Relations between Media Technologies and Cultural Contexts and Practices - Assignment Example

Q2. The Difference between Technology Determinism and the Culturally Based Approach for Understanding the Relations between Media Technologies and Cultural Contexts and Practices Student’s name Course Tutor’s name Date ESSAY PLAN QUESTION: The difference between technology determinism and the culturally based approach for understanding the relations between media technologies and cultural contexts and practices INTRODUCTION: This essay will focus on the differences between technology determinism (TD) and the culturally-based perspectives, when used to understand media technologies. It is probable that the “forest, trees” analogy used by Salazar-Acosta and Holbrook (2009, 3) will be applicable in the essay, since the two writers posit that the differences are a matter of one part of the divide perceiving a forest as trees, and the other perceiving trees as a forest. In reality, not much difference, except for the reality that a forest (using the analogy) would be expected to have a diversity of trees or what people would call flora and fauna, while trees are simply that – trees regardless of how different they are. BODY: 1. A look at technological determinism 2. A look at the cultural-based perspective 3. Comparison of differences between TD and the culturally 4. -based perspective 5. Limits of TD 6. Conclusion CONCLUSION: Both perspectives (i.e. TD and culturally-based perspectives) are not exactly accurate in defining how communication technologies affect (or are affected by) cultures. In the real world, it is possible that each of the two aspects happens. As to what extent communication technologies are affected by cultures, or cultures are affected by technologies will probably remain a subject of contention and debates for a great length of time in future; i.e. unless there is irrefutable evidence to support one side of the perspectives. Introduction Books are authored and printed, news are gathered, edited and broadcasted, newspapers are printed and circulated, and a text message is sent from one phone to another; yet most users do not really understand the technological aspects that make the mediums that they use and cherish actually work. Regardless of the little or no knowledge regarding the technical aspects of the mediums of communication that people use, nothing hinders them from making use of the benefits that come from such mediums, because as Nester and Schutt (2011, 289) observe, the media technologies are user-friendly in spite of the fact that majority of the users take them for granted. The continued and widespread use of media technologies has led some analysts to believe that media technology does indeed have powers to affect or even change societies. Other analysts however argue that the belief that media technologies’ powers can change cultures and societies is overstated, and that they do not in fact have the overwhelming powers needed to effect social changes. In this essay, the differences between the two approaches (i.e. technological determinism and the culturally-based approach for understanding the relations between media technologies and cultural contexts and practices) will be identified and discussed. The essay concludes by observing that both approaches are not necessarily accurate; while it is true that media technologies have some undeniable effect on cultures, it would be misleading to say that they are the only drivers of cultural change. On the other hand, the culturally-based account is also not accurate because communication technologies designed to suit specific social and cultural contexts can also perform (or be accepted) in other cultures. Technological determinism The technological determinism theory posits that technological inventions have the capacity to (and actually do) change cultures. Specifically, technology determinism “is the idea that technology has important effects on our lives” (Adler 2008, 1536). Berkeley (2001, 7) has a more specific definition, which states that TD is a claim that “new technologies are discovered by an essentially internal process of research and development, which then sets the conditions for social change and progress.” In other words, and if one were to follow the Berkley definition, the modern world’s being is a product of technological inventions and progress. Marshal McLuhan is one of the main advocates of the idea that channels of communication should be considered the main initiators of cultural change (Ohiagu 2010, 12). In his submission, McLuhan argues that communication technologies change different aspects of the human life ranging from family life, friendship, politics, healthcare, workplace, religion/worship, schools and even recreation. In his words, cited by Ohiagu (2010, 12), McLuhan states that “we shape our tools and they in turn shape us”. In other words, McLuhan is alluding to the perspective that humankind has shaped technology, but technology has later shaped the human culture. Referring to the work by McLuhan, Griffin (2000, 316) notes that technologies “radically alter the entire way people use their five senses, the way they react to things, and therefore their entire lives and the entire society”. McLuhan’s point of view is contentious because some authors like Nestor and Schutt (2011, 240) argue that “technology is only one element of the media process in the social world”. In other worlds, Nestor and Schutt (2011, 240) are alluding to the possibility that culture change is brought about by multiple factors, with technology being just one of such factors. Culturally-based approach The culturally-based approach, although fragmented in nature, posits that technologies are inspired by demands present in a specific cultural setup. Using the example of a cell phone, it could be argued that the motivation to start working toward inventing a portable wireless telephone was inspired by cultural or societal needs. Authors like Raymond Williams (2003, 5) seem to agree that some technological innovations can be accidental; however, Williams (2003, 5) argues that research and development has led to technology, which in turn has set “conditions for social change and progress”. In other words, Williams posits that the development of technologies is done with specific purposes and/or practices in mind. The differences The first major difference between TD and the culturally-based approach is that while the former asks “what does a new technology do to people?”, the