Technological Change E-Book

Clotilde Coron

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Fachliteratur
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 398

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2020

Beschreibung

Technological Change

Technological change is exciting as much as it is daunting. The arrival of new digital tools affects consumption patterns, types of employment and working conditions, and can pose challenges to organizations and individuals alike. Indeed, although technological change is a factor for economic growth, it can also be an amplifier, or even a catalyst, of inequality. It is also a social change and interacts in complex ways: technology is both the source and the consequence of social transformation. To understand technological change and to harness its effects, this book studies transformations at different levels (societal, organizational and individual). In its analysis of the subject, it also draws on a number of disciplines of the human and social sciences, such as anthropology, sociology and psychology.

Leseprobe

Table of Contents

Cover

Introduction

1 The Human and Social Sciences in the Face of Technological Change

1.1. Approaches to technological change

1.2. A brief history of technological change

2 Technological Change and Society

2.1. Powers, institutions and technological change

2.2. Ethics in the face of technology

2.3. Technological change and diversity

2.4. Technological change and ecology

3 Technological Change and Organization

3.1. Omnipresence of the technical object in work activities

3.2. The interaction of technological and organizational systems

3.3. Technology as a liberator and control agent

3.4. Technological change as a social process

4 Technological Change and the Individual

4.1. Activity and technical object

4.2. The encounter between the individual and the technical object

4.3. Beyond the content of activities, a transformation of working structures

4.4. Technological changes and individual skills

5 Experiencing Technological Change

5.1. Threats and opportunities associated with technological change in organizations

5.2. Reconciling technical and social issues

5.3. Managing responsible technological change

References

Index

End User License Agreement

List of Tables

Introduction

Table I.1. Contributions of the humanities and social sciences

Chapter 1

Table 1.1. Means of supporting activities via information technology (source: ad...

Table 1.2. Ten profound changes in the Fourth Industrial Revolution (source: exc...

Chapter 2

Table 2.1. Change in the percentage of households with Internet access in the to...

Table 2.2. Research on the relationship between technostress and demographic cha...

Chapter 3

Table 3.1. How digital technologies have changed the HR processes (non-exhaustiv...

Chapter 4

Table 4.1. Some contributions of digital technology to the system of activity

Table 4.2. ICTs for skills development (source: Eurydice, 2012)

Chapter 5

Table 5.1. Overview and characterization of threats and opportunities associated...

Table 5.2. Transposition of threats to work organizations

Table 5.3. The technical and social dimensions of social innovation

Table 5.4. Responsible technological innovation, a response to the threats and r...

Table 5.5. The structuring dimensions of change and associated strategies

Table 5.6. The specificities of technological change

List of Illustrations

Introduction

Figure I.1. From technology to object

Chapter 1

Figure 1.1. Basic structure of an activity (source: adapted from Engeström, 1987...

Figure 1.2. Transformation of the socio-technical system in the Middle Ages

Figure 1.3. Transformation of the socio-technical system during the First Indust...

Figure 1.4. Transformation of the socio-technical system during the Second Indus...

Figure 1.5. Transformation of the socio-technical system during the IT revolutio...

Figure 1.6. Transformation of the socio-technical system to the digital revoluti...

Chapter 2

Figure 2.1. Two examples of sexist advertising for household products (source: w...

Chapter 3

Figure 3.1. The factory of the future (source: adapted from Alliance Industrie d...

Figure 3.2. The different actors of technological change in organizations

Chapter 4

Figure 4.1. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (source: Davis, 1989)

Chapter 5

Figure 5.1. Example of a change model (source: adapted from Philips, 1983)

Figure 5.2. Promoting the technical or human dimension when changing work tools

Figure 5.3. Leading responsible technological change (source: adapted from Phili...

Guide

Cover

Table of Contents

Begin Reading

Pages

v

iii

iv

ix

x

xi

xii

xiii

xiv

xv

xvi

xvii

xviii

xix

xx

xxi

xxii

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

Technological Changes and Human Resources Set

coordinated by

Patrick Gilbert

Volume 1

Technological Change

Clotilde Coron

Patrick Gilbert

First published 2020 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the undermentioned address:

ISTE Ltd27-37 St George’s RoadLondon SW19 4EUUK

www.iste.co.uk

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.111 River StreetHoboken, NJ 07030USA

www.wiley.com

© ISTE Ltd 2020

The rights of Clotilde Coron and Patrick Gilbert to be identified as the authors of this work have been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Library of Congress Control Number: 2020930221

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 978-1-78630-437-7

Introduction

For a long time, technological change was considered synonymous with economic and social progress. Today, it stimulates some and worries others. To take just one example, the most emblematic, the massive arrival of new digital tools is disrupting consumption patterns, forms of employment and working conditions, and posing many challenges for organizations and individuals alike. While it is recognized that technological change is a key determinant of economic growth, it is also true that it can also amplify or even catalyze inequalities (by age, gender, level of education and skills, income, etc.). In short, technological change is also a social change with which it maintains complex interactions: technology is as much the source, ambivalent, as the consequence of social transformations. In particular, individuals are both human resources of technological transformations and receivers, more or less capable and accepting of its effects.

