Technology as Social Process

7/31/2019 Technology as Social Process

1/60

DEFINING TECHNOLOGY AS A SOCIAL PROCESS: INFORMATIONCOMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES AND GOVERANCE

Name: Brian LakeStudent #: 100045086

Prof: Dr. C. Alexander

POLS 4913 X2 Special Topics

*Note: A copy of this paper is also available on the Internet:

http://www.brianlake.ca/academic/


2/60

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................3

CHAPTER ONE: WHAT IS TECHNOLOGY? ..............................................................6

Defining technology ............................................................................................................ 6

The Ontological Dimension of Technology: How we Relate to Technology ................. 9

Three Philosophies of Technology ................................................................................ 12Instrumentalism........................................................................................................... 13

Social Determinism ..................................................................................................... 14

Technological Determinism ....................................................................................... 16The Social Process of Technology: The Impact on Society....................................... 20Complications of Technology......................................................................................... 24

CHAPTER TWO: THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT: TECHNOLOGY AND

GOVERANCE .....................................................................................................................27

Technology and Democracy ........................................................................................... 29

The Social Management of Technology ....................................................................... 30

Technopoly and Technocracy ........................................................................................ 31

Appropriate Technology ................................................................................................... 36

CHAPTER THREE: TECHNOLOGIES OF INFORMATION

COMMUNICATION .......................................................................................................... 40

Information and Communication ................................................................................. 41Technologies of Information Communication and Government Policy ................. 43

The Global Information Infrastructure (GII)............................................................. 45

The European Union and the Global Information Society ....................................... 46

The GII Vision.................................................................................................................. 54

CHAPTER FOUR: CONCLUSIONS ..............................................................................56

BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................................ 58


3/60

3

INTRODUCTION

Darin Barney argues that, it is impossible to speak thoughtfully about

telecommunications networks as technologies without first establishing what a

technology is, and what a technology does. 1 The word technology is a common one

with a long history of use. The etymology of the word gives us an idea as to its root

meaning, although not a definitive one. Our perception of technology is often associated

more with mechanical objects than with the functions they carry out. Computers,

automobiles and mobile phones are common examples of technology. When considering

these questions, there arises a question as to what technology is. Does technology

describe an object? Or can it be something more than an implement? The way a tool

changes our perceptions of our environment can also be described as technological.

Determining what technology is has been the subject of much thoughtful

investigation. Although there is little commonality of opinion, many viewpoints do

provide support for the initial premise of this work. Technology is not just a reference to

objects. It is more than a noun designating a thing. It is also a verb denoting action.

Technology entails a complex linkage of social processes, communications networks and

institutions, along with natural processes and technical facilities. Technology is a blend of

science and human values. As Ursula Franklin states, Technology has built the house in

1 Barney, Darin. Prometheus Wired (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.) p. 27.


4/60

4

which we all live.2 What Franklin means by this is that technology has provided the

objects around which we order our lives. Those objects also change our perceptions.

Technology is a system that is far more than the sum of its parts. Much like democracy,

technology changes the social relationships between us and has forced us to redefine our

notions of power. As a result, technology is not only a social process, but a political one.

In arguing for the status of technology as a political and social process, certain

aspects of technology must be addressed. Technology must first be defined, and the role

it plays as a social process examined. If technology is more than an object, the manner in

which it influences society must be determined. Addressing not only if technology is

political, but why it is so is an important starting point.

Secondly, how technology is put to use must be examined. Determining how

government plays a role in the use of technology is an important consideration. The tools

for the social management of technology must also be examined. Once we have

addressed how technology is used, we must ask ourselves how it oughtto be used. This

enters the realm of the appropriate technology (AT) movement. Edward Wenk provides

some of the paradoxes of the introduction of technology. He encourages the reader to

view the effects laterally, instead of simply asking what the future effects of a technology

might be. With an understanding of technology as a social process, we can see how

government makes policy towards technology, while as a consequence, making social

policy.

Finally, given the premise that technology is a social and political process, and

with an understanding of how government reacts toward technology, we can narrow our

2 Franklin, Ursula. The Real World of Technology The Massey Lectures: Audio (Ottawa: Canadian

Broadcasting Corporation, 1989.) http://www.masseylectures.cbc.ca/M_Audio.html#franklin.


5/60

5

focus. Technology is understood here in the context of technologies of information

communication. It is the technologies of communication that have the greatest impact on

the social and political world. Once we have examined technology as both a clearly

understood word and a process, we can better understand government efforts to create

policy for information technologies. Determining how Information Communication

Technologies influence the development of government policy is better understood once

we understand what the process of technology is.


6/60

6

CHAPTER ONE: WHAT IS TECHNOLOGY?

Defining technology

A discussion of any sort of technology and politics must begin with a

consideration of technology itself. The word technology is a pervasive one in our society.

Its use promotes an instant mental image of computers, mobile phones, transportation,

and almost any aspect of modern life. These cultural references do little to help us

understand what technology is. They simply identify some examples of technological

objects. It says nothing about what it means to use them.

Darin Barney acknowledges that one cannot talk about technology without

understanding what it is and what it does. He notes that much has been written about the

wide range of gadgetry that has been introduced in these last few decades. Very little of it

has addressed what he sees as the "essence of technology."3 Technology has not suffered

from a lack of attention, but from a lack of understanding.

Barney begins his analysis by researching the roots of the word technology itself.

"Technology" combines the ancient Greek words techne and logos. Techne refers to the

"useful arts". This is a reference to the professions and fields that produce the implements

that we see as technological.Logos is the reasoned discourse that accompanies techne.

There are two purposes in making this distinction. Not only does it indicate the exact

practices designated by each word, but the correct relationship between them.

3 Barney, Darin. Prometheus Wired. p. 27.


7/60

7

Aristotle specifies the details oftechne in the context of a good ethical and

political life. He argues techne is involved in the transformation of objects from a state

other than their natural one. There are two types oftechne: things made and things

done.4 The artificial nature of technology is reinforced by this distinction. The intent is

to single out techne as something that transforms nature into something it could not make

on its own. The definitive feature oftechne for Aristotle is that it is truly rational in its

productive capacity. If it is not, it should be designated as something else.

Importantly, Aristotle does not designate techne as something neutral. Technical

practices are not neutral, because the ends they serve are not neutral. Techne is thus not

exempt from political judgement. As Barney argues, contemporary critics of technology

have taken for granted the political and social impact of technology. It is on this basis that

they argue it should be subject to political and ethical deliberation.5 The characterization

of technology as something that is always instrumental and not neutral provides a strong

basis for critical thought about technology.6

Logos appeals to the idea of critical thought about technology.Logos is the Greek

for speech, word or reason. It derives from legein, which means to gather, collect, pick up

or to say. It often means verbal account but here it can mean argument or reasoning.7

Speech for the Greeks was a gathering or collection of ideas, where the many were

collected and unified into one.Logos then is a manner of reasoned speaking. This

4 Barney, Darin. Prometheus Wired. pp. 28-30.5 Barney, Darin. Prometheus Wired. p. 34.6Ibid.7 Wardy, Robert. The Birth of Rhetoric: Gorgias, Plato and their Successors (London : Routledge, 1996)


8/60

8

discourse for the Greeks concentrated on the knowledge of the human condition and the

establishment of a good and just life in a human community.8

The balance between techne and logos is one between the artificial and the

natural. Objects not from nature are constructed and a reasoned discourse must be

undertaken as to their use. This distinction is the reason that Darin Barney explores the

root of the word technology and why it is important here. As he puts it,

Etymology itself suggests that technology itself is a useful art that not only

produces some sort of material object, but also entails some sort of speakingor gathering about what we consider to be important to the human condition.

