Intrrltd Digitl di nts - Coursework Example

Intеrrеlаtеd Digitаl Меdiа Соnсерts Summary Various media theorists have expounded the issue of the relationship that exists between media technology and the society. However, they differ on the impact of each. Some theorists suggest that technology is autonomous and that it drives social change. Theorists holding this opinion suggest that human agents are powerless and do not have ability to influence the process of technological development. According to them, technology influences social progress in a process that follows an inevitable path. This doctrine is known as technological determinism. On the contrary, some theorists suggest that technology influences social progress but its development is also influenced by social forces. Theorists holding this view adapt a socio-cultural approach to explaining the relationship that exists between media technologies and society. This paper explains the differences between the aforementioned two approaches. A detailed explanation of the views held by theorists supporting both approaches is given. Various examples from the media theory are also used to support the views of these theorists. As well, the paper looks at the weaknesses of technological determinism. As explained in the paper, technological determinism approaches provides an inaccurate view of the relationship between technology and society by ignoring the role of human agency. This paper explores the differences between these two approaches and also examines the limits of technological determinism. Introduction For a long time, debate has been ranging regarding the potential impacts of media technology in the society. Numerous media theorists have paid strong attention to the technological aspects of the media, beyond their form or content (Croteau & Hoynes, 2003). They argue that the various forms of media play a greater role in the society than simply acting as conduits of message transmission. They suggest that the nature of any medium plays a great role in determining its impact in the society. Thus, media technology can be a strong social force, influencing the way people interact with each other and how they perceive or understand the world around them (Croteau & Hoynes, 2003). However, media theorists differ on the capacities of media technology in the society. Some theorists hold the view that technology is autonomous and its development is independent of influences of practices and activities of human agents. They argue that the process of development in media technology follows an inherent logic and is inevitable. According to this approach, technology is the main force that drives social change and hence, technological development determines history. As explained in this paper, some technological determinists argue that technology is a key force that drives social change but suggest that people have an opportunity for change. These theorists are known as soft determinists. Thus, the view of technological determinists ignores the role of human agency in shaping technological development. On the other hand, some theorists disregard the view of technological determinists and make consideration of the role of social forces in shaping technological development (Croteau & Hoynes, 2003). They suggest that cultural practices in a society determine technological development, just as technology affects social change. This perception is referred to as the culturally based approach to technological development. This paper examines the differences between these two approaches as argued by various media theorists. Technological determinism As noted, technological determinism is an approach that presumes that technology or development in technology drives the development of cultural or social structural values. In other words, technological determinists perceive technology, media or technical developments as the central causal elements in the process of social change (Staudenmaier & John, 1985). This view holds that development in technology follows a traceable and predictable path which is largely beyond political or cultural influence and that technology has inherent effects in societies, rather than being socially produced or conditioned. Technological determinists argue that once technology is produced, the society organises itself to support and to develop it further. Strict technological determinists believe that an influence of technology in the society does not differ based on how much technology can be used or is used. They perceive technology as the basis of all human activities rather than a part of human activities. Thus, technological determinism is the belief that technology is a key governing force in the society and hence, technological development influences or determines social change (Staudenmaier & John, 1985). According to Staudenmaier and John (1985), theorists holding this opinion believe that development in technology leads to a change in the way people interact within social settings and also in the way they think. This implies that technological innovation drives social progress, a process which follows an inevitable course. Marshall McLuhan (as cited in Staudenmaier & John, 1985) argues that technological advancement helps to solve social problems and hence, steers the society to move forward. According to McLuhan, no one can stop social progress, implying that human beings cannot control technology. This doctrine therefore suggests that society is powerless and it allows technology to determine and to drive social changes. This happens due to the fact that societies are not aware of the alternatives that are embedded in technology. Thus, technological determinists opine that media technology can help to solve human and societal problems. For example, government administrations fix CCTV surveillance systems believing that this will help to prevent crimes. In TV advertisements, communication gadgets such as mobile phones are praised as having the ability to connect friends or lovers. Yogurts are advertised as having contents that make people slimmer, more attractive and healthier. Human beings usually respond positively to such issues, indicating the power of technology over human practices (Murphie & Potts, 2003). Technological determinists also argue that change in technology tends to dictate changes in the behaviour of the users, hence diminishing human agency. However, according to Winner (1977), this stance ignores the social and cultural conditions in which technology is developed. Technological determinists hold that the functions or use of technology are determined by its form or structure. They do not acknowledge that societies or cultures shape the