I.1. First definitions

The phenomenon we are about to discuss has a long history. However, there is still some uncertainty about the meaning of the terms used to describe it, so it is useful to start with a few definitions.

I.1.1. Technical, technological and technical objects

There is some confusion between the technical and technological, probably because of the respective connotations of these terms in everyday language. Today, the term “technological” tends to be used as a superlative of “technical” for which it is sometimes substituted. More pretentiously, it has come to refer to a modern and complex technique, such as information and communication processing techniques. While the term “technical” refers to well-demarcated know-how and the traditional industrial universe, the term “technological” is spontaneously associated with modern values. Resisting the current tendency to make the terms somewhat synonyms, we will follow the tradition introduced by sociologist and anthropologist Marcel Mauss (1872–1950), and extended in the anthropology of techniques, notably by Leroi-Gourhan (1911–1986), André-Georges Haudricourt (1911–1996), and others, by designating the technical the “effective traditional act”.

Let us take up the three elements of Mauss’ formula: the act, tradition and efficiency. First of all, a technology is not defined by a collection of objects, but by the concrete action it exerts on the world. It must be effective because, without sensitive effects and known as such, an act cannot be designated as such. Moreover, this act is described as traditional. For if it is not linked to a tradition, an act is neither intelligible nor reproducible, and cannot be transmitted to others.

Technologies are also based on invention and innovation, but they are not themselves totally independent of the knowledge and know-how accumulated in a given culture. Specifically, technology refers to all the processes and methods used in the production activities of an object or service. It is a real need for scientists, engineers and industrialists. But, undoubtedly precisely because of the diversity of these needs, it can hardly lead to a representation that is unanimously accepted.

As for technology, it is, according to the classical definition, the social science that takes a technique as its object, the study of techniques, tools, machines and materials. However, it should be recognized that clearly distinguishing the two concepts may seem difficult. Therefore, we will admit, by extension and according to a widespread use, the use of the term technology as a grouping of the techniques, procedures, methodologies, equipment and discourses associated with their implementation. In this second sense, we will speak of digital technology, biotechnology, agro-technology, etc.

In any case, we will not confuse the technical object, the product of human activity, with technology. The technical object is only one of its elements, the most concrete, the hard material of technology, “hardware”. It is a solid thing consisting of one or more tangible and intangible components (organs, information, energy and other resources), functionally arranged, designed and realized to meet a specific need or needs. Among the technical objects, we will distinguish between the technical equipment (infrastructure, machinery and tools) used to produce other objects, and the resulting products (see Figure I.1).

Figure I.1.From technology to object

These clarifications are proposed as conventions that we would like to share with the readers of this book. They will lead us, for example, to consider digital technology as the grouping of a set of technologies covering fields of application as diverse as medicine (video-endoscopy), prototype production (additive manufacturing or 3D printing), architecture (Building Information Models, or geometric representations of a building in 3D), and graphic creation (digital comic strips). Each of these technologies in turn brings together several objects. Thus, additive manufacturing is based on printers, producing objects as varied as functional parts, tooling components, models for metal casting, etc.

Talking about technological change and not technical change is not insignificant. The term “technological change” emphasizes the need not to separate methodical processes from the principles that reflect them and from the ecosystem (economic, social, organizational, ideological) in which the technologies lead to successful practices. In this sense, technological change is not reduced to a change of processes (i.e. a technical change) and even less to a simple change of technical object. Thus, digital transformation is not just about the arrival of a few objects offered to consumers. It leads to a transformation of work structures as a new division of labor between the operator and the machine1.

I.1.2. How can we address technological change? First elements

Technological change can be approached from three main perspectives. The techno-centric perspective (centered on the technical object) is usually contrasted with the anthropotechnical perspective (centered on the human-technical couple). Between the two, we will insert a “romantic” perspective, based on the joint glorification of the inventor and the object of his creation. We will define these three points of view by illustrating them and considering them both at a “macro” scale (that of the history of technologies) and at a “micro” scale (that of organizational change).

I.1.2.1. Technocentrism: the primacy of the technical object

The dominant representation of technological change, conceived in terms of the technology itself, corresponds to a perspective that has been described as techno-centric (Jacob and Ducharme 1995; Rabardel 1995). It is focused on the machine and its possibilities. This is the case for a history of computing in terms of generations of technical objects (see Box I.1).

