WC Engineering

History & Technology

Technology and Its Impact on Society

James Redfield, the author of “The Celestine Prophecy,” said, “History is not just the evolution of technology; it is the evolution of thought.” This perspective suggests that our understanding shapes how we interact with the world and each other, ultimately shaping the course of history. The “soft” view of technology suggests that while technology is certainly a powerful force in shaping society, it is not the only factor at play. This view holds that technology is influenced by a range of socioeconomic factors, including culture, politics, and economics. Alternatively, the “hard” perspective on technology posits that technology is the primary driving force behind social change rather than merely a mediating factor. Karl Marx said, “The hand mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam mill, society with the industrial capitalist.” This assertion emphasizes that the mode of production, or the method by which goods and services are produced, substantially influences a society’s structure and power dynamics, rather than being dictated by individual decisions or behaviors.

While technology has undeniably played a significant role in shaping history, the question remains whether it can lead to anomie—a state of social instability resulting from the erosion of social and ethical standards. Technology impacts how societies function and interact, influencing the development of political and social systems. The mode of production can have a major impact on the superstructure of society, including the relationships between different groups. Multiple discovery, a phenomenon where different individuals or groups independently discover or invent the same thing at roughly the same time, suggests that invention and discovery occur along a well-defined frontier of knowledge. This observation indicates that innovation is not entirely random; it happens as many people work on similar problems and ideas. Consequently, technology and scientific discoveries often evolve gradually and incrementally as collective human understanding advances.

Technical realization, or practical implementation, doesn’t usually precede sufficient understanding and knowledge of the underlying principles and concepts, except in experiments where application and knowledge happen simultaneously. Limitations to the design and development of new machines and technologies include material competence, technical expertise, and manufacturing/assembly competence. The need for efficient and economical production drives industry specialization and labor division. These techniques enhance product quality and reduce production costs by breaking production into smaller, specialized tasks. In a capitalist society, capital size can constrain technology. As businesses accumulate capital, they may diversify their industrial functions to mitigate market fluctuations and financial risks. This diversification can foster new capabilities and expertise, which can help the business improve its technical capabilities.

Two of Cohen’s main ideas are that preceding events causally determine future ones and that technology mediates the influence of natural laws on human history. While Cohen and Brenner have argued that productive forces are not the only course for social development, we might ask: if they are the primary mover of history, what are these productive forces? Marx believed that the amount of division of labor within a society could serve as an indicator of productive forces. According to this view, technology is not the prime mover, although in the second phase of history, with automation and industrial capitalism, technology has become more deterministic.

Marx breaks the labor process into three components: the activity of people, the subject of work, and the instruments of work. On the other hand, Cohen breaks it down into means of production and labor power. Marx maintained that technology neither causes nor facilitates class struggle. However, he acknowledged technology does not prevent the alienation of laborers under the control of those who own the means of production. Moreover, even the proletariat would not escape alienation in such a context. He believed the driving forces are the means to accumulate and the resistance to alienation with technology as a so-called fuel for history’s engine. Marx’s last thought is a positive one in that technology is in the ultimate service of humanity, not the other way around.

Necessary Factors in Marx’s Theory of History

A basic drive for self-expression
The form of self-expression is the production
Expanding wants

Conditions That Facilitate Productive Development in History

Expanding population
Increasing social intercourse
The availability of science and technology, especially in the later phase of capitalism

Technology and Economic Systems

Capitalism is often considered a system that fosters productivity and technological progress. As new technologies emerge, they often necessitate specific education levels and skill sets for operation and maintenance, leading to social phenomena in the workforce, such as shifts in job distribution across education levels and wage disparities. Societal incentives, often stemming from public policy, influence the development and adoption of new technologies. These incentives, including subsidies, tax breaks, grants, and research funding, can significantly impact the growth of industries. The United States (US) has a long history of government inducements for interchangeable parts, often associated with the development of mass production and labor-saving machinery. This support has made the US manufacturing sector highly efficient and competitive globally. Additionally, high labor costs in the US provide an incentive for manufacturers to invest in efficient machinery rather than rely on manual labor.

While new technologies and industry connections can significantly drive economic growth, other key factors, such as an educated workforce, a stable political environment, and access to capital and resources, must be in place to fully realize the benefit of technological innovations. A society must have institutions and policies supporting innovation and economic growth, such as strong property rights, a well-functioning legal system, and open markets. While capitalist economies have historically been associated with high levels of technological innovation and growth, they can also present drawbacks like inequality and environmental degradation.

