In this blog post, we will examine the limitations of technological determinism and the causes of social change through various examples.
Marx, one of the thinkers who has had a profound influence on modern society, stated, “The hand mill gives us the society of the feudal lord; the steam mill, the society of the capitalist.” In other words, new technology creates a new society. This theory, which views technology as existing independently outside of society and unilaterally transforming it, is called technological determinism. In modern society, where science and technology are closely intertwined, technological determinism appears to be a highly persuasive argument. Discoveries made in the field of science—unbound by market demand—lead to the creation of new technologies, which in turn result in the development of new products. People are introduced to products equipped with features they hadn’t yet realized they needed, and it seems as though these products create new demand and transform people’s lives.
However, this perspective on technology can be seen as the result of an excessive overestimation of technology’s influence. In particular, hard technological determinists sometimes mystify technology, claiming that it possesses a life of its own; this is a viewpoint that overly overlooks the political, economic, historical, and cultural factors that influence social change.
Hard technological determinists argue that technology exists independently of society and possesses a kind of life of its own. However, this argument stems from a failure to sufficiently distinguish between science and technology. First, science is systematic knowledge aimed at discovering universal truths or laws; it pursues the quest for truth itself, regardless of whether it provides direct utility to human life. In contrast, technology is a means of applying scientific theories in practice to utilize natural phenomena for the benefit of human life; it is aimed at meeting human needs and providing utility.
In other words, it is science—not technology—that can exist independently, regardless of human needs. Even today’s technological developments do not advance due to any inherent vitality of technology itself, but rather result from the continuous evolution of technologies that have survived through societal selection over a long history.
For example, computers underwent rapid development during World War II while being used to calculate the ballistics of artillery shells. If technology possessed its own vitality, as strong technological determinists argue, computers would have continued to develop continuously from the moment of their inception, regardless of the social context of war. The same applies to the aviation sector. Even after the Wright brothers developed the airplane, aviation technology did not advance by leaps and bounds immediately; rather, it developed rapidly in response to military needs during the two world wars. In other words, technology is either phased out or develops rapidly depending on societal needs. In contrast, scientific research can continue even in the absence of social necessity, and its achievements are recognized for their own sake. Therefore, while science can exist relatively independently of society, technology can be viewed as subordinate to society, functioning as one of the tools for social development.
Although it is difficult to view technology as possessing an independent life force, as argued by hard-line technological determinists, there is a more moderate form of technological determinism that regards technological development as a key driver of social change. Indeed, considering the impact that the development of the automobile or advances in information and communication technology have had on human society, it is difficult to deny that technological progress is one of the key factors driving social change. However, it is more reasonable to view social change not as the result of technology alone, but as the combined effect of the political and ethical choices made by members of society and the circumstances of the times.
A prime example is the ethical issues surrounding nuclear power and genetic engineering. Despite their remarkable efficiency and potential, these technologies have faced social controversy and opposition. While nuclear power offers high energy efficiency, concerns regarding safety and environmental issues have been consistently raised. In fact, Germany concluded its nuclear phase-out policy in 2023 by shutting down its last nuclear power plant. On the other hand, some countries are showing a trend toward expanding nuclear power again, citing energy security and carbon neutrality as reasons. This demonstrates that society does not change unilaterally based solely on the excellence of a technology; rather, social consensus and political judgment determine whether a technology is adopted.
Not only nuclear power but also genetically modified foods (GMOs), human embryo research, and artificial intelligence are seeing their scope of application vary depending on social debate and ethical judgment. If society does not accept such technologies, even the most advanced ones will struggle to gain widespread adoption. In other words, society is not unilaterally transformed by technology but is the agent that selects and adapts it; social change is the result of not only technological advancement but also political, ethical, cultural, and historical contexts, as well as the trends of the times.
Technological determinists also argue that technological development is not driven by societal demand but rather creates new demand. For example, mobile phones have consistently added features that people did not specifically request, yet consumers have actively purchased them. Looking at this phenomenon alone, it appears as though technology creates new demand. However, this interpretation fails to sufficiently consider the various social factors that shape demand. When people purchase products with new features, cultural, social, and psychological factors come into play alongside technical utility.
A look at history shows that even outstanding technologies do not always generate social demand. Even before Bell filed a patent for the telephone, Philip Reis had built a prototype that embodied the principle of the telephone, and Marconi also attempted to commercialize wireless communication technology; however, neither received sufficient social acceptance or support in the early stages. Although these are regarded as highly advanced technologies today, they failed to gain widespread adoption at the time because the social environment and demand were not there to support them. There have likely been many technologies that have faded into history because they failed to generate sufficient demand.
Even today, it is easy to find examples where technology alone failed to create demand. A prime example is the smartphone. While many people believe Apple developed the first smartphone, IBM’s “Simon” is generally recognized as the world’s first, and subsequently, several companies—including Nokia—pioneered the smartphone market. If technology alone determined demand, as technological determinism argues, the company that introduced the first smartphone should have continued to dominate the market. However, the actual market outcome was different. Apple’s success was not simply because it developed the technology first, but because it comprehensively addressed non-technical factors such as user experience, ecosystem development, design, and brand value.
If people around them had hardly used smartphones and most had been skeptical about purchasing them, such rapid adoption as we see today would have been unlikely. In fact, many people choose smartphones not only for purely technical needs but also for their social symbolism or their role in relationships with others. The reason for the shortening smartphone replacement cycle can also be attributed in large part to psychological factors—such as the desire to stay ahead of others or avoid falling behind—rather than a strict necessity for new technology.
Unlike science, technology cannot be viewed as possessing a vitality that allows it to develop independently of societal needs. Furthermore, it is difficult to conclude that society has changed solely due to technological advancement, nor is it accurate to assume that technology itself always creates new demand. Because the various factors that drive social change are not as readily apparent as technology, it merely appears as though technology alone is transforming society. Ultimately, technological determinism has the limitation of attempting to explain society as a whole based on just one of the many elements that constitute it. Social consent and choice are crucial prerequisites for technological advancement, and society can be viewed as an entity that changes through the complex interplay of not only technology but also history, culture, politics, ethics, and the context of the times.