way technology is used or how it develops. Winner (1986) notes that there is hard and soft determinism. Hard or strict determinists perceive technology as a strong force that regulates social activities and that its development is completely independent from social concerns. They suggest that human beings organise themselves to meet the needs of technology and they have no ability to control the results of their organisation. Soft determinism is a more passive view of the relationship between technology and socio-cultural situations. Soft determinists still hold the view that technology drives social progress but maintain that human beings have a chance to make decisions regarding the results of every circumstance (Winner, 1986). However, they suggest that society must adjust to the outcomes of major technological inventions, but usually does so after a period of cultural lag. Therefore, they perceive technology as autonomous but note that its effect is less determinist. Influence of social forces Contrary to the view of technological determinists, other media theorists suggest that the development in media technology is determined by social forces. They argue that technology influences social relationships or social progress but it is also influenced by social forces such as government regulations, economic factors and cultural norms and values. Williams (1974) holds this view and suggests that technology is simply an extension of human knowledge and capacity and hence, it cannot fully determine social or cultural outcomes. Williams (1974) suggests that it is inaccurate to only focus on the impact that technology has on people. Attention should also be given to the impact of human knowledge on the creation of technology and also on the way people use technologies. For instance, before the creation of TVs and broadcasting technology, early developers envisioned television technology as a way of bringing entertainment and news to people. Radio too was created as a device for the purpose of broadcasting, rather than only for the purpose of point-to-point communication. Phones were developed for the purpose of communication but are currently also used to broadcast news and for entertainment purposes. It is clear in these cases that social forces drove the development of technology and how it was finally used (Wilson, 2002). The socio-cultural approach does not ignore the inherent impacts of technology on the society. As noted in the above cases, the technical properties of each gadget determine how people use them. They provide parameters within which people must operate and each has a particular application used (Wilson, 2002). However, human agents are not restricted to act in a particular way but they have a range of options regarding the way they can use such gadgets. Consequently, the development and use of new technology is neither fully predictable nor fixed. The socio-cultural approach therefore suggests that technology is embedded in continuous social processes that have an impact on their evolution. For example, TV technology is subject to various social forces that determine how it is used or how it functions. These forces include social norms and values, market pressures, legal regulations and the inherent technical properties of the medium. Together, these forces have shaped TV broadcasting, just like in other communication mediums used (Wilson, 2002). Therefore, the socio-cultural approach involves thinking simultaneously about the impacts of technology and activities of human agents. This approach differs from the technological determinist approach by focusing on the way human agents use new technology, rather than the sole observation of the effects that new technology has on people. Terranova (2004) provides a good illustration of how human agents interact with new technology. According to Terranova (2004) as television sets in the US rose into prominence between 1940 and 1960, the television industry accommodated existing family values, norms and practices. During that period, middle-class women were perceived to have a lot of free time during the day for relaxation. Producers considered them to be the largest and most accessible audience during daytime and therefore directed most of early television programming at them (Terranova, 2004). However, it was difficult to market this product due to the fact that it was difficult for women to watch programmes as they continued with their household chores. To overcome this problem, producers of television gadgets developed a TV-stove and women were able to watch programmes as they cooked. By designing this apparatus, the producers tried to accommodate the existing cultural practices in order to attract loyal viewers. The development of this apparatus indicates that human practices can shape the path of technological development. It also indicates how human agents can be powerful over technology (Terranova, 2004). In the 1950s, producers of television programmes in the US developed the soap opera and a variety of show programmes which were intended at accommodating cultural practices of the citizens (Terranova, 2004). Soap opera programmes contained a great deal of verbal explanation, little action and often, they involved repetition of the same themes. Viewers of these programmes could miss some episodes but still maintain track of the programme’s plot development. They could also listen from adjacent rooms while continuing with household chores. Thus, the soap opera programmes hardly interfered with women undertaking their household duties. Variety programmes on the other hand moved from one act to another. This made it possible for viewers to skip some parts of the programmes without losing track of plot development. Just like the soap opera programmes, the variety shows were ideal for the targeted group of women. It is clear that television needed to make itself fit into the daily cultural practices of women in the middle-class families in the targeted market (Terranova, 2004). Television also has various impacts on the daily practices of people in the US. Spigel (1992) explains that “not merely content to fit its programming into the viewer’s rhythms of reception, the network aggressively sought to change those rhythms by making the activity of television viewing into a new daily habit”. A good example is NBC’s Today show, which was perceived as equivalent to the morning newspaper and hence, people suspended their household duties to view them. As well, producers in the television industry fixed time schedules for different programmes based on the activities of different groups of targeted viewers. Hence, viewers had to adapt their daily routine based on daily television