Laissez-faire, an economic and political ideology advocating for minimal government intervention in the economy, can lead to negative consequences when technological change is unleashed without any guidance or regulation. Marx believed technology is a means for capitalists to exploit workers and increase profits, proposing that the working class should overthrow capitalism and establish a communist society. Communism, a political and economic ideology promoting collective ownership of property and resources, aims to achieve a classless society, with government or community control of the economy and typically private property. Laissez-faire ideology hinders the political control needed to buffer the disruptive consequences of technological advancements.

Standardization, Cooperation, and Vertical Integration in Industry

Predicting technological change is challenging due to its complexity. John Ruskin said, “If we try to implicitly study technological change there are a dozen methods mapped across period and place that can’t be modeled linearly due to the interaction effects and unintended consequences.” The lack of reliable dependent-independent variables further complicates the analysis, making it difficult to draw reliable conclusions. From 1890 to 1930, product standardization prioritized power and stability over safety and quality. Versatility was replaced by products with fewer functions, as businesses recognized that producing fewer products and selling more could maximize profits and reduce marketing costs.

Cooperation between workers, managers, and businesses can lead to increased profits and a shared pursuit of excellence, resembling a Golden Age where people collaborate towards a common goal, achieve a valued craft, and do what is best for the greater good. However, focusing solely on profit can result in downsides for consumers, such as planned obsolescence and prioritizing shareholder value. Vertical integration, consolidating the production process from raw materials to finished goods under one company, can be an effective strategy for increasing efficiency and reducing costs. Andrew Carnegie’s implementation of vertical integration at Carnegie Steel was a key factor in the company’s success and dominance in the steel industry in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Acquiring invaluable iron was economically rational due to the low costs of iron ore and the barriers to entry for other businesses.

Technological Determinism and Marxist Perspectives

Technological determinism encompasses three primary views: nomological, normative, and unintended consequences. The nomological view posits that technology’s development and use are driven by natural laws and physical principles. According to this perspective, machinery and the subhuman powers that drive technology follow their internal logic and trajectory, largely unaffected by historical events, societal contexts, or human intervention. As such, technological development would progress similarly regardless of external factors. The normative view of technological determinism argues that technology shapes history when it aligns with cultural meanings and societal values. This perspective emphasizes the ethical dimension of technology, focusing on its alignment with societal beliefs and moral principles. In this context, the emphasis shifts from efficiency and productivity to broader questions of goals, values, and the relationship between means and ends. Lastly, the view of unintended consequences acknowledges both technological autonomy and the importance of societal contexts.

G.A. Cohen, a philosopher and proponent of determinism, and fellow Marxist scholar Robert Brenner, argued that productive forces do not solely drive social development. Cohen maintained that technology influences the laws of nature, shaping human history; however, they emphasized the mode of production—the way goods and services are produced—as a more critical factor in shaping society than technological advancement.

Karl Marx divided history into two phases: pre-capitalist and capitalist. In the pre-capitalist era, societies were structured around traditional modes of production, with technology playing a liberating and empowering role for workers. Marx believed that technology was fundamentally meant to serve humanity, freeing workers from the drudgery of labor, enhancing their control over the means of production, and fostering abundance for all. Marx argued that the division of labor, rather than technology, was pivotal in understanding a society’s productive forces. Conversely, in the capitalist phase, productive forces such as technology and automation are fueled by the pursuit of profit and productivity, resulting in heightened worker exploitation. This exploitative nature of industrial capitalism compels workers to endure longer working hours for lower wages while capitalists reap the benefits. Consequently, the needs and desires of human beings are disregarded in favor of profit.

Marx divides the labor process into three components: human activity, the subject of work, and the instruments of work. On the other hand, Cohen classifies it into two parts: means of production and labor power. Marx argues that technology alone does not cause or facilitate class struggles; instead, those who control the productive process—the capitalists who own the means of production—may alienate laborers, who are forced to sell their labor power to survive. In Marx’s view, the driving forces of history are the means to accumulate and resist alienation, with technology serving as fuel for history’s engine. He believed that human beings are motivated not only by the need to survive but also by the desire to create and express themselves. Work, therefore, is not just a means of survival but also a form of self-expression and self-realization. This fundamental drive is a necessary factor in Marx’s theory of history, in which the desire for production becomes a form of self-expression. Marx identified several conditions that fostered productive development in history, including an expanding population, increasing social interaction, and the availability of science and technology—which played a particularly significant role in the later phase of capitalism.

