El determinismo tecnológico es una teoría reduccionista que asume que la tecnología de una sociedad determina el desarrollo de su estructura social y valores culturales. Se cree que el término se originó en Thorstein Veblen (1857-1929), un sociólogo y economista estadounidense. El determinista tecnológico más radical en los Estados Unidos en el siglo XX fue probablemente Clarence Ayres, seguidor de Thorstein Veblen y John Dewey . William Ogburn también fue conocido por su determinismo tecnológico radical.
La primera elaboración importante de una visión determinista tecnológica del desarrollo socioeconómico provino del filósofo y economista alemán Karl Marx , quien argumentó que los cambios en la tecnología, y específicamente en la tecnología productiva , son la influencia principal en las relaciones sociales humanas y la estructura organizacional, y que las relaciones sociales y las prácticas culturales, en última instancia, giran en torno a la base tecnológica y económica de una sociedad determinada. La posición de Marx se ha arraigado en la sociedad contemporánea, donde la idea de que las tecnologías que cambian rápidamente alteran la vida humana es omnipresente. [1]Aunque muchos autores atribuyen una visión de la historia humana determinada tecnológicamente a las ideas de Marx, no todos los marxistas son deterministas tecnológicos, y algunos autores cuestionan hasta qué punto el propio Marx fue determinista. Además, existen múltiples formas de determinismo tecnológico. [2]
Origen
Se cree que el término fue acuñado por Thorstein Veblen (1857-1929), un científico social estadounidense. El popular historiador contemporáneo de Veblen, Charles A. Beard , proporcionó esta acertada imagen determinista: "La tecnología marcha con botas de siete leguas de una conquista revolucionaria despiadada a otra, derribando antiguas fábricas e industrias, lanzando nuevos procesos con una rapidez aterradora". [3] En cuanto al significado, se describe como la atribución a las máquinas de "poderes" que no tienen. [4] Veblen, por ejemplo, afirmó que "la máquina arroja hábitos antropomórficos de pensamiento". [5] También está el caso de Karl Marx, quien esperaba que la construcción del ferrocarril en la India disolviera el sistema de castas. [1] La idea general, según Robert Heilbroner , es que la tecnología, a través de sus máquinas, puede provocar un cambio histórico al cambiar las condiciones materiales de la existencia humana. [6]
Uno de los deterministas tecnológicos más radicales fue un hombre llamado Clarence Ayres , que fue seguidor de la teoría de Veblen en el siglo XX. Ayres es mejor conocido por desarrollar filosofías económicas, pero también trabajó en estrecha colaboración con Veblen, quien acuñó la teoría del determinismo tecnológico. A menudo hablaba de la lucha entre la tecnología y la estructura ceremonial. Una de sus teorías más notables involucró el concepto de "arrastre tecnológico" donde explica la tecnología como un proceso autogenerador y las instituciones como ceremoniales y esta noción crea un sobredeterminismo tecnológico en el proceso. [7]
Explicación
El determinismo tecnológico busca mostrar los desarrollos técnicos, los medios o la tecnología en su conjunto, como el motor clave en la historia y el cambio social. [8] Es una teoría suscrita por "hiperglobalistas" que afirman que, como consecuencia de la amplia disponibilidad de tecnología, la globalización acelerada es inevitable. Por tanto, el desarrollo tecnológico y la innovación se convierten en el principal motor del cambio social, económico o político. [9]
Los partidarios estrictos del determinismo tecnológico no creen que la influencia de la tecnología difiera según la cantidad de tecnología que se use o se pueda usar. En lugar de considerar la tecnología como parte de un espectro más amplio de la actividad humana, el determinismo tecnológico ve a la tecnología como la base de toda la actividad humana.
