The modal nature of ICT: Challenging historical interpretation of the social understanding and appropriation of ICT
Trinity College < m.leaning@trinity-cm.ac.uk >
This paper proposes a sociological model for understanding the social appropriation of information and communications technology (ICT). It is argued that the relationship between a media form and the society in which it is deployed is of key import in understanding how media is used. An account is given of the way in which the power of ICT to affect society has been understood. It is argued that positions within this debate are deeply tied to Western cultural beliefs and values. An alternate model of technology is proposed. In this model ICT is regarded as modal in operation, that is, it may operate differently in different situations.
Information and communication technologies (ICTs) have been widely understood to bring about social
change. For example, ICTs have been thought to:
invigorate economic systems (Gates, 2000), empower citizens (Gore, 1994) and
even contribute to social and psychological well-being (Cole, et al., 2001).
This article advocates a slightly different position; that the ability of a
media or technology, such as ICT, to bring about change is tied very much to
the social form of the society in which it is deployed. The manner in which a
technology is used, its local appropriation, is argued to be more closely
linked to the social organisation of the society in
which the technology is deployed than any essential qualities the technology
itself is understood to possess. This
argument was, of course, initially set forth by Raymond Williams (1974).
Moreover, it has received a partial re-articulation by a number of academics in
recent years, (Slevin, 2000; Miller & Slater,
2000; Selwyn & Gorrard, 2002) but has seemingly
lost out to the neo-McLuhanite approaches advocated
by numerous techno-optimists (Bolter, 2002).
The emergence of Community Informatics as an academic discipline
presents an opportunity to re-engage with the social side of ICT. Indeed as
Selwyn and Gorrard contend there is clearly a
pressing need to step beyond the limitations of previous analyses of ICT if we
are to gain a deeper understanding
We need to be aware of
the social, cultural, political, economic and technological aspects of ICTthe
soft as well as the hard concerns (p. 6). As Harris (2002) and Taylor (2004) both
indicate, Social Informatics is a discipline that requires focus to be placed
not upon the rarefied use of ICT but upon their use in social situations. In
such situations, the dominant referent discipline (as Harris suggests), moves
from economics and marketing to social science. This shift to a social
scientific, if not a sociological, critical idiom incorporates an implicit
re-emphasis upon social factors in the understanding of the use of ICT.
Much early literature on the subject of the social use of
ICT incorporated a sense of technological utopianism. ICT was understood as a
means by which desirable values, understood to have been lost in recent times,
could be restored. Rheingold (1993), for example, utilising
an instrumentalist conception of technology usage, proposed, one of the
explanations for the virtual community phenomenon is the hunger for community
that grows in the breasts of people around the world as more and more informal
public spaces disappear from our real lives (p. 6). Similarly Schuler (1996),
with a more technological determinist approach, contended that virtual
communities canin concert with other effortsplay a positive role in
rebuilding community by strengthening
. core values (p. 34). The emphasis here
has been very much along liberal progressive lines and perhaps narrow conceptualisations of communities, core values and
positive roles.
Such opinions can be seen as examples of a belief in the
power of ICT to provide a technological fix (Selwyn & Gorrard,
2002)the ability of technology to solve complex social problems. Leaning
(2004) argues that such an interpretation of ICT arises as ICT has primarily
been studied in societies in where such beliefs are the common currency. ICT is
imbued with a potency to restore liberal values as it has primarily been studied
in societies where such values are desirable and perceived as being threatened.
This argument resonates strongly with the views of Downing (1996), who argues
for the study of ICT (along with other media forms) outside of the traditional
laboratories of Western Europe, North America and Oceana.
This article continues this line of argument. It is asserted
that ICTs potency to cause change is closely tied to
the society in which it is deployed and, furthermore, attention should be
placed upon both the technology and the society equally. As Miller and Slater
(2000, p. 11) argue, if you want to get to the
Internet, dont start from there.
However, the relationship of ICT to social form has as yet
to be fully explored. This article is concerned with sketching a sociological
model by which the relationship of ICTs to society
may be understood. This proposal consists of two arguments. The first is that
current understandings of the way in which technology is used, appropriated and
affects society derive from the experience of technological development and the
philosophic interpretation of this experience in Western societies. In many
instances it is the Wests experience of technology that has shaped and
informed the general cultural interpretation of how technology can and should
be deployed and used. Regarding the Wests experience as universal is
problematic for, as Hård and Jamison (1998) propose,
cultural tradition plays a considerable part in conceptions of technology and
technological power. What is required is recognition that current
interpretations of the power of ICT are deeply and historically situated within
a Western cultural milieu. The intricacies of this interpretation need to be foregrounded and examined.