latter asks “how do people use the new technology?” (Nestor & Schutt 2011, 291). In a different perspective, Salazar-Acosta and Holbrook (2009, 3) analogically observe that the two approaches are different in that “one looks at the forest and the other at the trees”. In other words, the two approaches have different perspectives of the same situation. The culturally-based approach argues that technologies are social and as such, proponents of the approach claim that it is the specific social processes that lead to a technical invention. Williams (2003, 5) is one proponent who argues that decisions to invest, develop and manufacture specific technologies are affected by social motivations. Williams uses the example of broadcasting, which according to him, was developed through a series of technical experiments specifically intended to serve a social need occasioned by changes in the urban life at the time. Proponents of TD on the other hand support a theory “that locates the dynamic of technological change within technology itself (or perhaps in science...”, thus rejecting the social or cultural constructionist hypothesis that suggests that technology development is influenced by social or cultural structures (Adler 2006, n.pag). Jacques Ellul (1964/2003 cited by Bardzell 2007, 17) is among the foremost theorists cited as having advanced TD. In his submission, Ellul argued that technology has the capacity to condition individuals, societies, governments and even science. Ellul (cited by Bardzell 2007, 19) further argues that although technology has the capacity to transform almost all “fields of human activity”, it does not itself have any effects from such human activities. Such a position is understandably, contentious especially if one was to consider that some communication technologies have been used differently by different cultures, thus indicating that they do at times conform to cultural norms. The cell phone is one such example, where in Africa, it is more than a device for calling and receiving or sending text messages; rather, it is being used as a platform for sending and receiving money, something that was developed due to the inadequate financial services penetration in some parts of the continent as noted by Donovan (2012, 2650). Another difference is that the cultural-based perspective argues that technology inventions are not a predetermined exercise; rather, Williams (2003) argues that the forms and functions taken up by different technological innovations are based on human decisions. Williams gives an example of the development of the radio, which according to him, developers had considered designing it in the semblance of the telephone. However, the major telephone company in the United States at the time lobbied the government in an effort to keep radio developers from interfering with the telephone networks. The illustration brings to the fore the argument that the dominant culture (as reflected in the political, economic and social statuses) can determine technological innovations. However, Williams (2003) also notes that the commoditisation of technology (i.e. the possibility of trading technologies for profit), reduces the potential cultural and social benefits that would emerge from technologies. On the counter side, TD proponents argue that technologies take a life of their own, and are not affected by cultures or societal norms. Heilbroner (1994, 54-55) has an interesting perspective on TD, where he argues that technology evolves in a sequence; that it exhibits simultaneity which is evident in technological clustering; that there are no technological leaps and that technology appears to be evolutionary and incremental; and that technology is predictable. On their part, Salazar-Acosta and Holbrook (2009, 15) observe that TD can only be valid if technology is perceived as an artefact. However, when technology is defined more broadly to include processes, knowledge and systems, the TD theory becomes problematic. Another vital difference is observed in Williams’ (2003) assertion that the concept that new technologies are inevitable is simply a consequence of marketing activities. In his views, Williams believes that marketers’ main aim is to make an invention acceptable by societies in order to increase its market penetration and hence make profits for the manufacturer. Such an observation thus suggests that technologies are avoidable, especially in cultures where they are not relevant. The fax for example is a communication technology that did not gain much acceptance among remote cultures where its usefulness was not relevant; the same however cannot be said about the mobile phone, which has over the years gained much acceptance across cultures due to its universal-like relevance to people across cultures. The technological determinism approach however argues that technologies are inevitable. Interpreted, this could be taken to mean that even those who do not take up a specific technology (irrespective of the cultural context) miss out on its benefits. The other major difference between the culturally-based perspective and the technological determinism approach is that proponents of the former (e.g. Williams) observe that new technologies do not necessarily perform or gain acceptance in the society as initially envisioned by the innovators or product developers. This perspective notes that social processes, struggles and even political and economic considerations affect how technologies are received in different cultural contexts, and how they are utilised. As such, it is argued that the cause-effect relations do not exist in the communication technologies’ context; since their outcomes are shaped by the challenges or issues they interact with in the social cultural environment where they are released. Using an example of the television, (Williams 2003, xiv) argues that the interaction of culture, social institutions and technology is most evident in the medium. In Williams’ argument therefore, technology is a cause for cultural change. Such a conclusion is however refuted by proponents of TD, who argue that technology does in fact drive social/cultural change. Fischer (1992) is one such author who argues that communication technologies have transferable essentialism, and states that “ a technological development rolls in from outside and ‘impacts’ elements of society, which in turn ‘impact’ one another” (Fischer 1992, 8). Limits of technological determinism Reductionism, where a complex situation is reduced to be