El determinismo tecnológico se ha resumido como "La creencia en la tecnología como una fuerza gobernante clave en la sociedad ..." ( Merritt Roe Smith ). 'La idea de que el desarrollo tecnológico determina el cambio social ...' (Bruce Bimber). Cambia la forma en que las personas piensan y cómo interactúan con los demás y puede describirse como '... una proposición lógica de tres palabras: "La tecnología determina la historia"' ( Rosalind Williams ). Es, "... la creencia de que el progreso social es impulsado por la innovación tecnológica, que a su vez sigue un curso" inevitable ". [10] Esta 'idea de progreso' o 'doctrina de progreso' se centraliza en torno a la idea de que los problemas sociales pueden resolverse mediante el avance tecnológico, y esta es la forma en que la sociedad avanza. Los deterministas tecnológicos creen que "'No se puede detener el progreso', lo que implica que somos incapaces de controlar la tecnología" ( Lelia Green ). Esto sugiere que somos algo impotentes y que la sociedad permite que la tecnología impulse los cambios sociales porque "las sociedades no son conscientes de las alternativas a los valores incrustados en ella [la tecnología]" ( Merritt Roe Smith ).
El determinismo tecnológico ha sido definido como un enfoque que identifica la tecnología, o los avances tecnológicos, como el elemento causal central en los procesos de cambio social (Croteau y Hoynes). A medida que se estabiliza una tecnología, su diseño tiende a dictar los comportamientos de los usuarios y, en consecuencia, disminuye la capacidad humana. Sin embargo, esta postura ignora las circunstancias sociales y culturales en las que se desarrolló la tecnología. El sociólogo Claude Fischer (1992) caracterizó las formas más destacadas de determinismo tecnológico como enfoques de "bola de billar", en los que la tecnología es vista como una fuerza externa introducida en una situación social, produciendo una serie de efectos de rebote. [11]
En lugar de reconocer que una sociedad o cultura interactúa con las tecnologías que se utilizan e incluso las da forma, una visión determinista tecnológica sostiene que "los usos que se hacen de la tecnología están determinados en gran medida por la estructura de la tecnología en sí, es decir, que sus funciones se derivan de su forma "( Neil Postman ). Sin embargo, esto no debe confundirse con la "tesis de la inevitabilidad" de Daniel Chandler , que establece que una vez que se introduce una tecnología en una cultura, lo que sigue es el desarrollo inevitable de esa tecnología.
Por ejemplo, podríamos examinar por qué las novelas románticas se han vuelto tan dominantes en nuestra sociedad en comparación con otras formas de novelas como la novela de detectives o la novela occidental. Podríamos decir que se debió a la invención del sistema de encuadernación perfecta desarrollado por los editores. Aquí era donde se usaba pegamento en lugar del proceso lento y costoso de encuadernar libros cosiendo firmas separadas. Esto significó que estos libros podrían producirse en masa para el público en general. No podríamos tener una alfabetización masiva sin una producción masiva. [se necesita aclaración ] Este ejemplo está estrechamente relacionado con la creencia de Marshall McLuhan de que la impresión ayudó a producir el estado nacional . Esto movió a la sociedad de una cultura oral a una cultura alfabetizada, pero también introdujo una sociedad capitalista donde había una clara distinción de clases e individualismo. Como Postman mantiene
Por tanto, la imprenta, el ordenador y la televisión no son simplemente máquinas que transmiten información. Son metáforas a través de las cuales conceptualizamos la realidad de una forma u otra. Ellos clasificarán el mundo para nosotros, lo secuenciarán, lo enmarcarán, lo ampliarán, lo reducirán, argumentarán un caso para lo que es. A través de estas metáforas mediáticas, no vemos el mundo como es. Lo vemos como lo son nuestros sistemas de codificación. Tal es el poder de la forma de información. [12]
Determinismo duro y blando
Al examinar el determinismo , el determinismo duro puede contrastarse con el determinismo blando . Un compatibilista dice que es posible que el libre albedrío y el determinismo existan juntos en el mundo, mientras que un incompatibilista diría que no pueden y debe haber uno u otro. Quienes apoyan el determinismo pueden dividirse aún más.