Along with making things, technology stands for something about what we

are, or wish to be, and about the manner in which we live together.

9

It is this penetration of technology to the very definition and expression of the human

condition that is the basis for much philosophical thought about technology. On an

epistemological level, the growth of technology into a process of society has led to a

broader conceptualization and definition of technology.10 Technology is more than the

tools, machines and other implements of society. It is the rational organization of social

behaviour to achieve a given goal.

When thinking about technology, its different usages should be considered.

Technology can refer to a wide variety of things. It can be a body of technical knowledge,

rules, and concepts. It can refer to the practice of technological professions such as the

sciences, which includes attitudes, norms, and assumptions about its application. It can

refer to the physical tools resulting from the practice of technological professions. It can

refer to the organization of the above into large scale social systems of medical, military,

8 Barney, Darin. Prometheus Wired. p. 28.9 Barney, Darin. Prometheus Wired. p. 28.10 Fig, Norman, J. Technology, Philosophy and the State: An Overview Technology and Politics

(Durham: Duke University Press, 1998.) p. 10.


9/60

9

transportation and other such institutions. Finally, technology can refer to the quality of

life that results from the introduction of these technologies, or the character of social life

that results from technological activity.11

Discussions of technology are often confused because the participants are unclear

as to the context it is used in. Critics of technology are often more concerned with the

attitude of technology experts or the behaviour of insititutions that use technology than

they are about the technological knowledge or the artefacts of technology. Yet this

distinction is rarely made. To oppose one approach of technology is seen as opposing

them all. Conversely, many proponents of engineering solutions to problems may be

critical of the way technological knowledge is implemented. They take issue with the

quality of life that results from the improper application of technology. Acknowledging

the different perspectives from which issues of technology can be approached provides an

understanding of the linguistic diversity of technology.

The Ontological Dimension of Technology: How we Relate to Technology

The problem of identifying that which is technological is not one that can be

understood through an analysis of semantics alone. Understanding the linguistic basis of

technology can provide guidance, but the ontological dimension of technology remains.

How does technology change the essence of what it is to be human? As Darin Barney

argues, technology says something about what we are, or wish to be, and how we live

together. Our relationship to technology is a complicated one. As we develop new

technologies, they have the effect of altering our perceptions of the world around us. The

airplane has changed our perspective on travel dramatically. The process of travel has

11Ibid.


10/60

10

become something faster and simpler than a hundred years ago. Our conception of travel

has thus changed as well. Martin Heidegger, a German philosopher, held that technology

had a way of unconcealing truths about nature. He also held that the cognitive framework

underlying the aggressive development of technology concealed other ways of

understanding human experience.12

Langdon Winner makes a case that we lack our bearings in dealing with things

technological. He argues that many of our conceptions of technology reveal a

disorientation that borders on dissociation from reality.13 Winner illustrates the

difference between the use of the word technology in the eighteenth and nineteenth

centuries and his perspective on its use in the twentieth century. As understood by

Winner, technology in the past spoke directly about tools, machines, factories and

industry. It did not consider technology as a social phenomenon unto itself. 14 The idea of

technology as something that had a social impact was not widespread. The tools were

simply seen as reducing the complexity of a given task

The social interpretation of the word itself changed in the twentieth century. What

sufficed in the past to describe a limited assortment of tools and industries has now

exploded into an incredibly diverse collection of meanings. There exist tools,

instruments, machines, organizations, methods, techniques, systems and what Winner

describes as the totatility of these and other things in our experience. 15 Winner in effect

is arguing that human character has been altered through interaction with technology. The

tool-like qualities of technology have been shed to become part of our humanity.

12Ibid. p. 1113 Winner, Langdon.Autonomous Technology: Technics-out-of-Control as a theme in Political Thought.

(Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1978). P. 8.14Ibid.15Ibid.


11/60

11

The idea of what constitutes technology has become more and more inclusive.

The shift has been towards a definition that is vague, expansive and in the opinion of

Winner, highly significant. Winner prefers the definition of technology adopted earlier by

Jacques Ellul (Ellul refers to it as la technique). Technology is acknowledged as having

begun with the machine, but has left the physical behind. For Ellul, technology is the

ability of people to manipulate the tools available to them for the betterment of those they

serve. As Ellul states, Wherever there is research and application of new means as a

criterion of efficiency, one can say there is a technology.16 Technology is not an object

in this case, but an ability.

Ellul provides an example in the integration of the technology of machinery into

nineteenth century society. The needs of the machines were gradually balanced against

the needs of the populace. Technology for Ellul is the ability to inventory the needs of the

machine and bring it into line with the population. As Ellul states, The machine could

not integrate itself into nineteenth century society, technique integrated it.17 The

automobile serves as an example. The needs of the automobile include roads, service

stations and maintenance facilities. This is balanced against the needs of the population,

including instruction in the use of the automobile, regulations as to it use, and giving

pedestrians the right of way in designated areas. The requirement of the technology of

automobiles is balanced against the needs of the population. This consideration of the

balance between the objects of technology and their use is now new. It instead marks a

shift towards the old root components of the word, in which the object and its use are

given equal weight.

16 Ellul, Jacques, The Technological System (New York: Continuum Publishing Cooperation, 1980.) p. 26.17 Ellul, Jacques, The Technological Society. (New York: Vintage Books, 1964). p. 5


12/60

12

Ellul further reinforces the idea of technology as something more than the sum of

its parts. Technology is not something as simple as a communications network or a

computing device. The conception of technology in popular culture implies that it must

have a physical presence. Technology as understood by Winner and Ellul is more of an

social instrument than a physical object. Heidegger, Winner and Ellul argue that the idea

of technology has altered how we think about new technologies. We interpret new

technologies in the context of the old. One does not consider a new mode of

transportation without relating it to previous modes. Such thinking can be described as a

philosophy of technology. Norman Vig identifies three philosophies of technology,

which determine the nature of the ethical questions posed by technology.18 How one

views the ethical questions of technology depends on how one interprets technology

itself.

Three Philosophies of Technology

Norman Vig states, The nature of the ethical questions posed by technology

depends on ones conception of how technology relates to human purpose. At this point

we can reasonably assume that there exists a relationship between technology and

society. Philosophies of technology attempt to interpret the nature of the relationship

between technology and society. Or to put it more directly what kindof relationship is

it?

18 Vig refers to them as three views of technology, but the context is the same. He discusses them within

the categories of technology, philosophy and the state See:

Vig, Norman J. Technology, Philosophy and the State Technology and Politics (London: Duke

University Press, 1988.) pp. 12-19.


13/60

13

Vig identifies three philosophies of technology. Instrumentalist, social

determinist, and technological determinism are presented with their respective strengths

and weaknesses.

Instrumentalism

Instrumentalism holds that a technology is simply an instrument a means to an

end. A technology is created to achieve a given purpose or meet a human need.

Technology in this interpretation is synonymous with human progress. Technology

creates a new series of choices for human action, but it leaves their disposition uncertain.