more manageable, is among the main limits of technological determinism. As indicated by Chandler (2011, 2), TD “focuses on causality – cause and effect relationships”. While looking at the film industry for example, TD would argue that film technology has undergone innovations which affect culture. In the example given, TD would be referring to the technological innovations used in the present when compared to those used in the past. However, critics would argue that film technologies are not just the tools that deliver films; rather the entire material culture that makes film technologies possible should be considered. The use of mechanist models is also another limit of TD as cited by Chandler (2011, 6). In his submission, Chandler (2011, 6) observes that machines “offer tidy models of phenomena for mechanist theories”, and as such are preferred by TD proponents because they operate to reflect a cause and effect relationship. Unfortunately, the mechanist models are deficient especially when applied in a social or cultural context. As Chandler (2011, 7) observes, “The use of complex and interacting technologies may have implications which are not always entirely intended or predicted”. Rickitt (2000, 81) for example observes that the film Lost in Space by Stephen Hopkins consists of several layers of compressed space and time. The city in the film is computer-generated, as are the foreground and background explosions, the debris and the fighters. The lighting is digitally generated, and all the aspects mentioned are then compressed and projected on the screen thus creating a virtual reality of a single later of space and time. The use of special effects on films for example may to some people be interpreted to mean that some of the ‘unreal’ things are possible in real life, while some viewers may understand such films for what they really are – fictional films. Much as such films may give viewers a ‘glimpse’ of what a world with different concepts might look like, it does not necessarily affect their cultures. Reification is also cited as another limitation to TD. Simply put, reification is the tendency to treat technology as a ‘thing’, which is homogenous and undifferentiated (Chandler 2011, 7). The problem with reification in reference to technologies (even in a single theme as film) is that not all film technologies are the same. Based on the aforementioned, it would be expected that technologies would have different effects in different cultural contexts. The above noted differences are perhaps better analysed by Misa (1994, p. 115), who argues that the degree of emphasis that theorists and researchers place on either TD or the culturally-based (or social) approach depends on how they conduct their research. Misa for example states that macro-level studies are more likely to advocate for technological determinism, while micro-level studies would likely give results that support the cultural or social based approach. Arguing that none of the approaches is right (something that is also supported by Salazar-Acosta and Holbrook 2009, 3), Misa (1994, 117) argues that it is time that discussions about technology found a middle ground that appreciates that societies and cultures shape technologies, and that technologies too shape societies and cultures. Conclusion As initially envisaged during the essay planning stage, and in light of the evidence gathered in the construction of this essay as indicated above, it is arguably conclusive that both TD and culturally-based perspectives are not exactly accurate in defining how communication technologies affect (or are affected by) cultures. In the real world, it is possible that each of the two aspects happens since it is true that media technologies have some undeniable effect on cultures; however, it would be misleading to say that they are the only drivers of cultural change. On the other hand, the culturally-based perspective is not also accurate because communication technologies cannot be entirely be the driving force for communication technologies. As to what extent communication technologies are affected by cultures, or cultures are affected by technologies will probably remain a subject of contention and debates for a great length of time in future; i.e. unless there is irrefutable evidence to support one side of the perspectives. References Adler, P.S. 2008. Technological determinism. In International encyclopaedia of organisational studies, vol. 4, eds. S. Clegg and J. R. Bailey, 1536-9. London: Sage. Bardzell, J. 2007. Creativity in amateur multimedia: popular culture, critical theory, and HCI. Human Technology Journal 3, 12-33. Berkeley School. 2011.Technological determinism. History of Information. http://courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i103/s11/SLIDES/HofI11-Determinism-PD.pdf (accessed January 15, 2013). Chandler, D. 2011. Technological or media determinism. http://www.waena.org/ktm/week1/TechorMediaDeterminism.pdf (accessed January 15, 2013). Donovan, K. 2012. Mobile money, more freedom? The impact of M-Pesa’s network power on development as freedom. International Journal of Communication 6, 2647-69. Fischer, C. 1992. American calling a social history of the telephone. California: UC Berkley. Griffin, E. 2000. Communication: a first look at communication theory. San Diego: McGraw Hill. Heilbroner, R. 1994. Technological determinism revisited. In S. M. Roe, Ed. Does technology, drive history? 67-78, MA: MIT Press. Misa, T. J. 1994. Retrieving socio-technical change from technological determinism. In Does technology drive history?: the dilemma of technological determinism, Eds. S. M. Roe and M. Leo, 115-141. Massachusetts: MIT Press. Nestor, P. G & Schutt, R. K 2011. Media Society: Industries, images, and audiences. 4th Ed. London: Sage. Ohiagu, O. P. 2010. Influence of information & communication technologies on the Nigerian society and culture. In Indigenous societies and cultural globalisation in the 21st century, Eds. N. Ekeanywanwu and C. Okeke. Saarbrucken: VDM Verlag Publishing. Rickitt, R. 2000. Special effects: the history and technique. New York: Watson- Guptill Publications. Salazar-Acosta, M. & Holbrook, A. 2009. Some notes on theories on technology, society and innovation systems for S&T policy studies. CPROST Report 08-02. http://blogs.sfu.ca/departments/cprost/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/0802.pdf (accessed January 15, 2013). Williams, R. 2003. Television: technology and cultural form. London: Routledge Classics. Read More