Secondly, an alternate model of how technology may operate
in relation to society is needed. While
the current model of ICT power is intricately bound up with a Western
interpretation, it must be acknowledged that technology and social form do
exist in a close relationship. What is needed, therefore, is a model of
technology that does not close off non-Western cultural interpretations of
technology. This model regards technology not as in some way an external force
affecting society, but as a phenomenon constructed, appropriated and understood
by society. The model conceptualises technology not
as a fixed external, eternal aspect of the social world but instead as a part
of the social world. Accordingly, ICT should be regarded as something operating
and existing in a plurality of forms. Technology needs to be understood as
something that may interact with society in various ways. It is proposed here
that ICT be understood as being modalsomething that may be used in a
particular way in one society but in a different way in another. Technology
possesses no quality that necessitates its particular form of use or societal
level consequence.
Underpinning discussions of technology, such as contemporary
discourse surrounding ICTs, are deeply felt, but
often unarticulated, assumptions of how technology and people interact. The
relationship between technology and society, particularly in discussions
concerning new technologies, is often assumed to be of a simple deterministic
nature; the introduction of new technology causes social change. However there
are slight, historically situated, variations to this model. In proposing a
philosophical-anthropological orientation to the study of technology, Feenberg (1999) contends that within modern discourse the
relationship of technology with society has been conceived of in a number of
different ways. Using a broadly Kuhnian (Kuhn, 1962)
approach, Feenberg argues that discourses of
technological understanding, like scientific paradigms, emerge from local historical
conceptions, and are interwoven with political and social projects. He asserts
that the development of such an analysis is key to
grasping a sense of technologys significance, asking How can one study
specific technologies without a theory of the larger society in which they
develop? (Feenberg, 2003).
The categories Feenberg identifies, instrumentalism,
determinism and substantivism, thus may offer a
richer and more detailed account of the beliefs underpinning accounts of
technology, and consequently ICT.
Feenberg states that the classical
disciplines of the humanities exclude science and technology. It is only since
the emergence of the discourses of modernity that accounts of technology have
become more central. However, as Winner (1987) notes, such views of technology
were largely instrumental, as technology was often subsumed under the rubric of
economics or politics. This account of technology persists today, for, as
Winner (1987, p. 2) states, there is still an open tendency
to see the
matter solely in terms of economics and economic history. In addition to the relegation of technology
to a position subordinate to economics or politics, instrumental accounts of
technology tend to centre on certain unchallenged assumptions. Winner (pp.
25-27) states that: In the conventional perspective
technical means are by
their nature mere tools subject to the will of whomever
employs them.
Technology is essentially neutral. In the conventional way of
thinking, the moral context appropriate to technical matters is clear.
Technology is nothing more than a tool.
The instrumental
understanding of technology holds that technology is essentially neutral and
subservient. The idea of the neutrality of technology presupposes an established
position of objective truth, one that has been discerned through scientific
investigation. According to this idea, technological artefacts
are different from cultural artefacts in that they
are purely means-oriented, a position arising out of a view of technology as
essentially progressive. Furthermore, in instrumental thought, as Feenberg (2003, p. 3) notes, technology appears as purely
instrumental, as value-free. It does not respond to inherent purposes, but is
merely a means of serving subjective goals we choose as we wish. Instrumentalist
readings of technology still circulate widely within the more scientific
disciplines and have proven quite influential in more positivist approaches to
the study of communication (see for example Weaver and Shannon, 1963).
Determinism
Along with the instrumental reading of technology, a second
and persistent understanding of technology is evident within the discourses of
modernity. Broadly referred to as determinist,
this category has as its mainstay a belief in the potential of technology to
bring about social change on a macro or societal level. Technological
determinism has proven a strong and persistent strand of thought in
understanding the role of technology within modern Western thought even though
it seems rarely to be explicitly stated. Marx and Smith (1996, pp. ix-xv) contend: A sense
of technologys power as a crucial agent of change has a prominent place in the
culture of modernity. It belongs to the body of widely shared tacit knowledge
that is more likely to be acquired by direct experience than by the transmittal
of explicit ideas.
