James Redfield said, “History is not just the evolution of technology; it is the evolution of thought.” The “soft” view says technology is influenced by socioeconomic forces, but is still a strong mediating factor in causing new social order, whereas the “hard” view says technology is the prime mover of social history. The quote, “The hand mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam mill, society with the industrial capitalist,” is a “hard” view. Technology makes part of history, this much is obvious, and it undoubtedly imposes certain political and social characteristics. For example, the mode of production affects the superstructure of social relationships. The difficult question remains, is there a fixed sequence or necessary path that technology must follow; from the hand mill to the steam mill? The question arises as to what role and extent technology plays in history. Although there are no empirical studies on the “laws of motion”, it is not hard to understand why the steam mill follows from the hand mill, and not the other way around.
The concept of multiple discovery says that invention happens along a well-defined frontier of knowledge, and does not happen randomly. Like nature, technology makes no sudden jumps. A constraint on technological advancement is the lack of accumulated knowledge. In other words, technical realization never precedes what people know, except in experiments in which application and knowledge happen simultaneously. Other limitations are material competence and technical expertise. Finally, there is the need to produce a product economically and efficiently. The competence to create a technology is directly related to the ability of industries to change their products or processes to adapt to a change in a key product or process, rather than the ability to make a machine. We are concerned with the ability to fit the piston and the cylinder together, not only the ability to make a cylinder. The specialization of industry and the division of labor are techniques used to increase efficiency. The main constraint on technology in a capitalist society is the size of capital itself. As businesses slowly accumulate capital, there is a gradual diversification of industrial functions, which is an independent regulator of technical capability. Similar technologies between the United States and Russia lead to similar social phenomena, but one must be careful when assigning political effects as the sole driver of a functional economy.
Does technology lead to anomie? It’s intriguing how technology affects our existential quality of life. Technology is often given too much credit for its effectiveness when there are other influences at work. There is a social element that enters the machine design to reflect and shape society’s social relationships. These factors include the level of education of the workforce and the relative price. Technological progress itself is a social act, and some societies don’t care about innovation and invention. A factor that determines how technology advances is the direct result of the inducements a society offers for these technologies, incentives that often stem from public policy. The application of technologies clearly reflects social influences. In America, there is a lot of government support for interchangeable parts, and labor costs are high, which are conducive influences for labor saving machinery. Social aspirations arise for technology that offers the best chance of realization, and capitalism is where a society is most productive. Mass production with machines that save time and labor is how resources allocate their highest value, according to the principles of economics, assuming there is a mass market and labor is not on the cheap. There must also be a market system that systematically guides inventors and innovators in solving the dilemma of economic production.
The view of technology as the primum mobile – the sole acting body of society – starts to shift to one of a mediating factor, where society also acts upon it. In other words, even when new technology’s characteristics are intimately tied to industry connections, the linkages may not lead to economic growth if certain social preconditions are not present. Technological growth takes place in a society with capitalistic motivations. Marx came along and said technology is only an enabling factor in capitalist societies. Russia has a lot of technology and is not capitalist. In communism, private property doesn’t exist, which is a precondition for technology, and the government controls the economy. What technology does and why it is an enabler is that it allows people, mainly businesses, to have power, because they control the machines which are the means of production. The people with power are no longer the government, which is somewhat alienated. As a result, you have capitalism. For some reason, we have always desperately tried to stop communism, when we could have just waited for it to fail. Imperious political control to buffer disruptive technological consequences is inhibited by laissez-faire ideology, which happens when technological change is simply unleashed and technological guidance is still elemental.
Determinism and Indeterminacy in the History of Technology
Theory and practice are interactive, and, as John Ruskins said, “it cannot be separated with impunity.” “If we try to implicitly study technological change … there are a dozen methods mapped across period and place that can’t be modeled linearly due to the interaction effects and unintended consequences.” I believe there is no model with reliable dependent-independent variables to compare. There are also so many variables that the study becomes too complex, and no valid conclusion can be drawn for different cases and technology in general.
The sameness and quality of products became important, because without it, an accurate selling price for a product could not be set. Without accurate prices, people struggle to know which product they want to buy. In the 1890 – 1930s, standardization could have followed strict rules on product safety and quality, but instead the government and businesses decided to maximize profits. Once important, versatility in products was replaced by products with less functions, but greater power and stability. As businesses recognized, they should produce only a few products and sell many more to maximize profits. Moreover, less products meant less marketing costs for the business. However, there are downsides for consumers when businesses only want to make a profit, such as planned obsolescence. Cooperation between workers and managers, and between businesses themselves, helped increase profit. This exchange of ideas is much like the Golden Age, in which people did what was right. There were disputes, but the ultimate goal in and between businesses was to achieve a valued craft. Cooperation will exist as long as the market is large enough to ensure that businesses do not have to compete for work. Or when it is in the best interests of companies to work together and share products and/or expertise.
