Social vs. Technological Determinism

It's no secret that our society, world, country, individual communities, and day-to-day interactions have all been transformed (not using that word lightly) by the introduction and influx of new media technologies. To be clear, when I say "new media technologies," I mean anything and everything related to the internet and the derivatives of such. This includes the internet itself, the personal computer, smartphones, and social media (facebook, twitter, blogging, etc.). New media technologies have only been around for a few decades (since the 1980's) yet have expanded and been adopted by society at an incredibly rapid rate. Without delving too deep into this rich history of the internet, I would instead like to explore two important stances that theorists take on modern new media technologies: the Technological Determinist Theory and the Social Determinist Theory.


First, let's explore the stance of technological determinism:

• "The medium is the message. ...It is the medium that shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action." Marshall McLuhan's famous phrase that sparked a discussion and debate over the effects of new media technologies. 
• States that technology is the driving force behind the change and development of our society, culture and social construction of reality. 
• the machine has the power

McLuhan's stance is really a good summation of the theory behind technological determinism. He makes analogies from history that show we are simply following a social trend with technology. For instance, he speaks about the lightbulb and states that doctors can perform open heart surgery because of the light it produces or it can prolong a baseball game through the dark hours of the night. These examples are the content of the lightbulb, according to McLuhan (Understanding Media, 24). Would these examples be possible without the lightbulb? If you want to get technical, yes, of course they would be, but it wouldn't be with the same ease and convenience as it is with the new technology of the lightbulb. However, according to McLuhan, the lightbulb will (and has) shape(ed) our society and transformed the way we do things and is the content itself.  


And here's the stance of social determinism:

• idea that social interactions and human behavior shape human actions and the power lies in the individual.
• the person has power over the machine
• we are the hands that control the computer and we are the intelligence behind the creation of machine. 
• the human race is given more credit and autonomy 

What I find to be most baffling in the debate over technological vs social determinism is this lacking of the acknowledging who created the technology or the machine. These are all man-made, human constructs that we choose to use, choose to not use, and choose how to use. Perhaps, yes, in today's age it would be difficult to "choose" not to use a computer or pay for the an internet subscription. However, what we do with it, I strongly believe, is birthed from our own inhibition and our prerogative. Why give so much credit to the machine? We are not slaves to the machine nor are we creating machines with that goal in mind. While there are GUI (Graphical User Interface) for most machines (computers, phones, and other electronic devices), which may inhibit the full potential of that device and lead us through the functionality by way of a map, we are still given options. If you're a writer, you can write a romance or a thriller in Word, if you're a web designer you can design a website for an Adult film production company or a GreenPeace organization -- there is no limit to what you can do with a computer or internet connection and to argue that the fashion that we do it in (sitting down at a computer and being connected to the internet) somehow makes us determinant on technology is hypocritical and outrageous.

To play devil's advocate, what should we do then, to alleviate this so-called technological determinism? Should we eradicate all of new media, text messages, the printing press, the locomotive train, and modern language? Should we go back to the time of primal human existence and live in simpler times when we didn't have these technological distractions? Why are we picking on the success, developments, and ingenuity of man and woman? Why are we obsessing over the negative things that people do with technology and criticizing the good by saying we are too technologically determinant. Though I am a liberal and a self-proclaimed new media "enthusiast," I don't see a problem with adapting to our modern times that are spewing out new media innovations.

In a recent study, out of the list of the top 10 highest paying jobs, 4 of the 10 were explicitly related to internet and new media technologies (#6 being Internet Marketing). This is indicative of the reality of our times and to ignore that or try and argue that this is somehow bad is ignorant and will leave you left behind and self-censored. While this reality is not the case for some developing countries around the world, it is for majority of modern nations and what we are accomplishing with these technologies is fascinating and unparalleled with anything we have ever seen in history. 

Going back to McLuhan's example, the lightbulb only knows one job, to provide light. Yet according to McLuhan and the technological determinist theory, the lightbulb is not given the credit it deserves. Yes, the lightbulb has changed the way we do things and also the way we think, but is the lightbulb itself one to take on that blame or credit? Does the lightbulb really have the power over human intuition and intelligence to change us? Or does it only know "on" or "off?" The lightbulb is a catalyst for human innovation and success. The lightbulb, like the printing press, the personal computer, the cell-phone and the tablet computer, enable us to be more worldly, mobile, and aware. We can use these technologies however we want, for whatever we want (if at all), because we are the creators, the exhibitors, and ultimately the ones to then criticize and question our uses -- and that's how it should be. There is no winner or looser in this debate because it is not a debate. We are an ever-advancing world with an evolving technological intelligence and things are not going to get less advanced nor will they take a step back. And why should they? 


We are dependent on technology because technology makes us greater and provides us with countless opportunity. Just as were dependent on transportation, just as we were dependent on fire, and for that case, just as we are dependent on oxygen to breathe. We can depend on modern technologies, because they make our lives easier, and still lead an autonomous, self-fulfilling life.

Just for fun:

Take a look at this visualization of what the internet looks like (connected IP [Internet Protocol] addresses) -- it truly gives you an idea of the complexity and vast nature of this supreme intelligence.