What the technology does is dependent on what society does with the technology. It is the

people who create technology that make it a force for benign or malicious ends. The

technology itself is morally neutral.

The questions which arise from an instrumentalist approach are somewhat limited

in scope. The questions asked are; whether the original purpose is socially acceptable;

whether the design is technically feasible; and whether it is used for the intended

purpose.19 The utility of the technology, not the societal consequences of its introduction

is the priority. The effect is often to divorce technology from its social consequences.20

Dealing with negative social consequences of technology, such as pollution,

requires the addition of more technology. Rather than attempting societal reform to

address a social ill, a quick fix through new technology is perceived as the answer.

Nuclear weapons in the instrumentalist perspective are no different than weapons of the

19Ibid. p. 13.20Ibid.


14/60

14

past. The weapons can have no effect by themselves. It is the people who control them

who determine how they will be used. It is the instrumentalist approach to technology

that has made popular such slogans as, guns dont kill people, people kill people. That

people kill people with guns is irrelevant to the instrumentalist only the intent of the

user matters. The technology is benign. From the instrumentalist perspective, technology

thus presents no ethical dilemma.

As Vig argues, this position is a difficult one to defend. It assumes that all the

potential purposes of a technology are known. In reality, it is impossible to see more than

a narrow range of consequences. The cumulative process of innovation often has little to

do with the original intent. The long periods over which new technologies disperse

throughout society make the level of social and cultural disruption unknown. The

introduction of television in the 1950s did not have an immediate impact. But in the past

fifty years, it would be hard to argue that it had no effect on society, or that the effect

could have been foreseen by its creators. Refuting the claim of technological neutrality,

Vig makes the point, it is ingenious to claim that technology is neutral if it vastly

increases the power of those who control it, allows one group to dominate others, or

consistently produces changes that are opposed by substantial segments of the

population.21 The difficulty with instrumentalism lies in determining the motives of

those who use the technology. The ethical implications of the technology itself are not

considered.

Social Determinism

21Ibid. p. 14


15/60

15

Social determinism holds that technology is not an instrument for problem

solving, but a reflection of societal values. This includes social, political, and cultural

values. Technology is understood in terms of its particular social context. John Goyder

expands on the idea of technology as culture. He argues that technology is something that

is used with deliberation, for a purpose.22 These purposes are cultural and based on

knowledge. The knowledge is passed on through generations. As he admits, this is a very

abstract definition of technology. It makes no mention of hardware, machines or the

material realm in general. Instead it simply defines a process by which goals are

accomplished.

Goyder sets materials, power, and knowledge as three dimensions of

technology.23 A knowledge-base as described by Goyder is analogous to the concept of

technical skills and procedures promoted by Winner. These knowledge bases as

Goyder describes them are almost always embedded in broader bodies of thought. A

knowledge base is described as a crucial link between technology and society. It can be

described as the supporting process behind the creation of the mechanical aspects of

technology; the support, organization and co-ordination of efforts.

Much like the concept of technique advanced by Ellul, there exists an advantage

to this definition of technology. The benefit of this abstract definition of technology lies

in the ability to think of technology as a generic phenomenon related to all other facets of

society. It is valuable in tracing the origins of particular inventions and in explaining why

variations in technological innovations can occur across cultures.

22 Goyder, John, Technology + Society: A Canadian Perspective. (Peterborough: Broadview Press, 1997).

pp. 8-10.23 Goyder, John, Technology. p. 12.


16/60

16

The difficulty with this philosophy of technology is that it tells us little about

technology as modern social phenomena. It reduces technology to another form of

cultural expression alongside the arts, literature and music. Any ethical difficulties with

the introduction of technologies are thus seen as a cultural problem. The technology itself

is not considered, nor is the idea that technology can influence culture.

The idea of technology faces further problems when one considers how

technology has become multinational. Cultural transfer of technology is now

commonplace. The computer on which I type this paper is comprised of components

from Germany, Malaysia, and the United States. Discussing the creation of these

technologies in a Canadian cultural context would seem fruitless.24 Technology appears

to be an increasingly universalistic phenomenon. While the use of technology may be

considered as a cultural idea, it is increasingly difficult to consider the creation of

technology in this light. The third philosophy of technology discussed here establishes a

viewpoint that technology is more of a force of its own.

Technological Determinism

Norman Vig establishes the concept of technological determinism as one in which

technology is its own governing force.25 Technology follows its own logic and shapes

human development more than it serves human ends. This philosophy of technology is

advanced by Jacques Ellul and Langdon Winner. The basic premise put forth is that

humanity has lost control over technology. Technology asserts certain values; the will to

24 Vig, Norman J. Technology and Politics p. 16.25Ibid.


17/60

17

power; the goal of greater efficiency; and the gain of profit. Such values are said to take

precedence over other human needs, both social and environmental.

Langdon Winner allows for a soft determinism a modified view of the earlier

theories advanced by Ellul. He refers to the general unwillingness to examine the impact

of technology on society as technological somnambulism.26 This technological

sleepwalking is based in conventional views that the human relationship to

technological things is too obvious to warrant any serious attention. Despite

environmental and social ills that often stem from technological development, the faith

that more technological development will lead to greater well-being is largely

undamaged. The distinction between the creation and the use of technology is also

important to Winner. It allows for the interpretation of technology in a moral context.

How technological things are made remains the domain of a small clique of

professionals. How technological things are used becomes something that can be

assigned a moral context. A tool can be used well or poorly. It can be used to accomplish

socially acceptable or unacceptable ends. This is what Winner tries to make clear in his

description of technological sleepwalking.

This approach represents a departure from Elluls technological determinism.

Technological determinism implies that there is a complete inability to make

technological decisions at the societal level. This is obviously not the case, as people can

decide how to use a technology. The nuclear bomb after all has not been used since

1945.27 Technologies vary in their impacts not every technology has the potential to

steer society out of control. Technologies do not embrace a single set of values.

26 Winner, Langdon, The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology

(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986.) p. 5.27 Vig, Norman J. Technology and Politics p. 17.


18/60

18

Computer encryption used to protect personal banking can also be used to allow secure

communications between terrorists. The moral consequences of technology are relative in

a social context.

The many uses of technology lend the appearance of the technology being neutral.

It is seen as having no effect on society only how society uses it matters. This

conception of technology must be avoided. It remains important to attempt to understand

how technology provides structure for human activity.28 Technology does not merely aid

human activity, but is a powerful force that reshapes that activity and its meaning. For

example, when a new medical technology is introduced it transforms not only what

doctors do, but also how people think about health care and medical practice. The

introduction of non-invasive medical procedures such as endoscopies change the

association of surgery from a painful procedure accompanied by a lengthy hospital stay

to a more benign experience. The most significant point made by Winner in his

description of technological somnambulism is that in hindsight, individual habits,

perceptions, concepts of self, ideas of space and time, social relationships, and moral and

political boundaries have all been powerfully changed in the face of modern

technological development. But little discussion of what those changes mean has taken

place. Winner describes this as a process of entering a series of social contracts, which

are read only after the signing.29

The idea of technological somnambulism should not be confused with

technological determinism. The two are very different in the levels of choice they offer.

Technological somnambulism, or sleepwalking, implies that although choices exist in the

28Ibid. p. 6.29Ibidp. 10.


19/60

19

application of technology, there is little popular will to direct the pace of technology.

