Technological Determinism Paul S.

Adler draft entry for The International Encyclopedia of Organization Studies, edited by Stewart Clegg and James . !ailey "Sage# $ersion date% July &, '(() Related Headwords: Actor*networ+ theory Agency*structure debate Diffusion ,conomic sociology -ndustry e$olution -nno$ation Social theory Overview Technological determinism "TD#, sim.ly .ut, is the idea that technology has im.ortant effects on our li$es. This idea figures .rominently in the .o.ular imagination and .olitical rhetoric, for e/am.le in the idea that the -nternet is re$olutioni0ing economy and society. TD has also had a long and contro$ersial history in the social sciences in general and in organi0ation studies in .articular. Critics of TD argue $ariously that technology itself is socially determined, that technology and social structures co*e$ol$e in a non*deterministic, emergent .rocess, or that the effects of any gi$en technology de.end mainly on how it is im.lemented which is in turn socially determined. 1i$en the .roliferation of new technologies in modern ca.italism, the TD debate is continually renewed. Key elements in TD TD in$o+es the ideas of determinism and technology as well as their con2unction. ,ach .oses se$eral conce.tual and em.irical challenges. Determinism stands o..osed to se$eral other .ossible doctrines. 3irst, that of free will% ,$en if we .ut aside the dee.er .hiloso.hical issues at sta+e, social scientists must assess the e/tent to which social changes can be said to be determined by anything but human will in indi$idual or aggregated form. Second, determinism stands o..osed to the idea that social structures and technologies co*e$ol$e in un.redictable, emergent .atterns. 3inally, in a more .ost*modern $ein, some argue that determinism bears the burden of con$incing s+e.tics of the $ery .ossibility of ob2ecti$e +nowledge of causal structures. Determinism comes in harder and softer $ariants. -n debates o$er TD, this distinction characteri0es $iews of both technology4s effects and its causes. -n its assessments of technology4s effects, soft TD argues that technology is one im.ortant force amongst others, while hard TD argues that technology is the main or the only significant dri$er5 anti*TD $iews assert that technology is neutral, and that its effects are a mainly or entirely a function of social conte/t. As concerns technology4s causes, one form of soft TD allows that social factors may sha.e technology e$en though, once sha.ed, technology4s effects are "wea+ly or strongly# determinate5 hard TD argues that social influences ha$e little effect on the nature of technology5 anti*TD $iews highlight the social forces that sha.e the design and de$elo.ment of technology.

Technology. Different determinisms highlight different dri$ers% alongside technology, other social scientists ha$e highlighted economics, culture, geogra.hy, biology, and language. TD and the resulting debates focus on technology as tools and e6ui.ment. !y e/tension, .re$iously*.rocessed raw materials should also be included. 7ore rigorously, technology is the +nowledge that is embodied in these artifacts. Arguably, we should also include the +nowledge that is re6uired to use to such artifacts, and by e/tension, include also the .rinci.les of .roducti$e organi0ation. Con$entionally, wor+ers4 s+ills 8 the com.lement to e6ui.ment in the 7ar/ist conce.t of forces of .roduction 8 are e/cluded from this family. Some technologies are intrinsically less fle/ible than others and thus might be e/.ected to ha$e more determinate effects% large com.le/ hard*wired systems can be contrasted on this dimension with more decentrali0ed, fle/ible, malleable com.uter*based technologies. 3or some scholars, such inter.reti$e fle/ibility renders the whole TD enter.rise sus.ect. 9n the other hand, -nformation society TD theorists argue that com.uter*based information technologies ha$e dee. effects .recisely because of their malleability. Technological determinism has been asserted at se$eral le$els of analysis. At the broadest le$el, TD has informed many analyses of changes in socio*economic configurations% the transition from feudalism to ca.italism, changing occu.ational and s+ill structure of the labor force in the '(th century, the emergence of .ost*industrialism in the .ost :orld :ar -- era, the subse6uent emergence of the information society, .ost*3ordism, and globali0ation. 3or some, technological .rogress re.resents the .romise of the gradual emanci.ation of man+ind from the burdens of unnecessary sic+ness and labor. 3or others, this same .ath re.resents a loss of our $ery humanity, ensnaring us in e$er more elaborate, alienating, and dangerous technological webs. Another family of .ositions on TD argues that technology does indeed determine much ** too much ** in contem.orary society, but that this .ower is characteristic of only a s.ecific historical .eriod. This is determinism by default% ca.italist or industrial society has unleased technological inno$ation, but has yet to .ut into .lace the mechanisms needed to gi$e it the re6uisite social guidance. 