THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
Edited by Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes, and Trevor F. Pinch
The MIT Press, 1989, 405 pages
Reviewed by Michael Beach
This is a volume containing a number of key papers focused on various aspects of ideas around the social constructionist argument. Thomas Hughes writes that technological systems “are both socially constructed and society shaping.” In particular Hughes writes in part, and is often quoted in the other works, about the connections at the borders of the socio-technological systems. What is in the system (artifacts, social groups, political forces, etc.), and what is not in the system? He notes that systems can include “legislative artifacts, such as regulatory laws.” He also argues that since social systems are actually builders, at least in part, of any system being analyzed, the student of these systems should avoid designating them as “environment” or “context”. In trying to define, then, what is part of a system and what is not part of a system, Hughes points to a concept he calls “degrees of freedom” or rather the amount of influence any artifact, be they thing, person, or group, has on the eventual technology created.
Many of the other papers published in The Social Construction of Technological Systems in varying degrees clarify or repute some aspects of this portion of the social construction position. I don’t mean to say the other papers focus only on Hughes’ positions, but this particular point about system definition is visited often. Michel Callon, for example, continues the idea of clarification of inclusion. He changes the idea of systems for the idea of actor networks. Callon seeks to “simplify” networks by considering any technological system as a network of systems and subsystems. Any of the subsystems could be decomposed, but in doing so, he argues, there is a point at which no additional information is gained. In fact deepening the complexity of the study of some network artifacts can actually confuse important issues. Callon, then seeks to define connections at the border of a network. Others argue if subsystems are simplified into a sort of “black box” then important issues are missed, or not clarified. For example, one could consider social groups that are directly affected by technological decisions, but have no say in how decisions are made. By only considering those who had a voice in a decision, social constructionists are not noting how a technology might have evolved differently. By considering only the inputs and outputs, black-boxing, important social understanding is missed both by the creators of technology, and by the students of social constructionism.
There is strength in many of the arguments in support of social constructionism. It gives more insight into many, though not all, the influences (inputs) and results (outputs) of technological advancement, or at least what is considered in the literature as advancement. Previous positions of technological determinism focused mostly on the specific technology developed, and the scientists or inventors who created them. From that perspective, influence is one way, technology directs society. In the social construction point of view there is a two-way interaction. Technology change influences change in society, but social attitudes also influence technological focus and decisions. Where these perspectives are less strong has to do with the boundaries of the systems, or networks, studied. Whenever a boundary is created, real or philosophical, there is automatically an inclusion and exclusion. One additional example of the weakness of not considering those not involved in the decisions can be shown in the increased use of technology-based communications systems. Intended to allow for more interaction among people, some argue in fact the opposite has happened. Remote communications enables people to have less face-to-face interaction so community is weakened by the technology, not strengthened. Ed Shane makes a strong argument about this issue in his book Disconnected America. Subtitled The Consequences of Mass Media in a Narcissistic World. Shane points out, among other things, that when we choose to interact more online instead of in person we tend to seek groups of people who are like-minded with us. By doing so we lessen the circle of ideas and perspectives we consider so our perspectives are narrowed, not broadened. In the real world, Shane points out, we interact with many people by chance in public settings. For instance if we go to the store we interact with store employees and other customers. We lose that interaction if we just order what we want online. The articles in the SCOT book are certainly helpful for understanding the latest thinking of the Science, Technology and Society (STS) community. By shifting from the general, high-level philosophical concepts espoused by camps like technological determinists to the idea of breaking down and identifying influencers of systems based on actual technology examples, a better understanding emerges. I think as STS thought advances, there is more room for similar study of groups who might not have the chance to influence, but are surely influenced by technological decisions.
RSS Feed