Technological determinism is more rigid. This philosophy of technology makes the case

that human beings have little choice but to watch the changes brought by technology

unfold.

The ethical risks of technological determinism are complex. Technology threatens

to render humanity subservient to its whim, creating unknown social and environmental

outcomes. Social science thus attempts to engage in technology assessment. It asks what

the consequences of the introduction of a technology will be, but assumes that the impact

will happen in any case. Winner views this mission of impact assessment as being an

impotent one. As new technologies are developed, new human institutions and

behaviours are built around them. It is not a secondary effect of the introduction of

technology. As Winner argues, The construction of a technical system that involves

human beings as operating parts brings a reconstruction of roles and relationships.30

Theorists such as Darin Barney, Langdon Winner and David Goyder share a

common theme in their perceptions of technology. Technology is more than a tool. When

discussed in the context of its interaction with society, technology says something about

the society in which we live and how we define that culture. Technology is not

necessarily an instrument of social change in and of itself, as Winner argues. It does

however possess the ability to act as such an instrument. As Darin Barney argues, in so

far as it combines productive activity with the gathering of significance, technology -

particularly communications technology - says something about what human beings are;

what they wish to be; and how they live, or mightlive, together.31 Technology speaks

30Ibid.31 Barney, Darin. Prometheus Wired p. 54.


20/60

20

about what we consider important to the human condition. A personal computer is a piece

of technology. Using that computer to write a book, fight a war, or vote in an election

says something about who and what we are. Technology in this sense implies usage,

either to enable social change, or to attempt to prevent it.

Edward Wenk argues that governments seem to neglect the social impact the

delivery of technology can bring. He argues that there is little reason people cannot

influence the outcomes of technological choice. People in democratic societies have

influenced policy in dealing with social equity, justice and environmental issues. If

technology is a social phenomenon, it should be equally susceptible to social pressure.

32

How technology is related to society is an significant starting point. Determining

the nature of social participation in technology is an essential next step. We have an

overview of the possible philosophies or views of technology that are used to explain our

interaction with it. What then is the impact of technology on us? How does it impact us as

a society?

The Social Process of Technology: The Impact on Society

There are two fundamental misconceptions about technology. First, people tend to

think of technology as hardware. Technological devices that we interact with physically

such as mobile phones, televisions, cameras, and refrigerators define our experience of

technology. What we forget is that people and their institutions must furnish instructions

as to their use. This is consistent with the perspective on technology presented thus far.

32 Wenk, Edward Jr. Tradeoffs: Imperatives of Choice in a high-tech world. (Baltimore: The John Hopkins

University Press, 1986.) p. 2.


21/60

21

Technology is a process of generating and exploiting knowledge so deeply engraved into

our society that all its citizens are profoundly affected.33

The second misconception is pointed out by Edward Wenk. It arises because we

forget that everyone is directly involved in technology. The engineer, the mechanic and

the scientist are obvious examples of those who influence technology. All have a direct

impact on the development of technology. But a great deal of influence lies in the hands

of the bankers who finance construction projects, and policy makers who allocate

resources and set standards for water quality, weapons systems, or mass transit. The

impact of citizens is felt as well in four different ways. They can be felt as consumers of

technological products, as voters who determine the election of parties with a policy

platform, as investors in technological enterprises, or as the victims of technological

impacts on the environment.

The full impact of technology in human affairs becomes apparent when we

consider technology as a social process. Technology has altered risks to individuals and

society as a whole. Technology has lengthened life spans and reduced infant mortality

rates, but it has also introduced risks through pollution and overpopulation. It has allowed

instant communication and swift transportation, bringing cultures into closer contact.

This contact often leads to conflict both ideologically and physically. Some cultures

thrive on technology, while others struggle to cope with it.

On the institutional scale, technology acts as a mobilizing agent to concentrate

wealth and power. In doing this, it plays a political role in every society. Technology can

induce change in a society. The internet has been used to encourage the free flow of

information. But technology can also be used to maintain the status quo. Electronic

33Ibid. p. 11.


22/60

22

surveillance can be used to suppress political dissent. Technology has a tendency to

discriminate against the unrepresented and the disadvantaged, and to support the elitist

establishment.34 This is a common feature across all societies, whether they are

developed or developing, capitalist or socialist. Because of the choices involved

regarding beneficiaries, technology has become more political. A great deal of wealth and

power may well be concentrated in the hands of an individual responsible for the

distribution of a technology. As an example, a corporation controlling the software

running on all the computers in the world has tremendous leverage in influencing what

information people can access, and how they perceive that technology. Whoever controls

the development of such software has a great deal of power. Technology thus becomes

political. At the same time the use of the internet, electronic voting lists and TV

campaigning has had the opposite affect making politics more technological. As Wenk

concludes, it is the impacts of technology that cannot be neutral. 35

Decisions on technology are not exclusively the domain of the marketplace and

inventors. Supplying the resources through which technologies are developed and used,

regulating their use, and encouraging an atmosphere for development is a matter of public

policy. Public policy is a political affair, decided by the public officials we elect.

Scientists and engineers do not decide on the expenditures to be invested in

communications, or which weapons to develop these are political decisions.

Technology is inextricably bound to public policy. It cannot be considered in isolation, as

it cannot exist without the resources allocated to its development and maintenance.

34Ibidp. 12.35Ibid.


23/60

23

These characteristic linkages within a society are broadly applied. They can

encompass almost every technology. It provides an indication of the impact of

technology on our society, and the level to which technology has integrated itself into its

fabric. The social process of technology has become indistinguishable from society itself.

This presence of technology in society is likely to increase rather than decrease.

Communications networks, social flows and a mix of human values must enter the mix

that is the development of technologies. Creating the next microchip is not simply a

matter of scientific endeavour. Funds must be allocated through the raising of capital,

regulatory approval for public distribution must be obtained, experts must communicate

and pool their knowledge, and the end product must be accepted by the public.

Technology is a noun as well as a verb. To speak of technology denotes action as

well as description. It is a typical thing in our society to do technology. It is a part of

social, political and cultural life. The absence of technology is the exception rather than

the rule. To gain a better understanding of the social impact of technology, Wenk

proposes the idea of technology as an amplifier. Technology amplifies many aspects of

human behaviour. Through computers, we amplify our minds and memories. Through the

lever, the wheel and the bomb, we amplify our muscle.

Technologies allow us to see things otherwise invisible, to hear things otherwise

inaudible and to measure things otherwise undetectable.36 These are the more obvious

amplifiers of technology. The social amplifiers of technology are less apparent.

Technology can facilitate or threaten freedom. It promotes the economic machine yet

creates disparities between those who have technology and those who do not. It expands

the volume and complexity of networks of communication and expands human contact,

36Ibid. p. 1


24/60

24

yet increases the possibility of conflict. Technology increases the options available to

decision makers, but at the same time increases both the risk and the cost of error.

Two intertwined principles are worth remembering. Technology has a powerful

influence on culture. But the reverse is also important. Our culture has a powerful effect

on technology. We define the social purposes to which it is directed, by determining the

beneficiaries; by adopting tradeoffs; by determining the ethical course of action. A patent

awarded exclusively for a drug can have a profound societal effect, in limiting its

availability to those with the means to pay.37 Limiting environmental impacts through

international treaties is another salient example of society both influencing technology

and being influenced by technology.

