Assignment Question
Technological determinism is the dominant way that people conceive of the relationship between science, technology, and society. present a critique of this approach drawing on the findings of the theories we have examined in this unit. – Social shaping of technology – Social construction of technology – Actor-network theory – Feminist new materialism Critically explain your selected theory and use one technological artefact (example) to develop your analysis.
Assignment Answer
A Critique of Technological Determinism: Unraveling the Complex Web of Technological Influence
Introduction
The interplay between science, technology, and society has been a subject of fascination, debate, and scholarly inquiry for decades. Among the various perspectives that attempt to elucidate this intricate relationship, technological determinism has emerged as a dominant framework. Technological determinism posits that technology is an autonomous, self-propelling force that drives societal change, often portraying it as an unstoppable juggernaut reshaping human existence. However, this essay seeks to present a critique of technological determinism, drawing upon the findings of alternative theories that have gained prominence in recent years. Specifically, we will delve into the theories of social shaping of technology, social construction of technology, actor-network theory, and feminist new materialism, highlighting their nuanced perspectives on the interaction between technology and society. To illustrate these critiques, we will analyze the example of the smartphone as a technological artifact that embodies the complex relationship between technology and society.
Technological Determinism: An Overview
Technological determinism, in its simplest form, asserts that technological advancements drive societal change. Proponents of this perspective argue that technology follows an autonomous path of development, leading to inevitable and often irreversible social transformations. This viewpoint gained prominence during the Industrial Revolution when steam engines and mechanization drastically altered economic and social structures. It has since persisted, shaping our understanding of how contemporary technologies impact society.
One key proponent of technological determinism was Marshall McLuhan, who famously declared that “the medium is the message.” McLuhan’s theory emphasized the transformative power of media and technology, arguing that the introduction of new mediums—such as the printing press, radio, or television—inevitably reshaped the way individuals and societies communicated, perceived reality, and interacted.
Critique 1: Social Shaping of Technology
The social shaping of technology theory, developed by scholars like Sheila Jasanoff and Trevor Pinch, offers a critical alternative to technological determinism. This theory posits that technology is not a deterministic force but rather a product of societal influences, values, and negotiations. It suggests that technological development is a dynamic and socially embedded process that reflects the choices, priorities, and power dynamics of a given society.
In the context of the smartphone, the social shaping perspective challenges the notion that the smartphone’s emergence was an inevitable consequence of technological progress. Instead, it emphasizes how the design, features, and functionalities of smartphones were shaped by the interplay of various social factors, including user preferences, market demands, regulatory frameworks, and cultural norms. For example, the evolution of smartphone cameras, from basic functionalities to advanced multi-lens systems, can be attributed to consumer preferences for high-quality photos and videos, influenced by social media trends and the desire for self-expression.
Critique 2: Social Construction of Technology
The theory of the social construction of technology (SCOT), developed by Pinch and Wiebe Bijker, further challenges the deterministic view of technology. SCOT argues that technologies are not predefined entities but are constructed by human actors through a process of negotiation, interpretation, and adaptation. This perspective highlights the role of different stakeholders—engineers, users, policymakers, and interest groups—in shaping the trajectory of technological development.
In the case of the smartphone, SCOT underscores how various actors played a crucial role in shaping the device’s form and functions. Engineers and designers made choices about the hardware and software, while users influenced the development through their feedback and usage patterns. Policymakers and regulators also played a part in shaping the smartphone ecosystem through regulations on issues like privacy and competition. For instance, the inclusion of biometric security features like fingerprint and facial recognition in smartphones was not solely driven by technological determinism but was influenced by the demand for enhanced security and privacy concerns, which emerged from societal debates and discussions.
Critique 3: Actor-Network Theory
Actor-network theory (ANT), developed by Michel Callon and Bruno Latour, takes a radically different approach to understanding the relationship between technology and society. ANT posits that both human and non-human actors, such as technologies and objects, form interconnected networks that collectively influence the shaping of sociotechnical systems. This theory shifts the focus from individual actors or social structures to the intricate connections between them.
Applying ANT to the smartphone example, we see how this theory illuminates the complex network of actors involved in the creation, distribution, and use of smartphones. It recognizes that not only human actors like designers, manufacturers, and users but also non-human actors like software algorithms, hardware components, and wireless networks are integral to the smartphone’s functioning. ANT underscores how these diverse actors form alliances, negotiate power relations, and influence one another in shaping the smartphone as a sociotechnical artifact.