programme schedules. As well, Terranova (2004) notes that some imported television programmes promoted foreign cultural values and practices and hence, disrupted the traditional practices of Americans. People started adopting the foreign practices and values. Generally, it is clear that the practices and activities of human agents influenced the early development of television industry in the US and the medium also influenced the daily practices of citizens. In summary, this example supports the view of socio-cultural determinists that technology drives social progress and at the same time, its development is influenced by the society. Weaknesses of technological determinism Various media theorists have criticized the technological determinism approach. They argue that technology or development in technology is not as autonomous as suggested by technological determinists. Just as technology influences social change, it is also influenced by social or cultural situations. According to Mackenzie and Wajcman (1997), developments in technology and its impacts in the society are strongly shaped by the society through the influence of regulatory mechanisms, politics, culture and economic arrangements. They argue that what matters are the social or economic systems in which technology is embedded, but not technology itself. Green (2004) argues that technological determinists’ view leads to the perception of technology as being neutral and society as static. This view ignores the fact that the society is dynamic and culture is not fixed. Technological determinists also deny that human beings are responsible for change that occurs in societies. They ignore human involvement that shapes technology or influences technological development. Green (2004) further explains that users of technology do not passively consume it. Rather, they make various considerations before actively consuming it. According to Woolgar and Cooper (1999), social situations play an important role in determining the kinds of technologies to be adopted. This implies that no technology can be considered completely independent from social influence. Woolgar and Cooper (1999) further posit that society and technology are not neutral and a change in human knowledge has a huge impact on the process of creation of technology. As well, the knowledge of how to use or enhance technology is socially bound. The determination of the right technology to be incorporated in any society is dependent on social or cultural circumstances, among other factors. Though it may have influences in the past, present and future, change and utilisation of technology is influenced by changes in society, culture and government policy. Therefore, the notion that technology is autonomous and completely drives social progress is not an accurate view. Karl Marx also demonstrated the fact that technology is an embodiment of social relationships (Cohen, 1978). Technologies in capitalist societies are developed with considerations of specific social relationships. In other words, technology is developed for a particular purpose. Herbert Marcuse supported Marx’s view stating that any techno-social system that has been introduced in the last one and half century, that is, TVs, films, radios, and electricity, was developed with ideology embodied in the production process (Cohen, 1978). Generally, the weakness of determinists’ view is the fact that it ignores the role of human agency in shaping the development of new technology. Conclusion In conclusion, this paper has explored, in detail, the differences between technological determinism and the culturally based approach to understanding the relationship between technology and cultural or social practices. In the technological determinist theory, media technology is perceived as having the capacity to drive social change, a process which is perceived to be inevitable. The society is deemed as lacking capacity to control technological development. Thus, this approach largely ignores the role of human agency in shaping technological development. This is the root of the pitfalls that exist in the technological determinists’ views. Ignoring the role of human agency makes this approach inaccurate. The culturally based approach differs from the technological determinism approach by considering the role of human agency in the process of technological development. Theorists supporting this view argue that media technologies are always embedded in particular political, social and economic contexts. Human beings do not always use technology as it is initially packaged. As demonstrated in the case of the US, producers try to shape media technologies in ways that will lead to an increased market for their products. They try to accommodate the cultural practices of the target population. That way, cultural practices shape developments in new technology. As well, technological development influences change in human practices. Thus, the culturally based approach gives a more accurate perception of the relationship between technology and social change. References Cohen, G. A. (1978). Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence. Oxford and Princeton: Oxford University Press. Croteau, D., & Hoynes, W. (2003). Media Society: Industries, Images and Audiences (3rd edition). Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press. Green, L. (2004). Technoculture. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin. Mackenzie, D., & Wajcman, J., (eds) (1985). The Social Shaping of Technology. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Murphie, A. & Potts, J. (2003). Culture and Technology. London: Palgrave Spigel, L. (1992). Make Room for TV: Television and the Family Ideal in Postwar America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Staudenmaier, S.J., & John, M. (1985). “The Debate over Technological Determinism.” Technology's Storytellers: Reweaving the Human Fabric. Cambridge: The Society for the History of Technology and the MIT Press. Terranova, T. (2004). Network Culture: Politics for the Information Age. London: Pluto Press. Williams, R. (1974). Television, Technology and Cultural Form. London: Fontana. Wilson, S. (2002). Information Arts: Intersections of Art, Science and Technology. Cambridge: MIT Press. Winner, L. (1977). Autonomous Technology: Technics-Out-of-Control as a Theme in Political Thought. Cambridge: MIT Press. Winner, L. (1986). "Do Artefacts Have Politics?". The Whale and the Reactor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Woolgar, S., & Cooper, G. (1999). Do artefacts have ambivalence? Moses' bridges, winner's bridges and other urban legends in S&TS. Social Studies of Science 29 (3): 433–449. Read More