Box I.1.Computer generations from a techno-centric perspective

1945–1955

First generation: electronic tube machines (vacuum tubes). The first fully electronic computer, the ENIAC (Electronical Numerical Integrator And Calculator) weighs 30 tons and occupies 135 m

2

.

1955–1965

Second generation: transistor computers that make it possible to build more reliable and less bulky machines.

1965–1980

Third generation: integrated circuits (also called electronic chips). The Intel 4004 processor achieves the same performance as the ENIAC for a size of less than 11 mm

2

.

1980–2000

Fourth generation: microprocessors. Integration of thousands to billions of transistors on the same silicon chip.

2000

Fifth generation: widespread use of networks and graphical interfaces (there are disagreements between specialists about the existence of this fifth generation).

This first perspective, concerned with the object and its materiality, does not address the human dimension of technological change. At the organizational level, it can lead to neglecting the individual who becomes the residual part of technological change, the part that is said to resist change.

I.1.2.2. The romantic perspective: the inventor and his creation

Here, technological change is often represented as a chronological succession of technical objects with which glorious personalities and events are associated, such as the one we have taken up, by way of illustration, in Box I.2.

This tenacious tendency undoubtedly gives an attractive representation of technological change because of its simplicity, its exaltation of the idea of progress and the myth of great men. But it will not be our preference. To attribute to a single individual, at a given date, an invention when it is usually the result of a maturation, resulting from parallel research, seems to us to be from a romantic perspective.

Box I.2.Technological change as a succession of uses

1769

James Watt develops an improved condenser for the steam engine.

1821

Michael Faraday demonstrates the first electric motor.

1838

Charles Wheatstone builds the first electric telegraph.

1859

Étienne Lenoir makes the first internal combustion engine.

1876

Alexander Graham Bell files a patent on the telephone.

1879

Thomas Edison develops the carbon filament bulb.

1884

Hiram Maxim invents the first self-propelled machine gun.

1899

Guglielmo Marconi makes the first transatlantic radio transmission (which won him the Nobel Prize in 1909).

1903

Brothers Orville and Wilbur Wright make their first motorized flights.

1923

Vladimir Zworykin patent the iconoscope, a fully electronic television transmission tube.

1947

Bardeen, Brattain and Shockley (Nobel Prize winners in physics in 1956) invent a new type of transistor.

1957

The Soviets launch Sputnik 1, the first spacecraft placed in orbit around the Earth.

1969

Edward Hoff and Federico Faggin develop the very first electronic chip, the microprocessor.

1973

François Gernelle develops the first microcomputer, the Micral N.

1977

Designed by Steve Wozniak, the Apple II, a personal computer, is developed in Steve Jobs’ garage, manufactured on a large scale and marketed by Apple Computer.

1982

Microsoft, created by Bill Gates and Paul Allen, presents MS/DOS (Microsoft Disk Operating System) developed for the IBM PC, then for compatible PCs.

1994

Jeff Bezos founds the Amazon website, which becomes the world’s largest online sales company. He lists the shares on the stock exchange in 1997.

1998

Google is created by Larry Page and Sergey Brin, two students from Stanford University, who together initiate the search engine of the same name.

2005

Mark Zuckerberg founds the online social network Facebook, after testing it on his fellow students at Harvard University.

This second perspective leaves little more room for the human being than the first, at most the latter is thought of as the progenitor of the technical object. The emphasis on the glorious origins of a tool is reflected at the organizational level when technological change is referred to exclusively in reference to the individual who was at the origin of a technological innovation and who gives it a prestigious character.

I.1.2.3. The anthropotechnical perspective: towards a sociotechnical coupling

The opposite of technocentrism is anthropocentrism, a vision of technologies centered on individuals and social groups. The technologies are thought of in reference to the human being and not the other way around. However, we will avoid any radicalism.

In practice, we do not intend to focus solely on individuals and their needs, but rather to consider how to achieve co-adaptation between object and subject. This is what we call an anthropotechnical approach. We will present different theoretical currents in Chapter 1 in more detail.

The focus on the uses of technologies, and no longer on the objects themselves, as they couple the human and technological, is a good illustration of this approach (see Box I.3).

Box I.3.A history of enterprise computing centered on usage

1955–1960: from scientific computing to management computing

At the beginning, computing was mainly concerned with scientific calculation and operational research. It was then the business of engineers, the only ones capable of programming the automaton in machine language that they used for their own needs. Then management applications were born, still transposed from mechanography.

1960–1970: development of management applications

Scientific applications began to develop with the progress of numerical analysis and simulation (science, engineering, economics, etc.). At the same time, applications began to multiply in banking, insurance and finance. Cobol, a modern programming language dedicated to business applications, was created in 1959. The birth of the concept of an information system gave a global view of the company: processes and information flows.

