This article discusses whether technologies such as smartphones, the wheel, and computers are at the center of social change, or whether social needs drive technology. It explains the evolution of each technology and its impact on society from the perspectives of technological determinism and social constructionism, emphasizing the technological determinist position that technology has taken its own course and brought about major changes in society.
Smartphones and society: technology-driven or society-made?
Today, smartphones are more than just cell phones; they have become a part of our lives. These small devices not only provide users with convenient functions, but also play a central role as a piece of cultural content. So, is our society being changed by smartphones, or is it a social trend that has led to the rise of this technology?
The former view is called technological determinism, and the latter view is called social constructionism, in which technology develops according to the needs of society and social factors are involved in the process. Some people support social constructionism because they believe that most technologies are driven by the needs of their users, and that factors such as politics, economics, and culture are involved. However, history has shown that the emergence of new technologies has led to drastic changes in society and greatly affected the lives of its members. On the other hand, the examples of technological progress claimed by social constructionists are often more of a convergence of different technologies than a “progress” in technology. Even if it is progress, it is not driven by social necessity, but by the direction that was set at the time of invention, and the technology develops independently of human control.
Furthermore, when social factors intervene in technological progress, it is only after the technology has already had a significant impact on society, so the direction of the technology’s progress is already determined by itself. In other words, the technology decides everything.
Examples of social change brought about by technology
There are many examples of how technology has changed society and its members. One example is the invention of the wheel. First appearing in the ancient Mesopotamian civilization, the wheel was applied to chariots, which completely changed the face of warfare, while the advent of the wheelbarrow made it easier to transport large amounts of goods and greatly expanded the range of people’s movements. It also influenced the development of overland roads and the rise of cities, further fueling the development of civilization. The invention of the wheel ultimately contributed to the development of civilization, so we can see that technology has made a huge difference in society.
Another example is Gutenberg’s metal type. The invention of movable type made mass printing possible and democratized knowledge. Previously, knowledge was only available to a few aristocrats who could afford it, but thanks to the metal type, knowledge and information became accessible to many more people. This marked the beginning of a cultural revival known as the Renaissance, and this example supports technological determinism in that the development of printing did not lead to social change, but rather, the development of printing triggered social change.
Even in modern times, there are many examples of how technology has changed society. One of them is the smartphone. Since the advent of smartphones, people’s lifestyles have changed dramatically, 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. MP3 players, PMPs (portable media players), digital cameras, and other devices that were widely used before the advent of smartphones have been replaced by smartphones. This lifestyle change is not due to a societal need for smartphones. People adapted to the technology of the time without complaint, and the advent of smartphones unilaterally changed our lives.
Social constructionist arguments and their fallacies
Despite these numerous examples of how technology has changed the structure of society, social constructionists argue that social factors are involved in the process of technological progress, not the emergence of technology. In the case of smartphones, social constructionists argue that early smartphones didn’t have operating systems, but people’s needs dictated that they were equipped with operating systems, and they became popular. However, this argument is flawed because it focuses on only part of the phenomenon. The original goal of smartphone development was to realize the portable PC era. If we compare this to the invention of the PC, the first computers were large computing machines, and after a long evolution, they became personal computers with operating systems. In the same way, it was inevitable that smartphones would be equipped with an operating system as they evolved into portable PCs. In other words, the direction of technological progress was determined from the beginning.
Examples of technological progress in the evolution of computers
Another example of a predetermined direction of technological progress can be found in the evolution of computers. You might think that computers, unlike smartphones, evolved into the personal computers we have today for the convenience of users. However, this is easy to understand if you look at the purpose for which computers were developed. Early computers were machines developed to help with military calculations, such as calculating the angle of a shell. They were designed to reduce human labor, so the subsequent evolution toward convenience was predestined from the beginning.
The limitations of social constructionism and its misunderstanding of technological progress
While this fatalism of the direction of technological progress is present in most technological advances, social constructionists often take a narrow view of the process. Even if a technology has evolved and changed in appearance, considering the purpose for which it was initially developed shows that the direction of progress is not driven by external factors. If it is progressing in accordance with its original purpose, it is following a predetermined trajectory and has not changed its direction due to the intervention of external factors.
We should be wary of equating the process of technological progress with social necessity. Marconi’s invention of wireless communication ushered in the era of full-fledged communication, but it didn’t necessitate the development of wireless communication. To recognize the two as synonymous is a kind of intentionality fallacy.
The case of the bicycle and the limitations of social constructionism
One of the most famous examples in support of social constructionism is the study of the evolution of the bicycle. The argument is that early bicycles did not have pneumatic tires, and the development of pneumatic tires was a consensual process involving bicycle races and developers. The idea is to prove social constructionism by arguing that there was a consensus among the groups involved in the development of the technology, rather than a superior technology being chosen.
However, this argument contains a fundamental fallacy in that it views the addition of pneumatic tires to bicycles as a technological advance. Bicycles and pneumatic tires are two different technologies, and one is not an evolution of the other. The roots of both technologies are the same, but bicycles evolved from wheels for mobility, and pneumatic tires evolved from wheels for physical comfort. They are parallel, not contained, technologies. Therefore, the installation of pneumatic tires on bicycles is not a technological advance, but rather a convergence of differentiated technologies, and does not qualify as a social constructionist argument.
The interplay between technology and society
Even if we grant the social constructionist position for a moment, the fallacy of the argument becomes apparent. The social factors involved in the process of technological progress are, after all, the result of the existence of technology. In the case of bicycles, the need for comfort and speed emerged because of the existence of bicycle technology. Without the technology of the bicycle, there would be no need for these things and no invention of pneumatic tires.