Los deterministas duros considerarían que la tecnología se desarrolla independientemente de las preocupaciones sociales. Dirían que la tecnología crea un conjunto de fuerzas poderosas que actúan para regular nuestra actividad social y su significado. De acuerdo con esta visión del determinismo, nos organizamos para satisfacer las necesidades de la tecnología y el resultado de esta organización está más allá de nuestro control o no tenemos la libertad de tomar una decisión con respecto al resultado (tecnología autónoma). Sepodría decir que elfilósofo y teórico social francés del siglo XX Jacques Ellul es un determinista duro y defensor de la técnica autónoma (tecnología). En su obra de 1954 La sociedad tecnológica , Ellul esencialmente postula que la tecnología, en virtud de su poder a través de la eficiencia, determina qué aspectos sociales son los más adecuados para su propio desarrollo a través de un proceso de selección natural. Los valores, la moral, la filosofía, etc. de un sistema social que son más propicios para el avance de la tecnología permiten que ese sistema social mejore su poder y se propague a expensas de aquellos sistemas sociales cuyos valores, moral, filosofía, etc., promueven menos la tecnología. Si bien la geografía, el clima y otros factores "naturales" determinaron en gran medida los parámetros de las condiciones sociales durante la mayor parte de la historia de la humanidad, la tecnología se ha convertido recientemente en el factor objetivo dominante (en gran parte debido a las fuerzas desatadas por la revolución industrial) y ha sido el objetivo principal. y factor determinante.
El determinismo suave , como su nombre indica, es una visión más pasiva de la forma en que la tecnología interactúa con situaciones sociopolíticas. Los deterministas blandos todavía suscriben el hecho de que la tecnología es la fuerza que guía nuestra evolución, pero mantendrían que tenemos la oportunidad de tomar decisiones con respecto a los resultados de una situación. Esto no quiere decir que exista el libre albedrío, sino que existe la posibilidad de que tiremos los dados y veamos cuál es el resultado. Una variante ligeramente diferente del determinismo suave es la teoría del cambio social impulsada por la tecnología de 1922 propuesta por William Fielding Ogburn , en la que la sociedad debe adaptarse a las consecuencias de los grandes inventos, pero a menudo lo hace solo después de un período de retraso cultural .
Tecnología como neutral
Individuals who consider technology as neutral see technology as neither good nor bad and what matters are the ways in which we use technology.[13] An example of a neutral viewpoint is, "guns are neutral and its up to how we use them whether it would be 'good or bad'" (Green, 2001). Mackenzie and Wajcman[14] believe that technology is neutral only if it's never been used before, or if no one knows what it is going to be used for (Green, 2001). In effect, guns would be classified as neutral if and only if society were none the wiser of their existence and functionality (Green, 2001). Obviously, such a society is non-existent and once becoming knowledgeable about technology, the society is drawn into a social progression where nothing is 'neutral about society' (Green). According to Lelia Green, if one believes technology is neutral, one would disregard the cultural and social conditions that technology has produced (Green, 2001). This view is also referred to as technological instrumentalism.
In what is often considered a definitive reflection on the topic, the historian Melvin Kranzberg famously wrote in the first of his six laws of technology: "Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral."
Crítica
Skepticism about technological determinism emerged alongside increased pessimism about techno-science in the mid-20th century, in particular around the use of nuclear energy in the production of nuclear weapons, Nazi human experimentation during World War II, and the problems of economic development in the Third World. As a direct consequence, desire for greater control of the course of development of technology gave rise to disenchantment with the model of technological determinism in academia.
Modern theorists of technology and society no longer consider technological determinism to be a very accurate view of the way in which we interact with technology, even though determinist assumptions and language fairly saturate the writings of many boosters of technology, the business pages of many popular magazines, and much reporting on technology[citation needed]. Instead, research in science and technology studies, social construction of technology and related fields have emphasised more nuanced views that resist easy causal formulations. They emphasise that "The relationship between technology and society cannot be reduced to a simplistic cause-and-effect formula. It is, rather, an 'intertwining'", whereby technology does not determine but "operates, and are operated upon in a complex social field" (Murphie and Potts).
T. Snyder approached the aspect of technological determinism in his concept: 'politics of inevitability'.[15] A concept utilized by politicians in which society is promised the idea that the future will be only more of the present, this concept removes responsibility. This could be applied to free markets, the development of nation states and technological progress.
In his article "Subversive Rationalization: Technology, Power and Democracy with Technology," Andrew Feenberg argues that technological determinism is not a very well founded concept by illustrating that two of the founding theses of determinism are easily questionable and in doing so calls for what he calls democratic rationalization (Feenberg 210–212).
