In this blog post, we will examine the process of social change through the lens of the interaction between technology and society, focusing on technological determinism and its limitations, as well as the theory of technological systems.

Perspectives on the Relationship Between Technology and Society

We have heard about various types of societies defined in different ways. From a historical perspective, the concept of “society” is often divided into three stages—ancient, medieval, and modern—or into five stages, including primitive and modern societies. However, because the criteria for these classifications are not clear-cut, the boundaries between each type of society are also not distinct. Since human society is constantly changing through the free thought and interaction of the people who comprise it, it may be impossible to clearly distinguish between types of society based on a specific point in time. Nevertheless, the fact that there are distinctive social types commonly recognized and accepted by people—regardless of historical period—suggests that there are factors serving as key catalysts in the evolution of social types. Among these, one of the most central factors discussed is technology. Agricultural technology transformed human life into a sedentary way of living, and various social institutions were formed on this foundation. Furthermore, industrial technology, which developed on the basis of power engines, created new ways of life, and modern society, too, has taken on its current form based on cutting-edge technology. As many people view the relationship between technology and society from this perspective, discussions aimed at elucidating their interrelationship have begun. Among these, one of the most representative theories is “technological determinism,” which holds that technology develops independently of society and exerts a decisive influence on it.

Arguments and Limitations of Technological Determinism

Technological determinism views technology as a factor that exists independently outside of society. In other words, it argues that technology evolves according to its own logic of development, unaffected by society, and that changes in technology unilaterally drive social change. Therefore, the core of this theory is that specific technologies exert a universal and general influence on society as a whole, and that the direction in which society can change is largely determined by technology. Recalling the examples of agricultural and industrial technology discussed earlier, technological determinism is quite persuasive, but it also has several important limitations.
First, if technology develops independently of society and wields enough influence to determine the direction of societal development, then the same technology should produce the same results in different societies. In fact, Lynn White Jr., a leading scholar of technological determinism, argued that the advent of the stirrup in the Middle Ages led to the development of cavalry, which in turn led to the formation of feudalism in the Frankish Kingdom. However, the stirrup was a technology also used by the Anglo-Saxons. Nevertheless, feudalism emerged only in Frankish society. This demonstrates that social change is not driven by technology alone; rather, the nature of that change can vary depending on the social environment in which the technology is adopted, as well as the choices and behaviors of society’s members.
Second, while technological determinism explains that technology—as a key factor in social change—restricts human choice, it fails to sufficiently account for the influence of humans and society in the process by which technology is shaped. For example, as Edison’s electric power system became widespread, various electrical appliances emerged, and many existing analog products gradually fell out of use. These changes align to some extent with the explanations offered by technological determinism. However, humans research ways to utilize the new power system more efficiently and develop new power sources, while society also continuously influences the direction of technological development through policies and institutions. Therefore, it can be argued that technology is formed and developed from the outset with the intervention of social factors. Ultimately, technological determinism has the limitation of failing to sufficiently reflect the roles of humans and society in improving technology and determining its direction of development.
Third, the feminist view of technology also criticizes technological determinism for positing that technology exists independently of society. According to the feminist view of technology, the process by which scientific knowledge was formed and technology developed in modern society generally took place while excluding women; as a result, patriarchal characteristics were reflected in the composition of the scientific and technological community, as well as in the nature and application of technology. This implies that social institutions and cultural environments that did not sufficiently consider gender influenced the formation and development of technology. Therefore, technodeterminism reveals a significant limitation in that technology is not an independent entity separate from society, but rather an object that develops through interaction with social conditions.
The philosopher Karl Marx once said, “The windmill gave rise to the society of the feudal lord, and the steam mill gave birth to the society of the industrial capitalist.” This statement has long been used as a basis for technodeterminist interpretations. However, today there is a widely held view that Marx’s perspective on technology should not be understood as mere technodeterminism. While Marx acknowledged that technological development plays a significant role in social development, he did not argue that technological progress in and of itself equates to social development. The society he envisioned as ideal was one in which control over the means of production and technology belonged not to a specific class but to all members of society. This can be interpreted as his recognition that different social outcomes can arise depending on how technology is socially controlled, and that technology possesses political and social characteristics.