Berkeley (2001, 7) has a more specific definition, which states that TD is a claim that “new technologies are discovered by an essentially internal process of research and development, which then sets the conditions for social change and progress.” In other words, and if one were to follow the Berkley definition, the modern world’s being is a product of technological inventions and progress. Marshal McLuhan is one of the main advocates of the idea that channels of communication should be considered the main initiators of cultural change (Ohiagu 2010, 12).

In his submission, McLuhan argues that communication technologies change different aspects of the human life ranging from family life, friendship, politics, healthcare, workplace, religion/worship, schools and even recreation. In his words, cited by Ohiagu (2010, 12), McLuhan states that “we shape our tools and they in turn shape us”. In other words, McLuhan is alluding to the perspective that humankind has shaped technology, but technology has later shaped the human culture. Referring to the work by McLuhan, Griffin (2000, 316) notes that technologies “radically alter the entire way people use their five senses, the way they react to things, and therefore their entire lives and the entire society”.

McLuhan’s point of view is contentious because some authors like Nestor and Schutt (2011, 240) argue that “technology is only one element of the media process in the social world”. In other worlds, Nestor and Schutt (2011, 240) are alluding to the possibility that culture change is brought about by multiple factors, with technology being just one of such factors. Culturally-based approach The culturally-based approach, although fragmented in nature, posits that technologies are inspired by demands present in a specific cultural setup.

Using the example of a cell phone, it could be argued that the motivation to start working toward inventing a portable wireless telephone was inspired by cultural or societal needs. Authors like Raymond Williams (2003, 5) seem to agree that some technological innovations can be accidental; however, Williams (2003, 5) argues that research and development has led to technology, which in turn has set “conditions for social change and progress”. In other words, Williams posits that the development of technologies is done with specific purposes and/or practices in mind.

The differences The first major difference between TD and the culturally-based approach is that while the former asks “what does a new technology do to people?”, the latter asks “how do people use the new technology?” (Nestor & Schutt 2011, 291). In a different perspective, Salazar-Acosta and Holbrook (2009, 3) analogically observe that the two approaches are different in that “one looks at the forest and the other at the trees”. In other words, the two approaches have different perspectives of the same situation.

The culturally-based approach argues that technologies are social and as such, proponents of the approach claim that it is the specific social processes that lead to a technical invention. Williams (2003, 5) is one proponent who argues that decisions to invest, develop and manufacture specific technologies are affected by social motivations. Williams uses the example of broadcasting, which according to him, was developed through a series of technical experiments specifically intended to serve a social need occasioned by changes in the urban life at the time.

Proponents of TD on the other hand support a theory “that locates the dynamic of technological change within technology itself (or perhaps in science.”, thus rejecting the social or cultural constructionist hypothesis that suggests that technology development is influenced by social or cultural structures (Adler 2006, n.pag). Jacques Ellul (1964/2003 cited by Bardzell 2007, 17) is among the foremost theorists cited as having advanced TD. In his submission, Ellul argued that technology has the capacity to condition individuals, societies, governments and even science.

Read More