Cederroth,I. Gerden.pp. 29-37.
Press Riverdale:CurzonPress
6. Bijker,W.,Hughes,T.,Pinch,T., eds. 1987. 20. Coward, E. 1979. Principles of social or-
The Social Constructionof Technological ganizationin an indigenousirrigationsys-
Systems:New Directions in the Sociology tem. Hum. Organ. 38:35-43
and History of Technology. Cambridge: 21. Digard, J.-P. 1979. La technologie en an-
MIT Press thropologie:fin de parcoursou nouveau
7. Binford, L. 1962. Archaeology as anthro- souffle? L'Homme19:105-40
pology.Am. Antiq.28:217-25 22. Douglas, M., Isherwood, B. 1979. The
8. Binford,L. 1965.Archaeologicalsystemat- Worldof Goods. New York:Basic Books
ics and the study of culture process. Am. 23. Dunnell, R. 1978. Style and function: a
Antiq. 31:203-10 fundamental dichotomy. Am. Antiq.
9. Bloch, M. 1974. Symbol, song, dance, and 43:192-202
the features of articulation.Eur.J. Sociol. 24. Flannery,K. V.,Marcus,J. 1976.Formative
15:55-81. Oaxaca and the Zapotec cosmos. Am. Sci.
10. Bloch, M. 1991. Language,anthropology, 64:374-83
and cognitive science. Man 26:183-98 25. Ferguson,E. S. 1977. The mind'seye: non-
11. Bloor, D. 1991. Knowledgeand Social Im- verbal thought in technology. Science
agery. Chicago:Univ. Chicago Press. 2nd. 197:827-36
ed. 26. Fores, M. 1982. Technologicalchange and
12. Brown, R. 1987. Society as Text:Essays the "technology"myth. Scand. Econ. Hist.
on Rhetoric,Reason,andReality.Chicago: Rev.30:167-88
Univ. Chicago Press 27. Forty, A. 1986. Objects of Desire. New
13. Bouquet, M. 1991. Images of artefacts. York:Pantheon
Crit.Anthropol.11:333-56 28. Gell, A. 1975. Metamorphosisof the Cas-
14. Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A social sowaries. London:AthlonePress
SOCIALANTHROPOLOGYOF TECHNOLOGY 515
29. Gibson, K. 1991. Tools, language, and in- culturein the studyof anthropology.J. Roy.
telligence: evolutionaryimplications.Man Anthropol.Inst. 74:1-6
26:255-64 50. Ingold, T. 1988. Tools, minds, and ma-
30. Giddens,A. 1979. CentralProblemsin So- chines: an excursioninto the philosophyof
cial Theory.London:MacMillan technology.Techniqueset Cultures12:151-
31. Goldman, H., Squire, L. 1982. Technical 76
change, laboruse, and income distribution 51. James, S. 1979. Confections, concoctions,
in the Muda irrigationproject.Econ. Dev. andconceptions.J. Anthropol.Soc. Oxford
Cult. Change 30:753-76 10:83-95
32. Golson, J. 1977. Simple tools andcomplex 52. Keller, C., Keller, J. 1991a. Thinkingand
technology. In Stone Tools as Cultural Acting with Iron. Urbana:BeckmanInst.
Markers: Change, Evolution, and Com- 53. Keller,C., Keller,J. 199lb. Imagingin iron
plexity, ed. R. Wright,pp. 154-161. Can- or thoughtis not innerspeech. Presentedat
berra:AustralianInst.Aborig. Stud. Wenner-Gren Found. Anthropol. Res.
