I found the article The Technology and The Society very interesting and somewhat hard to comprehend. One of the main focuses of the article examines the ongoing debate between technological determinists, and symptomatic technologists. Technological determinism, research and development are "assumed self generating" (29). In other words, new technology is invented independent of society. After the technology is invented, the technology creates new societies or social conditions that wouldn't have occurred without the invention. The symptomatic technology viewpoint suggests that there are other factors that contribute to social change beside the technology, while the technology is just a smaller symptom of the societal shift taking place. In a nutshell, technology "is either a self acting force which creates new ways of life, or it is a self acting force which provides materials for a new way of life" (29).
I also found it very interesting when the article discusses the use of major broadcasting throughout history. The use of broadcasting was very prominent in Nazi Germany in order to control the population and retain political power. However the article also shows that the rise of broadcasting in democratic nations came from economic motivation. It is fascinating to see the different uses for major broadcasting throughout history.
AG,
ReplyDeleteFirst off, excellent post. I agree that this article was hard to follow at times. I had to reread different sections of it to really understand what the author was saying. When reading the article, I also liked the part where the author talked about the difference between Technological determinism and symptomatic technology. I liked how in your post, you explained the definitions in your own words and really made it easier to understand. I also thought that you picked an excellent quote to conclude that part of your post. I also really enjoyed the part on broadcasting. Seeing how much of a factor is was during times of crisis really makes you see the importance behind it.
AG,
ReplyDeleteWow, this is a really great write-up. I'm glad I wrote mine first, otherwise, I might have gone back and re-read some of the article and had my write up sound a lot like yours.
I didn't take away as nearly as deep a perspective on this as you did. What you state is indeed what is written, so thank you for helping me see it more clearly. In the end, the article is not unlike an M.C. Escher drawing if you think about it; one thing begets another, without which the first might not have been able to be... Anyway, nicely done and thank you for adding more depth to this for me.