Technological Determinism, Social Shapingand Blindness to the Threat of Man’s Progress SOC 3116 - Dr. Tonio Sadik

Danielle Marquis

6863067

Wednesday, November 9th, 2016

University of Ottawa

1

The discussion question that will be examined in this research paper, is the 3rd question from

Chapter 3 in the Flew&Smith textbook:

What is meant by the term, technological determinism and how is this different from a

social shaping of technology approach?

Introduction

Since human kind has learned to create fire, a fire of its own has ignited in our DNA

keeping us constantly searching for new ways to simply our lives. Every time a new technology is

created and accepted into our daily lives, our social reality as we know it changes forever. The

beginning of agriculture, the first telephone, the explosion of the internet and social media, with

every step in technological history, the way we communicate is always evolving.

In this paper, questions will be raised about technological determinism (TD), the theory

that information and communication technology (ICTs) determine our social reality, as well as

about its opposing theory, social shaping of technology. The latter argues that it is in fact our

evolving social structures and perceptions of reality that determine the development of new

technology. Is it possible that it is both, or even neither?

Either way, technology has a definite role in human’s evolution into what geologists now

call the Anthropocene: The Age of Man. (Sample. 2014) Humankind will leave behind much more

than fossils and tools. Skyscrapers, aircrafts, giant telescopes and an unimaginable amount of

information packed in books and embedded in technology and the internet. If man were to

disappear from the earth and a new form of intelligent being would find what we left, what would

they think of our species? Did we utilize our intelligence and technology for the greater good?

Also, could our dependence on technology eventually lead to the extinction of our species?

2

Technological Determinism

The thought of technology shaping our world isn’t new. Charles Beard, a renowned

American historian from the early 20th century, described technology as an aggressive means

always changing our social structure. “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.” (Beard 1927:5) If only Beard could have lived until today

to realize at what point he was right. Karl Marx also had a lot of influence on this subject, however

there are disagreements about whether Marx believed society was influenced by technology or

vice-versa. This is likely due to the lack of uniform understanding of the term “technological

determinism” itself. (Bimber 1990:334) In the dissertation Karl Marx and the Three Faces of

Technological Determinism, Bimber explains that one way of looking at the phenomenon is that

society and its structures adapt to changes in technology, regardless of time and place. “The social

effects of a technology such as the computer must be essentially the same in the Soviet Union as

in the West.” (Bimber 1990:339) Though it may have some truth to it, this statement disregards

underlying cultural differences in parts of the world. The example used of the Soviet Union versus

the West is fundamentally flawed. Hofstede dimensions of culture are a good basis to look at

cultural differences. In Russia, there is a long-term orientation and a low uncertainty avoidance.

In the United States, it is the opposite (Hofstede et al. 2010) – which can explain their lack of

regard for long term effects of their many impactful technological additions to society in recent

years. This is likely where social shaping enters the picture and influences the direction of

technology and its uses.

Another perspective of what entails TD is simply looking at the ways in which technology

effects society unintentionally. This viewpoint doesn’t limit technology’s impact on society to one

3

form regardless of time and place but focuses on which ways society evolves indirectly due to the

new technology. As Neil Postman stated in his talk, “Five Things We Need to Know About

Technological Change”, all technological change is a trade-off, and isn’t additive but

ecological.(Postman. 1998) These two particular points suggested link directly with this

perspective of TD. The new technology disrupts unexpected and unintended aspects of our world,

for better or for worse. For example, the initial intention of GMOs (genetically modified

organisms) was to help farmers retain the majority of their crops and reduce food waste. A wide

range of unintended consequences developed due to GMOs, including diversity loss of plants, the

creation of an entire industry raising ethical questions and a new wave of activism against

organizations such as Monsanto. A less dramatic example, the washing machine, demonstrates

how some new technologies are also difficult to reverse. Once a technology is invented, it often

replaces what was there before. (Flew, Smith. 2014:64) Women who used to spend hours washing

clothes suddenly had more time to do other things. Could a seemingly simple invention like the

washing machine and other technologies which reduced house work be what drove women to get

educated and enter the workforce? Can we trace equal rights between men and women back to the

washing machine? It’s a steep theory, however, it’s difficult to ignore the impact of these

technologies.