33. Goody, E. 1978. Towarda theoryof ques- Symp. No. 112, Rethinking Linguistic
tions. In Questionsand Politeness: Strate- Relativity
gies in Social Interaction, ed. E. Goody. 54. Kroeber,A. L. 1948. Anthropology.New
Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. Press York:Harcourt& Brace
34. Gould, R. 1968. Living archaeology:the 55. Kroeber,A., Kluckhohn,C. 1952. Culture:
Ngatatjaraof WesternAustralia.Southwest. A CriticalReview of Conceptsand Defini-
J. Anthropol.24:101-22 tions. Cambridge:HarvardUniv. Press
35. Granero,F 1986. Power,ideology, andthe 56. Lansing, S. 1991. Priests and Program-
ritualof productionin lowlandsouthAmer- mers: Technologiesof Power in the Engi-
ica. Man 21:657-79 neered Lanscape of Bali. Princeton:
36. Griffin,K. 1974. ThePolitical Economyof PrincetonUniv. Press
Agrarian Change:An Essay on the Green 57. Latour,B. 1987. Science in Action:How to
Revolution. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Follow Scientists and Engineers
Press Through Society. Cambridge: Harvard
37. Grotsch,K. 1972. Technicalchangeandthe Univ. Press
destructionof income in ruralareas.Am. J. 58. Latour,B. 1986. The Prince for machines
Agric. Econ. 54:326-41 as well as for machinations.Paperread at
38. Hally,D. 1985. The identificationof vessel the Seminar on Technology and Social
function:a case studyfromnorthwestGeor- Change, Univ. of Edinburgh(June 12-13,
gia. Am. Antiq.51:267-95 1986)
39. Harris,M. 1968. TheRise ofAnthropologi- 59. Lauer,P., ed. 1974. Readings in Material
cal Theory.New York:Crowell Culture.Brisbane:QueenslandUniv. An-
40. Harvey, D. 1989. The Condition of Post- thropol.Mus.
modernity:An Enquiryinto the Origins of 60. Law, J. 1987. Technologyand heterogene-
CulturalChange. Oxford:Blackwell ous engineering: the case of Portuguese
41. Hebdige, D. 1981. Object as image: the expansion.See Ref. 6, pp. 111-34
Italianscooter cycle. Block 4:39-56 61. Lee, R. 1979. The !Kung San: Men,
42. Heitzman, E. 1987. Temple urbanism in Women,and Workin a Foraging Society.
medieval south India. J. Asian Stud. Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. Press
46:791-826 62. Lemonnier,P. 1986. The study of material
43. Hodder,I. 1985.Readingthe Past: Current culture today: toward an anthropologyof
Approaches to Interpretation in Ar- technical systems. J. Anthropol.Archaeol.
chaeology. Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. 5:147-86
Press 63. Lemonnier, P. 1989. Bark capes, arrow-
44. Hodder, I., ed. 1989. The Meaning of heads, and Concorde: on social repre-
Things:MaterialCultureand SymbolicEx- sentationsof technology. See Ref. 44, pp.
pression. London:Unwin Hyman 156-71
45. Hughes,T. 1983.Networksof Power: Elec- 64. Leont'ev,A. 1981. The problemof activity
trificationin WesternSociety, 1880-1930. in psychology. See Ref. 102, pp. 37-71
Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniv. Press 65. Leroi-Gourhan,A. 1943.Evolutionet tech-
46. Hughes, T. 1987. The evolution of large niques.L'hommeet la matiere.Paris:Albin
technologicalsystems. See Ref. 6, pp. 51- Michel
82 66. Leroi-Gourhan,A. 1945. Evolutionet tech-
47. Hughes, T. 1989. American Genesis: A niques. Milieu et techniques.Paris:Albin
Centuryof Innovationand Technological Michel
Enthusiasm,1870-1970. New York:Pen- 67. Ludden,D. 1985. Peasant Society in South
guin India. Princeton:PrincetonUniv. Press
48. Hughes,T. 1990. Fromdeterministicdyna- 68. MacKenzie, D. 1987. Missile accuracy:a
mos to seamless-websystems.In Engineer- case study in the social processes of tech-
ing as a Social Enterprise, ed. H. nological change. See Ref 6, pp. 195-222
Sladovich, pp. 7-25. Washington: Natl. 69. Malinowski,B. 1935. Coral Gardensand
Acad. Press TheirMagic. London:Routledge
49. Hutton,J. H. 1944. The place of material 70. Marcus,G., Fischer, M. 1986. Anthropol-
516 PFAFFENBERGER