Similarly, Bimber proposes:
Technological determinism seems to lurk in the shadows of many explanations of
the role of technology (1996, p. 80). With regards to a general description of
technological determinism, Heilbroner summarises the argument as follows: Machines make history
by changing the material conditions of human existence. It is largely machines
that define what it is to live in a certain epoch (1996, p. 69). Feenberg contends
that such a trend emerged out of notions of progressivism within the
Enlightenment and, more specifically, an engagement with the progressivism of
Marx and even Darwin (2003, pp. 1-2). In post-Enlightenment European society,
progress came to be broadly equated with an acknowledgement of technologys
power; progressivism had become technological determinism (Feenberg, pp. 1-2).
This form of understanding has proven highly persistent and
popular. It continues to manifest itself in numerous formats. For example, one
particular and contemporary understanding equates the deployment of technology
with improved social conditions. A number of populist accounts, for example
Kawamoto (2003), regard the deployment of ICT as a necessary precursor to the
development of a knowledge economy or information society. Several national
governments have sought a rapid deployment of technology in pursuit of economic
and social development. For example, in a statement by the Welsh Assembly
detailing its Information and
Communication Strategy it is contended that: Many of us are now using
computers, mobile phones and the Internet
These technologies have the potential
to transform society and the economy in Wales; they are already doing so in
many parts of the world. The choices we make nowabout which new technologies
we use and, more importantly, how we use themare crucial to the future of
Wales and will help us to create a Better Wales! (Welsh
Assembly Government, 2003).
Similarly, the Malaysian government has instigated, and to a
degree acted upon, plans to leapfrog into the Information Age, developing a
Multimedia Super-Corridor, a region of technological development
incorporating purpose-built cities and a university all underpinned by highly
developed technological infrastructure (Multimedia Development Corporation,
2000).
A range of attitudes broadly termed substantivist challenge the
determinist belief in the neutrality and truth-revealing nature of technology (Feenberg, 2003, p. 2). As instrumentalism and determinism
are understood to have emerged from empiricist and positivist tendencies within
Enlightenment thought, substantivism is understood to
have arisen from the distrust of technology and the reassertion of the natural
found within Romanticist discourse. Similar to determinist discourse, substantivists contend that technology can directly
intersect with and modify social life. However, substantivism
avoids the utopian and optimistic tendencies that characterise
determinist accounts and instead maintains deep reservations about technology.
Technology is understood to, inherently, subjugate the
user to systems not initially declared in the operation of the technology. Such
a belief reaches its most eloquent form in Heideggers The Question Concerning Technology (1954). Heidegger proposes that technology is far from the
neutral or simply goal-oriented system determinists or instrumentalists would
claim. Rather: we are delivered over to it in the worst possible way when we
regard it as something neutral; for this conception of it, to which today we
particularly like to do homage, makes us utterly blind to the essence of
technology (p. 4).
Technology contains an essence: Heidegger envisages that
technology is not about achieving goals but about revealing or bringing forth
the use of a resource. However, modern technology is fundamentally different
from what Heidegger regards as ancient technology. The form of revealing is
primarily different because of the physics-based nature of modern technology
that allows for the ordering of a standing reserve at the behest of humans.
This is opposed to the fundamental primacy of natural forces in old technology.
However, Heidegger regards modern technology as inherently insidious, as humans
do not control this; humans form part of the system of standing reserve. Humans
are enframed by technology and technological
systems and lose their freedom through their incorporation into technological
systems. While Heidegger offers a radical reading of technology it lacks a
sociologically critical aspect in that fault is understood to lie with
modern technology as an entity as opposed to the more critical conflicts and
power relations that underpin modernity.
Substantivist thought also incorporates a
spectrum of opinion that links the subjectifying
nature of technology with specific political projectsa radicalising
and politicising of Romantic thought. Technology is conceptualised as inherently political, Winner contends:
At issue is the claim that machines, structures, and systems of modern
material culture can be accurately judged not only for their contributions of
efficiency and productivity, not merely for their positive and negative side
effects, but also for the ways in which they can embody specific forms of power
and authority (1996, p. 28).
At the core of such claims lies a different conceptualisation of the nature and understanding of the
origin of technological artefacts to that of the
instrumentalists and the determinists. Here, in an engagement with Kuhnian theory, substantivism
explicitly challenges the notion that technology is a truth-revealing (or
revealed) phenomenon; on the contrary, technology arises from, and is broadly
shaped by, society. Substantivists argue that
technology cannot be distinctly discerned from other forms of cultural
production and, as with all forms of cultural production, technology is
inherently stained by the situation of its material and economic production.