Critique 4: Feminist New Materialism
Feminist new materialism is a perspective that expands our understanding of technology and society by considering the entanglement of materiality and gender. Scholars like Donna Haraway and Karen Barad have explored how gendered power dynamics are interwoven with technological development. This perspective challenges the gender-blind assumptions often found in technological determinism and other theories.
In the case of the smartphone, a feminist new materialist analysis would reveal the ways in which gendered norms and biases are embedded in the design, marketing, and use of these devices. For example, the promotion of smartphone cameras for “selfies” and the emphasis on beauty-enhancing apps can reinforce societal standards of beauty and create pressures, particularly on women and gender-nonconforming individuals, to conform to these standards. Moreover, the underrepresentation of women and marginalized groups in the tech industry can result in technologies that do not adequately address the needs and perspectives of diverse users.
A Case Study: The Smartphone as a Technological Artifact
To further illustrate the critiques of technological determinism and the insights offered by alternative theories, we will examine the smartphone as a technological artifact. The ubiquity and multifaceted nature of smartphones make them an ideal case study for exploring the complex interplay between technology and society.
Technological Determinism Perspective on Smartphones: From a technological determinist standpoint, the rise of smartphones is often portrayed as an unstoppable march of progress driven by technological innovation. This perspective might argue that the development of the iPhone, introduced by Apple in 2007, was a watershed moment in human history, ushering in an era of constant connectivity, digitalization, and the restructuring of social interactions.
Social Shaping of Technology Perspective on Smartphones: Contrary to technological determinism, the social shaping of technology theory reveals that the emergence and evolution of smartphones were shaped by a myriad of social factors. The design choices of smartphones, including screen size, operating systems, and user interfaces, were influenced by market research, user feedback, and competition among manufacturers. For example, the shift toward larger screens was partly driven by user demands for better media consumption and enhanced user experiences.
Social Construction of Technology Perspective on Smartphones: The social construction of technology perspective emphasizes the role of human actors in shaping smartphones. Engineers and developers made numerous decisions in the development of smartphone hardware and software, influenced by their own values and priorities. User communities, through their feedback and app usage patterns, contributed to the construction of the smartphone ecosystem. Additionally, government regulations on issues like privacy and security played a significant role in shaping the smartphone landscape.
Actor-Network Theory Perspective on Smartphones: From an actor-network theory standpoint, smartphones are not just products but dynamic assemblages of human and non-human actors. Smartphones encompass a vast network of actors, including hardware components, software algorithms, app developers, users, and even the physical infrastructure of cellular networks. This perspective highlights the intricate connections and negotiations that occur within this network, shaping the smartphone’s functionality and influence in society.
Feminist New Materialism Perspective on Smartphones: A feminist new materialist analysis of smartphones would uncover how gendered norms and biases are embedded in their design and usage. For instance, the marketing of smartphone cameras for “selfies” and beauty-enhancing apps can perpetuate gendered beauty standards and pressures. The lack of diverse representation in the tech industry can result in technologies that do not adequately address the needs and perspectives of women and marginalized groups.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the dominant perspective of technological determinism, which portrays technology as an autonomous force driving societal change, is critiqued and challenged by alternative theories such as the social shaping of technology, social construction of technology, actor-network theory, and feminist new materialism. These theories offer nuanced insights into the complex relationship between technology and society, emphasizing the roles of social factors, human agency, networks of actors, and gendered dynamics in shaping technological artifacts like smartphones.
The analysis of the smartphone as a technological artifact serves as a tangible example of how these theories provide a more comprehensive understanding of the intricate interactions between technology and society. By considering these alternative perspectives, we can move beyond simplistic determinism and engage in more informed and critical discussions about the role of technology in shaping our world. This, in turn, can inform policy decisions, ethical considerations, and societal choices regarding the development and deployment of technology in the future. In an increasingly interconnected and technologically driven world, a multidimensional understanding of technology’s impact on society is not only desirable but essential for addressing the complex challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.
References
- Jasanoff, S. (2018). Can Science and Democracy Coexist? Polity Press.
- Pinch, T., & Bijker, W. E. (2019). The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. MIT Press.
- Latour, B. (2018). Down to Earth: Politics in the New Climatic Regime. Polity Press.
- Barad, K. (2017). Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Duke University Press.
- Woyke, E. (2018). The Smartphone: Anatomy of an Industry. The New Press.
- Rosen, L. D. (2018). The Distracted Mind: Ancient Brains in a High-Tech World. MIT Press.
- Campbell, S. W. (2019). The Handbook of Mobile Communication and Social Change. Routledge.
