In this blog post, we will examine the relationship between technology and society through the key arguments and examples of technological determinism and social constructionism.
The development of human society has always gone hand in hand with technological progress. This is evident simply by looking at how human history is divided into the Agricultural Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, and the Information Revolution. The invention of agricultural technology led humans—who had previously lived as nomadic hunter-gatherers—to settle down and build civilizations; subsequently, every time agricultural technology underwent innovative developments, major changes across society—including economic structures and population dynamics—followed. The Industrial Revolution had a wide-ranging impact, affecting not only the quality of human life but also ideas, ideologies, social structures, economic structures, and the international order. The Information Revolution has led to the development of digital technology, the Internet, and artificial intelligence (AI) today, expanding the speed and scope of social change to a degree that makes comparison with the past difficult. From this perspective, the argument that technology determines social development has emerged; this is known as technological determinism. It posits that technological advancement is the primary cause of social change and, furthermore, that society is subordinate to the inevitable path of technological development, which takes precedence over human will and activity. From this perspective, the protagonist of history is not humanity, but the technology created by humanity itself.
However, it would be a stretch to conclude, as this argument suggests, that technology alone determines social development. This is because political, economic, organizational, and cultural factors inevitably intervene in technological development and its impact. A prime example is Gutenberg’s metal movable type. In pre-Gutenberg Europe, books were the exclusive preserve of a small ruling class. At the time, most books were reproduced through hand-copying, an inefficient method that took at least three years just to transcribe a single Bible. As a result, books became extremely scarce, and since the Church and monasteries monopolized most of them—sharing them only with royalty, the nobility, and some clergy—the general public had limited opportunities to access knowledge. However, with the introduction of woodblock printing from the East, followed by Gutenberg’s practical application of movable type—which addressed limitations such as durability and print quality—books began to spread rapidly throughout society. In the saying “Knowledge is power,” “power” no longer referred solely to the authority of the ruling class. As the population with access to knowledge grew, lively debates and academic advancements flourished, leading to massive transformations in European society, such as the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the growth of civil society. The spread of movable type was an event that could be described as an information revolution of its time and served as a crucial catalyst for numerous social changes.
At first glance, these examples may seem to support technological determinism. However, we must not overlook the fact that the invention of movable type was not a one-time event in history. Long before Gutenberg, movable type had already been invented in the East—specifically, on the Korean Peninsula. The movable type of the Goryeo Dynasty was a technology that predated Gutenberg’s by several hundred years, and its technical sophistication was by no means inferior. Nevertheless, this technology did not bring about revolutionary changes in East Asian societies comparable to those in Europe. The reasons for this lay largely not in the technology itself but in the social environment.
First, because the characters used for printing were Chinese characters, their practical efficiency was significantly lower than that of Europe’s phonetic scripts. Since numerous types of type had to be produced and combined, mass printing was not easy even with metal type. The situation did not change significantly even after the creation of Hangul during the Joseon Dynasty. Due to the Yangban class’s tendency to look down on Hangul, most high-quality scholarly works were printed in Chinese characters, and since the ability to read and write Chinese characters was largely limited to the Yangban class, it was difficult for knowledge to spread widely among the common people.
Second, there was a shortage of the materials needed to produce metal movable type. Copper, the primary material for metal movable type, was not produced in sufficient quantities on the Korean Peninsula, so it was often imported from neighboring countries. Consequently, the production of type and printing faced difficulties whenever foreign relations deteriorated. In fact, during the Joseon Dynasty, the more cost-effective woodblock printing was widely used again, demonstrating that printing technology was significantly influenced by the international political situation and economic conditions in East Asia at the time.
Third, state control over printing was excessively strict. The development and use of movable type were largely state-led, and its use for purposes other than state projects was severely restricted. In such an environment, it was difficult to expect an information revolution similar to that in Europe.
As this example shows, even the same technology can have vastly different effects depending on the social context. In the cases discussed above, linguistic, diplomatic, and institutional factors played a role in limiting the impact of technology. As the saying goes, “Necessity is the mother of invention”; while technology may emerge independently of society, the process by which new technology is accepted by society and actually exerts an influence is an entirely different matter. In the long run, technologies that fail to align with societal needs are highly likely to cease developing or become obsolete. In this sense, technology can also be understood from the perspective of natural selection and evolution. Just as living organisms do, technology constantly changes and generates diverse possibilities; however, it is society’s choices and demands that determine which technologies will survive. Therefore, viewing technological development alone as the sole cause of social change is a perspective with limitations, much like attempting to explain biological evolution through mutations alone.
While technology influences social change, society simultaneously determines the direction of technological development. From this perspective, technology can be viewed as a social construct, just like the state or institutions. It is difficult to find a fundamental difference that would justify singling out technology and placing it in a special position separate from other social elements. Technology emerges and develops within the context of social consensus and demands, and subsequently exerts an influence that reshapes society. The same is true for language, institutions, and the economy. These, too, interact closely with society and change accordingly. An approach that attempts to explain the causes of social change by attributing them to a single factor can limit our ability to understand society in a multidimensional way. Given that technology and society are in a relationship where they influence each other and develop together, a comprehensive perspective that considers various factors is necessary to understand social change.