Substantivism offers a theory not only of the
effects of technology upon society, but also of the effects of society upon
technology. Qvortrup opines that new technology
cannot be properly understood if we persist in treating technology and society
as two independent entities (1984, p. 7). Technology needs to be understood as
a component of society. Consequently, and most importantly, technology is in
essence determined by the society in which it originates. It is an artefact of a civilisation and
not a progressive quest towards truth. Technology is not the neutral artefact presumed by instrumentalists and determinists. For
a substantivist, technology is inherently compromised
by its site of production. As Marcuse
proposes: Specific purposes and interests of domination are not foisted upon
technology subsequently and from the outside; they enter the very
construction of the technical apparatus. Technology is always a
historical-social project: in it is
projected what a society and its ruling interests intend to do with men and
things. Such a purpose of domination is substantive and to this extent
belongs to the very form of technical reason (italics in original, 1968, p.
224).
It is in this critical and dystopian
dimension, where technology contains the insidious will of its situation of
manufacture, and where substantivist accounts are
distinguished from the utopian progressive accounts of technology proffered by
determinists. Technology is inherently a problematic system of control for substantivists, a form of instantiated power. Contrasted
with the instrumental and determinist interpretations of technology, substantivism offers a highly pessimistic and critical
reading of the further integration of social functions within systems of
technology.
The above-noted multiple forms of understanding of
technologys interaction with society constitute the general range of opinion
on the topic. While the range of views examined is not exhaustive of the entire
body of thought within the field, the beliefs and opinions cited can be considered
to be representative of the general prevailing ideas in circulation and they
can be seen to set out the parameters of the debate.
The Alternate Model: ICT as Modal
In examining the deep cultural and historical origin of the
arguments surrounding technology, the very nature of the way in which
technology, and consequently ICTs, are conceptualised is questioned. As technology may be
interpreted in differing ways, a conceptual model of technology and ICT that
allows for multiple interpretations is needed.
In light of this, it is proposed that ICTs
be regarded as contingent or modal forms of communication. It should be noted
that this use of the terms mode, modal and modality is distinct from a
number of other uses of the terms in media and communications theory. Rather
than arguing that ICTs are a mode or form of
communication or cultural transmissionit is proposed that the ICTs have modal quality in relation to their use,
that they have different modes of use. As with Thompson (1990, pp. 216-264), it
is argued that media, such as ICTs, are socially
contingent means of communicating information and, following Kress and Van Leeuwen (2001), that the Internet itself is a mode of
communication, or as Slevin (2000) proposes, that it
is to be seen as a modality of cultural transmission.
Therefore, the use of the term here is different. Modal
refers to the multiple ways in which ICTs may be
read, understood and used. Although ICTs may function
in certain ways in some societies, they may not function in that way in all
societies. ICTs may cause change and, as has been
noted by numerous previous researchers, may bring about new ways of acting.
However, we are contending that they may not do so in the same way in all
societies, with the ability of technology to cause change being deeply linked
to other aspects of social life. ICT, thus, is not understood as an asocial
channel that passes information, regardless of the environment in which it is
used. Instead it needs to be understood as deeply linked to the social systems
and contexts in which it is usedICT use depends upon the social environment.
It is therefore proposed that, methodologically, ICTs be conceptualised in the
following way:
ICTs are
a modal form of media and their use and appropriation may vary according to the
environment in which they are used. Therefore, to examine ICTs,
attention should be focused upon the interdependence of social systems, media
technology and form of action studied.
Like all technology, ICTs are not
outside of society, they are interpreted, appropriated
and used within social frameworks. Consequently there can be no single
interpretation of the outcome of their usethey will not have the same effect
in all places and at all times. We must, therefore, understand their use as deeply
linked to the society in question.
Adopting such a
position involves stepping back from the direct acceptance of our view of
technology or of our interpretation of what technology can do. It challenges
the idea that either technology or society should be considered as a priori in conception. The focus of
attention shifts from a focus upon the implicit potency of a technology to an
analysis of how a society makes use of the technology. As noted above, it
affords an opportunity to develop a social account of the use of ICT, an
approach that integrates the potency of ICT within a social or sociological
account of action. It is argued that the discipline of Community Informatics is
well suited to, and will benefit from, developing a critical idiom that can
examine the technological and sociological in concert rather than as discrete
and distinct elements.
