Theoretical Background

Sociopolitical Technology

Four views of technology recur in the technology criticism literature. The first is the most optimistic—technology is good and is the solution to all of our problems. The second takes the opposite view—technology is bad and is the source of all of our problems. These views are held by a minority of people and are not taken seriously in discussions about technology because it is easily seen that technologies result in both benefits and drawbacks. The third, and most commonly accepted, view takes the middle ground—technology is neutral and its effects are determined by how we choose to use it. This view is sometimes known as the use-abuse model. The fourth view is much broader and claims that the first three views are missing a fundamental point—technology is part of the social and political systems in which it is created. This view is referred to as the social relations view or the "technology is politics" view (Beckwith 1986, Bereano 1987).

Supporters of the use-abuse model operate under what is sometimes humorously known as the "technology in space" premise. Given a technology that originates in space, its use will be determined by whether it lands in the hands of people wishing to do good or to do bad. Technologies are seen as physical artifacts insulated from the effects of society rather than as processes embedded in society.

I and other proponents of the social relations view argue that all technologies are the result of human intention and therefore arise out of the current social situation. Technologies are intricately connected with the society in which they are created, being affected by social, political and economic forces and in turn affecting those same systems. Because of this deep connection, the social relations model holds that technologies must be defined more broadly to include the sociopolitical context in which physical artifacts and applied knowledge are employed (Bereano 1976).

The development of the mechanical tomato harvester provides a particularly telling example: In California, planned restrictions on farm workers were expected to produce severe labor unrest. As a way to undercut the anticipated organizing activities, agricultural engineers developed and deployed a mechanical tomato harvester, which put many of the laborers out of work and effectively broke the farm workers' union. At the same time, small farmers could not afford the machines, were no longer able to compete with the larger farms, and were forced out of business. The resulting centralization of agricultural production further reduced the ability of laborers to organize. (Vandermeer 1987)

Similarly, development of particular technologies can be prevented or discouraged based on economic or political views. After the oil price shocks of the early 1970s, renewable energy sources, particularly solar energy, began to compare favorably with fossil fuels in price and public opinion. Under the guise of diversification, oil companies acquired all of the major developers of solar technology, and proceeded to restrict their funding, crippling research into solar power for many years. (Dunford 1986)

Although these examples show the effects that social and political views can have on technology, they may suggest the unintended picture that active conspiratorial forces are controlling technology development. In fact, the social relations model professes that it is systemic forces, rather than conspiratorial ones, that guide technological change. Technologies are embodied, whether consciously or not, with the values, or world view, of their creators. Engineers are trained to think rationally and to reduce problems to solvable bits, treating unquantifiables such as happiness or environmental effects as external to their problem solving. This approach is not a conscious effort to control technology, but a learned way to approach problems. Only when forced by pressures such as environmental laws do the engineers consider relevant what were previously called "externalities." (Henderson 1975)

The historical change in computer interfaces presents an example. Until recently, most computer systems required that at any point the user have only one "mode" of interaction available. That is, users might be in an editing mode, but if they wanted to do something else, such as save their work, they would have to exit the editing mode and enter the save mode. This type of system makes it easy for the programmer because the user is limited to a small range of actions. Newer computer systems are designed more from the users' point of view. At any time, users can decide whether they want to edit a document or save it or print it. In this case, users have more flexibility, but the job of the programmer is made much more complex, because they do not know what the user will do next. (Apple Computer 1987) Pressure from users not trained in the same manner of problem solving as programmers has forced the computer science community to slowly adopt models of human-machine interaction that are more open-ended. (Baeker and Buxton 1987, pp. 55-60)

Because many technologies reflect the technical training and logical thinking taught to engineers and scientists, the use, understanding, evaluation, and criticism of those technologies—particularly if they are new and complex—is often thought best left to the "experts," that is, those with technical backgrounds. In this way, people without a technical background are actively discouraged from participating in any discussion about the technologies, and are left feeling that the technologies don't represent them. A vicious cycle can ensue when people are unable to learn a technology, resulting in their exclusion from discussion about further development, which leads to lack of experience with the next technology. For example, many people with non-rational learning styles do not understand the logical models that are required to operate personal computers. These people are prevented from learning to use the technology, which precludes them from participating equally in key social processes, such as finding jobs or communicating with political powers. As the development of new technologies continues to become more rapid, the cycle becomes more vicious, widening the gap between those with technological sophistication and those who have been left behind.

Obviously, one cannot simply blame engineers for technological alienation. The creators of technologies usually work for organizations that also have goals, such as making a profit. As mentioned above, the economic and political systems in which individuals and organizations are located affect the types of technologies that are produced and how available they are. The people and organizations that hold power in a particular environment produce technologies in order to consolidate and expand their power. A historical example: In the 1880s, Cyrus McCormick was battling a union of skilled iron workers in his reaper plant. He helped develop and deployed new steel-making machines, even though the machines produced more expensive castings of a lower quality, because they could be run by unskilled workers. Once McCormick had eliminated his opposition, he abandoned the machines (Winner 1986). A recent example: In an attempt to continue to increase profits, the pharmaceutical company Monsanto developed and aggressively marketed a bovine growth hormone that causes increased milk production in cows. Although there was already a surplus of milk available, the company pushed the drug to market over the objections of small milk farmers and many consumers, who object to consolidation of milk production, worry about harm to the animals, and are unconvinced about the long-term safety of the drug. (Bereano 1992)

Faced with examples like these, the social relations perspective suggests that from a practical point of view, people who wish to change the nature of technology are left in a position of having to change the nature of social, political and economic systems.

Overview | Sociopolitical Technology |
User-Centered Design | Participatory Design | Engaging Community

Contents | Introduction | Background | Methods | Description | Conclusion | References