In this blog post, we will compare technological determinism and social constructivism to examine whether technology can develop independently of humans and society.
Technological Determinism and Social Constructionism
Just as the debate over whether the chicken or the egg came first has persisted, the discussion over which comes first—technology or society—has also continued for a long time under the names of technological determinism and social constructionism. Technological determinism views technology as the key driver that changes society and creates new demands, whereas social constructionism holds that technology develops in response to the needs of humans and society.
To state my position on this debate upfront, while there may be instances within certain segments of society that exhibit technodeterministic characteristics, I believe it is a fallacy of generalization to conclude that this is a universal truth based on just a few examples. In other words, I believe there are limitations to explaining human society as a whole using technodeterminism alone, and I view technology and society as being in an interdependent relationship where they influence one another.
Technodeterminists argue that technological progress is an autonomous process beyond human control and that it has been the core driving force behind the development of human civilization. They cite examples such as Gutenberg’s printing press, windmills in the feudal era, and modern operating systems to support this claim. A prime example is the smartphone. Indeed, it is hard to deny that new features have been continuously added even though humans did not initially demand them. Furthermore, even if such features were not strictly necessary, we naturally accepted them as we upgraded to new devices, and we have now reached a point where it is difficult to imagine life without a smartphone. Looking at this aspect alone, it is hard to say that there are no cases where technology emerged first and human demand followed.
However, this does not mean that technology alone drives social change. I question the strong form of technological determinism, which posits that technology exists as a realm completely independent of society and, in fact, serves as the central force that creates societal demand. I would like to explain why technology cannot survive or develop completely independently of society from two perspectives.
Technology without demand is unlikely to survive
The first reason is that technology created in the absence of any human demand is virtually impossible to exist, and even if such technology were to emerge, the likelihood of its continued survival is extremely low. Since the end of the Cold War, most countries—with the exception of a few—have been operating on the basis of a market economy, and the core principles of a market economy are supply and demand. These principles have a significant impact not only on the economy but also on the direction of society as a whole.
Today, capital is one of the key foundations driving society, and laws and institutions are also closely linked to economic realities. In such a society, anything without demand finds it difficult to be recognized as necessary, and ultimately, its value of existence diminishes. Conversely, even if demand exists, if it cannot be supplied, that demand also struggles to hold practical value.
Technology, too, cannot completely escape these market principles. The development of technology is accompanied by the essential process of capital investment. Most developers only embark on development after determining that a new technology will possess a certain value and potential demand. The reason why procedures such as drafting research proposals and persuading stakeholders of the necessity and expected benefits of research are so important in the R&D process is that investment and support can only be secured once the value and necessity of the research are recognized.
One might counter that science and technology sometimes advance through serendipitous discoveries. However, even if a technology is discovered by chance, if it is not recognized as necessary for human life and society, it is highly likely to disappear without ever being utilized. We must not draw conclusions based solely on successful cases. We must examine not only instances where serendipitous discoveries met social needs and achieved great success but also the countless technologies that vanished into history because their necessity was not recognized through human choice.
Technology Alone Does Not Create Social Demand
The second reason is that even if technology emerged first and demand followed, that demand was not created by the technology alone. Let’s look again at the example of the smartphone. The smartphone—which combined various functions such as internet access, music playback, and photography into a single device—was an innovative product, but it did not achieve widespread success from the start.
Initially, they were used only in a limited capacity—in certain business markets, often in the form of PDAs—and there were even cases where related businesses were shut down due to a lack of demand.
It was companies that succeeded in making sustained investments and building an ecosystem that paved the way for the widespread adoption of smartphones. These companies did not stop at simply developing the technology; they refined it into products and services that consumers could actually use, thereby shaping today’s smartphone market. In other words, smartphone technology alone could not generate social demand; the role of humans—who recognized the technology’s potential, invested in it, and shaped the market—was decisive.
However, a counterargument could be raised that the very fact people embraced smartphones to the point of changing their lifestyles after their emergence serves as evidence supporting technological determinism. Yet this, too, can be explained through the principles of the market economy. People naturally tend not to change their lifestyles easily. Nevertheless, they adopt new technologies because they judge that using them brings greater benefits than not using them.
The benefits referred to here do not simply mean the ability to use new features. They include not only the convenience gained from using new devices but also social satisfaction and the psychological reassurance of keeping pace with the times. After comprehensively considering these various factors, people adopt a new technology when they determine that it provides greater value to their lives. Therefore, this demand cannot be attributed solely to the power of technology itself but is rather the result of human value judgments and choices.
This discussion can also lead to the question of who should be held responsible for the consequences brought about by technology. It is an undeniable fact that smartphones have significantly transformed people’s lives. However, these changes were not entirely unforeseen. The development of technology begins with human imagination. This imagination enables us to predict potential future demand, and based on this, capital is invested to bring the technology to fruition. Furthermore, this imagination encompasses not only positive outcomes but also negative impacts. In fact, various studies are continuously being conducted to predict and analyze the adverse effects that excessive smartphone use may have on society.
Ultimately, humans decide for themselves whether to use a technology after anticipating, to some extent, both its positive effects and negative consequences. This judgment translates into social demand. Dynamite serves as a prime example. Nobel did not invent dynamite to kill people. However, humans utilized it for war and killing. In this situation, should the technology itself—dynamite—be blamed? No. As long as such purposes and demands exist among humans, it is highly likely that they would have sought to create another technology to replace dynamite even if it had not existed.
Even when examining the concept of “technology” itself, it is difficult to understand technology in isolation from human society. Generally, technology is defined as “a means of applying scientific theories to practical situations to harness nature for the benefit of human life.” This definition itself already includes the premise that technology must be useful to human life. In other words, technology is, by its very nature, a concept premised on human needs and demands.
If we schematically represent the relationship between humans, technology, and society, it can be viewed as “humans → technology → society.” Technological determinism tends to emphasize only the “technology → society” relationship without sufficiently considering the premise of “humans” in this process. However, it is humans who create technology, and it is humans who decide whether or not to use it. Technology that is not recognized as necessary by humans ultimately loses its value within society.
Technology and society influence each other
In summary, since technology develops within the principles of a market economy and in response to social demands in human society, it is difficult to view it as existing completely independent of human demand. However, this does not mean that society is the sole cause of technological development. Technology does not advance based on human demand alone, and new technologies, in turn, have various impacts on society. Therefore, rather than viewing technology and society as a relationship in which one side unilaterally determines the other, it is more reasonable to see them as an interdependent relationship in which they influence each other and develop together.
The world in which humans live today still revolves around humans. Although numerous science fiction films and novels depicting a future where machines dominate humans have emerged amid the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence and robotics, such imaginings ultimately stem from human-centered thinking. Humans are the agents who develop technology, and they are also the agents who utilize and control it. Therefore, technology can be viewed not as an independent entity completely separate from human society, but rather as an entity that continuously evolves within the context of humans and society.
Consequently, rather than remaining stuck in the debate over whether technology or society comes first, it will become an even more important task to consider what ethical responsibilities and values humans—as the agents who develop and utilize technology—must uphold, and how technology and society can harmonize and develop together.
