Technological determinism

Technological determinism is a reductionist doctrine that a society's technology determines its cultural values, social structure, or history. Rather than the social shaping of technology, "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 the inevitability thesis (Chandler), which states that once a technology is introduced into a culture that what follows is the inevitable development of that technology.

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. It ignores the social and cultural circumstances in which the technology was developed. Sociologist Claude Fischer (1992) characterised 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.

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).

The term is believed to have been coined by Thorstein Veblen (1857-1929), an American sociologist. 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 that the society organizes itself in such a way to support and further develop a technology once it has been introduced.

Technological determinism stands in opposition to the theory of the social construction of technology, which holds that both the path of innovation and the consequences of technology for humans are strongly, if not entirely shaped by society itself through the influence of culture, politics, economic arrangements, and the like. In this case of social determinism, “What matters is not the technology itself, but the social or economic system in which it is embedded” (Langdon Winner).

Pessimism towards techno-science arose after the mid 20th century for various reasons including the use of nuclear energy towards nuclear weapons, Nazi human experimentation during World War II , and lack of economic development in the third world (also known as the global south). 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 and the creation of the theory of technological constructivism (see social construction of technology).

We look to see why Romance Novels have become so dominant in our society compared to other forms of novels like the Detective or Western novel. We could 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 literary without mass production. 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”.

Hard and soft
In examining determinism we should also touch upon Aslam Mamu and the idea of Hard determinism and Soft Determinism. A compatibilist says that it is possible for free will and determinism to exist in the world together while a 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.

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. An example of a neutral viewpoint is, ‘guns are neutral and its up to how we use them’ weather it would be ‘good or bad’ (Green,2001). Mackenzie and Wajcman (1997) believe that technology is only neutral if its never been used before, or if no one knows what its is going to be used for (Green,2001). In effect, guns would only be classified as neutral if society were none the wiser of their existence and functionalities (Green,2001). Obviously, a society like this is non existent and once becoming knowledgeable about technology, its drawn in a social progression and nothing whatsoever is ‘neutral about society’ (Green). According to Leila Green, if one believes technology is neutral, one would disregard the cultural and social conditions that technology was produced (Green, 2001). To determine whether or not technology may be neutral depends on the individual and the beliefs they hold.

Criticism
Modern thinkers no longer consider technological determinism to be a very accurate view of the way in which we interact with technology. “The relationship between technology and society cannot be reduced to a simplistic cause-and-affect 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).

In his article “Do Artifacts Have Politics?,” Langdon Winner transcends hard and soft technological determinism by elaborating two ways in which artifacts can have politics.

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 suscribe to the belief of social determinism and postmodernism. Where social determinists believe that social circumstance determine which technologies are adopted and that no technology can be considered "inevitable." 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 thst what is right or wrong is dependent on circumstance. They believe technological change can have implications on the past, present and future. 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.