As much as the TD theory has valid arguments to attest that technology shapes our social

reality, it has been contested a lot by a multitude of theorists, often stating that TD is a reductionist,

simplistic way of looking at the world. (Cruz Paragas, Lin. 2016:1528) However, theorists Burrell

and Morgan developed four paradigms to TD, bringing forward its complexity. Seen in Figure 1

in the Appendix, the typologies include: functionalists, radical structuralists, radical humanists and

interpretivists. These typologies divide sociology of radical change from sociology of regulation,

4

as well as subjectivity from objectivity (2016:1531) and bring an even deeper look into TD than

what most theorists have divided into only two sub categories: hard determinism vs. soft

determinism. These represent two ends of a spectrum of TD in which hard determinism believes

that technology is the all-mighty force truly shaping society and soft determinism is open to

incorporating many other factors. (2016:1529)

Interpretation seems to have a lot to do with TD, which is appropriate considering how

social reality itself is all based on interpretations. Everyone has different interpretations of reality,

which can explain why theorists aren’t able to come to a perfect agreement. Technology shapes

our reality when it disrupts an industry, providing new jobs and taking away old ones. However,

it can also be argued that technologies develop due to social changes and human deliberate activity.

Perhaps TD and social shaping of technology go hand in hand and both represent different

perspectives of any particular case. What if there is an infinite amount of ways to look at social

reality and the causes for it to be the way it “is”?

Social Shaping and Reliance on Technology

Its intellectual origin being due to critiques towards TD, social shaping of technology is

the main opposing theory. Since technology is created deliberately by humans, it is said to be the

product of our social reality. “Social, institutional, economic and cultural factors shape the choices

made about the forms of technological innovation, the content of technological artifacts and

practices, and the outcomes and impacts of technological change for different groups in a society.”

(Flew, Smith 2014:64). Humans create technology due to evolving social structures. For example,

with the world now facing major environmental problems due to industrialized production and

mass consumption, people have looked towards technology for the answer. The creation of

technologies such as wind mills, solar panels, and all green technologies are due to those issues

5

coming to surface in our society. “A technological trajectory is the pattern of problem solving

activity within a given technological paradigm.”(Søgaard Jørgensen. 2009:369) A key point in the

theory of social shaping of technology is defined as when there is an identified problem, a

technology is often created in order to mitigate or solve that problem. More often than not, this

leads to new problems and a chain reaction occurs.

If we are constantly turning to technology to solve our problems, it’s no wonder our society

is surrounded by it. Of course technology doesn’t force itself into our reality, we accept it and use

it by free will. However, it is difficult to participate in today’s society without using a laptop or

cell phone. (Lebowitz, 2011) This brings into question our accumulated reliance on technology.

Once a technology is accepted into the norms of society, it often becomes an integrated and crucial

part of the functioning of society. According to a survey, 98% of college students in the U.S. own

a digital device and 38% of students claim they cannot spend more than ten minutes without using

one of their devices. (Anson. 2011) Among the long list of things people rely on their devices for

include phone numbers and e-mail addresses. Very few people memorize people’s contact details

anymore. There is simply no need. How about getting directions to a restaurant? A survey

conducted by Nokia concluded that 25% of the world’s population rely on GPS units to get around

their own cities. (Hoffmeister, 2012) How would these people do without their GPS or device

when confronted with needing to go somewhere? Would they immediately find someone who does

have a device and ask their device for direction? A school of thought has emerged with the idea

that there is a direct correlation with the degree people rely on technology and their deteriorating

ability to use their brains and solve a problem on their own. (Ige. 2014:10)

Decreased levels of our ability to think on our own definitely give justifiable reason for

concern over the degree that we rely on technology. However, there seems to be even more concern

6

on ICTs’ impact on our social lives. The way people communicate within their social circles using

technology has, according to many, reduced the richness of our interactions. One third of the

world’s population are internet users and 85% of the world population use cell phones

(Flew&Smith.2016:13-16). Twenty years ago, only 1% of the world was online. The exponential

growth of the amount of people using the internet has an enormous impact on the way people

communicate. Instead of seeing a group of friends having interesting conversations and

discussions, there is a greater chance that they are all on their devices, barely engaging with each

other on any form of deep level. There’s even experts who proclaim that heavy usage of the Internet

and devices causes people to become “more impatient, impulsive, forgetful and even more

narcissistic.” (Parker-Pope. 2010) Using text and social media, it’s never been easier to

communicate in real time no matter where you are or what you are doing. Some may even consider

it rude to take one business day to answer a message. It’s so easy to answer, most people have

been socialized to answer people within a 30 minute to 1 hour delay, and that’s being conservative.

It’s also become weird to speak to the person next to you on a bus or in public in general. Everyone

is glued to their devices and the valued real-life interactions with family, friends or even strangers

are not as frequent. Perhaps we are becoming more connected through virtual means, but more

disconnected in real life.

Ethical Concerns

Despite disconnecting us from reality at times, technology has improved the way we live

in previously inconceivable ways. However, has our technological revolution escalated too far?

After WW2, technology progressed at an unprecedented rate. Many believed that it was driving us

towards a utopian future. (Garcia De La Garza, 2013) However, the bow and arrow became

weapons of mass destruction, more chemicals are being used in our products than ever before and

7

the prescription drugs industry is fighting illnesses while creating new ones at the same time. There

seems to be ethical concerns with all types of technology, especially with how far people go with

it and how blinded we have become to its impacts on our world.