As Wenk puts it, "the technologically laden future isn't what it used to be. But

human nature is" Human nature has been amplified by technology much in the same way

as technology has magnified the social impacts. Technology has made the impact of both

the positive potential of humanity and the negative impact more pronounced.

Complications of Technology

Technology as a social process has engrained itself into our lives. Accepting the

definition of technology promoted here, there are few areas where the influence of

technology is not felt. This does not imply that technology has not become a social

process without creating contradictions. Part of understanding that technology is a social

37Ibid. pp. 12-13.


25/60

25

and political process lies not only in understanding how it can solve problems, but how it

can create new ones.

Wenk describes what he calls the "paradoxes of paradise." He refers to the

problems of technological achievement outdistancing the political. The first of these

paradoxes is that we have more knowledge, but less understanding. The rise of scientific

endeavour has created a wealth of material. The zeal to apply new knowledge drives on

research into new areas of development, which we see in the development of new patents

and products. As science has developed however, it has become more

compartmentalized. Those which specialized knowledge are unable to communicate it to

the public because of its complexity and narrow focus.38 Few people have a sufficient

understanding of quantum physics, for instance, to facilitate access to it. As Wenk argues,

few technical personnel have a sufficient understanding of society to communicate their

knowledge in a meaningful way. This leads to the first paradox of technology and

society. Although we take pride in our achievements and utilize them on a regular basis,

our growing base of knowledge does not lead to understanding. The knowledge base of

technology is so large that the ability of any one person to understand it completely is

highly unlikely. As the collected knowledge available to us grows, our understanding of

the technology seems smaller in comparison.

A second paradox of technology lies in its intent to reduce risk. Technological

developments have reduced the risk of infant mortality for instance. But their

unintentional by products also threaten the environment in which we live. The same

technology that develops a new mode of transportation might also cause adverse affects

to those who use it. As the technical complexity of technology has risen, so has the social

38 Vig, Norman J. Technology and Politics p. 19.


26/60

26

complexity. The difficulty in applying coherent public policy to increasingly complex

technologies has created this second paradox. The possibility that a technology might be

improperly regulated presents the possibility of risk. Lacking a sufficient understanding

of the effects of a technology makes it difficult to determine if and how it should be used.

Decision making becomes more stressful as technology becomes part of society.

Wenk proposes that another paradox exists in the rise of technologies of

communication. Although our technological capability for communication has increased,

our sense of community has not. Differing ideological viewpoints continually clash.

Wenk also argues that the development of electronic communication has led to a decline

in actual human to human communication.39 While debatable, this illustrates the double

edged sword that is technological achievement.

Technology is both a social and a political process. It has integrated itself into our

society into almost every aspect of life. The regulation and development of technology is

determined by political actors. The impacts of technology are felt throughout society -

few are unaffected in some way. The social process of technology is a double edged

sword. Once we understand what technology is, we understand that the social steering of

its development is not an easy task. The integration of technology into culture has created

problems as well as solved them. How governments deal with technology is an important

consideration. How governments oughtto deal with technology must also be addressed at

a later point. Harnessing the potential of technology is an important task. It remains in the

hands of policy makers, as they have become the silent partners of technological

development.

39 Wenk, Edward Jr. Tradeoffs: p. 19.


27/60

27

CHAPTER TWO: THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT: TECHNOLOGY AND

GOVERANCE

The idea that technological development is an exclusive affair of the private

sector is a misconception. Technological developments are not developed in isolation,

nor do they end up the hands of consumers directly. One of the more relevant points in a

discussion of technology as a social phenomenon is that technology is subject to

governmental regulation. New cars do not enter the market without meeting

governmental pollution guidelines. Mobile phones are subject to strict regulations -

certain frequencies are designated for use, which can impact the type of technology

developed. Technology as a result is inextricably linked to the political.

There are five different areas in which the influence of government is felt. First,

land grants and tax incentives are common government tools. Import quotas and tariffs

are also tools used frequently to stifle the import of foreign technology, while tax

incentives are offered to native corporations. Second, government offers funding to the

technology sector both directly and indirectly. Indirect funding is offered through

subsidized university educations, and research funding granted to public institutions.


28/60

28

Other programs funded by governments include space exploration, national banks, and

other such institutions that encourage technological development.

Third, governments possess influence in the the financial market. The markets in

which private corporations develop technologies are regulated by national governments.

Fourth, governments intervene through the regulatory process when the private sector

introduces or utilizes technology in a manner that may run contrary to the public interest.

The development of anti-trust law is an example of government involvement in this

circumstance. Fifth, government is a major consumer of technology. The knowledge base

required to run a national government is significant, and new technologies are often

introduced into governments, later spreading to the general population.

These are the more common examples of government influence in technological

development. Having established a definition of technology and explored some of its

interpretations in chapter one, we can begin to relate it to other functions of society.

Perhaps the strongest association is between technology and governance. The ethical,

practical and functional implications of technology affect the manner in which

governments go about their business. A government cannot exclude itself from the effects

of technology on society. As the mechanism which regulates society, government also

regulates technology, both as a political and social process.

Of most interest in this instance is how government reacts to technologies of

information communication. Before pursuing this, an examination of the general

relationship between government and technology is crucial. With few exceptions,

governments that deal with technologies of information communication are democratic.

The relationship between democracy and technology is an important starting point,


29/60

29

followed by the role of governments in dealing with technology, and the possible risks.

Understanding how governments have traditionally reacted to technology is an important

factor. It allows us to establish a precedent for a more focused examination of

governments reaction to information communications technologies, based on precedent.

Technology and Democracy

What is the relationship between technology and democracy? Traditionally,

technology has been perceived as a force which liberates people from menial tasks and

frees people from submission and poverty, as a result establishing the conditions for

democratic states.40 Technology is often praised for its egalitarian effects. It is credited

with bringing information to the masses and facilitating freedom, equality and

participation in the democratic process. Technology is also vulnerable to criticisms on

this front. The internet may provide equal access to information in industrialised nations,

but it provides no such advantage to those without access. Governments can also use

surveillance technology to access personal information or suppress dissent. Technology

can impact social equality in different ways. Technology has reduced overall levels of

inequality in the past hundred years. It has also produced multinational corporations with

enormous political and economic power. That technology has had an impact on the

function of governance would be difficult to refute. The extent of that impact is open to

debate.

40 Vig, Norman J. Technology and Politics p. 19.


30/60

30

Of interest is the impact technology has had on participatory democracy.

Information technology is often sold as the means to enable a direct democracy

between the citizen and the elected official. Modern communications mediums have

brought the citizen closer to the political process through simple exposure. On the other

hand, communications mediums such as television are often used by authoritarian and

totalitarian regimes to undermine democracy. Such use of propaganda is common.

Through the communications medium provided by the internet, the context has

changed. Information exchange is now a two way process. The user has the ability to

selectively interpret information with more latitude than changing a channel. There also

exists the ability to reciprocate, allowing for discussion and sharing of opinions. The

consequences arising from these technologies of information communication and how

they specifically have impacted society are addressed in the next chapter. For now, more

traditional concerns about how government relates to technology need to be considered.

The Social Management of Technology

Given the ubiquity of technology and its powers to influence human affairs, there

is a strong incentive to manage technology in a manner that leads to the most socially

satisfactory outcome. Governments play an integral role in the development of these

technologies, making public policy an important factor in the social management of

technology. It is thus important to determine what the social management of technology

is, and what constitutes the tools for its management. Edward Wenk establishes two

underlying premises in the management of the technologically-enriched social system.