Bimber, B. (1996). Three faces of technological determinism. In M.
R. Smith & L. Marx (Eds.), Does technology drive history? The dilemma
of technological determinism (pp. 79-100). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bolter, D. (2002). Formal analysis
and cultural critique in digital media theory. Convergence, 8(4), 77-88.
Cole. J., Suman, M., Schramm, P., Lunn, R., Coget, J. F., Firth,
D., Fortier, D., Hanson, K., Qin, J., Singh, R.,
Yamauchi, Y., & Aquino, J. S. (2001). The UCLA
Internet report 2001: Surveying the digital future, Year two. Retrieved October 16, 2003, from http://www.digitalcenter.org/pdf/InternetReportYearTwo.pdf.
Downing, J. (1996). Internationalising media theory. London: Sage.
Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning technology.
London: Routledge.
Feenberg, A. (2003). What is philosophy of technology? Retrieved
July 25, 2003, from http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/feenberg/komaba.htm
Gates, B. (2000). Business at the speed of thought: Using a digital
nervous system. London: Penguin.
Gore, A. (1994). The Global Information Infrastructure: Forging a new
Athenian Age of Democracy. Intermedia, 22 (2), 4-7.
Harris, R. (2002). Research partnerships to support rural communities in Malaysia with
information and communication technologies. In J.
Lazar (Ed.), Managing IT/community partnerships in the 21st Century (pp.
222-247). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
Hård, M. &
Jamison, A. (1998). Conceptual framework: Technology debates as appropriation processes. In
M. Hård & A. Jamison (Eds.), The intellectual appropriation
of technology: Discourses on modernity, 1900-1930 (pp. 1-15). Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Heidegger, M. (1954) [1977]. The question
concerning technology. In W. Lovitt,
The question concerning technology and other essays (pp. 3-35). New
York: Harper Torchbooks.
Heilbroner, R. (1996). Technological determinism revisited. In M. R.
Smith & L. Marx (Eds.), Does technology drive history? The dilemma
of technological determinism (pp. 58-78). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press..
Kawamoto. K. (2002). Media
and society in the digital age. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen,
T. (2001).
Multimodal discourse: the modes and media of contemporary communication.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kuhn, T, (1962). The structure of scientific
revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Leaning, M. (2004). Contributions to a sociology of the internet:
A case study of the use of the internet in the Republic of Croatia in the 1990s.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Luton.
Marcuse, H. (1968). Negations. (J.
Shapiro, Trans.). London: Penguin Press.
Marx, L., & Smith, M, (1996). Introduction.
In M. R. Smith & L. Marx (Eds.),
Does technology drive history? The
dilemma of technological determinism (pp. i-xxi). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Miller, D., & Slater, D. (2000). The Internet: An ethnographic
approach. London: Berg.
Multimedia Development Corporation. (2000). About
MSCOverview. Retrieved October 16, 2005, from http://www.msc.com.my/msc/msc.asp.
Qvortrup, L. (1984). The social significance of telematics:
An essay on the information society (P. Edmonds, Trans.). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the
electronic frontier. Reading, MA: Wesley Publishing.
Schuler, D. (1996). New community networks: Wired for change. New York:
ACM Press.
Selwyn, N., & S. Gorard. (2002). The Information age:
Technology, learning and exclusion in Wales. Cardiff: University of Wales
Press.
Slevin, J. (2000). The internet and society.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Taylor, W. (2004). Social appropriation of internet
technology: A South African platform. The
Journal of Community Informatics, 1(1), 21-29.
Thompson, J. (1990). Ideology and modern culture.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Weaver, W., & Shannon, C. (1963). The mathematical
theory of communication. Illinois: University of Illinois Press.
Welsh Assembly Government. (Undated).
Online for a better Wales. Retrieved
July 12, 2003, from http://www.cymruarlein.wales.gov.uk.
Williams, R. (1974). Television: Technology and cultural form. London: Routledge.
Winner, L. (1987). Autonomous technology: Technics-out-of-control as a theme in political thought.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Winner, L. (1996). Do artefacts
have politics? In D. MacKenzie
& J. Wacjcman (Eds.). The
social shaping of technology (pp.
26-39). Buckingham: Open University Press.