Prominent opposition to technologically determinist thinking has emerged within work on the social construction of technology (SCOT). SCOT research, such as that of Mackenzie and Wajcman (1997) argues that the path of innovation and its social consequences are strongly, if not entirely shaped by society itself through the influence of culture, politics, economic arrangements, regulatory mechanisms and the like. In its strongest form, verging on social determinism, "What matters is not the technology itself, but the social or economic system in which it is embedded" (Langdon Winner).
In his influential but contested (see Woolgar and Cooper, 1999) article "Do Artifacts Have Politics?", Langdon Winner illustrates not a form of determinism but the various sources of the politics of technologies. Those politics can stem from the intentions of the designer and the culture of the society in which a technology emerges or can stem from the technology itself, a "practical necessity" for it to function. For instance, New York City urban planner Robert Moses is purported to have built Long Island's parkway tunnels too low for buses to pass in order to keep minorities away from the island's beaches, an example of externally inscribed politics. On the other hand, an authoritarian command-and-control structure is a practical necessity of a nuclear power plant if radioactive waste is not to fall into the wrong hands. As such, Winner neither succumbs to technological determinism nor social determinism. The source of a technology's politics is determined only by carefully examining its features and history.
Although "The deterministic model of technology is widely propagated in society" (Sarah Miller), it has also been widely questioned by scholars. Lelia Green explains that, "When technology was perceived as being outside society, it made sense to talk about technology as neutral". Yet, this idea fails to take into account that culture is not fixed and society is dynamic. When "Technology is implicated in social processes, there is nothing neutral about society" (Lelia Green). This confirms one of the major problems with "technological determinism and the resulting denial of human responsibility for change. There is a loss of human involvement that shape technology and society" (Sarah Miller).
Another conflicting idea is that of technological somnambulism, a term coined by Winner in his essay "Technology as Forms of Life". Winner wonders whether or not we are simply sleepwalking through our existence with little concern or knowledge as to how we truly interact with technology. In this view, it is still possible for us to wake up and once again take control of the direction in which we are traveling (Winner 104). However, it requires society to adopt Ralph Schroeder's claim that, "users don't just passively consume technology, but actively transform it".
In opposition to technological determinism are those who subscribe to the belief of social determinism and postmodernism. Social determinists believe that social circumstances alone select which technologies are adopted, with the result that no technology can be considered "inevitable" solely on its own merits. Technology and culture are not neutral and when knowledge comes into the equation, technology becomes implicated in social processes. The knowledge of how to create and enhance technology, and of how to use technology is socially bound knowledge. Postmodernists take another view, suggesting that what is right or wrong is dependent on circumstance. They believe technological change can have implications on the past, present and future.[16] While they believe technological change is influenced by changes in government policy, society and culture, they consider the notion of change to be a paradox, since change is constant.
Media and cultural studies theorist Brian Winston, in response to technological determinism, developed a model for the emergence of new technologies which is centered on the Law of the suppression of radical potential. In two of his books – Technologies of Seeing: Photography, Cinematography and Television (1997) and Media Technology and Society (1998) – Winston applied this model to show how technologies evolve over time, and how their 'invention' is mediated and controlled by society and societal factors which suppress the radical potential of a given technology.
El estribo
One continued argument for technological determinism is centered on the stirrup and its impact on the creation of feudalism in Europe in the late 8th century/early 9th century. Lynn White is credited with first drawing this parallel between feudalism and the stirrup in his book Medieval Technology and Social Change, which was published in 1962 and argued that as "it made possible mounted shock combat", the new form of war made the soldier that much more efficient in supporting feudal townships (White, 2). According to White, the superiority of the stirrup in combat was found in the mechanics of the lance charge: "The stirrup made possible- though it did not demand- a vastly more effective mode of attack: now the rider could law his lance at rest, held between the upper arm and the body, and make at his foe, delivering the blow not with his muscles but with the combined weight of himself and his charging stallion (White, 2)." White draws from a large research base, particularly Heinrich Brunner's "Der Reiterdienst und die Anfänge des Lehnwesens" in substantiating his claim of the emergence of feudalism. In focusing on the evolution of warfare, particularly that of cavalry in connection with Charles Martel's "diversion of a considerable part of the Church's vast military riches...from infantry to cavalry", White draws from Brunner's research and identifies the stirrup as the underlying cause for such a shift in military division and the subsequent emergence of feudalism (White, 4). Under the new brand of warfare garnered from the stirrup, White implicitly argues in favor of technological determinism as the vehicle by which feudalism was created.