Could we actually be headed into a future where technology becomes so imbedded in our

lives that we can no longer tell virtual reality from reality? Or where technology takes over and

eliminates humans all-together? Earlier, it was mentioned that technology doesn’t force itself into

reality. What if it could? Many great inventors and technology gurus have expressed their concern

about a possible future including artificial intelligence (AI). Elon Musk has spoken out on the topic

stating that it could potentially be the greatest threat to the human race, but he has also invested in

AI “in order to keep an eye on what’s going on” (Gibbs, 2014). If super-intelligent artificial beings

were to enter our society, a lot of ethical concerns such as their rights would come into question.

Would there be mutual respect between human and non-human intelligent being? In Artificial

Intelligence – The Shylock Syndrome, the authors acknowledge that these beings would likely be

superior to humans in some form.

“It would be of paramount importance for us to convince them that we are also persons, if

not just like them, at least enough like them to matter – in short, that we are persons with

whom they would rather have lunch, than have for lunch.” (Lawrence et al. 2016:251)

With the right motivations, superhuman intelligence could perhaps wipe us out. Steven Hawking

also has much to say on the matter, “The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the

end of the human race.” (2016:256). With a very low level of predictability on the matter and

information and knowledge easily shared around the world, someone could end up turning on a

new type of ticking time bomb. In the previously mentioned journal, the authors make ties to

Shylock, a character from The Merchant of Venice. Shylock gives a speech in the famous

8

Shakespeare book, in which he tries to figure out what it is to be human. “—If you prick us, do we

not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us,

shall we not revenge?—If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.” (Shakespeare.

1923) Though this verse was talking about the similarities between a Jew and a Christian, it

parallels to what could happen with AIs. Our morality is put into question when bringing other

types of “beings” into the world without precaution of harm it could not only cause to “us” as

humans, but to “them” as AIs, whom could have very similar traits to humans.

The ethical questions about AI are scary, but what is arguably even scarier is the question

of ICT implants. Connecting technology to our bodies is already a reality. The cardiac pacemaker

and prosthetics are prime examples and much development is being made in this field. In 2014, a

man got the first bionic hand that could feel. (Lewis, 2014) It’s only a matter of time for ICTs to

be used for non-medical purposes. Cell phones and laptops are always at our finger tips anyway,

why not simply incorporate them into our bodies? There are obvious ethical concerns here, but

even the EGE (European Group on Ethics) pointed out that non-medical applications of ICT

implants are not a good idea. If an implant could enhance human capabilities, it would have similar

repercussions as AI, where there could be a divide between “enhanced” persons and non-enhanced

persons. Also, since they would likely be connected with a network, there would be issues of

surveillance and security. (Times Higher Education, 2015)

In the case where AIs don’t take over the world and ICT implants don’t develop into

transforming society into half-human half-robots, there is still an underlying ethical concern with

technology that is unavoidable. The industrial revolution and technology revolution caused the

planet’s deterioration (Princiotta. 2011), and there is an arguably irrational thought process that

only more technology is the answer. Scientists have come to an agreement that the warming of the

9

planet needs to be constrained to less than 2̊C. “New technologies will have to be developed and

deployed at a rapid rate, especially for the key power generation and transportation sectors. Current

energy technology research, development, demonstration and deployment programs fall far short

of what is required.”(Princiotta. 2011) Perhaps the reason that technology programs aren’t able to

promise the amount of change that is needed is because technology isn’t the solution to everything.

With an issue of this grandeur, the solution may lie in making changes to the very social fabric of

our society.

Conclusion

Whether technology shapes society or society shapes technology, it is clear that they both

have an impact on each other’s development. Since any individual person has their own respective

version of social reality, it is not surprising that this question has multiple perspectives.

Technological determinism focuses on technology’s effects on society, and social shaping of

technology has identified that technologies emerge in order to solve a problem identified in

society’s existence structures.

With technology distracting us from reality, reducing our “real life” social interactions,

decreasing our ability to think and increasing our reliance on technology, the flaws with the

continual acceptance of technology in our society are obvious. However, the hubris in humanity’s

technological accomplishments is blinding at times, causing the world to constantly look to

technology for the answer to any problem. With the issue of climate change, many believe

technology will be able to heal our planet. This reliance on technology is deeply problematic,

bringing tunnel vision to problem-solving and possibly the reason that no real significant

advancement towards real solutions have been implemented. With all of our eyes constantly

looking at screens instead of the world, we tend to forget that there are other ways to do things.

