Technological Determanism

"Communications technologies are not independent agents of social change by themselves. But neither are they simply the by-products of social change already designed to occur." Discuss, with reference to two of the following communication technologies: the telephone, radio, television, the internet.

The above statement holds in itself two apposing arguments. On the one side that communication technologies have brought about change in our society, that is to say that communication technologies have changed society, that means it has changed the way we lead our lives as individuals and as a collective, it has changed our culture. The opposing argument is that communication technologies are the result of the inevitable changes in society, that is to say they are the result of the demands of society to change. But the statement indicates neither is correct, rather it suggests that while both have merit the reality is somewhere in-between. In this essay I will explore this debate, I will allude to the shortcomings of the position that communication technologies are independent agents of social change, and will discuss it more specifically in terms of television and radio.

Certainly a correlation between communication technologies and social change can be drawn, and at the same time the need or want for a communications technology can be identified, which only alludes to the ambiguity and complexity of the issue. "A very complex set of relations and interactions is being reduced to interpretation in two simple terms: 'technical invention' and 'society' ('the world'). Using these simple terms, we can make such opposing statements as that 'technical inventions change society' or that 'society determines the use of technical inventions'." (Williams 1981, page 226) "The tag 'technological determinism' has been given to the approach which considers that technology is the agent of social change." (Potts 1989, page 11)

Communication is what defines us as people, and the complexity by which we do it is unique to our species. The desire to communicate beyond time and space is apparent as early as indigenous cave paintings, which can be seen as a form of communication. But the first written communication arose from a need, the need to keep a record of the harvests of each year in ancient Egypt. The potential of this advancement was quickly realised and acted upon with the advent of writing. Such is the progression with technological advancements in communication that it arises from a need and its potential is realised and used to enable us to communicate faster, cheaper, more efficiently, or to a greater number of people.

Gutenberg's invention of the printing press in the 15th century revolutionised the print medium. Never before was it possible to mass-produce books and now it was possible for authors to communicate to a far greater number of people. To arrive at the wide variety of print we have today print "itself passed through major technological changes, in particular the coming of the steam-driven machine press in 1811, and the development of ever faster cylinder and rotary presses from 1815." (Williams 1961, page 21) While it was possible to communicate with people at a great distance away by mail, the desire to do it faster and more efficiently brought about the invention of the telegraph. It "caused the first break between information movement and physical movement. For the first time, complex messages could move more quickly than a messenger could carry them." (Meyrowitz 1985, page 43) The technological advancement of the telegraph was of course the telephone, and more recently telex and then fax.

Broadcasting, which is radio and television, developed from a desire to communicate instantaneously to a large number of people. It depended on several inventions and developments over the 19th century ranging from electricity to telegraphy. The desire to create moving pictures dates as far back as 1736 when the magic lantern (slide projector) had acquired simple motion by placing one slide over another in quick succession. What is clear in the lead up to the invention of television is "that a system of television was foreseen, and its means were being actively sought." (Williams 1990, page 17)

"The computer was developed between 1944 and 1946 in response to the US Army's search for a means of measuring ballistic trajectories" (Mattelart 1998, page 45) The potential of the computer was realised and used for science, later for commercial use, and eventually for personal use. The potential for computers to communicate with each other, that is to say for people to pass information via computers to one another was realised, and was standardised in the early 1990s with the internet, where we can now freely draw on and post information. This technology is historically still in its infancy and its full potential probably hasn't even been realised yet.

That communication technologies are developed from a desire or a want is clear, that is to say society wanted these technologies, but in turn we must ask the question, now that we have these technologies, what effect do they have on society and are these effects desirable. "The most precise and discriminating local study of 'effects' can remain superficial if we have not looked into the notions of cause and effect, as between technology and a society, a technology and a culture, a technology and a psychology, which underlie our questions and may often determine our answer." (Williams 1990, page 9) Williams goes on to suggest that this may even be too difficult to answer.

The difficulty becomes clear already when trying to define the question. "Culture is one of the two or three most complicated words in the English language." (Williams 1983, page 87) The view on what culture is is varied, but two main stands of thought are identifiable. One is that culture is everything that defines us as a society, everything that we produce and consume intellectually and for entertainment, weather it be a ritual, a festival, religious beliefs, all the way to a football game or graffiti on the side of a train, this is considered 'popular culture'. On the other hand 'high culture' is only the best of the best that we produce, the most intelligent, the most aesthetically pleasing, and so on.

The most dominant mass media is arguably television, which is maybe why it receives the most opposition. We can distinguish between two broad opinions. "The first [is that] the technology is in effect accidental. ...it then has consequences which are also in the true sense accidental, since they