Though an accomplished work, White's Medieval Technology and Social Change has since come under heavy scrutiny and condemnation. The most volatile critics of White's argument at the time of its publication, P.H. Sawyer and R.H. Hilton, call the work as a whole "a misleading adventurist cast to old-fashioned platitudes with a chain of obscure and dubious deductions from scanty evidence about the progress of technology (Sawyer and Hilton, 90)." They further condemn his methods and, by association, the validity of technological determinism: "Had Mr. White been prepared to accept the view that the English and Norman methods of fighting were not so very different in the eleventh century, he would have made the weakness of his argument less obvious, but the fundamental failure would remain: the stirrup cannot alone explain the changes it made possible (Sawyer and Hilton, 91)." For Sawyer and Hilton, though the stirrup may be useful in the implementation of feudalism, it cannot be credited for the creation of feudalism alone.
Despite the scathing review of White's claims, the technological determinist aspect of the stirrup is still in debate. Alex Roland, author of "Once More into the Stirrups; Lynne White Jr, Medieval Technology and Social Change", provides an intermediary stance: not necessarily lauding White's claims, but providing a little defense against Sawyer and Hilton's allegations of gross intellectual negligence. Roland views White's focus on technology to be the most relevant and important aspect of Medieval Technology and Social Change rather than the particulars of its execution: "But can these many virtues, can this utility for historians of technology, outweigh the most fundamental standards of the profession? Can historians of technology continue to read and assign a book that is, in the words of a recent critic, "shot through with over-simplification, with a progression of false connexions between cause and effect, and with evidence presented selectively to fit with [White's] own pre-conceived ideas"? The answer, I think, is yes, at least a qualified yes (Roland, 574-575)." Objectively, Roland claims Medieval Technology and Social Change a variable success, at least as "Most of White's argument stands... the rest has sparked useful lines of research (Roland, 584)." This acceptance of technological determinism is ambiguous at best, neither fully supporting the theory at large nor denouncing it, rather placing the construct firmly in the realm of the theoretical. Roland neither views technological determinism as completely dominant over history nor completely absent as well; in accordance with the above criterion of technological determinist structure, would Roland be classified as a "soft determinist".
Deterministas tecnológicos notables
Thomas L. Friedman, American journalist, columnist and author, admits to being a technological determinist in his book The World is Flat.
Futurist Raymond Kurzweil's theories about a technological singularity follow a technologically deterministic view of history.
Some interpret Karl Marx as advocating technological determinism, with such statements as "The Handmill gives you society with the feudal lord: the steam-mill, society with the industrial capitalist" (The Poverty of Philosophy, 1847), but others argue that Marx was not a determinist.[17]
Technological determinist Walter J. Ong reviews the societal transition from an oral culture to a written culture in his work Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word (1982). He asserts that this particular development is attributable to the use of new technologies of literacy (particularly print and writing,) to communicate thoughts which could previously only be verbalized. He furthers this argument by claiming that writing is purely context dependent as it is a "secondary modelling system" (8). Reliant upon the earlier primary system of spoken language, writing manipulates the potential of language as it depends purely upon the visual sense to communicate the intended information. Furthermore, the rather stagnant technology of literacy distinctly limits the usage and influence of knowledge, it unquestionably effects the evolution of society. In fact, Ong asserts that "more than any other single invention, writing has transformed human consciousness" (Ong 1982: 78).
