In this blog post, we’ll examine the concepts and differences between technological determinism and the social construction of technology, as well as how these two theories explain the relationship between technology and society.
What kind of relationship exists between technology and society?
When compared to other animals on Earth, humans are physically quite disadvantaged. We cannot run swiftly across vast grasslands like gazelles, nor do we possess sharp teeth or venom like lions or snakes, and we lack the thick fur of dogs, which puts us at a disadvantage in maintaining a constant body temperature. Nevertheless, humans have not gone extinct; rather, we have come to dominate the Earth, surpassing other animals. This is because we have developed various technologies, such as automobiles, firearms, systematic heating systems, and clothing. Since technology is an essential element in the very foundation of human society, it is difficult for anyone to deny that changes in technology transform human society. Both technological determinism and the social construction of technology acknowledge this point, but they differ in their perspectives on the causes of technological change.
Determinism is the theory that everything that happens in the world, including human behavior, is determined by preceding causes. Technological determinism is the position that technology is that cause. From the perspective of an engineering student studying technology, this is a viewpoint that can make one feel a sense of responsibility—yet also a sense of pride. In contrast, the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) posits that human activities and social factors give rise to technology, and that the technology thus created, in turn, transforms society. Ultimately, the relationship between technological determinism and the Social Construction of Technology can be likened to the “chicken-or-egg” dilemma: which came first, technology or society? Let’s first examine technological determinism.
According to technological determinism, technology is an independent factor, and humans are largely driven by it. It posits that when a specific technology is introduced into society, society reorganizes itself to support and further develop that technology; technology is not merely a part of human activity but serves as the fundamental foundation underpinning all human activity. Proponents of technological determinism often liken this phenomenon to a billiard ball. Just as an external force applied to a stationary ball causes it to move in a certain direction, the external force of new technology is said to propel society in a specific direction. Representative examples they cite include the establishment of medieval feudalism and the decline in illiteracy rates. Technological determinism attributes the root cause of these changes to technology rather than to humans. For example, it explains that the development of stirrups greatly enhanced the combat effectiveness of cavalry, which in turn enabled large-scale conquests and led to the formation of feudalism. Furthermore, it is argued that advances in printing and bookbinding technologies enabled the mass production of books, which in turn led to a decline in illiteracy rates. Technological determinism asserts that the emergence of feudalism and increased literacy were inevitable the moment stirrups or printing technology were introduced into society, and that human free will or political and cultural factors could not alter this course.
Technological determinists explain this process using the concept of natural selection. They argue that social factors capable of supporting technological development are naturally selected. Since politics and culture are variables subordinate to technology, the direction of social change is already determined the moment a new technology emerges. It is believed that technology not only transforms politics and culture but also shapes society’s values, moral concepts, and philosophy in ways that favor technological progress. Conversely, they argue that factors detrimental to technological progress are gradually weeded out.
Technological determinists extend the discussion of technology’s independence to argue that technology is inherently neutral and incapable of distinguishing between good and evil. Weapons of mass destruction serve as an example to illustrate this point. During World War I, civilian casualties were relatively lower than military casualties, but in World War II, the proportion of civilian casualties increased significantly due to strategic bombing and the use of weapons of mass destruction. While many people attribute blame to the technology itself—such as atomic bombs or chemical weapons—technological determinism holds that technology is, after all, neutral, and whether it is used for good or evil is ultimately a matter for humans. For example, suppose a scientist developed an atomic bomb on his own but died without revealing its existence to anyone. In this case, although the technology of the atomic bomb exists, it cannot actually be used because no one knows of its existence or how to use it. Therefore, technological determinism assesses the technology of the atomic bomb itself as neutral, even if it possesses the potential to kill countless people, as long as it remains unused.
While technological determinism views technology as a neutral independent variable that exerts a massive influence on society, it has the limitation of failing to adequately explain how the very technologies that transform society came into being. Technological determinists argue that science or existing technology gives rise to new technology. However, this explanation is open to criticism, given that the close integration of science and technology is a relatively modern phenomenon, and that prior to this, there were many instances where technology developed based on experience and trial and error. Furthermore, the claim that technology gives rise to more advanced technology can be interpreted as suggesting that technology itself possesses a free will to develop in a specific direction. Since technology is a material product created by humans, there is a logical leap in the idea that such an object could possess a will of its own. If, according to technological determinism, technology is viewed as an entity with free will, then the engineer becomes the entity that conveys the will of technology to humans. It is as if technology were a god, and the technologist played the role of a priest conveying the will of that god. Just as it is difficult for a religious person to logically prove the existence of God to an atheist, technological determinism also fails to sufficiently convince critics regarding how technology comes to possess free will. The social construction of technology emerged to address these limitations.
How does the social construction of technology explain the origin of technology?
The Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) views technology as one of humanity’s diverse social activities. As discussed earlier, social constructionism does not deny the fact that technology changes society. However, it also attributes the origins of technology to human activity. It posits a cyclical relationship in which humans influence the formation of technology, and the technology thus created, in turn, influences society; technology serves as a mediating factor linking humans and social change. While technological determinism likens technology to an external force driving society, the Social Construction of Technology explains that technology and society are in an intertwined relationship. It also views technology as created through human activity and outlines the specific process of its formation.
