We like to think of technology as neutral. A hammer is just a hammerâit can build a house or break a window, but the hammer itself has no preferences. This is the common-sense view, and it's almost entirely wrong.
Donald MacKenzie and Judy Wajcman's *The Social Shaping of Technology* is one of the most important challenges to this view. Their argument is simple but radical: technology is not neutral, and it does not develop according to its own internal logic. Instead, technology is shaped at every stageâfrom conception to design to adoption to useâby social, economic, and political forces.
This matters for the DEVICES framework because it reveals that devices are never just tools. They are the crystallized products of social choices, and they carry those choices with them into every context where they are used. The QWERTY keyboard, the automobile, the smartphoneâeach of these devices embeds particular values and serves particular interests. Understanding devices means learning to see these embedded choices, to ask who benefits and who is excluded, to recognize that the technologies we use are not inevitable but contingent.
Learning Objectives
- Understand how technology is shaped by social forces at every stage of development
- Learn to identify the social choices embedded in technological artifacts
- Connect the social shaping perspective to the DEVICES framework
Key Concepts
Technological Determinism vs. Social Shaping
The dominant view of technology is deterministic: technology develops according to its own internal logic, and society must adapt. The automobile was invented, and cities had to be rebuilt around it. The internet was invented, and social life had to be reorganized.
MacKenzie and Wajcman challenge this view. They argue that technology does not develop in a vacuumâit is shaped at every stage by social, economic, and political forces. The automobile did not just appear; it was chosen over alternatives (like electric cars and public transit) because of specific interests and power dynamics. The internet did not just evolve; it was designed by particular people with particular values.
For the DEVICES framework, this is essential. Devices are not neutral tools that we simply adopt or reject. They are the products of social choices, and they carry those choices with them. Understanding a device means understanding the social forces that shaped it.
The Politics of Artifacts
One of the most famous arguments in this tradition comes from Langdon Winner's essay "Do Artifacts Have Politics?" Winner argues that technological artifacts can embody political values. His example is Robert Moses's bridges on Long Island, which were allegedly designed too low for buses to pass underâeffectively excluding poor and Black New Yorkers who relied on public transit from accessing certain beaches.
Whether or not the Moses story is accurate, the broader point stands: technologies can be designed in ways that favor certain groups and exclude others. This is not a bugâit is a feature. Every design choice is a political choice, whether the designers recognize it or not.
For devices, this means asking: Who benefits from this device? Who is excluded? What values are built into its design?
Interpretive Flexibility
MacKenzie and Wajcman draw on the concept of "interpretive flexibility" from the sociology of scientific knowledge. The idea is that technologies do not have fixed meanings or usesâthey are interpreted differently by different social groups.
The bicycle, for example, was initially seen as a dangerous toy for young men. It was only through a process of social negotiation that it became a practical vehicle for transportation. The "meaning" of the bicycle was not determined by its technical properties but by the social groups that used and interpreted it.
This matters for devices because it reminds us that the meaning of a device is never fixed. The smartphone means something different to a teenager than to a retiree, something different in Silicon Valley than in rural India. Devices are always being reinterpreted and renegotiated.
Assignment
Read the introduction to MacKenzie and Wajcman's The Social Shaping of Technology. Focus on their critique of technological determinism and their argument for the social shaping perspective. As you read, consider: What social forces shaped a technology you use every day? What choices are embedded in its design?
Read: The Social Shaping of Technology (JSTOR) Knowledge Check
Reflect on the key topics in this lesson.
1
What is "technological determinism," and why do MacKenzie and Wajcman reject it?
Hint: Think about the assumption that technology develops according to its own logic, independent of society.
2
What does it mean to say that artifacts have "politics"?
Hint: Consider how design choices can favor certain groups and exclude others.
3
What is "interpretive flexibility," and why does it matter for understanding devices?
Hint: Think about how different social groups interpret and use the same technology differently.
Additional Resources
Supplementary materials for deeper exploration.
Do Artifacts Have Politics?
The classic essay on the political dimensions of technological design.
Science in Action
A foundational text in science and technology studies.