1975–1990: computing for all

With the development of computers in terms of power and reliability, computers took over all social practices of research, design, manufacturing, marketing and communication. Microcomputing has enabled the wide diffusion of microprocessor-based computer components in technical systems and the creation of microcomputers. Networks allow computers to communicate and allow machines to be decentralized as close as possible to workstations.

1990: integration into business

Computing began to penetrate all sectors of the company: the business world became digital. In the mid-1990s, with the Internet and electronic mail, inter-individual and inter-organizational exchanges were organized via IT support. Information technology was no longer separable from other fields of human activity. Information and communication technologies began to be adopted by the majority of the population in their daily lives.

Without departing from the anthropotechnical posture, we will avoid as much as possible a partisan posture, striving to reflect the diversity of points of view.

I.2 Technology, a social science

I.2.1. Three pillars

If, as we have written, technology is the social science that takes techniques as its object, on which pillars should such knowledge be based? We can see three of them in particular.

I.2.1.1 First pillar: the acceptance of plural points of view

The first pillar is the acceptance of plural points of view in the way the technical object and technological change as a whole are viewed.

The same technical object can be approached from different points of view, each with its own value, which is not intrinsic, but depends on the identities and cultures of the actors who mobilize them. In the study of the object, each point of view, whether disciplinary, doctrinal or utilitarian, reveals facts and mobilizes specific methods. Let us take the example of a smartphone. It can be studied from a purely physical point of view; we are interested in its weight, the definition and size of its screen, the shock resistance of its shell, its processor and its storage capacities. From the point of view of its manufacture, it is considered as a product consisting of thousands of small components (resistors, transistors) placed between the main chips of the device that must be soldered automatically, all in a production system in which machines and operators must be integrated. From an economic point of view, as a commodity, we are concerned in particular with its price with or without an associated subscription, its value in a summation system. From the point of view of its uses, we will focus on its functions (work, play, checking emails, watching videos, using social networks), their diversity and performance, battery life, and the quality of after-sales service. From an artistic point of view, we will be curious about its more or less attractive design (plastic material, glass or metal, color), the appeal of its brand and model, etc.

These plural points of view are obviously also reflected in the course of technological change and in the perception of the various actors: the designer of the technical object, the promoter of change, the pilot of the project or a simple user. In its simplified form, the consideration of this reality finds its expression in the duality of project manager/developer. When a product is being created, the project manager is the person or company (design office, architect, etc.) responsible for the design. They ensure the follow-up of the work and the co-ordination of the various tasks. The contracting authority is quite simply the user, the customer and the person for whom the product is intended.

I.2.1.2 Second pillar: the contextualization of the technical object

The second pillar is based on the contextualization of the technical object, i.e. the renunciation of the simplicity of isolating the envisaged object from situations in which it plays a specific role and from the time in which it evolves. For each object’s ecosystem there is a coherent set of structures dependent on each other; this is what Bertrand Gilles (1978) called a technical system. The technical object only exists because someone has designed it; others have produced it, because there are individuals who feel the need or desire to seize it. To achieve this, it is necessary to extract raw materials, process them, transport the products at different stages of production, market the manufactured object, distribute it, allow its use (private or public) – and, increasingly pertinent given its ecological dimension, its destruction and/or recycling. All this requires multiple resources: materials, energy, money and human resources to mobilize other resources.

I.2.1.3 Third pillar: taking into account the interaction between the human system and the technical system

The third pillar of this anthropotechnical approach is to take into account the interaction of the human and technical systems. In this context, let us take the history of computer science as an illustration. It has several dimensions, technical, of course, but also economic and social. In this regard, it should be noted that the computer, like the Internet, was born of a convergence of scientific and military interests. Or, as Breton (1987) explained, the orientation of industrial groups towards large systems was in line with the centralized functioning of these groups. Breton showed that the birth and diffusion of the microcomputer in the 1980s owed as much to the social project of North American radicals, calling for the democratization of access to information, and to the willingness of the individual user to appropriate this technology, as to microprocessor technology.

I.2.2. Contributions of the human and social sciences (HSS)

The HSS cover a range of disciplines studying human reality, both individually and collectively. Technologies are one of the elements of this reality. Understanding technological change is based on this diversity, whose contributions are complementary. We will review the disciplines with the most important contributions by citing some of their classic authors and publications. We will come back to some of them in more detail later in the book.

I.2.2.1 History

History focuses on the study of technical achievements in relation to their context of appearance. More broadly, it is interested in all historical forms of conception and insertion of technologies in human societies. It is a resource for the development of reflections on the technique of other disciplines, particularly philosophy, anthropology and sociology. Among the most eminent personalities in the history of technology are Lewis Mumford, critical author of TheMyth of the Machine (1966), and Bertrand Gille (1978) who, affirming that a technology does not exist if it is not included in a system, proposed to see history as a succession of technical systems.