31/60

31

First, every institution and individual is in some way a participant in the technological

enterprise. Second, technology is a process that deals with knowledge.41

Before a technology becomes a part of society, it must first go through what

Wenk calls a technological delivery system" or a TDS. The factor which binds this

system together is communication between the various actors. Communications in the

development of technology is an important factor.

Communication in the TDS takes place between the six elements which make it

up. One element may be devoted to knowledge generation through research and

invention, while a second is dedicated to management of that knowledge and the natural

resources its requires. The third element is national government, in all its functions. The

fourth is the body politic. As citizens, we make our wants and needs felt, and indicate

acceptable trade offs. The fifth element consists of the judiciary and the local

government, other countries, and the media. It is the communication and interaction

between these groups that defines the Technological Delivery System. The inputs include

specialized knowledge of scientific techniques and management, capital, natural

resources, human resources and human values. The outputs include both the intended

goods and services and the unintended impacts they may bring. Notably, those who

control information within the system wield the greatest influence by deciding what is

filtered or enhanced before release, and what is deliberately withheld. This question of

influence leads to concern over the influence of the technologically versed.

Technopoly and Technocracy

41 Wenk, Edward Jr. Tradeoffs: p. 25.


32/60

32

In the twentieth century, social theorists such as Daniel Bell have tracked the rise

of a new technical managerial class in what he refers to as the post-industrial society.

Bell breaks down his analysis of post-industrial society into five dimensions along

which he runs the lines of his analysis. The first is the economic sector, which details the

shift towards a service economy. The second is occupational distribution leading to the

rise of the technocracy, or the dominant technical class. Third is the centrality of

theoretical knowledge as the source of innovation. Fourth is policy development for

society. Fifth is the creation of what Bell terms intellectual technology.42

Marx-style class orientation is a strong influence in the development of the

theories put forth by Bell. The predicted pre-eminence of the professional and technical

class is one of the more contentious predictions.The transition is made from a class of

semi-skilled workers who could be trained in a relatively short period of time, to a highly

skilled and trained professional workforce necessary to operate in the service based post-

industrial economy. Bell sees the overtaking of blue-collar workers by white-collar

workers who were not as easily replaced. He perceives them as a more advanced, more

powerful proletariat that could not be manipulated as easily by the business interests that

profited from their ability. This led to a significant shift in the balance of power. It shifted

towards one in which the technologically versed would hold sway over the substance and

impact of policy, creating a dominant technocracy.

There have always been those in societies with advanced technical knowledge.

What Bell finds distinctive about the post-industrial society is what he describes as the

centrality of theoretical knowledge the primacy of theory over empirism and the

codification of knowledge into abstract systems symbols that can be used to illuminate

42Ibid. p. 14.


33/60

33

many different and varied areas of experience.43 Essentially, he refers to the rapid

growth of specialized areas of technical knowledge and their growing importance.

The possession of advanced technical knowledge in the hands of an elite few can

be interpreted either as a benign or a dangerous concentration of power. The concept of

technocrats painted by Neil Postman is one of a society of technopoly. In this society,

the submission of all forms of cultural life to the sovereignty of technique and

technology has flourished.44Postman asserts that in a technopoly the primary goal of

human labour is efficiency. The judgement of humans is secondary to computer-derived

conclusions and the values of citizens are best guided and conducted by experts the

technocracy.45 These preconceptions create the impression that technology can do our

thinking for us. Postman establishes this as one of the basic principles of technopoly.

Postman establishes a technocracy as being a slightly lower level of technological

participation concurrent with the industrial age.

Technocracies accept machinery as a necessary implement, but do not have as

their aim a, grand reductionism in which human life must find its meaning in machinery

and technique.46Technopoly as proposed by Postman is intended to place humans at the

disposal of technology. The constant pace of technological advancement is linked with

improvement. Postman attributes the onset of this trend to inventors and capitalists. Faced

with a world in which Nietzsche was announcing God was dead, Darwin calling the

course of evolution into question, and Freud proposing that we had no real understanding

of our deepest needs, the need for certainty existed. Postman asserts that with the

43 Bell, Daniel, The Coming of Post-Industrial Society, p. 20.44 Postman, Neil, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. (New York: Alfred A. Knoff Inc,

1992). p. 50.45Ibid. p. 5146Ibid. p. 52


34/60

34

certainty that airplanes do fly, radios do speak and medicine does heal, the conditions for

the delegation of societal control to technology were opportune.47

John Ralston Saul provides a more moderate interpretation, arguing that to quote

Nietzsches God is dead statement is fashionable; it amounts to little more than the

gossip columnists view of civilization.48 He instead promotes the idea of the technocrat

as the new middle man between civilization and technology. The technocrat

understands the technology and controls access to the information, which is a

compendium of facts.49 This middleman is not necessarily a computer programmer or

an engineer. The open definition of technology allows for a broader field. Saul refers to

them as sophisticated grease monkeys who operate the machinery of society, but are

unable to direct it.50

Technopoly is often presented as the worst-case scenario. Langdon Winner offers

another more moderate commentary on the effects of technological development on

society. He proposes that a technological imperative drives forward societal change.

While we have an influence in some aspects of this change, some of it is beyond our

control.

Technologies are structures that demand by force of their method of operation the

restructuring of their environments.51This restructuring may be simple or complex. The

technological imperative can be a moral standard. A society that believes that it must

have hair dryers and mainframe computers in order to exist will embrace the changes

47Ibid. p. 55.48 Saul, John Ralston, Voltaires Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West. p. 22.49Ibid.50Ibid.51 Winner, Langdon. Autonomous Technology: Technics out of Control as a Theme in Political Thought.

(Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1977.) p. 27.


35/60

35

resulting from those technologies. There are benefits to having this technology, but the

technology often makes demands for its maintenance. On an individual level, the nature

of this relationship is analogous with car ownership the technology demands a

particular adjustment in how we behave if it is to function efficiently. The state may

enforce regulations to ensure that minimum standards of efficiency are maintained, and

services are established to verify the condition of the vehicle. There is control, but it is

not the complete control often associated with utopian ideals of technological

development.

The technological imperative as proposed by Winner establishes a very particular

state of affairs. It proposes that the construction of technological systems creates a

complex series of linkages. Although controlled by choice initially, they expand beyond

initial expectations and create a powerful source of social obligation.

Daniel Bell notes a shift from inventors that were mainly inspired and innovative

tinkerers who were indifferent to the underlying scientific foundations of their work.

Formulations of theory and research as the basis for invention mark a milestone in the

creation of modern industry.52 This use of scientific method has extended into the

realm of economic policy. This took the form of the introduction of a rigorous system of

economic theory based on mathematics. For Bell, this shift in technological thought has

had a profound influence on the relationship between technology and society. The

scientific method associated with macroeconomics has led to the adoption of Keynesian

economics, influencing the operational structure of national governments. It is the

management of organized complexity that Bell saw as holding promise for the twentieth

century. The ability to understand the method of invention allowed for the use of more

52 Bell, Daniel, The Coming of Post-Industrial Society, p. 21.


36/60

36

than simple chance. It allowed for the development of what Bell called a new intellectual

technology of problem-solving rules. He predicted that it would be as salient in human

affairs as machine technology has been in the past two centuries.53

Technocracy and technopoly as explanations for government behaviour have their

flaws. In technological society power has dispersed among more and more functional

organizations as well as special interest groups. Rather than a clique of technologically

versed elites operating at the government level, access to technical expertise is possible

for many groups because information has become widespread. The ability of technology

to lead to decentralization as well as centralization has been noted. New communications

technologies have effectively devolved the monopoly on information once held by

government. But this does not imply that government involvement with technology has

decreased. In reality, governments have become more involved with technology.