Retrieving Socio-technical Change
Many years later, we see that vertical integration at Carnegie Steel was the smart way. At the time, they did not integrate vertically because they thought it would harm their company, and there was no perceived benefit. Carnegie was repeatedly told of the benefits of the acquisition of invaluable iron, but failed to move on it. It was economically rational, given the low costs of iron ore and the barriers to entry that would exist for other businesses, they just didn’t realize it. There is the macro-level, which is technologically deterministic, and the micro-level, which is open to finding more, varied societal forces in the historical processes, and in between is the meso-level. How we choose to study a technology depends on the level. There is often a theme of technology as not a gadget, but a term for the elaborate socio-technical networks that span society. To say that technology causes social change is equivalent to saying that people create social change through the socio-technical networks they create and maintain.
Younger developing systems can be more socioculturally influenced, while older, more mature systems are not as socially influenced and therefore more determinist. Ideas are difficult to analyze, because the role of technology in society depends on time and place. I believe that social development shapes and is shaped by technology, as this idea is flexible and hard to refute. The bicycle is a notable example of social determinism. The final closure of the design resulted when groups decided that problems and desires associated with the bicycle were fulfilled. We are now dealing with technological systems for the interaction of the technical and social, and outside of that is the environment. Countless companies such as GE, EBASCO, and public utilities control complex systems. There are links between graduate students and regulatory institutions to these systems, but I find these connections loose and hard to confirm.
Technology is hard to stop once it has gained momentum. One example is the technological systems of EBASCO, their momentum was only broken when the major historical event of the Great Depression had a strong enough impact. During the Great Depression, the Roosevelt administration blamed utility holding company magnates for huge stock losses. They blamed the losses on irresponsible, even illegal, machinations of some holding companies. This led to the Holding Company Act of 1935, which denied holding companies the right to incorporate utilities that were not nearby. The aim was to increase the influence of the free market and to promote competition between smaller and larger companies. This was beneficial for society’s welfare by providing people with more products and ensuring that the selling prices of larger businesses were reasonable. In the examples of BASF and the Muscle Shoals Dam, you sometimes have a solution in search of a problem. In both cases, significant inventions arose from the stubborn and persistent will of a few entrepreneurs to find the need for a product where it was not before.
Three Faces of Technological Determinism
The three approaches to look at technological determinism are:
1. Nomological, based on the laws of nature.
2. Normative, claimed that technology is important in shaping history only where societies attach cultural and political meaning to that technology.
3. Unintended consequences, which, unlike the nomological approach, has laws, and unlike the normative approach, there is a social practice that governs technology.
The normative approach is mainly about the ethical side of technology. Such as goals on how to get the most value from alternatives, means and ends, rather than dealing with efficiency or productivity. The nomological approach believes that machinery and some subhuman powers somehow function independently of history. This method tries to limit the broad category of technological determinism, which is a start to understand the cause and effect of machines on social roles. I believe in the nomological approach that, given the state of technological development and the laws of nature, there is only one possible future course of social change, dictated by political resources, not in terms of social desirability.
G. A. Cohen’s two ideas are that previous events casually determine future events, and that technology influences the laws of nature that determine people’s history. He and Robert Brenner have argued that productive forces are not the only course for social development. However, I digress, what if productive forces are the primary mover of history, then what forces or production exist? Marx believed that the division of labor, not technology, was the way to tell the productive forces in society. Although the second phase of history is more deterministic with automation and industrial capitalism. Marx breaks down the labor process into the activity of people, the subject of work, and the instruments of work, while Cohen breaks it down into means of production and labor power. Marx believes technology does not cause or facilitate class struggles. However, those who have control over the productive process may alienate the laborers, which this proletariat may not escape. He believes the driving forces are the means to accumulate and to resist alienation with technology as a so-called fuel for history’s engine. A basic drive for self-expression is a necessary factor in Marx’s Theory of History.
The form of self-expression is the growing desire for production. Conditions that facilitate productive development in history include:
1. An expanding population.
2. Increasing social intercourse.
3. The availability of science and technology, particularly in the later phase of capitalism, where Marx’s last thought is that technology is in the ultimate service of humanity, not the other way around.
Recourse of Empire
The two paintings aim to predict the future of technology and economic growth. Technological social influences are closely linked to the spread of technology. In “Across the Continent. Westward the Course of Empire Takes Its Way,” by Frances Flora Bond Palmer in 1868, the technology allows the group with superior technology to dominate the group with less or no technology.
The colonial settlers are hard at work, and the Native Americans are choking on the smoke from the train. Telephone lines represent technological advances and the train symbolically drives westward, where the gold rush draws nearly 300,000 settlers to California. The vast landscape is ready and awaiting technological progress. The next painting, “Science on the March”, depicts the progression of technology from 1902 to 2002. Apparently, we should already be flying the cosmos. It is creative, but not accurate. and does a poor job of predicting the future. Popular Science should stick to the science part and do less of the history. When they were choosing to use the metric or English system of units, they chose the English one out of practicality for the merchants. They found it easier to use because they could relate the measurements to their body parts. I think we should have stayed with metric and not come up with a new set of units to convert to.
Technological Determinism Revisited
Wars are at the center of subjects of premodern history because they embody such background forces as class struggle and rational maximizing. We tend to assign “powers” to technologies when they just are not there. “The machine throws out anthropomorphic habits of thought” and Marx’s expectation that the railroad in India would dissolve the caste system. Routine tells us that technological change will be resisted, but not the form of resistance.