First, various stakeholder groups exist around a specific technology or product. Because each group faces different environments and has differing interests, they perceive different problems even regarding the same object. As a result, each group proposes different technical solutions to address the problems they deem most important. In the next stage, because the issues each group prioritizes differ, the proposed solutions also vary, leading to social conflict and debate. Subsequently, through various discussions, a specific solution gains social acceptance, and the technology stabilizes. At this stage, social factors—not just technical excellence—play a significant role in bringing the debate to a close. Bijker and Pinch illustrated this process using the example of the bicycle’s development. Regarding the technology of the bicycle, women and cyclists prioritized different issues. Women wanted a design that allowed them to ride comfortably even while wearing skirts, while cyclists placed greater importance on speed and performance. As a result, women preferred a design with a relatively small front wheel and pneumatic tires to enhance ride comfort, while cyclists favored a design suited for high-speed riding. Subsequently, through various debates and decision-making processes, a specific type of bicycle became socially accepted; this process was significantly influenced not only by the bicycle’s performance but also by the social environment, such as bicycle racing. Social constructionism does not view such consensus as the final stage of technological development.
It posits that when new stakeholder groups emerge or raise issues different from those previously addressed, new solutions are proposed, and this process can lead to further social debates and technological advancements. The recent rapid development of eco-friendly and electrification technologies in the automotive industry—driven by the demands of various groups prioritizing environmental concerns—can also be understood from this perspective.
Let’s examine the smartphone—used by most people today—from the perspective of each theory. Smartphones have replaced feature phones and established themselves as the representative information and communication technology of modern society. With the widespread adoption of smartphones, people can now search for information and communicate in real time with a wide range of people anytime, anywhere, without needing to use a computer; as a result, significant changes have occurred in the ways information is shared and social communication takes place. Technological determinism explains these social changes as inevitable outcomes resulting from the emergence of smartphone technology. In other words, once smartphone technology emerged, humans had no choice but to restructure society in accordance with that technological trend, thereby becoming beings subordinate to technology. In contrast, social constructivism explains that various stakeholder groups recognized the limitations of information processing capabilities in existing feature phones and the inconvenience of using the internet as problems; among various solutions, the smartphone emerged as the most suitable alternative through social consensus, leading to the birth of this new technology. Subsequently, as smartphone technology spread throughout society, various social changes emerged.
Which is more persuasive: technological determinism or social constructionism?
I believe that, of the two theories, social constructionism is more valid. Of course, social constructionism is not a perfect theory either. While social constructionism focuses on how technology emerges, it has the limitation of failing to provide a sufficiently comprehensive explanation of how technology affects society. Furthermore, it has been criticized as an elitist perspective because it explains technological development solely through debates among interest groups surrounding a specific technology, rather than considering diverse members of society. These limitations are acknowledged even by researchers of social constructionism. However, explaining social change through technological determinism raises even more fundamental problems. First, there are limitations in how technological neutrality is explained. Since technology is an entity that influences society, discussing the inherent “good” or “evil” of technology in isolation from society has little practical significance. The example of the atomic bomb—whose usage methods, as discussed earlier, are unknown to anyone—is highly unlikely to occur in reality; even if such a situation were to exist, it would be difficult to equate it with the actual social significance of the technology. Furthermore, according to technological determinism, the same technology should bring about the same social changes everywhere. Consequently, if technology from developed countries were introduced into developing countries, the same social structure should form. However, in reality, because cultural, political, and economic environments differ, the nature of social change varies significantly even when the same technology is involved. This demonstrates that social factors such as politics and culture act as important variables in social change and suggests that technological determinism alone cannot sufficiently explain these phenomena.
In my view, the greatest problem with technological determinism is that it can shift human responsibility for social change onto technology. From the perspective of technological determinism, the fact that the Nazi regime in Germany was able to carry out effective mass propaganda in the past becomes an inevitable result of the broadcasting technology developed at the time. There is a risk that propaganda broadcasts will be interpreted as having been carried out by the “free will” of technology, and that the resulting sacrifices of countless Jews will be interpreted as an inevitable social change arising from the process of technological development. This logic, by interpreting the relationship between social change and technology in an excessively deterministic manner, risks undermining human responsibility and leading the public to accept that they are powerless to resist the tide of technology.
In modern society, as the convergence of pure science and technology becomes increasingly active, the influence of technology on society and nature has grown far greater than in the past. Today, there are weapons with destructive power far exceeding that of the atomic bombs used during World War II, and technology has reached a level where it can both enrich human life and threaten humanity as a whole. If we view technology as a mysterious entity beyond human control—as in technological determinism—then the development and use of such weapons could also be interpreted as the result of technology’s “free will.” However, it is ultimately humans who decide whether to develop and use technology.
Political interests and social judgments influence the development and application of technology, and it is humans who actually press the button at the final moment. Therefore, as the impact of technology on human society grows, the responsibility and control exercised by the humans who create and utilize it will become even more important than the technology itself.