El determinismo de los medios como una forma de determinismo tecnológico
Media determinism is a form of technological determinism, a philosophical and sociological position which posits the power of the media to impact society.[18] Two foundational media determinists are the Canadian scholars Harold Innis and Marshall McLuhan. One of the best examples of technological determinism in media theory is Marshall McLuhan's theory "the medium is the message" and the ideas of his mentor Harold Adams Innis. Both these Canadian theorists saw media as the essence of civilization. The association of different media with particular mental consequences by McLuhan and others can be seen as related to technological determinism. It is this variety of determinism that is referred to as media determinism. According to McLuhan, there is an association between communications media/technology and language; similarly, Benjamin Lee Whorf argues that language shapes our perception of thinking (linguistic determinism). For McLuhan, media is a more powerful and explicit determinant than is the more general concept of language. McLuhan was not necessarily a hard determinist. As a more moderate version of media determinism, he proposed that our use of particular media may have subtle influences on us, but more importantly, it is the social context of use that is crucial.[19] See also Media ecology. Media determinism is a form of the popular dominant theory of the relationship between technology and society. In a determinist view, technology takes on an active life of its own and is seen be as a driver of social phenomena. Innis believed that the social, cultural, political, and economic developments of each historical period can be related directly to the technology of the means of mass communication of that period. In this sense, like Dr. Frankenstein's monster, technology itself appears to be alive, or at least capable of shaping human behavior.[20] However, it has been increasingly subject to critical review by scholars. For example, scholar Raymond Williams, criticizes media determinism and rather believes social movements define technological and media processes.[21] With regard to communications media, audience determinism is a viewpoint opposed to media determinism. This is described as instead of media being presented as doing things to people; the stress is on the way people do things with media. Individuals need to be aware that the term "deterministic" is a negative one for many social scientists and modern sociologists; in particular they often use the word as a term of abuse.[22]
Ver también
- Instrumental conception of technology
- Compatibilism and incompatibilism
- Democratic Rationalization
- Democratic Transhumanism
- Determinism
- Hegemony
- Historical materialism
- Orthodox Marxism
- Philosophy of technology
- Social constructivism
- Social engineering (political science)
- Social shaping of technology
- Sociocultural evolution
- Technological fix
- Technological somnambulism
- Technological utopianism
- Theory of productive forces
Notas al pie
- [as cited in Croteau, D. and Hoynes, M. (2003) Media Society: Industries, Images and Audiences (third edition), Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks pp. 305–306]
Referencias
- ^ a b Smith & Marx, Merrit Roe & Leo (June 1994). Does Technology Drive History? The Dilemma of Technological Determinism. The MIT Press. ISBN 978-0262691673.
- ^ Bimber, Bruce (May 1990). "Karl Marx and the Three Faces of Technological Determinism". Social Studies of Science. 20 (2): 333–351. doi:10.1177/030631290020002006. S2CID 144204186.
- ^ Beard, Charles A. (February 1927). "Time, Technology, and the Creative Spirit in Political Science". The American Political Science Review. 21 (1): 1–11. doi:10.2307/1945535. JSTOR 1945535.
- ^ Smith, Merritt; Marx, Leo (1994). Does Technology Drive History?: The Dilemma of Technological Determinism. Cambridge: MIT Press. p. 70. ISBN 978-0262193474.
- ^ Heilbroner, Robert (1999). The Worldly Philosophers: The Lives, Times And Ideas Of The Great Economic Thinkers. New York: Simon and Schuster. pp. 239. ISBN 978-0684862149.
- ^ MacKenzie, Donald (1998). Knowing Machines: Essays on Technical Change. Cambridge: MIT Press. p. 24. ISBN 978-0262631884.
- ^ Mulberg, Jonathan (1995). Social Limits to Economic Theory. London: Routledge. pp. 122. ISBN 978-0415123860.
- ^ Kunz, William M. (2006). Culture Conglomerates: Consolidation in the Motion Picture and Television Industries. Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. p. 2. ISBN 978-0742540668.
- ^ Macmillan., Palgrave (2015). Global politics. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 9781137349262. OCLC 979008143.
- ^ Does technology drive history? : the dilemma of technological determinism. Merritt Roe Smith, Leo Marx. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 1994. ISBN 0-262-19347-7. OCLC 28929481.CS1 maint: others (link)
- ^ Croteau and Hoynes, 2003
- ^ Postman, Teaching as a Conserving Activity (1979), p. 39)
- ^ Huesemann, Michael H., and Joyce A. Huesemann (2011). Technofix: Why Technology Won't Save Us or the Environment, "The Myth of Value-Neutrality", pp. 235-241, New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada, ISBN 0865717044.
