Validación PIGR

The phrase ‘technological determinism’ was arguably coined by the sociologist and economist Thorstein Veblen (1857–1929), who proposed that technology determines the structure, values and norms of a society (Chandler, 1995). Technological

determinists argue that technology has an impact on society and is independent of its social context. Consistent with this view is the notion that technologies such as television and computers, for example, have altered society by determining societal and individual interactions. Thus, instead of technology being a product and an important part of society, it is seen as independent, influential and self-determining. Across some cultural narratives, technology is often discussed as an autonomous agent (Joyce, 2008) beyond the will of society. Joyce, in discussing MRI scans, quotes a reporter who stated ‘MRI scans found cancer in her brain’ (Joyce, 2008:56). This is consistent with Haraway’s (1997) view that when discussing the effects of technology on society, non-human actors are often assigned agency7.

Isaac Asimov, in commenting on the issue of technological determinism stated: ‘The whole trend in technology has been to devise machines that are less and less under direct control and more and more seem to have the beginning of a will of their own…The clear progression away from direct and immediate control made it possible for human beings, even in primitive times, to slide

7

In Social Sciences, ‘agency’ is referred to an individual having the capacity to act independently and thus are in control of their actions

48 forward into extrapolation, and to picture devices still less controllable, still more independent than anything of which they had direct experience’ (Asimov, 1981:130).

Social constructivists, however, argue that human action shapes technology rather than technology being the catalyst for determining human action. They suggest that many factors influence new technological devices, including the perceived needs of a society, the human imagination, marketing, the advancement of science and the need for diversity (Webster, 2002).

Social constructivists emphasise the importance of social groups’ contribution through expressing their ideals and concerns to the design process (Pannabecker, 1991). Social groups are ‘identified empirically as the actors that participate in negotiations or controversies around specific technology’ (Wajcman, 2000:451). This is illustrated by Bijker, Hughes and Pinch (1987), who suggest that social groups were influential in the design and evolution of the bicycle. They argue that the bicycle evolved from its original inception as a high wheeler to today’s safety bicycle (in Pannabecker, 1991) because of varying influence from different social groups. For instance, women cyclists were concerned about dress and social approval. Young men were concerned about their ‘macho image’; the elderly were concerned about their safety whereas sports cyclists were moreconcerned with speed. Similarly, manufacturers were concerned about economics and the

technologists were concerned about materials and the processes involved. This all led to the evolution of the safety bicycle design. Bijker et al. (1987) report that

49 bicycle designs could have taken a completely different route in a context where different social groups had different degrees of influence (in Pannabecker, 1991).

The determinist argument that technology shapes society implies that individuals in society are vulnerable to the positive and negative effects of technology.

Buckingham (2004) argues that technology can be dangerous and threatening but can also offer a form of empowerment. In the sub-sections that follow, examples of the impact of technology on three aspects of society are presented: work, domestic life and entertainment. Although by no means exhaustive these examples serve to highlight the repertoire of ideas and debates surrounding the pervasiveness of technology.

2.5.1.1. Technology in the Workplace

Beynon (1992) observes that advances in technology have led to a decline in manual work in industrialised countries with drastic shifts in employment from factory to office work. The development of technology on the one hand is viewed as the key force that positively drives the transformation of society as production is

revolutionised with new machinery. On the other hand, critics suggest that

technology de-skills the workforce because operating machinery requires relatively unskilled labour. Similarly, the emergence of new technologies may lead to

unemployment because manual labour is no longer required. Nevertheless, there has been a shift in work patterns due to the effects of technology; evident with both blue-

50 collar and white-collar occupations (Grint and Woolgar, 1997; Lewis, 1996).

2.5.1.2. Domestic Technology

Household labour is persistently divided along traditionally gendered lines where women assume the larger portion of household chores (Lachance-Grzela and Bouchard, 2010). Many aspects of domestic technology such as the vacuum cleaner and the washing machine have greatly affected the lives of women, given traditional gender roles in the home. At the advent of these technologies, many researchers and academics discussed the impact that this may have. Talcott Parsons (1956) argued that as women spent most of their time engaging in household tasks, they did not have time to engage in paid work. The introduction of domestic technologies no longer required the woman’s presence in the home so she was therefore free to enter the labour market. In highlighting the impact of the washing machine, Vanek (1974) states ‘probably no aspect of housework has been lightened so much by

technological change as laundry’ (Vanek, 1974:117). However, research has shown that domestic technologies usually do not reduce the level of women’s domestic labour but surprisingly at times increases it (Bittman, Rice and Wajcman, 2004; Cowan, 1985). Reasons for this may include rising standards of cleanliness (Wajcman, 1991) and ‘people have more clothes now than they did in the past and they wash them more often’ (Vanek, 1974:117). The greater availability of clothes is in part also due to technology, as technological advancement has resulted in the mass production of clothing thereby making it more affordable for the consumer. Thus, the addition of these new tasks may have neutralised any time saved by these new technologies.

51 This sub-section presumes subscribed gender roles and focuses on the effects of domestic technologies on women in particular, as domestic work has traditionally been associated with women. ‘The male “family breadwinner” mentality became as ingrained in the masculine identity as did the female “homemaker” mentality in the feminine thus doing housework came to be seen as part of enacting women’s natural role’ (Kimmel and Aronson, 2003:408). It is also worth noting that some of the material cited here is somewhat dated, as the work of these authors pioneered the debates about the impact of technology and women’sinvolvement withthe paid labour force.

2.5.1.3. Entertainment technology

Entertainment technology covers a broad range of products and services such as recorded music, movies, television, computer and video games, consoles, the Internet (chat room, social networking websites such as ‘Facebook’, board and card games) and entertainment robots. The effects of these technologies especially concerning children’s development have prompted extensive debate in recent times, (Götz, 2005; Marshall et al., 2006; Zimmerman, 2007) and this is explored in the section on the sociology of childhood and technology (Section 2.6). One such effect that many researchers have studied is the social impact of television. Studies have found that television leads to sleep problems (Mistry et al., 2007; Johnson et al., 2004), attention problems (Christakis et al. 2004; Obel et al, 2004) and social emotional problems such as depression (Primack et al., 2009). Other studies have investigated the effects of television on issues such as race and gender stereotypes,

52 violence, the portrayal of family life, as well as its educational content (e.g. Huston, et al., 1992). In contrast, there have been numerous empirical studies suggesting that watching television enhances learning and brain development (e.g. Wright et al., 2001; Barr et al., 2008).

The examples explored above have illustrated both the positive and negative influences of technology on society – that is, if one accepts the notion that

technology is responsible for these societal changes. The research suggests that the effect of technology is much more complex than the rather two-dimensional idea of social technological determinism. The next section explores the sociological issues surrounding children and technology.