Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

Mutual shaping suggests that society and technology are not mutually exclusive to one another and, instead, influence and shape each other.[1] This process is a combination of social determinism and technological determinism. The term mutual shaping was developed through science and technology studies (STS) in an attempt to explain the detailed process of technological design.[2] Mutual shaping is argued to have a more comprehensive understanding of the development of new media because it considers technological and social change as directly affecting the other.[3]

Comparison of TD and SD[edit]

Technological determinism (TD), coined by Thorstein Veblen, suggests that technology is the primary catalyst for change in society. Following this theory, the development and implementation of technology is beyond the control of society as it is pervasive in all elements of our lives. Once a technology has been created its influence on society is an inevitable, predetermined path. Technological deterministic view suggests that technology is the cause of societal change, which shapes humans and their environments.[4] An example that supports technological determinism is the development of the printing press that accelerated the Protestant Reformation.[5]

In contrast, social determinism (SD), popularized by social theorists Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim, purports that social structure is the driving factor towards change in society.[6] Following this view, society is the governing force that determines social behaviour, and technology is created and adapted based on society's wants and needs.[7] Social determinism has been observed as response to technological determinism and explains that it is social and environmental factors which determine how technology is used and progresses.[8]

Both TD and SD are cause-and-effect theories suggesting that technology and society are mutually exclusive. The theory of mutual shaping suggests that technology design is a result of a synthesis of TD and SD. It sees technology and society working together to facilitate change. Society changes as a direct result of the implementation of technology that has been created based on society's wants and needs. They function collectively to shape one another.[1]

Examples[edit]

Technology innovations have long been tied to social changes. The move to an industrial society from an agricultural society meant that people had to adjust their social interactions. Agricultural societies have a few, distant and long-term relationships with people, while industrial societies have more casual, short-term relationships.[9]

Technological innovations also don't work in isolation from social change and vice versa. For example, while the telephone was initially invented as an extension of the telegraph, with a focus on business, the telephone quickly became a popular way for people to chat socially. Telephone companies then began to make innovations to enhance social interactions.[10]

In social networks[edit]

Mutual shaping is exemplified through the integration of online social networking platforms into daily life. They are a communications technology designed to complement pre-existing methods of communication, such as the phone or in-person conversations, that have become more convenient and/or affordable than their predecessors.[11] TD would argue that these communication technologies have directly influenced our networking capabilities due to their accessibility. Without them we would not be able to conduct business or maintain friendships over long distances. SD would argue that these platforms were created as a result of a need to facilitate communication over long distances.[1] Mutual shaping supports both of these arguments, believing that the two cannot be separated. Social networking platforms display how technology and society are inextricably linked as they work together towards the advancement of one another, exemplifying the theory of mutual shaping.

The Negative Impact[edit]

The impact of mutual shaping has not always been positive. When the printing press was first introduced, many were worried about the information overload it might cause.[12] Recently, Internet addiction, or problematic internet use (PIU), has become a widespread issue. PIU can cause lack of sleep due to internet usage as well as increasing the risk for certain physical ailments like eyestrain.[13] Smartphones allow for endless amounts of information to be accessible in the pockets of its users.[14] However, the social stigma around smartphone use has centered around how technology addiction can lead to increased stress and anxiety for the users.[15]

Push-Pull-Thinking[edit]

Push-Pull-Thinking can be understood by the application of how new technology is created. When new demand for a product is the driving factor behind its creation then it is the "pulled" method, while when a new technology enters the market with new possibilities for application or innovation then it is the "push method."[16]

Examples[edit]

According to Michael Haddad, it's easier to understand an example of Push-Pull-Thinking where technology is the driving factor as one from an engineering or research and development background.[17] Sony's Walkman personal stereo cassette player has also been stated as an example of a technology push where there was no market need.[18]

In cases of Push-Pull-Thinking, where demand is the driving factor, the needs or requirements of society or market its best to take a market research approach to innovation.[17] Innovations regarding safety are often seen as pulled innovations with car airbags and new medical advancements are usually listed as examples.[18]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b c Quan-Haase, A. (2013). Technology and society: Social networks, power, and inequality. Oxford University Press. 64.
  2. ^ Quan-Haase, A. (2013). Technology and society: Social networks, power, and inequality. Oxford University Press. 63.
  3. ^ Boczkowski, Pablo J. (2004-09-01). "The Mutual Shaping of Technology and Society in Videotex Newspapers: Beyond the Diffusion and Social Shaping Perspectives". The Information Society. 20 (4): 255–267. doi:10.1080/01972240490480947. ISSN 0197-2243. S2CID 18942605.
  4. ^ Giotta, Gina (2018-07-03). "Teaching technological determinism and social construction of technology using everyday objects". Communication Teacher. 32 (3): 136–140. doi:10.1080/17404622.2017.1372589. ISSN 1740-4622. S2CID 149112393.
  5. ^ Humphreys, L. (2010). Technological determinism. In S. Priest (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science and technology communication. (pp. 870-873). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi:10.4135/9781412959216.n293
  6. ^ Determinism. (2001). In World of sociology, Gale. Retrieved from http://esearch.credoreference.com/content/entry/worldsocs/determinism/0
  7. ^ Mahood, Aurelea. (2008). Social and technological determinism. CultureNet @ CapilanoU. Retrieved from http://culturenet.wordpress.com/2008/03/07/social-and-technological-determinism/
  8. ^ Scholl, Hans Jochen; Glassey, Olivier; Janssen, Marijn; Klievink, Bram; Lindgren, Ida; Parycek, Peter; Tambouris, Efthimios; Wimmer, Maria A.; Janowski, Tomasz, eds. (2016). Electronic Government. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 9820. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-44421-5. ISBN 978-3-319-44420-8. ISSN 0302-9743. S2CID 9823032.
  9. ^ Mutekwe, Edmore (November 2012). "The impact of technology on social change: a sociological perspective" (PDF). Journal of Research in Peace, Gender and Development. 2 (11): 226–238. S2CID 212475956. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2019-03-04.
  10. ^ Wajcman, J. (2001). "Gender and Technology". International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences: 5976–5979. doi:10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/03170-3. ISBN 9780080430768.
  11. ^ Wellman, B.; Quan-Haase, A.; Witte, J.; Hampton, K. (2013). "Does the internet increase, decrease, or supplement social capital?: Social networks, participation, and community commitment". American Behavioral Scientist. 45 (3): 436–455 [440]. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.24.3156. doi:10.1177/00027640121957286. S2CID 146137303.
  12. ^ Bell, Vaughan (2010). "Don't Touch That Dial". Slate.
  13. ^ Czincz, Jennifer; Hechanova, Regina (2009-11-09). "Internet Addiction: Debating the Diagnosis". Journal of Technology in Human Services. 27 (4): 257–272. doi:10.1080/15228830903329815. ISSN 1522-8835. S2CID 143268533.
  14. ^ Saylor, Michael (2012). The Mobile Wave. Vangard Press. pp. x. ISBN 978-1-59315-720-3.
  15. ^ Mutekwe, Edmore (November 2012). "The impact of technology on social change: a sociological perspective" (PDF). Journal of Research in Peace, Gender and Development. 2 (11): 226–238. S2CID 212475956. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2019-03-04.
  16. ^ Kolodovski, Andrei (December 2006). "Push – Pull - Thinking" (PDF). Risø Innovation Activities.
  17. ^ a b "Push or pull? Three ways to drive innovation - Paris Innovation Review". parisinnovationreview.com. Retrieved 2019-07-12.
  18. ^ a b "Invention and innovation: An introduction". OpenLearn. Retrieved 2019-07-12.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Shaping