I.2.2.2 Philosophy

The philosophy of technology is the part of philosophy that is concerned with the meaning of technologies, i.e. their nature and value for humanity. Let us begin by mentioning Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels who, in their Communist Manifesto (1999 (1848)), considered the determination of politics on a techno-economic basis: the hand mill corresponded to slavery; the water mill to feudal society; the steam mill to an industrial capitalist society. Considered as a whole, the philosophy of technology is shaped by two traditions. The first focused on alienation, in which technology would be the vector and symbol. The most emblematic author of this trend is certainly Martin Heidegger (1958), who is known for his denunciation of the extension of technical domination. In a similar way, Jürgen Habermas (1973) criticized techno-scientific ideology. In contrast to this pessimistic situation, we can contrast a second, optimistic orientation led by authors such as Gilbert Simondon (1969) and François Dagognet (1989, 1996), or a third orientation, inspired by the precautionary principle, such as the one led by Hans Jonas’ ethics (1903–1993).

I.2.2.3 Anthropology

The anthropology of technology is a branch of anthropology that is interested in the history, use and roles of technical objects in their relationship with cultures and environments. Originally focused on technologies and objects from distant, “primitive” and exotic cultures considered as “traditional”, its analyses also now focus on contemporary facts. Marcel Mauss (1923), considered the father of French anthropology, André Leroi-Gourhan (1943, 1945), author of a general classification of technologies, and André-Georges Haudricourt (1955), who was also a botanist, linguist and geographer, all already mentioned, are among the founders of the anthropology of technology.

I.2.2.4 Sociology

Sociology studies social facts in their entirety (general sociology) and within companies and other organizations (sociology of organizations). Sociologists have contributed to the understanding of technological change by studying individual and collective behaviors in organizations. Some sociologists have focused on humans’ relations with the machine, for example, Georges Friedmann (1946) or Georges Gurvitch (1968), others such as Jacques Ellul (1954, 1988), in a very targeted way, on the relations between the technical system and political power. Sociology has also made important contributions to the change in which technology is engaged. We are thinking, in particular, of Alain Touraine’s first studies (1955) on the evolution of workers’ activities in Renault factories, showing the reorganization of skills and power relations linked to the introduction of new technologies; or, further yet in other empirical fields, to the work of innovation sociologists such as Madeleine Akrich, Michel Callon and Bruno Latour (2006).

I.2.2.5 Economic sciences

Economics studies the functioning of the economy. It deals, from a resource allocation perspective, with all the activities of a human community relating to the production, distribution, trade and consumption of products and services. Among thinkers who have devoted part of their work to technological change and its effects, we can cite the name of Joseph Schumpeter, who developed a theory of creative destruction and innovation (1999 (1926)); Jean Fourastié, who is known for his technological optimism (1949); and Alfred Sauvy, author of the spilling theory, who noted the positive effects of technological progress on productivity and ultimately on employment (1980).

I.2.2.6 Psychology

Psychology seeks to explain human behavior. Since its inception at the end of the 19th Century, it has concentrated on working conditions and human–machine relations with a view to co-adaptation. But its direct contributions to the study of technological change are less long-standing. In recent years, it has contributed to enriching knowledge on phenomena such as the acceptability of technologies, the learning of their uses, and the place of technical objects in activity systems. Ergonomic psychology has focused its efforts on psychology’s contributions to the design of work systems, which are increasingly influenced by technology. A branch of social psychology, organizational psychology deals with the influence in organizations of structural factors on psychosocial relationships between individuals, such as the influence of technology on the structuring of working time and the sharing of tasks.

I.2.2.7 Multidisciplinary authors and interdisciplinary human and social sciences

Classifying authors by discipline is not always easy (Table I.1), as a common feature of many of those who have been interested in technology is that they are curious minds, whose contributions are not limited to a disciplinary field. Let us take a few examples, among the well-known personalities, without claiming to be exhaustive. First, we will see philosophers. Simondon was also a psychologist – he taught psychology for a dozen years – and Dagognet did work in the history of science. And now, we will see sociologists. Friedmann, a philosopher by training, is best known as a sociologist of work who has always sought to maintain the link between sociology and humanist philosophy, just as Gurvitch has nourished his work with a philosophy of society. Finally, where should Karl Marx, whose work covered economics, philosophy and sociology, be included?