10

Technology is all around us whether we like it or not, and it is likely going to continue to

evolve exponentially until the end of humanity. This begs the question of whether it will be

technology itself that will cause the end of the world as we know it. Whether it’s nuclear war, the

development of AI or climate change, the industrial revolution and continuous technological

advancement would be to blame. Perhaps at the beginning of the evolution of technology it was

harmless to create inventions to solve simple issues, but with where we are today, the possibilities

are endless and the consequences unprecedented. In 1927, before technology even escalated to

where it is now, Willa Cather wrote “Men travel faster now, but I do not know if they go to better

things.” (Hoffmeister, 2012). Will the world recognize that technology could send us into

dystopia? Only time will tell. Hopefully if intelligent beings find humankind’s geological

footprint, the Anthropocene, they will see more than blindness to the impacts of our progress.

11

Bibliography

Academic sources

Beard, Charles A. "Time, Technology, and the Creative Spirit in Political Science". The

American Political Science Review 21.1. (1927)

Bimber, Bruce. "Karl Marx and the Three Faces of Technological Determinism." SAGE Social

Science Collection 20.2 (1990): 333-51. Print.

Cruz Paragas, Fernand, and Trisha Lin. "Organizing and Reframing Technological

Determinism." New Media and Society 18.8 (n.d.): 1528-46. Web. Sept. 2016.

Flew, Terry, and Richard Smith. New Media: An Introduction. 2nd ed. South Melbourne, Vic.:

Oxford UP, 2014. Print.

Ige, Toluwalope. "The Effect of Reliance on Technology on the Thinking Capability of

Humans." IEEE Potentials 34.4 (2013): 10-12. Web.

Lawrence, David R., John Harris, and Cesar Placios-Gonzalez. "Artificial Intelligence - The

Shylock Syndrome." Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 25 (2016): 250-61. Web.

Princiotta, Frank T. Global Climate Change: The Technology Challenge. Dordrecht: Springer,

2011. Print.

Søgaard Jørgensen, Michael, and Ulrik Jørgensen. "Green Technology Foresight of High

Technology: A Social Shaping of Technology Approach to the Analysis of Hopes and Hypes."

Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 21.3 (2009) Technical University of Denmark.

Web.

Williams, Robin, and David Edge. The Social Shaping of Technology. Diss. The U of

Edinburgh, 1996. Edinburgh: Research Centre for Social Sciences, n.d. Print.

Non- academic sources

Anson, Alexander. "Reliance on Technology – College Students [Infographic]." AnsonAlex.

N.p., 9 Aug. 2011. Web. 07 Nov. 2016.

"Ethical Aspects of ICT Implants in the Human Body: Opinion Presented to the Commission."

Times Higher Education (THE). 22 May 2015. Web. 6 Nov. 2016.

Garcia De La Garza, Alejandro. "From Utopia to Dystopia: Technology, Society and What We

Can Do about It." Open Democracy. 20 Dec. 2013. Web.

Gibbs, Samuel. "Elon Musk: Artificial Intelligence Is Our Biggest Existential Threat." The

Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 27 Oct. 2014. Web. 08 Nov. 2016.

12

Hirst, Martin. "One Tweet Does Not a Revolution Make: Technological Determinism, Media and

Social Change." Global Media Journal (2012): n. pag. Deakin University. Web.

Hoffmeister, Peter Brown. "My Technology Is Smart, But Am I?" The Huffington Post.

TheHuffingtonPost.com, 24 Nov. 2012. Web. 07 Nov. 2016.

Hofstede, Geert H., Gert Jan. Hofstede, and Michael Minkov. Cultures and Organizations:

Software of the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival. New York:

McGraw-Hill, 2010. Print.

Lebowitz, Ben. "Social vs. Technological Determinism." Web log post. NEW MEDIA from Our

Modern Society to Developing Nations. N.p., 23 Jan. 2011. Web. 7 Nov. 2016.

Lewis, Tania. "Man Gets First Prosthetic Hand That Can Feel." LiveScience. TechMedia

Network, 5 Feb. 2014. Web. 6 Nov. 2016

Postman, Neil. "Five Things We Need to Know About Technological Change." Denver. 28 Mar.

1998. Lecture.

Parker-Pope, Tara. "An Ugly Toll of Technology: Impatience and Forgetfulness." The New York

Times. The New York Times, 06 June 2010. Web. 06 Nov. 2016.

Sadik, Tonio. "Public Sphere and Culture Industries." University of Ottawa, Ottawa. 30 Sept.

2016. Lecture.

Sample, Ian. "Anthropocene: Is This the New Epoch of Humans?" The Guardian. Guardian

News and Media, 16 Oct. 2014. Web. 08 Nov. 2016.

Shakespeare, William, and William Lyon Phelps. The Merchant of Venice. New Haven: Yale

UP, 1923. Print.

13

Appendix