A New Perspective on Technology and Society

Representative theories that emerged from this critical perspective on technological determinism include the social construction of technology and the theory of technological systems. First, the social construction of technology is a theory shaped by the sociology of scientific knowledge. Among the various fields of the sociology of scientific knowledge, this theory draws on the perspective of Collins’s “school of interests,” which posits that when new scientific knowledge emerges, debates arise around it, and scientific knowledge is established only after scientists resolve these debates through social negotiation to reconcile their respective interests. In other words, the social construction of technology views technology, humans, and society not as mutually independent domains, but as a process in which political, economic, and social factors interact to shape technological development. It also explains that technological development does not occur solely based on the internal logic of technology itself, but is shaped through the diverse actions and choices of human groups. Trevor F. Pinch and Wiebe E. Bijker argued that the process by which the modern rubber-tired bicycle became established was also the result of negotiation and coordination among various interest groups, including engineers, manufacturers, and consumers. When the bicycle first appeared in the late 18th century, it had a much larger front wheel and no pneumatic tires, and was primarily used as a sports equipment enjoyed by men. Subsequently, as the design evolved to accommodate women who wore long skirts, the bicycle in its modern form became established. This is a prime example illustrating how technology reflects the interests of various social groups. However, this theory also has its limitations. This is because the methodology for distinguishing and interpreting social groups cannot be applied uniformly to all technologies, and conversely, it fails to adequately explain the impact of technology on humans and society.
Thomas P. Hughes proposed the theory of technological systems as an alternative to address the limitations shared by both technological determinism and the social construction of technology. The theory of technological systems explains that technology and society do not influence each other unilaterally, but rather engage in continuous mutual interaction. He argued that, as technology evolves, individual technologies interconnect to form a single technological system, and that a technological system accumulated over a long period of time acquires characteristics such as inertia. For example, Edison improved generators for electricity production, developed meters to measure electricity consumption, and established various components—including the three-wire transmission system for power transmission and long-lasting incandescent light bulbs for consumption. This combination of technologies and institutions formed a single electric power system, which evolved over time into a massive system with strong inertia.
Technology and Society Transform Each Other
I fundamentally agree with the limitations of technological determinism and believe that the theory of technological systems—which posits that technology and society influence each other—is the explanation that most closely reflects reality. In fact, when examining the power system, it becomes clear that not only the underlying technology but also various social factors—including laws, institutions, politics, and the economy—must work together for this massive system to function properly. Furthermore, innovation in technological systems is driven not by the technology itself, but through the choices and cooperation of organizations and members of society who have diverse stakes in the system. In other words, society continuously intervenes in and controls the technological system to ensure it achieves its goals. The fact that society influences technology was clearly demonstrated in the various examples cited earlier in the critique of technological determinism. Furthermore, the concept of inertia—often cited as a characteristic of technological systems—is highly persuasive. Vast technological systems that have become firmly established in society over decades, such as the electric power grid or the automotive system, are accepted as a matter of course, just as people use electricity and automobiles so naturally. Consequently, attempts to replace them with entirely different technological systems are by no means easy. This inertia even leads to a phenomenon where society and the external environment adapt to the existing technological system. On the other hand, if we recall the example of the atomic bomb—the result of the “Manhattan Project”—which destroyed countless lives and ecosystems, we can clearly see that the dangers and destructive power of technology that has slipped beyond human control can have a massive impact on society.
However, even while acknowledging society’s influence, one cannot deny that technology plays a decisive role in social change. Of course, the emergence of new technology does not necessarily lead to social change. Whether the development or improvement of a particular technology ultimately results in actual social change depends on the free judgment and choices of the people who make up that society. When stirrups were invented, the decision of whether to use them to develop cavalry forces was also determined by the members of society. Technology systems theory explains this process as societal intervention occurring during the technology adoption phase. However, I believe that even before a technology system is fully established, the very fact that the emergence of a new technology opens up possibilities and options capable of significantly transforming society constitutes a decisive role of technology. Therefore, I believe that technology systems theory also needs to explain this influence of technology more proactively. This is because the very moment a new technology emerges—even before it has become established as a system—is highly likely to have served as a crucial turning point in shaping the society we live in today.