Technological determinism As noted, technological determinism is an approach that presumes that technology or development in technology drives the development of cultural or social structural values. In other words, technological determinists perceive technology, media or technical developments as the central causal elements in the process of social change (Staudenmaier & John, 1985). This view holds that development in technology follows a traceable and predictable path which is largely beyond political or cultural influence and that technology has inherent effects in societies, rather than being socially produced or conditioned.

Technological determinists argue that once technology is produced, the society organises itself to support and to develop it further. Strict technological determinists believe that an influence of technology in the society does not differ based on how much technology can be used or is used. They perceive technology as the basis of all human activities rather than a part of human activities. Thus, technological determinism is the belief that technology is a key governing force in the society and hence, technological development influences or determines social change (Staudenmaier & John, 1985).

According to Staudenmaier and John (1985), theorists holding this opinion believe that development in technology leads to a change in the way people interact within social settings and also in the way they think. This implies that technological innovation drives social progress, a process which follows an inevitable course. Marshall McLuhan (as cited in Staudenmaier & John, 1985) argues that technological advancement helps to solve social problems and hence, steers the society to move forward.

According to McLuhan, no one can stop social progress, implying that human beings cannot control technology. This doctrine therefore suggests that society is powerless and it allows technology to determine and to drive social changes. This happens due to the fact that societies are not aware of the alternatives that are embedded in technology. Thus, technological determinists opine that media technology can help to solve human and societal problems. For example, government administrations fix CCTV surveillance systems believing that this will help to prevent crimes.

In TV advertisements, communication gadgets such as mobile phones are praised as having the ability to connect friends or lovers. Yogurts are advertised as having contents that make people slimmer, more attractive and healthier. Human beings usually respond positively to such issues, indicating the power of technology over human practices (Murphie & Potts, 2003). Technological determinists also argue that change in technology tends to dictate changes in the behaviour of the users, hence diminishing human agency.

However, according to Winner (1977), this stance ignores the social and cultural conditions in which technology is developed. Technological determinists hold that the functions or use of technology are determined by its form or structure. They do not acknowledge that societies or cultures shape the way technology is used or how it develops. Winner (1986) notes that there is hard and soft determinism. Hard or strict determinists perceive technology as a strong force that regulates social activities and that its development is completely independent from social concerns.

They suggest that human beings organise themselves to meet the needs of technology and they have no ability to control the results of their organisation. Soft determinism is a more passive view of the relationship between technology and socio-cultural situations. Soft determinists still hold the view that technology drives social progress but maintain that human beings have a chance to make decisions regarding the results of every circumstance (Winner, 1986). However, they suggest that society must adjust to the outcomes of major technological inventions, but usually does so after a period of cultural lag.

Read More