Appropriate Technology

Technology has inadvertently increased the role of government. Governmental

investment in research is almost an expected norm. Technology often is developed for a

purpose mandated by government. These purposes can be military, social, or economic in

nature, stimulating technological development. As Edward Wenk points out, technology

is an amplifier. It amplifies almost every feature of human experience.54 The only human

experience not amplified by technology is time. Technology has the effect of speeding up

human affairs. As the technological imperative drives forward, we are presented with

more choices but less time to choose. With so much to consider at once, we are

53Ibid. p. 29.54 Wenk, Edward Jr. Tradeoffs: Imperatives of Choice in a high-tech world. (Baltimore: The John Hopkins

University Press, 1986.) p. 13.


37/60

37

overwhelmed as we try to understand the consequences of our actions. Making a quick

decision could lead to disastrous results. It is for this reason that part of the government

relationship towards technology is concerned with damage control.

Steering the development of technology is based on the concept of collision

avoidance. Anticipating the future consequences of technological decisions is an

important governmental preoccupation. This is difficult task at best. The impacts of

gunpowder for instance, could not have been foreseen at the time of its development. Nor

would the idea of a computer on every desk occur to the inventor of the first electronic

computer. Such ideas were simply seen as implausible. We cannot expect to accurately

forecast how a technology will impact society in the future. The attempt however, is

worthwhile. As Wenk puts it, everyone is concerned about the future because that is

where we will spend the rest of our lives.55 Some features of the technologically laden

future can be determined scientifically. Statistical data, projections of facts and social

analysis of trends can be reliable indicators. Interpretations of the future can be drawn

from spiritual inspiration, scientific analysis, or wishful thinking. As long as one accepts

that the future is malleable, one can attempt to determine the consequences of an action,

and attempt to mitigate negative consequences. Determining that a car might crash is both

a statistical and a practical likelihood. As a result, governments have created standards

for increased safety features in automobiles.

According to Wenk, not anticipating second-order consequences can be largely a

failure of imagination. After all, not all consequences of technology extend into the

future. Many can extend laterally in subtle and unexpected ways.56 Our responsibility is

55 Wenk, Edward Jr. Tradeoffs: p. 13.56Ibid. p. 14.


38/60

38

to demonstrate foresight by asking what might happen, who it might affect, and when.

Wenk states, only by deliberately attempting to peer both ahead and sideways can we

gain perspective on the various impacts technology may have on our lives. 57 This is the

idea of an appropriate technology (AT).

E.F. Schumacher, a noted economist, first explored the use of intermediate

technology. His context was largely in relation to the developing world. He considered

the association between technological innovation and business as dangerous, because

economic profit was the only criteria that mattered in such a scenario. Schumacher

opposed the unrestricted export of western science and engineering to impoverished third

world countries. As he saw it, the introduction of advanced western technology to third

world rural environments would not necessarily be of benefit. In fact it could do more

harm than good. As Schumacher argues, Whether a given industrial activity is

appropriate to the conditions of a developing district does not directly depend on scale

but on the technology employed.58 The goal remained to determine the potential social

impact of a technology.

The gap between western technology and the technology of the impoverished

sections of the world is simply too wide. Schumacher argued any attempt to immediately

introduce the full force of western technology with the intention of helping people will

fail. It would have the effect of leaving them in a worse position than they had started

from.

The solution for Schumacher was to find a level of technology between advanced

western technology and the more basic technology of the developing world. Such

57Ibid58 Schumacher, E.F. Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered (New York: Harper & Row

Publishers, Inc. 1975.) pp. 178-179


39/60

39

technology represented an intermediate level between the two extremes. This

intermediate technology would be within reach of the population, being adapted to

educational and training levels. The idea was not to withhold technology in an effort to

maintain technical superiority. It was to put technology within reach for the enterprising

minority within an area.

This represents the application of appropriate technology, with a view to the

lateral and future effects. Questions are asked as to the impact of introducing technology.

Those that followed Schumachers ideas claimed that appropriate technology should

engage the labour forces of the third world, protect non-renewable resources, attend to

basic needs such as food and shelter and be sensitive to the social norms of local

cultures.59

Ultimately, appropriate technology is not a question of either or, but a question of

choice and combinations. Anne Leer establishes three criteria for appropriate technology.

She does so in the context of technologies of information communication. Different

media are combined for different purposes according to convenience, functionality and

availability.60 The concept of AT is a careful weighing of these three factors, with an eye

towards social impacts both beneficial and dangerous. The social impact of technology

is the reason for the existence of the Appropriate Technology movement.

59 Goyder, John, Technology p. 93.60 Leer, Anne C. Its a Wired World: The New Networked Economy (Oslo: Scandinavian University Press,

1996.) p. 16.


40/60

40

CHAPTER THREE: TECHNOLOGIES OF INFORMATION

COMMUNICATION

The intent of the first two chapters of this paper has been to develop an

understanding of technology in a general sense. As Darin Barney has noted, one cannot

speak thoughtfully about technologies of information communications without an

appreciation of the concept of technology.61 A dictionary definition is insufficient. A

comprehensive examination of the ontological root of the word, the societal growth of the

concept, and how people interpret the idea of technology is required. While I do not

pretend to have comprehensively examined technology in its entirety, we can safely say

that technology is a complex social and political process.

Having accepted technology as a social process, it becomes possible to narrow

our focus. Technologies of information communication are a specific form of technology

that has marked the introduction of the information age and the knowledge age. The

network revolution as it has been called is based in Information Communication

Technologies (ICTs). For Barney technology information and communication are the

holy trinity of the computerized network age.62 Before considering technologies of

information communication, the concepts of information and communication themselves

should be looked at in more detail.

61 Barney, Darin. Prometheus Wired p. 27.62Ibidp. 29.


41/60

41

Information and Communication

Information and communication complement each other. Information is only of

use if it is communicated to another person. If information it not shared, it is simply raw

data. This is the primary characteristic of information. It is data that has been made

useful by organization and classification. While technically accurate, this does not

sufficiently define information.

Darin Barney examines the root of the word information. The root of the word is

form, from the Latinformare.63 Barney argues that we tend to think of the word

information as a noun. Information is most commonly thought of as an item or term of

knowledge. The influence of the French root of the word gives us an indication of another

interpretation of information. The Old French word enformermeant to shape or

fashion.64 English does not commonly use the word information in a way which

suggests a capacity to inform or inspire. Barney sees this interpretation of information as

important. Information is not simply an item exchanged between interested parties. It is

more of a telling that shapes or forms. The effect here is to de-objectify the idea of

information. It is no longer seen as a neutral item handed off like a baton. Once

information is imparted, we must examine the effect of that information, and how it

impacts the perception of those who receive it. As Barney states, it becomes

important to investigate not only that which is told, but also the impact, manner and

63Ibidp. 29.64Ibid


42/60

42

medium of its telling.65 ICTs are the medium. The analysis of the effect of ICTs

becomes more complicated by an order of magnitude. The impact, medium, and manner

in which information is communicated must be examined as well.