- ^ (1997)
- ^ The road to unfreedom, Snyder, 2018
- ^ Green, Leila (2001). Technoculture: From Alphabet to Cybersex. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin. p. 15. ISBN 9781865080482.
- ^ Technological or Media Determinism, Daniel Chandler
- ^ Media Determinism in Cyberspace Archived 2010-05-29 at the Wayback Machine, Regent University
- ^ McLuhan, Marshall, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man (PDF), archived from the original (PDF) on March 24, 2012
- ^ Hist, Martin. "One tweet does not a revolution make: Technological determinism, media and social change". Deakin University. Cite journal requires
|journal=
(help) - ^ Williams, Raymond (1974). Television: Technology and Cultural Form. London and New York: Routledge. p. 133. ISBN 978-0-415-31456-5. Retrieved 28 May 2013.
- ^ Chandler, Daniel (18 September 1995), Technological or Media Determinism, archived from the original on April 21, 2015
Otras lecturas
- G.A. Cohen, Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence, Oxford and Princeton, 1978.
- Cowan, Ruth Schwartz (1983). More Work for Mother: The Ironies of Household Technology from the Open Hearth to the Microwave. New York: Basic Books.
- Croteau, David; Hoynes, William (2003). Media Society: Industries, Images and Audiences ((third edition) ed.). Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press. pp. 305–307.
- Ellul, Jacques (1964). The Technological Society. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
- Green, Lelia (2002). Technoculture. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin. pp. 1–20.
- Huesemann, Michael H., and Joyce A. Huesemann (2011). Technofix: Why Technology Won't Save Us or the Environment, New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada, ISBN 0865717044, 464 pp.
- Miller, Sarah (January 1997). "Futures Work – Recognising the Social Determinants of Change". Social Alternatives (vol.1, No.1 ed.). pp. 57–58.
- Murphie, Andrew; Potts, John (2003). "1". Culture and Technology. London: Palgrave. p. 21.
- Ong, Walter J (1982). Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. New York: Methuen.
- Postman, Neil (1992). Technopoly: the Surrender of Culture to Technology. Vintage: New York. pp. 3–20.
- Roland, Alex. Once More into the Stirrups; Lynne White Jr, Medieval Technology and Social Change" Classics Revisited. 574- 585.
- Sawyer, P.H. and R.H. Hilton. "Technical Determinism" Past & Present. April 1963: 90-100.
- Smith, Merritt Roe; Marx, Leo, eds. (1994). Does Technology Drive History? The Dilemma of Technological Determinism. Cambridge: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262691673.
- Staudenmaier, S.J., John M. (1985). "The Debate over Technological Determinism". Technology's Storytellers: Reweaving the Human Fabric. Cambridge: The Society for the History of Technology and the MIT Press. pp. 134–148.
- Winner, Langdon (1977). Autonomous Technology: Technics-Out-of-Control as a Theme in Political Thought. Cambridge: MIT Press.
- Winner, Langdon (1986). "Do Artefacts Have Politics?". The Whale and the Reactor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 26.
- Winner, Langdon. "Technology as Forms of Life". Readings in the Philosophy of Technology. David M. Kaplan. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004. 103–113
- Woolgar, Steve and Cooper, Geoff (1999). "Do artefacts have ambivalence? Moses' bridges, Winner's bridges and other urban legends in S&TS". Social Studies of Science 29 (3), 433–449.
- White, Lynn (1966). Medieval Technology and Social Change. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Furbank, P.N. "The Myth of Determinism." Raritan. [City] Fall 2006: 79–87. EBSCOhost. Monroe Community College Library, Rochester, NY. 2 April 2007.
- Feenberg, Andrew. "Democratic Rationalization". Readings in the Philosophy of Technology. David M. Kaplan. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004. 209–225
- Chandler, Daniel. Technological or Media Determinism. 1995. 18 September 1995. <http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/tecdet/tecdet.html>
enlaces externos
- Colin Rule, "Is Technology Neutral?"
- Megan McCormick, "Technology as Neutral"
- Daniel Chandler, "Technological or Media Determinism"
- Chris Kimble, "Technological Determinism and Social Choice"