Table I.1.Contributions of the humanities and social sciences

Discipline

Consideration

Subject of study

History

Technologies and their development

Genealogy of the appearance and dissemination of technical achievements

Philosophy

The meaning of technologies for humanity

Nature of the technology Value of technology for humanity

Anthropology

The uses and roles of technical objects

Material culture

Technical innovation and societal transformations

Sociology

Social groups, technology and their interactions

Technical power, technical democracy

Perceptions and social influences of technology

Mediation and communication methods

Economic sciences

Production, trade and consumption of goods and services

Relationship between technology and economics

Effects of technological progress on employment

Psychology

Individual and collective conduct at work in a technical environment

Attitudes, learning, satisfaction, adaptation, acceptance of new technical objects

Productive activity and technical mediations

Apart from the disciplinary contributions mentioned above, there are object-oriented sciences that involve several source disciplines, such as information and communication sciences, the purpose of which is the study of communication and for which communication is rather an object of interdisciplinary knowledge. The management sciences, which aim at the instrumental regulation of organized collective activities, have made some contributions, albeit still limited, to the question of technology. It is precisely to the task of reducing this gap that this book would like to contribute.

I.3. Structure of the book

The chapters that make up this book are based, each in their own way, on the foundation of the anthropogenic perspective. They can be read, in a classic way, according to the succession of their numbering, but also in different orders. However, we first invite you to read Chapter 1, which provides the essentials to understanding the whole, focusing on the contributions of the human and social sciences (HSS) to understanding technological change.

The following three chapters are independent of each other and can be read according to the reader’s interests. They are built on the principle that in order to understand technological change and regulate its effects, it must be addressed at its different scales: that of society as a whole (Chapter 2), that of the organization, public or private, market or non-market (Chapter 3) and that of the individual, expert or layperson (Chapter 4). Although focusing on the level of the organization, the project of the book is to clarify the subject at different levels, by convening the disciplines of the HSS applied to it.

The fifth and final chapter looks at how technological change is experienced, depending on where you are. It functions to summarize and discuss the various elements presented in the previous chapters.

At the end of the book, the reader will find an extensive bibliography that will allow for in-depth study of one or more of the topics covered, as well as an index that will organize thematic entries for the text.

1

Throughout the book we favor the use of the terms “technology” and “technological” to facilitate reading. In French, the authors’ native language, two terms can be used: “technique” and “technologique” and “techniques” and “technologies”.

1The Human and Social Sciences in the Face of Technological Change

Discourses on technological change are numerous and do not owe everything to social scientists. Engineers as well as merchants, philanthropists as well as intellectuals, have a point of view on the subject. Crossed by multiple conceptions, these discourses sometimes intersect and merge.

In order to disentangle this and to reflect the diversity of approaches, this chapter focuses firstly (section 1.1) on their summative presentation, concluding with the presentation of the anthropotechnical perspective, which shows the interdependence between technical and social factors. Inspired by this perspective, the second section examines the long history of technological change and its most recent developments (section 1.2).

1.1. Approaches to technological change

We will approach our subject according to the postulated relationship between technology and society. Technical historians have wondered whether inventions are inevitable, whether the machine makes history. But economists, on the other hand, have wondered whether it was not rather social demand that led to innovation. Sociologists have also questioned the relationship between technical innovation and social transformations. Philosophers have often been critical, but sometimes also adopted the cause of technophiles.

Following Vinck (1995), it should be noted that technology and society have generally been thought of as two distinct spheres, one of which influences the other. In relation to this conception, in a first approach, technology is seen as exerting its influence on the social sphere, which is what is referred to as technological determinism (section 1.1.1). The opposite approach assumes that the influence of society is exerted on the technology, what Vinck calls “social constructivism” (section 1.1.2). A third approach, with which we will agree, postulates the mutual influence of technical and social aspects, or even the fusion of technical and social ingredients (section 1.1.3).

We ask that the reader forgives the deliberately extreme presentation of these approaches, given that few authors claim to be clear-cut about all the hypotheses that we will highlight and that characterize each approach.

1.1.1. Technological determinism

Technological determinism takes many forms, which will justify the place we will give it, first for a general presentation and then for that of its two antagonistic orientations. This is how the debate on technology is too often concluded: a dispute between those who link the fate of the social matter to the development of technology (technophiles) and those who, on the contrary, oppose them (technophobes). Beyond these oppositions, both sides come together in the idea that technology determines social matter.

1.1.1.1. Technology as an element in determining social behavior

The founding assumptions of this approach, considered in its most absolute form, are as follows:

– daughter of science, technology is an autonomous variable;

– a society is determined by the technologies in use;

– the technical evolution is linear, due to the irreversibility of the technologies;

– for better or for worse, the technological imperative is imposed on everyone: it is inevitable and universal.

For example, Canadian historian Harold Innis (1894–1952), a pioneer in the formulation of communication theories (Innis, 1950), associates the spread of the papyrus with the development of the Roman Empire and bureaucratic power. He then states that the invention of the parchment led to a shift from places of knowledge to monasteries and a strengthening of religious power. The latter is, in turn, reduced by the invention of paper, which encouraged the development of trade in Italy and northern Europe.

