The belief in technology as a key driving force in society dates back at least to the early stages of the industrial revolution (Smith and Marx, 1994). Technological determinism maintains the belief that changes in technology have a greater influence on societies and their processes than any other factor, exerting a greater force on society than international conflict, national politics, the misdistribution of wealth, and difference of class and gender, because it (technology) precedes all of these (Smith and Marx, 1989). Misa (1988) writes that historians, philosophers and sociologists expounding on technology in the last ten years
have reached no consensus on technical determinism. One end of the spectrum is supported by some business historians who discuss technology’s determining role in shaping modern business structures. The opposing perspective - how workers adapt, moderate, and reject a manager’s efforts to introduce new technologies supports the other side of the argument that society is in the driving seat. More recently, historians and sociologists have taken an intermediate stance, showing that technology is socially constructed, yet can also shape society at the same time. Misa (1988) states that if machines make history, they do so only with the assistance of others and that machines are mute and illiterate and it is historians (and others) who decide the extent to which technology acts as an independent force to shape history.
Bimber (1989) writes that the reason technical determinism has been prevalent in historical accounts is that the definition of it is so broad and all-encompassing, that it would be difficult to find an example of technology in society which does not fall under the auspices of technical determinism. He categorizes accounts of technical determinism as Normative, Nomological and Unintended Consequences, such accounts ranging from positive
descriptions of an inevitable technological order based on laws of nature (Nomological), to claims that technology is an important influence in history only where societies attach cultural and political meaning to it (Normative). He continues that the most common interpretation of technological determinism is the least specific as it relies on human attitudes for explaining the historical significance of a technology. Not clear is what the difference here is between this common interpretation of technological determinism and social determinism – it seems that a definition which relies on human attitudes would be better classified as a socially deterministic perspective. The Unintended consequences accounts (such as Hiroshima) are also reminiscent of the social constructionist “interpretive flexibility of artefacts” concept, that the relevant actors socially construct the meaning of a technology depending on their beliefs and perspectives (nuclear fission is a power source for some, yet a weapon of mass destruction for others, or by the same in another context).
Indeed it could be argued that Bimber´s normative definition of technical determinism,
(where societies attach cultural and political meaning to a technology to determine its influence in history) is actually social constructionism in disguise.
Within communications research, some writers contend that there exist essential
preconditions for the development of modern industrial societies. As with Bimber above, some have made a distinction between 'hard' and 'soft' technological determinism, the latter allowing somewhat more scope for human control and cultural variation. “Hard”
technological determinism is the extreme stance that a particular communication
technology is either a sufficient condition (sole cause) for determining social organization and development, or at least a necessary condition (requiring additional preconditions).
Social constructionists could argue that these preconditions could be defined as the historical or cultural context into which a technology enters and which enables its
expansion, adaptation, success or failure – such as the example Bijker uses with the plastic Bakelite material which became popular based on the availability of raw materials enabling its cheap production. Thus, even hard technical determinism can be argued to hold that there is an environmental context which plays a part in the acceptance or use of a technology. “Soft” technological determinism on the other hand is a more moderate approach which is more widely accepted and contends that the presence of a particular communication technology is an enabling or facilitating factor leading to potential opportunities which may or may not be taken up in particular societies or periods
(Finnegan, 1988). Historian Lynn White comments that a new device merely opens a door;
it does not compel one to enter (White, 1978). Hence, it could be argued that the
environment into which a new device enters is just as important as the device itself, that the environment and the device are mutually responsible for the acceptance, use or adaptation of technology.
Even the technical deterministic stance of Marshall McLuhan in his book Understanding Media, could be disputed as he asserts that “in a culture like ours, long accustomed to splitting and dividing all things as a means of control, it is sometimes a bit of shock to be
reminded that, in operational and practical fact, the medium is the message. This is merely to say that the personal and social consequences of any medium, that is, of any extension of ourselves, result from the new scale that is introduced into our affairs by each extension of ourselves, or by any new technology” (McLuhan, 1964:9). He goes on to write about the electric light. “Whether the light is being used for brain surgery or night baseball is a matter of indifference. It could be argued that these activities are in some way the "content" of the electric light, since they could not exist without the electric light. This fact merely
underlines the point that "the medium is the message" because it is the medium that shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action”. Thus, here the
technological artefact is forming the type of human interaction and influencing society.
In summary, technological determinism views suggest that in the final analysis, it is technologies that form and mould society (Ling, 2004) whereas social determinism perspective supported by Bijker (1997) contests that technologies are continually reinterpreted by users and given new meanings and directions.