The Idea of “Technology” and Postmodern Pessimism
Medical progress has gotten rid of diseases, allowed the population to expand by lowering the death rate, and prolonged life. These are positive outcomes for medical progress, but they think it could be viewed as bad. That overpopulation and baby boomers that can’t work is bad to a society functioning. I don’t agree with this completely, and think this is not taking into account a more important effect, like why people choose to give birth. The goal of technology during the Enlightenment era was to have less of a hierarchical republican society and more of a just democratic one. The old idea is that power can be attacked, removed or replaced, but modernists feel it doesn’t come from a single, centralized source, so it can be affected. That it is everywhere and nowhere. It usually develops at local levels, rather than diffusing from high central powers.
The Political and Feminist Dimensions of Technological Determinism
I agree that technology is not inherently rational and is for authoritarian control and domination. In my opinion, if we can’t define technology, how can we determine if it drives history or for that matter any field? I agree that you can’t classify certain technologies according to significance. Especially in highly advanced societies where many new technologies are only for entertainment. I have a hard time believing that Marx’s search of technological determinism was to try to deny God. Technology is a technological revolution and this is never safe in one country alone, only globally. I think this means a scientific revolution won’t ever succeed unless the revolution is global, because technology has such a great influence for so many people. But maybe it has more to do with what technology is. I agree that ultimately people, not machines, make history. The example of the 1990 Desert Storm, when Bush decided to declare war on Iraq, because of a series of unilateral decisions that left war as the only outcome, is opinionated, but probably has a lot of truth. Most would agree that using nuclear weapons instead of negotiating peace is irrational. This irrationality explains why people hand over power to nuclear weapons. The threat of massive retaliation needing to be credible shows that power is lost from people to technology. I agree that the reason why Communism failed is because they tried to assert technology as an authoritarian and controlling entity. Democracy works much better than an impersonal technological system, and people want many choices, not only one. Interesting quote from the King, “Women have been culture’s sacrifice to nature”, blames women for making our culture less technical and more about nature.
Determinism and Pre-Industrial Technology
I agree that the top-down economic approach fails to look at power relationships that are significant. By showing three technologies that fail to have a social or economic impact, reiterates the idea of social filters on technological development. Block printing had little to no impact on the medieval Islam culture. This is not surprising, because beggars used this invention in the perception of the Muslim people. Next, the letterpress had resistance because of religious opposition, which restricted the print of religious texts. I don’t understand why they would be against printing religious texts.
Technological Determinism in Agrarian Societies
Without investigating agrarian societies, we cannot determine if society has progressed. Are we better off from the advancement of technology? In so many ways we aren’t better off. Peasants are not bounded by lack of technology. They can transform their societies with new farming methods. The peasant can escape his role as a peasant if either the bourgeoisie realizes they are better off substituting technology for the peasant, or the peasant transforms society toward an urban rich technological city. Only when the whole city has become urban is the peasant no longer needed. Lynn White, Jr. (1978) believed the heavy plow in Northern Europe let to increased population density and urbanization. Studies suggest the heavy plough accounts for around 10% of the increase in population density and urbanization during the High Middle Age. He believed that the plow made agriculture more productive but didn’t cause it. I think the plow was neither necessary nor sufficient for progress. I find it surprising, like the author, when White changes his mind from tools to religion as the reason for agricultural progress. It is interesting to note that the peasants resist the promotions of the horse and the plow, which would make the work go faster. They resisted quite effectively. The reason they resisted is they didn’t want their jobs replaced. Population expansion and larger productivity are directly related to the plow. I see no or little resistance when the technology increases the work for the peasants. The increase in work for the peasants doesn’t mean their work is inefficient, but means they are producing more. Russia’s agriculture has suffered compared to warmer climates, because in the winter the animals stay inside. They don’t graze the stubble, so by the spring they are weak and plow less, and there is less manure for the fodder fields, where they get there food from, and the other fields. Also, limited market exchange and rudimentary technology limited their economic growth.
Often the lords were less efficient than the peasants and not concerned about how much was produced. Peasants responded to new methods, but only from other peasants. If the lord suggested it, they thought they were being exploited. To the peasants in Russia, not Europe, the thought of having a working class was a clear source of discontent. Lords were pleased with peasant life and feared a landless class would result if technology replaced their jobs.
Reform can happen in two ways. Peasants could either revolt against deeply seeded problems, or the elites could bring new ideas to the countrymen in the hopes that they would implement them. For this to happen, the countrymen must believe the ideas are in their best interest. “New technology always alters power relations.” So you must analyze a technology by looking at the ensuing change of power and the resistance or support of the technology. The reason China was able to break out of its poverty, unlike Russia, is that they took advantage of rural labor markets. They also used the expanding population and produced not just one crop, but a large variety. The prediction is that China is heading toward capitalism. Markets, class differentiation, and property rights favor this path. A good indicator of this is that the rural population has continued to increase, but the per-capita income has stayed the same. As a result, peasants will choose to work in urban areas and be a part of the free market.