Is the history of humanity a history of technology? (Technological Determinism vs Social Constructionism)

In this blog post, we’ll look at the definitions and differences between technological determinism and social constructionism.

 

Today, smartphones have become more than just a cell phone, but a part of our lives. This small device not only provides users with convenient functions, but also plays a central role as a piece of cultural content. But is our society being changed by smartphones, or did the social trends that require them cause their emergence? The former view, that advances in science and technology are the central cause of social change, is called technological determinism, while the latter view, that technology is developed by the needs of society and that social factors are involved in the process, is the position of social constructionists. Some people may support social constructionism, believing that most technologies are developed by the needs of their users and that factors such as politics, economics, and culture are involved. However, historical examples show that the emergence of new technologies has always radically changed society and greatly affected the lives of its members, while the examples of technological progress claimed by social constructivists are actually more like convergence of different technologies than progress. Even if it is progress, it is not driven by social necessity, but by the direction that was set when the first technology was invented. The direction of technology is outside of human control. Furthermore, if social factors intervene in technological progress, then at that point, technology has already had a profound impact on society, and that impact is reflected back to it. In other words, technology determines everything.
There are many examples of how technology has changed society and its members. We can start with the invention of the wheel. First appearing in Mesopotamia, the cradle of ancient civilization, the wheel was applied to chariots, which completely changed the face of warfare, gave rise to the wheelbarrow, which made it easier to carry large loads, greatly expanded the range of people’s movements, and influenced the development of overland roads and the rise of cities. This further facilitated the development of civilization. The invention of the wheel ultimately led to the development of civilization, so we can see that technology has made a huge difference in society.
Gutenberg’s metal type also had a huge impact on society after its invention: first, it democratized knowledge by making mass printing possible. Whereas before, the desire for knowledge was only available to a few aristocrats who could afford it, the invention of the metal type made knowledge and information accessible to many members of society. This marked the beginning of the Renaissance, a period of cultural revival. These examples support the idea of technological determinism in that printing was not developed to change society, but rather the other way around.
We can find many examples of technology changing society in the modern era, and one of them is the smartphone. Since the advent of smartphones, people’s lifestyles have drastically changed, allowing them to enjoy leisure activities such as watching movies and reading books on the go, work in real time, take photos, and share their talents with others. Smartphones have become such an integral part of our lives that there is even a social problem called smartphone addiction, where people feel anxious without their smartphones. Previously widely used MP3 players, PMPs (portable media players), digital cameras, etc. have lost their role to smartphones. This change in the way people live is not due to a need or demand for smartphones. Even when smartphones didn’t exist, people lived without complaint, utilizing and adapting to the technological products of the time. The emergence of new technologies has changed our lives in a one-way street.
Despite these numerous examples of how technology has changed the structure of society, social constructionists often take a step back, arguing that social factors are responsible for progress, not the emergence of technology. In the case of smartphones, the social constructionist view is that early smartphones didn’t have operating systems, but people’s need for them led to their popularization. However, this argument is flawed because it focuses on only part of the phenomenon. The significance of the development of smartphones is the realization of the portable PC era. Consider the invention of the PC. The first computers were large computers for computing, and after many advances, they became personal computers with operating systems. Considering the invention process of the PC, it is only natural that smartphones, which are based on the motto of portable PCs, would evolve into a form with an operating system in the process of progress. In other words, the evolutionary process of smartphone technology has been set from the beginning. Not only does technology determine the structure and change of society, but it also determines the direction of technology itself.
Another example of how technology has a predetermined direction is the evolution of computers. Unlike smartphones, you might think that computers have evolved into today’s personal computers for the convenience of users, but this can be easily understood by looking at the purpose of their development. The earliest computers were developed for the convenience of calculating various calculations, such as calculating the angle of a shell on the battlefield. In other words, from the very beginning, computers were designed to reduce human labor. Therefore, the development process to further improve convenience in the future was predestined from the beginning.
This fatalism of the direction of technological progress can be found in the development of most technologies, but as mentioned earlier, it is also argued by social constructionists, which is based on a limited view of the process of technological progress. If a technology has evolved and changed, we shouldn’t just focus on the outward, physical changes, but also consider the purpose for which the technology was developed in the first place. If a technology has progressed according to its purpose, it has not been altered by external factors, but has simply followed its predetermined destiny.
One caveat is to not equate the existence of a developmental purpose with a societal need, which are two very different things. Marconi’s wireless communication made human life easier by enabling long-distance communication and ushering in the era of full-fledged telecommunications, but this trend did not require wireless communication to be developed. To recognize the two as synonymous is a kind of intentionality fallacy.
A famous example that supports social constructionism is the study of the evolution of the bicycle. The argument is that the earliest bicycles did not have pneumatic tires, and as they developed, there was a consensus process between bike races and bike developers that demanded faster speeds. In short, we can confirm the social construction theory in that the development of technology is not based on the technical logic that one technology is superior to another, but on the consensus process and intervention of groups related to technology.
However, there is a fundamental mistake in the social constructionists’ argument based on the evolution of the bicycle: they consider the introduction of pneumatic tires to bicycles as a technological advance. Strictly speaking, the bicycle and the pneumatic tire are two different technologies, and neither is an evolution of the other. To be more precise, they have the same roots. Bicycles evolved from the technology of wheels to the concept of a ride for convenience, and pneumatic tires evolved from wheels to physical convenience. The question of whether these two are considered one technology or two technologies is debatable, but it is clear that they are not mutually exclusive, but rather parallel. Therefore, the installation of pneumatic tires on bicycles is a convergence of two different technologies rather than an advancement of a single technology. Therefore, the consensus process and intervention of various groups in the development of the bicycle mentioned above is also a convergence of technologies rather than a technological advancement, and consequently, it is difficult to see it as an argument for social constructionism.
Let’s make a small concession and admit that social factors are involved in technological progress. But here again, the fallacy of the social constructionist position is evident. If we broaden the scope of our thinking and consider why the social factors involved in technological progress came into existence, we find that they came into existence because the technology came into existence, i.e., the emergence of the technology created the social factors. This can be easily understood by applying the example of the evolution of the bicycle. Even if we accept that the relationship between bicycles and pneumatic tires is one of technological progress, the social need for comfort and speed that led to the invention of pneumatic tires was created by the existence of the first technology, the bicycle. So, if we consider that the first factor that created the wave is the emergence of technology, then these social factors have a ripple effect, a positive feedback process. It is not reasonable to think of technology as embedded in society in isolation from this feedback process.
In short, if we look at the examples of technological progress in history, from the origins of humanity to the present day, technology has always had a tremendous impact on society and its members, changing many things, albeit to varying degrees. Furthermore, technology follows a trajectory of progress that is determined from the beginning of its development, beyond human control, and what we mistake for the intervention of social factors are in fact the products of technology triggered by its emergence. As we can clearly see, technology has always emerged silently and followed its own path. Technology determines everything, and society changes as it adapts to it. The history of humanity is the history of technology.