Communication is a term that is generally considered as a noun. When we speak

of a communication network, the reference is intended to indicate an object of exchange.

This object is usually information. This is only the first half of communication. Sending

the information is only the initial stage of communication. For communication to take

place, it must be received and understood.

Communication is also a verb, denoting action. Communicate derives from the

Latin communis meaning common, and the Old French comunermeaning to share.66

As Barney argues, there is a sense of community implied in the act of communication.

The idea of community and commitment that these terms imply indicates a more

enduring relationship than that of simple information exchange. The character of these

relationships should also be considered.67 Communication is a vital component of

technologies of information communications. It is possible to fall into the trap of only

thinking of these technologies as objects. Our perspective must be broader than that if we

are to consider them in a social context. Technology is a social process that tells us

something about ourselves as a society. Information shapes our perceptions and

experiences. Communication provides a forum in which we all share information. How

we receive that information and what we do with it says something about us as a society,

be it Western society, or human society as a while.

65Ibid.66Ibidp. 2967Ibidp. 30


43/60

43

The idea of technology as a social process has been shown thus far. Our focus has

narrowed to ICTs, and their social and political effect. The most pressing questions

address the democratic potential of information technology. Given what we know about

technology, information and communications, we can ask ourselves some informed

questions. How will these computerized communications and information technologies

shape the society we live in? What social trends will these technologies promote or

discourage?

The often endorsed potential for the democratizing effect of ICTs prompts an

important question. Are Information Communication Technologies capable of meeting

the democratic potential expected of them? Or do the effects of technology preclude such

an outcome? Given the link between the technological and the political, the democratic

potential of ICT comes into question. The political outcomes of technological ventures

are strongly conditioned by the political environment in which they are undertaken. Can a

technology be democratic if it is developed in an undemocratic environment? It is with

these questions in minds that the relationship between ICTs and government policy is

considered. This paper takes ICTs as a social and political process and asks where we

stand at present. It also demonstrates how technology has altered our social perceptions

of information and communication. The goals we have set for ourselves as a society

reflect this.

Technologies of Information Communication and Government Policy


44/60

44

The sense of urgency seems to be one of the main impetuses in the development

of a global information society. As one author puts it,

The cheerleaders and promoters of the wired world have called for out

immediate response to the information revolution for three decades now. If itis a revolution, it must be the longest one in history.68

This statement sums up the dilemma of making policy for ICTs quite well. As mentioned

in the first chapter, one of Edward Wenks paradoxes of technology is that we have a

great deal of information, but little time to decide what to make of it. The effect is not

unlike trying to drink water from a fire hose. The oncoming stream is so overwhelming

that one tries to absorb everything out of a fear of falling behind. It is unacceptable not to

try the economic competitiveness of nation-states is at stake. One of the dilemmas of

government policy towards ICT has been the possibility of rushing into action for the

wrong reasons without clear objectives. Providing a personal computer on every counter

does not guarantee instant results. Indeed, it may not provide any results.

To gain benefit from technology governments must know what they want to

achieve, how it can be applied, and which tools are appropriate to the intended goal. The

personal computer might provide the means to receive new information, but it does not

exist in a vacuum. The content it delivers is also an important consideration. The

technology itself may influence the shape of the information communicated, and create

new content as a result of its societal influence. It is in this sense that Marshal Mcluhans

famous statement; the medium is the message, becomes relevant. The medium through

which the information is communicated shapes the message, and generates new messages

based around the societal change it engineers.

68 Leer, Anne C. Its a Wired World p. 7.


45/60

45

The Information Society and the electronic communications networks upon which

it is built are already here. Digital communications networks span the globe and have

brought many significant changes to most features of everyday life. Governments

recognise the importance of intellectual creations, technologies and information as

essential to gaining social benefits, as well as economic and political power. This is not a

new development such items have always been important. The strategic and economic

significance of building the global information society is high on the political agenda.

While the primary motivation is economic, the social impact has not been ignored. It

would be difficult to do so the close relationship between technology and political life

means that making policy for technology is ultimately a matter of social policy.

Governments have come to this conclusion as well, as demonstrated through the Global

Information Infrastructure (GII).

The Global Information Infrastructure (GII)

The development of national information infrastructures (NIIs) became a global

phenomenon in 1993. The United States, The European Union, Singapore and Japan all

launched initiatives that recognised the potential of ICTs as both a tool for social change

and economic development. The implications for their development were of great interest

as well.

The United States began development if what termed information

superhighways. The development of an economic policy that would create an


46/60

46

information infrastructure was seen as vital to economic growth.69 The Clinton

Administration launched an initiative entitled, Agenda for Action. Although intended

to promote the development of a national information infrastructure, it quickly expanded

into a call for a global information Infrastructure (GII).

Singapore published a report in 1992 entitledInformation technology 2000: A

Vision of an Intelligent Island. It describes how Information technology will be used to

promote economic competitiveness, with an complete information network in place by

2000. South Korea also has plans for an information network, scheduled for completion

by 2015. Japan has emerged as a strong leader in Asia, encouraging the development of

an Asian Information Infrastructure (AII). Japan actively pursues cooperation with the

rest of the world in developing the GII and plans to introduce high capacity internet

access to all of Japan by 2015.70

The European Union is the single largest group of countries developing a

common strategy for the Information Society. Its approach to the development of the

information society is an excellent example of the social impact of ICTs. The various

societies participating through the Union come from different cultural backgrounds. The

social and political impacts of technological development are more noticeable than in a

more heterogeneous environment such as a nation state. It is for this reason that I

examine it more closely here.

The European Union and the Global Information Society

69Ibidpp. 23-2470Ibidpp. 28-31


47/60

47

The general approach to the Information Society has been spearheaded by the

European Commission, which has attempted to establish itself as the trendsetter for

development of a policy and regulatory framework. The first policy document to address

these concerns was a White Paper entitled, on growth, competitiveness, and

employment: The challenges and ways forward into the 21st century. The European

Council accepted this report in 1993.71 It addressed what it termed the development of

information networks. The Information Society was seen as a means of promoting

economic competitiveness on a global scale.72 The rationale for the development of

information networks is described: Throughout the world production systems, methods

of organizing work and consumption patterns are undergoing changes which will have

long-term effects comparable with the first industrial revolution.73 That this change will

take place is seen as inevitable. The Commission affirms this viewpoint arguing,

worldwide dissemination of new technologies is inevitable.74

Long term changes in the organizational structure of companies were foreseen in

the report. It takes the form of telecommuting, increased communications utilization by

small business, and the development of a range of services. The goal established at this

time was to manage the change in such a way that provided the maximum benefit to the

European economy while enhancing economic competitiveness with the other

information societies of the world.

71 European Commission, White Paper on growth, competitiveness and employment: The challenges andways forward into the 21st century. (Brussels, 5 December 1993.)

http://europa.eu.int/en/record/white/c93700/contents.html72Ibid.73Ibid.74Ibid.


48/60

48

The approach to maintaining this competitiveness was outlined in an action plan

based on five priorities. The common theme linking these five priorities is in the

establishment of an infrastructure. To use an analogy, the focus at this stage seems to

have been more on the construction of the hig

Technology as Social Process

Documents

Transcript of Technology as Social Process