Technology: An innovation at war

Technology, which I believed was constantly evolving to suit and complement the dynamic nature of man, its creator, seems to be a source of concern to many. In these few weeks, I have been exposed to other aspects of technology that I had not taken particular interest in, all of which I have shared on this blog. However, as I delve deeper into the readings, it appears that technology is at war with several established structures of the human society. First, there was the dispute it created between users and owners- the issue of privacy, connectivity versus connectivity etc. Then, its role on the loss of democracy and now, it has to do with technology’s conflict with cultures in the human society.

Culture: Operationalized definition

The culture being referred to here is not just the traditions and values of a particular group of people, but also the practices or the way things have been done for a long period of time. For instance, the way the media has been run for years can be classified as “media culture.” Therefore, a change in these already established norms and practices can be described as a shift in culture. Hence, the authors in this week’s readings explained the cultural and historical implications of technology. In other words, the ways in which technology has brought about a shift in the culture of the people.

Man or technology: Who is the bigger threat?

Williams (2007) described technology as a threat to the human society. He explained the thoughts of technological determinists and cultural pessimists; highlighting that technology can only change a society, if individuals residing there adapt to it. So, it is obvious that the major player in every innovation is man, not the thing that has been created. With this thought in mind, does it not imply that man is actually the threat to its race, not technology? Since, it has been established that technology has impact only when it is adopted and used by human beings. One interesting thought pointed out in Williams (2007) was the fact that “a technical invention can only be called technology when it is used for particular social uses.” Thus, people are major determinants of the effects of technology in the society.

On the other hand, like we discussed last week, new technology has increased capitalism in the society and so many “cultures” are changing. Again, culture here refers to practices that have been developed over time. For example, the shift in the media industry – if one takes a look at what is being shown on television stations today, one would realize that advertisers have taken over and thus, there has been a shift in what is considered to be important or “news or program worthy.” Sponsorships now decide whether something would take place or not. The other day, we were trying to organize an event and the major determinant of the event taking place, was having specific areas sponsored by individuals or corporations. In other words, if there are no sponsors, then there would be no event. Therefore, the question is when did sponsorship become the deciding factor in the implementation of things that are beneficial to the society?

The point is that individuals and organizations have become comfortable with the idea or “culture” of sponsorship that many events begin with the thought of possible sponsors. Nevertheless, this dependence only came as a result of the individuals and corporations who seek to dominate the society or certain areas of the society and are thus, always willing to spend money in profitable areas of the human society. Hence, they capitalize on these platforms, using it as a leverage to build their influence in the society, which leads to huge gaps in the society. Several people are being excluded from decision making in the society, because they lack the finance to be as influential. Therefore, those with the resources are driving both technology and the society, creating the loss of minority cultures and opinions.         

Control: In the hands of a few

Now, obviously I am a “social constructivist” as described in Hamilton and Heflin (2011), because I have chosen to “elevate human agency above technology.” This is true, because I cannot seem to see past the fact that technology is not a living thing, which to me implies that it cannot function perfectly on its own without a control button. It is being controlled by human beings or as we have observed so far, only by a few people that have chosen to monopolize the system, thus influencing not only the growth and spread of technology, but also how it is used in the larger society. The implication is that it is possible that what technology has become today is not in its entirety acceptable to all. However, because there are some major drivers manipulating the system, it appears to be generally accepted. Is everyone comfortable with the privacy settings on Facebook, No! But, these minority voices are ignored, because the society has become a “capitalist-sponsored culture” (Williams, 2007). So, instead of blaming technology, why not blame these big players who have taken control of the system for their own personal gains. After all, “A medium is not an evidence and cause of its own history – human agency is involved” (Gitleman, 2006).

Mental disconnect in technological history

Technology in itself has become a part of culture (Gitleman, 2006), because it has become a huge part of people’s lives. For me, the concern is not that it is a part of culture, but that it is being controlled by only a few people. In addition, it has been used to change the society, and is now a threat to other historical aspects of the human society (Gitleman, 2006; Marvin, 1987; Schwarzenegger, 2012; Winston, 1998). These authors are of the opinion that “new technology” is distorting the connection that could once be easily drawn from past innovations to the current ones. According to Gitleman (2006), for proper history there ought to be “different people on the same mental map sharing.” This to me means that the constant reinvention of technology has created a gap in the society that people can no longer grasp a mental picture of when a particular technology began and when it is likely to change. 

Even the younger generations have no idea what technology was like years before they were born and institutions that ought to preserve knowledge are also adapting to this change, thus, widening the gap.

Take for instance, the social media; how can one know when it was first adopted in a particular country or society? It has become almost impossible to measure the starting point of things in many societies today, like it was in the past. There are many more recently adopted practices (culture) today that has blurred the line between the past, the present and the future. There are immigrations, ships, air planes, cable television, internet – all forms of technology or effects of it that have made it easy for undocumented changes to occur in many societies. 

I remember that in high school, I was taught that the first newspaper in Nigeria, “Iwe Irohin” was published in 1859 by Henry Townsend. I wonder if today this is still possible. How does a person measure information in a digital media society that has redefined the concept of time and space? You tell me!  

References

Gitleman, L. (2006) Always already new; Media, history, and the data of culture (pp. 1-22). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Hamilton, J. F., & Heflin, K. (2011). User production reconsidered: From convergence, to autonomia and cultural materialism. New Media & Society.

Marvin, C. (1987). When old technologies were new: Thinking about communications in the late nineteenth century (pp. 3-8). New York: Oxford University Press.

Schwarzenegger, C. (2012). Exploring digital yesterdays–Reflections on new media and the future of communication history. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung, 118-133.

Williams, R. (2007). Culture and technology. In T. Pinkney (Ed.), Politics of Modernism (pp. 119–39). London: Verso.

Winston, B. (1998). Media technology and society: A history: from the telegraph to the Internet (Chapter 18 – The Internet pp. 321- 336). Psychology Press. Retrieved from http://monoskop.org/images/d/da/Winston_Brian_Media_Technology_and_Society_A_History_From_the_Telegraph_to_the_Internet.pdf