Technological determinism

Determinism stands opposed to several other possible doctrines. First, that of free will: Even if we put aside the deeper philosophical issues at stake, social scientists must assess the extent to which social changes can be said to be determined by anything but human will in individual or age. If aggregated form. Second, determinism stands opposed to the idea that social structures and technologies co-evolve in unpredictable, emergent patterns. Finally, in a more post-modern vein, some argue that determinism bears the burden of convincing sceptics of the very possibility of objective knowledge of causal structures.

Determinism comes in “harder” and “softer” variants. In debates over TD, this distinction characterizes views of both technology’s effects and its causes. In its assessments of technology’s effects, soft TD argues that technology is one important force amongst others, while hard TD argues that technology is the main or the only significant driver; anti-TD views assert that technology is “neutral,” and that its effects are a mainly or entirely a function of social context. As concerns technology’s causes, one form of soft TD allows that social factors may shape technology even though, once shaped, technology’s effects are (weakly or strongly) determinate; hard TD argues that social influences have little effect on the nature of technology; anti-TD views highlight the social forces that shape the design and development of technology.

Technology. Different determinism highlight different drivers: alongside technology, other social scientists have highlighted economics, culture, geography, biology, and language. TD and the resulting debates focus on technology as tools and equipment. By extension, previously-processed raw materials should also be included. More rigorously, technology is the knowledge that is embodied in these artifacts. Arguably, we should also include the knowledge that is required to use to such artifacts, and by extension, include also the principles of productive organization. Conventionally, workers’ skills – the complement to equipment in the Marxist concept of forces of production – are excluded from this family.

Some technologies are intrinsically less “flexible” than others and thus might be expected to have more determinate effects: large complex hard-wired systems can be contrasted on this dimension with more decentralized, flexible, malleable computer-based technologies. For some scholars, such interpretive flexibility renders the whole TD enterprise suspect. On the other hand, “Information society” TD theorists argue that computer-based information technologies have deep effects precisely because of their malleability.

Technological determinism has been asserted at several levels of analysis. At the broadest level, TD has informed many analyses of changes in sociology-economic configurations: the transition from feudalism to capitalism, changing occupational and skill structure of the labor force in the 20^th century, the emergence of post-industrialism in the post World War II era, the subsequent emergence of the “information society,” “post-Farad ism,” and globalization. For some, technological progress represents the promise of the gradual emancipation of mankind from the burdens of unnecessary sickness and labour. For others, this same path represents a loss of our very humanity, ensnaring us in ever more elaborate, alienating, and dangerous technological webs.

Another family of positions on TD argues that technology does indeed determine much -- too much -- in contemporary society, but that this power is characteristic of only a specific historical period. This is determinism by default: “capitalist” or “industrial” society has unleashed technological innovation, but has yet to put into place the mechanisms needed to give it the requisite social guidance