9ne .rominent $ariant of TD ta+es ins.iration from 7ar/. 9n this orthodo/ reading of 7ar/, the forces of .roduction "technology .lus wor+ers4 ca.abilities# form the infrastructure for both the structure of relations of .roduction and the su.erstructure of .olitics and culture5 the .roducti$ity of the forces of .roduction tends to de$elo. o$er time5 the o$erall direction of this change is largely inde.endent of the social structure, although the latter can accelerate or retard the rate the change5 and o$er time, the relations of .roduction and the su.erstructure are forced to ada.t to accommodate further technological change. ";ote that other scholars, relying on other .assages in 7ar/4s oeu$re, read him as a .owerful anti*TD theorist.# At a more micro le$el, a rich tradition of organi0ational studies starting with :oodward and !urns and Stal+er has highlighted the role of technology in sha.ing organi0ation structure. This so*called contingency theory has been the ob2ect of numerous challenges to its underlying TD. 7ore recent wor+ in the transaction costs economics tradition im.orts into organi0ational theory the technological determinism of mainstream economics in the guise of e/ogenous, technically determined asset s.ecificity. TD can be also be found in much of micro organi0ational beha$ior<social .sychology research on the effects of a gi$en technology on .sychological functioning and inter.ersonal relations. -t is sometimes argued that TD becomes more .lausible the longer the time frame and the

broader the aggregate in 6uestion. Softer $ersions of TD may allow that in shorter time*frames and smaller*scale conte/ts, technology4s effects could be swam.ed by social forces. =owe$er, we should note that such an assum.tion reflects a materialist $iew of history, and idealists see things in e/actly the o..osite terms% for those who .rioriti0e ideas, culture, or the role of great indi$iduals, the sco.e for TD is restricted to the local and short*time hori0on. Problems, Debates Where does technology come from? Any but the wea+est form of TD must ha$e a theory that locates the dynamic of technological change within technology itself "or .erha.s in science# rather than in the social structures that TD aims to e/.lain. 7any TD .ro.onents allow that ca.italism "or some other feature of the social structure# stimulates the rate of technological change5 but to .reser$e the causal role of technology, they must re2ect the strong social constructionist thesis that would e/.lain technology4s o$erall direction of de$elo.ment by reference to social structures. Social construction can certainly e/.lain some features of many technologies "see the $arious strands of research in the social studies of science and technology as reflected in 2ournals such as Science, Technology, & Human Values, Social Studies of Science, Science as Culture, in .articular Actor ;etwor+ Theory#. =owe$er, it has .ro$en far more difficult for social constructionists to show that the broad direction of technological change is entirely or mainly a function of the constellation of social forces. Technological constraints and o..ortunities sim.ly weigh too hea$ily in the wor+ of technological change to be .ushed so far into the bac+ground. Perha.s the biggest .roblem for TD is .osed by the historical e$idence of long .eriods of technological regression, .eriods during which whole societies mo$ed through technological dar+ ages. ecent research has considerably enriched our understanding of the dynamics of technological change and the intertwined effects of science, technology, and social influences. Particularly .rominent has been the idea that technologies de$elo. through distincti$e tra2ectories5 but there is debate o$er whether these tra2ectories re.resent the weight of social determinants ".ath de.endence# or on the contrary, re.resent the contours of an ob2ecti$ely gi$en s.ace of technological o..ortunity. The social factors shaping technologys effects. Clearly, any gi$en technology4s effects de.end to some e/tent on the social conte/t. The conte/t will encourage or discourage the technology4s ado.tion, and, if the technology is ado.ted, the social conte/t will ha$e im.ortant effects on how the technology is used and thus on its ultimate im.act. 3eminist research has been .articularly elo6uent on these themes. Strong $ersions of TD are difficult to sustain in the face of e$idence showing that both these moments of social determination are im.ortant. 9n the other hand, the idea that technology has no causal im.act is e6ually difficult to sustain. Ideology. Some scholars worry that TD ma+es e/isting organi0ational and social structures a..ear ine$itable, naturally gi$en. Clearly, TD has been used in such an ideologically manner by some writers. -t is less clear that this should encourage critically oriented scholars to re2ect all forms of TD. TD in $arious forms has ser$ed a broad s.ectrum of .olitical $iews. 7any critically oriented scholars "and acti$ists# ha$e enrolled TD to argue that history is on our side. Further reading Adler, P.S., > !orys, !. "?@@A#. 7aterialism and -dealism in 9rgani0ational Theory.

