Technological Determinism vs. Social Constructivism: A Skeptical Take

Which theory do you believe in: Technological Determinism or Social Constructivism? In my own words, I don't see compelling reasons to lean into either theory.

A skeptic at heart, I am not a firm believer in either theory, even as I recognize their influence on our understanding of complex human issues. Technological determinism, which posits that technological advancements determine the course of human society and culture, is often scrutinized for its overly absolute stance. On the other hand, social constructivism, which highlights how societal structures and interactions shape our perception and understanding of reality, seems innocuous and too trivial by comparison.

Why I Don't Believe in Technological Determinism

Technological determinism asserts that technology is the ultimate driver of societal change. While it acknowledges that technology plays a significant role in shaping our world, the theory falls short in its sweeping generalizations and oversimplifications. For example, the fad of running and cycling in the 1980s to combat obesity in the 1970s could be seen as a manifestation of this theory. However, such an outcome is not necessarily predetermined or morally justifiable. The effects of technology on human behavior are multifaceted and largely influenced by individual choices and social constructs.

The argument for technological determinism often hinges on the idea that technology has a determining influence over social structures and cultural values. While it is true that technology shapes our lives in numerous ways, it is ultimately the values, desires, and societal structures that guide its development and application. For instance, the development of a new technology is often driven by the needs, desires, and moral considerations of its creators and users. These factors coexist with the technological advancements, rather than being dictated by them.

Why I'm Skeptical of Social Constructivism

Social constructivism, on the other hand, argues that our understanding of reality is constructed through social interactions. While this theory offers a compelling perspective on human behavior and knowledge, it also risks oversimplification. The notion that all knowledge is constructed through interaction with others is a misrepresentation of the human cognitive process. Individuals do engage in direct sensory investigations of their environment and engage in introspection, which are not solely dependent on social interaction. Reading philosophical works such as Stirner or Plato, for instance, is not merely about interacting with others but about engaging with their ideas.

Social constructivism asserts that "interacting with others" is the primary means of knowledge construction. However, this overlooks the individual's direct sensory experiences and introspections. While human development is indeed socially situated, this does not mean that all knowledge and understanding are socially constructed. There is a dual process of knowledge acquisition: one that involves direct sensory experience and introspection, and another that involves social interaction.

A Balanced View of Technology and Society

Both technological determinism and social constructivism highlight important aspects of human development and knowledge construction. Technology's development is tightly integrated with societal structures and cultural values. While technology does not solely determine the course of society, it is not entirely insignificant either. The technological knowledge project is strongly directed by the desires and needs of people, which are influenced by social and cultural values.

The process of technological development is guided by the current state of knowledge, resources, and societal needs. Technological progress is more of a cumulative process driven by incremental developments rather than a technology-first trajectory. The fad of running and cycling to combat obesity is an example of how societal needs drive technological adoption, rather than technology dictating societal change.

Conclusion: Skepticism as a Strength

Ultimately, my skepticism towards both theories stems from a belief that they lack the practical utility and explanatory power necessary to guide our understanding of reality. Instead of embracing either theory, I find it more fruitful to maintain a critical and nuanced perspective. By doing so, we can foster a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of the complex interactions between technology, society, and individual experience.

Skepticism, in this case, is not a dismissal but a productive stance. It encourages us to question and critically examine the assumptions underlying these theories, rather than accepting them as gospel truth. As such, I welcome the curiosity and intellectual rigor that stems from critically engaging with such ideas, even if they may not have practical applications.

Therefore, while I don't believe in either theory, I do find value in the critical examination and discussion of these ideas. The interest in these theories lies in their ability to prompt important conversations about the nature of technology, society, and human cognition. And in that sense, they serve a valuable purpose, even if their validity is questionable.