Another classic author case, among the most characteristic of this trend, is that of the American sociologist William Ogburn (1886–1959) who explained that technology changes society by changing the environment to which individuals, in turn, must adapt. This change, he believed, is common in the material environment, and the adaptation we make to it often changes social mores and institutions. He deduced that inventions influence society, first by being produced in large quantities and then by being used by a large number of consumers. Ogburn devoted several studies to the specific social effects of inventions. One of his most famous analyses concerns the invention of radio, for which he listed no less than 150 effects. We provide some extracts, with the numbering assigned by this author, in Box 1.1.

Box 1.1.The effects of the invention of radio (source: Ogburn, 1933)

I. On uniformity and diffusion

5. Distinctions between social classes and economic groups lessened.

9. Favoring of the widely spread languages.

II. On recreation and entertainment

14. The enjoyment of music popularized greatly.

20. Revival of old song, at least for a time.

III. On transportation

27. Radio beams, enabling aviators to remain on course.

34. Receipt of communications en route by air passengers.

IV. On education

38. Broadcasting has aided adult education.

48. Discussion of books aids selection and stimulates readers.

V. On the dissemination of information

56. Prevention of loss in crops by broadcasting weather reports.

64. Quicker detection of crime and criminals, through police automobile patrols equipped with radio.

VI. On religion

65. Discouragement, it is said, of preachers of lesser abilities.

68. Invalids and others unable to attend church enabled to hear religious service.

VII. On industry and business

79. A new form of advertising has been created.

84. An increase in the consumption of electricity.

85. Provision of employment for 200,000 persons.

VIII. On occupations

89. Music sales and possibly song writing have declined. Studies indicate that broadcasting is a factor.

92. New occupations: announcer, engineer, advertising salesman.

IX. On government and politics

98. New problem of copyright has arisen.

100. Executive pressure on legislatures, through radio appeals.

X. On other inventions

120. The vacuum tube, a radio invention, is used in many fields […] A new science is being developed on the vacuum tube.

125. Geophysical prospecting aided by the radio.

XI. Miscellaneous

132. The noise problem of loud speakers has caused some regulation.

135. Late hours have been ruled against in dormitories and homes.

While determinism is no longer popular in academic circles – we will see its limits later on (see section 1.1.1.4) – this approach remains surprisingly prominent in public discourse, despite (because of?) its reductionism. Judging by the questions encountered in the press and in widely circulated books, at random: “what is the impact of ICT on business performance?”, “what are the effects of digital technologies on employment?”, “what is the influence of the Internet on doctor-patient relationships?”, etc.

Basically, this approach does not, in itself, make any value judgments about the effects of technology. This is not the case for some of its orientations, which we will now discuss. Some are very enthusiastic about the latest technologies (“promising technology”). Others are resolutely critical of one or all technologies (“technology that causes much harm”).

1.1.1.2. Technology, which holds promise

This “techno-enthusiastic” approach nurtures a glorifying vision of technology and praises new technical objects. For its supporters, the source of social progress must be sought in innovations and mainly in material inventions and discoveries, which would occur more quickly and cumulatively than intangible innovations – it should be noted that no evidence has been produced in this regard.

The engineer’s desire to register his/her invention in the world by sharing his/her passion with as many people as possible and the merchant’s desire to disseminate the new technical objects as widely as possible are united in the same fervor. So a technophile euphoria is expressed when announcing all the new features. We recall the communicative utopia celebrated in the late 1960s by media theorist Marshall McLuhan (1911–1980), famous for his notion of the “global village” and his famous formula “the medium is the message” (McLuhan, 1967).

In the 1990s, a new utopia of communication emerged around the notion of cyberspace, exalting collective intelligence and the potentialities of virtual worlds. A representative figure of this trend is that of the philosopher Pierre Lévy (Lévy, 1994).

In a report submitted to the Council of Europe entitled “Cyberculture”, it is written:

“[…] I claim that cyberculture can be considered as a worthy (though distant) heir to the progressive project of 18th Century philosophers. Indeed, it values the participation in communities of debate and argumentation” (Lévy, 1997, p. 302).

Each new feature feeds the techno-enthusiasts. In the 1980s, pioneering authors in the cognitive sciences, such as Douglas Hofstadter (2000) and Marvin Minsky (1990), with widely published books, praised the possibilities of simulating, and stimulating, the brain through computers. These authors have, at least indirectly, fueled the vision of a spiritual fusion between man and machine, preceding the transhumanist wave (see an illustration in Box 1.2).