Organization Studies, ?B, C, )C&*)&@ Adler, P.S. and !. !orys, "?@D@#. Automation and S+ill% Three 1enerations of esearch on the 7achine*Tool Case, Politics and Society, ?&, A, A&&*B?'. !i2+er, :. ,., =ughes, T. P., > Pinch, T. "?@D&#. The Social Construction of Technological Systems Cam!ridge, 7A% 7-T Press !uchanan D., > !oddy D. "?@DA#. Organisations in the Computer "ge# Technological Imperati$es and Strategic Choice. Aldershot% 1ower. !urns, T., > Stal+er, 1. "?@)?#. The %anagement of Inno$ation. Eondon% Ta$istoc+ Chandler, D. "?@@C#. Technological or media determinism F9nlineG a$ailable% htt.%<<www.aber.ac.u+<media<Documents<tecdet<tecdet.html Child, J. "?@&'#. 9rganisational Structure, ,n$ironment and Performance% The ole of Strategic Choice, Sociology, ), ?, ?*''. Cohen, 1.A. "?@&D#. &arl %ar'(s Theory of History. 9/ford% Clarendon Donagan, A., "n.d.#. Determinism in history in Dictionary of the =istory of -deas F9nlineG A$ailable% htt.%<<ete/t.$irginia.edu<cgi*local<D=-<dhi.cgiHidId$'*(' ,llul, J. "?@)B#. The Technological Society, ;ew Jor+% andom =ouse 1iedion, S. "?@BD#. %echanization Ta)es Command# " Contri!ution to "nonymous History. ;ew Jor+% 9/ford Kni$ersity Press, ?@BD. =eilbroner, . "?@)&#. Do machines ma+e historyH Technology and Culture, D, A% AAC*AB Lling ., > Scacchi. :. "?@D'#. The web of com.uting% Com.uter Technology as Social 9rgani0ation, "d$ances in Computers, '?, '*D@ Lling. and -acono. S. "?@DB#. Com.uting as an 9ccasion for Social Control *ournal of Social Issues, B(, A, &&*@). 7acLen0ie, D., > :a2cman, J. ",ds.# "?@DC#. The Social Shaping of Technology# Ho+ the ,efrigerator got its Hum, 7ilton Leynes% 9.en Kni$ersity Press. 7cEuhan, 7. "?@)B#. -nderstanding %edia# The E'tensions of %an. ;ew Jor+% 7c1raw*=ill 7isa, T. J. "?@DD#. =ow machines ma+e history, and how historians "and others# hel. them to do so, Science, Technology, & Human Values, ?A', A*B% A(D*A?? ;oble, D. 3. "?@@(#. .orces of Production# " Social History of Industrial "utomation. ;ew Jor+% Lno.f 9rli+ows+i. :.J. "?@@'#. The Duality of Technology% rethin+ing the conce.t of technology in organi0ations. Organization Science. A, A, A@D*B'&. Smith, 7. ., > 7ar/, E. ",ds.# "?@@B#. Technology /ri$e History0 The /ilemma of Technological /eterminism. Cambridge, 7A% 7-T Press, ?@@B :a2cman, J. "?@@?#. .eminism Confronts Technology, Cambridge% Polity Press. :a2cman, J. "'((B#. Techno.eminism, Cambridge% Polity Press. :a2cman, J. "'(('#. Addressing technological change% The challenge to social theory, Current Sociology, C(, A% AB&*A)A :hite, Eynne Jr. "?@&D#. %edie$al Technology and Social Change, ;ew Jor+% 9/ford Kni$ersity Press :inner, E. "?@&&#. "utonomous Technology# Technics out1of1control as a theme in political thought, Cambridge% 7-T Press :oodward, J. "?@)C#. Industrial Organization# Theory and Practice, ;ew Jor+% 9/ford Kni$ Press