Nethaniel opposes the technologically determinist view in saying that the creator’s role is crucial in determining how technology will be used, as are the ways in which a user consciously chooses to utilise the tools that the technology offers. This, in turn, can determine further events, rather than technology doing all the ‘determining’ itself.
Mia attempts to make sense of technological neutrality by comparing it to a more frequently used sense of the term – carbon neutrality. However, the concepts do not seem to directly correlate, which makes the definition of technological neutrality even more ambiguous. Her overall contention is that nothing in this world exists independently and thus, nothing can be neutral.
Angus discusses how we should not be able to name something as being neutral, as that mere reference in itself defeats its apparent signs of neutrality. Anything we have a knowledge or understanding of has inevitably had an influence over us, thus proving not to be neutral. Therefore, it is seemingly impossible to name a neutral device. Woah!
Some great points raised by all!
This week’s text by Andrew Murphie and John Potts revolves around the different perspectives of how the technology affects culture. To set my view in context, here’s the background you need to know:
- ‘Technological determinism refers to the belief that technology is the agent of social change.
- Technological determinism tends to consider technology as an independent factor, with its own properties, its own course of development, and its own consequences.
- Technical innovation will generate a new type of society’
I find it very surprising that anyone could assume an entirely technologically determinist view when it excludes so many factors that can contribute to cultural change.
It should first be made aware that technological innovation is usually firstly instigated by a demand and/or desire from society, or as inspired by something that already exists. When you think about it, each new technology that we use today is basically a ‘new and improved’ derivative of something that is pre-existing and used. If a product or it’s particular features prove to be successful amongst the public, this in itself indicates to innovators that a market already exists for the idea. Innovators would surely then undertake extensive market research in order to predict if their proposed product has the potential to take off. They must assess what features and trends are successful on other platforms and consider the wants, needs and changing relationships that consumers have with technology.
With this is mind, it is already clear that society and culture essentially drive the innovation of new technology. Whilst I don’t deny that once products can have an influence over a culture once they become available, it is important to note that technological development is fuelled by their behaviour in the first place. I feel like this factor pretty much rules out the technologically determinist view all together, as you can always trace the evolution technology back to society. Technological determinists seriously need to consider the fact that technology is not just changing us, but we are changing technology.