Box 1.2.Transhumanism to help the environment (source: Liao et al., 2012)

Liao and his fellow philosophers, specialists in bio-ethics, raise the problem of climate change today, which can seriously affect life on our planet. Diagnosing the limits of ordinary remedies (hybrid cars, carbon pricing, etc.), they propose new, more radical solutions that consist of manipulating beings to make them more energy efficient. Their recommendations are based on human engineering, which they define as a biomedical modification of individuals in order to make them better able to mitigate climate change. Suggested interventions range from pharmacology, making humans intolerant to meat consumption (18% of global greenhouse gas emissions come from livestock), making humans smaller, by reducing the size of newborns, through drugs, to changing children’s growth rates (the ecological footprint is partly correlated with size). Another set of measures, designed to make ecological issues more sensitive, also concerns the use of drugs and genetic modifications. The overall logic is that humans must be manipulated to save the climate.

The prestige of technological modernity attached to a particular technical object is shifting as the corresponding market develops and its purchase price and operating cost fall. This was the case in the change from horse-drawn carriages to cars, from fixed phones to mobile phones, from phones to the Internet, etc. All these “novelties” were, at their release, the prerogative of a few privileged people. Today, 3D printing, “augmented reality”, artificial intelligence and biotechnologies, in turn, convey new promises: a world in which any object can be manufactured quickly and anywhere, for 3D printing; the disappearance of screens and omniscience in real time, with augmented reality; personal assistants helping us in daily life, interacting with us, whatever our language, with artificial intelligence; completely restoring or even improving the human body, with biotechnologies.

1.1.1.3. Technology, the cause of many harmful effects

Faced with the praiseworthy vision of techno-enthusiasts, a critique of technical thinking has developed, carried by those who are generally referred to as technophobes. Far from being marginal, mistrust of technology is widespread among HSS authors. As the philosopher Jean-Yves Goffi rightly points out: “The list of authors who have emerged from the long list of contemporary technophobes is almost infinite”. (Goffi, 1988, p. 11). Contrary to technological consumerism, “technocritics” (Jarrige, 2016) share most of the deterministic assumptions, but strongly contest the idea that technology is the mother of the social progress it would bring forward.

This current of thought is far from being reducible to the posture of a few conservative intellectuals. Long before the development of philosophical criticism of technology, it is necessary to note the social conflicts that marked the beginning of the 19th Century in the context of the industrialization of most European countries, particularly in the textile industry. In France, there were the successive revolts of the Canuts lyonnais, rebelling against their working conditions, as well as against the machines that competed with them and deprived them of their livelihood by taking work from their very arms. In England, at the same time, it was the Luddites that came to the fore. To those for whom the triumph of mechanization was inevitable, the struggle of these textile workers, “machine breakers” (the Luddites owe their name to the young Ned Ludd, an apprentice who broke a loom), may have seemed to express an unhealthy and retrograde rage.

But, as the British historian Edward P. Thompson (1963) wrote:

“The character of Luddism was not that of a blind protest, or of a food riot (as took place in many other districts). Nor will it do to describe Luddism as a form of ‘primitive’ trade unionism. […] the men who organized, sheltered, or condoned Luddism were far from primitive. They were shrewd and humorous; next to the London artisans, some of them were amongst the most articulate of the ‘industrious classes’.”

Today, some people claiming the ravages of technological progress and the unemployment induced by automation do not hesitate to accept an identity as neo-Luddites. For example, Chellis Glendinning (1990), a psychologist from New Mexico, published a neo-Luddite manifesto in an alternative press magazine, where she wrote: “The technologies created and disseminated by modern Western societies are out of control and desecrating the fragile fabric of life on Earth.” This point of view is far from being isolated (see section 1.3).

Box 1.3.Neo-Luddism today

In North America, the anti-technology movement is at the root of militant activism that can take extreme forms, sometimes simply spectacular, sometimes very violent. The American essayist Kirkpatrick Sale, author of a vigorous anti-industrial critique (Sale, 1995), made his name with a stunt to smash a computer during the public presentation of his book on the Luddites. From 1978 to 1995, mathematician Theodore John Kaczynski, nicknamed “unabomber”, after a promising early career as a professor at Berkeley, committed a series of bomb attacks against the technological society.

In France too, there are many examples of neo-Luddite actors. Some of them have been in the news in recent decades. A mysterious group, CLODO (Comité Liquidant ou Détournant les Ordinateurs – Committee for Liquidation or Subversion of Computers), committed arson against computer companies, in the Toulouse region, between 1980 and 1983. In 2005, three young people, including a philosopher known for her translations of critical works on modern technology, destroyed two biometric terminals in a high school cafeteria with a hammer. Similarly, we can consider as inspired by the neo-Luddite spirit the movement based around the ZAD (zone à défendre