Alvin Toffler’s technological determinism argues that technology drives social change, citing examples such as the printing press and the Industrial Revolution. Social constructionism, on the other hand, argues that social needs and consensus drive technological progress, citing the nuclear weapons and space race as examples. Both theories interact and have important implications for how society and technology influence each other.
In the modern world, the relationship between technology and society is one of the most important topics that is constantly being debated. Since the beginning of the 21st century, technological advancements have accelerated at an unimaginable pace, and social changes have occurred rapidly alongside them. In this context, technological determinism and social constructionism have become increasingly important. These two theories offer opposing perspectives to explain the relationship between technological progress and social change, and understanding the strengths and weaknesses of each argument can help us predict and prepare for the future of our society.
In his book The Third Wave, Alvin Toffler, one of the foremost futurists of this century, argued for “technological determinism,” which holds that technology is the fundamental determinant of society and that technological progress is the primary cause of social change. An opposing argument has also been put forward, called social constructionism, which argues that technological change and advancement is also driven by some sort of explicit or implicit social consensus or demand. Let’s take a look at the arguments and examples from both sides of this seemingly incompatible debate to see how they interpret the process of social development, what their blind spots are, and what to make of both theories.
It’s true, as technological determinists argue, that advances in technology have had a huge impact on our lives and have played an important role in the transformation of society. The most famous example of this is Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press, which they argue led to the Renaissance, the Scientific Revolution, and changed not only our way of life, but also our consciousness and social structure. They also argue that the invention of machines led to the Industrial Revolution, which led to the birth of capitalism, moving from the previous aristocrat-ruler social structure to a capitalist-worker social structure.
In the 20th and 21st centuries, science and technology developed at an unprecedentedly rapid pace, and society underwent even more drastic changes. With the development of medical technology and the discovery of penicillin, the average life expectancy of humans increased from 50 years old to over 70 years old. As a result, society has aged, and it is now natural to think of life after 60 as another chapter in one’s life, called a second life.
We can all agree that the development of the internet has changed our lives more dramatically than anything else: we can know what’s happening on the other side of the world in real time from anywhere, at any time, and it has enabled many-to-many communication beyond spatial constraints. The direct impact on society can be seen in the example of the Tunisian revolution, often referred to as the ‘Jasmine Revolution’. In a society where the press was controlled and censored, the internet and social networks became an important window for shaping public opinion and played a key role in overthrowing a corrupt government. The ability for individuals to express their opinions and become more informed has made true democracy possible.
But technological determinism is a controversial argument to take at face value. As we’ve seen in some of the examples above, it’s undeniable that the development of technology has led to social change. However, it cannot be said that technology determines society. While it is true that there is a correlation between the development of society and the development of technology, it does not mean that technology unilaterally determines the direction of social change, because the antecedents that lead to the development of technology are not completely independent of society. In other words, social needs are an important factor in determining the direction of technology. From the perspective of social constructionism, it is largely within society that determines the direction of development, and technology is a tool that is driven by social needs. It’s not hard to find examples to support this.
Nuclear weapons were invented during World War II. At the time, nuclear physics was a rapidly developing branch of pure physics, and the possibilities were endless. But this new technology would eventually lead to the worst weapons of mass destruction in human history. It was the international situation of the time – a world war – that transformed this value-neutral new technology into nuclear weapons, rather than nuclear reactors that generated cheap electricity. The societal need to gain an advantage over the other side and win the war dictated the path this new technology would take.
A similar example can be seen in the U.S. and Soviet space race during the Cold War. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Soviet Union, representing the communist camp, and the United States, representing the capitalist camp, were in a race for supremacy. In every field – politics, economics, culture, entertainment, sports, and more – the two countries competed fiercely to show off the superiority of their respective systems. The rivalry was particularly intense in space exploration and satellite technology, as launching spacecraft and operating satellites were a means of demonstrating military potential by demonstrating rocket launch vehicle technology and espionage capabilities. As a result of this competition, the Soviet Union succeeded in sending people into space before the United States. The United States followed suit, sending the first man to the moon, culminating the space race. The fact that 45 years after the first man walked on the moon, we haven’t sent a man to the moon since, let alone traveled to space, suggests that the space technology of the time was unnaturally highly developed and out of sync with other fields, and is now frozen in place. At the same time, it also means that we no longer feel the need to send humans to the moon. This is because the space technology at the time was not a natural progression, but rather an abnormal development driven by political demands.
There are also examples that technological determinists use to refute technological determinism in reverse. They claim that Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press ushered in the Renaissance, but the printing press, which was invented independently in the East, didn’t make much of a difference to society at the time, meaning that while it was a contributing factor to the Renaissance, it was only a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. Rather, the Renaissance was triggered by the social changes of the time, which began to move away from a Christian-centered perception and toward a more human-centered outlook.
In the previous sections, we’ve looked at cases that support technological determinism and cases that argue against it, and while we can’t conclude that either is right, it’s not a good idea to draw a binary conclusion that neither is right. It is a fact of life that many of the technologies that have led to societal change have been driven by societal needs, while other scientific discoveries and inventions, such as penicillin and X-rays, have been serendipitous and led to societal change independently of society. In other words, technology and society have interacted with each other, sometimes independently of each other.
The question of which came first, technological advancement or social change, is nothing more than a “chicken or the egg” debate. What we should be clear about is that technological advancement can change society, and that it is social consensus and demand that drives that advancement. We should also recognize that useful technological advancement comes from a healthy society, and that it paves the way for a better society.
Recent advances in science and technology have sparked a lot of controversy, including human cloning, genetically engineered foods, and nuclear power plants. We need to recognize that these technologies can lead humanity forward or backward, and that it is in our hands to decide. We need to build a constructive social consensus to ensure that these technologies develop in a way that is beneficial to society, and that we do not repeat the mistake of creating another nuclear bomb.