Social and Economic Factors in Technological Development

People create social change through the socio-technical networks they form and maintain. A prime example of social determinism is the design of the bicycle, as its final form was shaped by the needs and desires of the groups who used and interacted with it. Factors such as terrain, culture, and economic conditions in a particular region all played a role in determining the final design.

In the case of BASF, the company developed new chemical products and processes through research and experimentation, even in the absence of immediate demand. Similarly, the Muscle Shoals Dam project was driven by a small group of entrepreneurs who recognized the potential for hydroelectric power generation in the area, despite initial skepticism and lack of demand.

In the case of the Electric Bond and Share Company, the technological systems only broke because of the Great Depression. During this significant historical event, the Roosevelt administration held utility holding company magnates accountable for massive stock losses caused by the irresponsible and, at times, illegal machinations of some holding companies. This led to the enactment of the Holding Company Act of 1935, a US federal law that granted the Securities and Exchange Commission the authority to regulate, license, and break up electric utility holding companies. This act broke up utility companies with more than two pricing levels, known as “tiers”, and limited their operations to a single state, subjecting them to effective state regulation. The primary objective of this legislation was to increase the influence of the free market and promote competition between smaller and larger companies.

Warfare, Social Hierarchies, and Power Dynamics: A Comparison between Premodern and Postmodern Societies

It is generally agreed that warfare was more common in premodern societies than in modern times. This can be attributed to a variety of factors, such as the lack of centralized governments, the absence of effective means of communication and transportation, and the limited availability of resources. While class struggle and rational maximizing have persisted throughout history and continue to exist in modern times, their forms and modalities have evolved. Notably, they are less violent today than in premodern times. In his book “The British Rule in India,” Karl Marx postulated that the introduction of the railroad would “dissolve the caste system and create a new and homogeneous society” in India. However, this prediction did not come to fruition. While the railroad facilitated increased mobility and integration to some extent, it also reinforced existing social hierarchies and power dynamics in many cases.

During the Enlightenment era, the primary goal of technology was to enhance scientific understanding and advance society through reason and progress. While Enlightenment thinkers discussed ideas about less hierarchical republican social structures and increased democracy, technology itself was not viewed as a direct means to achieve these political goals. Traditionally, power has been perceived as emanating from a centralized source, making it vulnerable to attack or removal. However, the modern perspective regards power as emerging from local levels, rendering it decentralized, diffuse, and distributed—thus more challenging to influence decisively.

Technology and Politics

The failure of communism can be attributed to various factors, including the lack of political and economic freedom, corruption, and insufficient incentives for innovation and hard work. Additionally, many Communist governments were notorious for human rights abuses and their inability to adapt to the evolving needs of their populations. In contrast, democracy offers a system of government in which individuals have a voice in decision-making processes through free and fair elections. It fosters the expression of diverse opinions while also safeguarding individual freedoms and liberties. Democracy is founded on the principle of the rule of law, which helps ensure that everyone is treated equally and fairly. To maximize the positive impacts of technology and guarantee its benefits for everyone rather than a select few, international collaboration on development and regulation is essential. Although technology and machines undeniably play a role in historical change, ultimately, it is the actions and decisions of individuals that drive it.

The Gulf War/Desert Storm (1990-1991) serves as an example where the decision to engage in conflict resulted from a series of political and diplomatic decisions made by leaders such as President George H.W. Bush. While technology and military strategy were significant factors, human beings ultimately made the decision to go to war based on their political and ideological motivations. Many would agree that employing nuclear weapons is irrational due to the potentially catastrophic consequences for human lives, the environment, and international stability. Consequently, people often advocate for resolving conflicts through peaceful means, like negotiation and diplomacy, instead of resorting to force, particularly nuclear weapons. It can be argued that technology has shaped the nature of power and conflict, as the development of nuclear weapons granted countries a new form of power, thereby altering international relations dynamics. However, it is crucial to remember that political leaders make the ultimate decision to use nuclear weapons, with technology serving as a tool in the process.

Agricultural Productivity and Resistance to Change

A top-down approach to economics, characterized by central planning and control, can be problematic as it neglects the crucial power dynamics within society. Technology has both positive and negative socio-economic impacts, influenced by the presence or absence of social filters like regulations, policies, and norms. Block printing was instrumental in disseminating knowledge and ideas in Islamic civilization, adopted by scholars, educators, and artists alike. While religious opposition to the letterpress printing method existed in the medieval Islamic world, it wasn’t the sole factor limiting the printing of religious texts. Calligraphy’s high regard as an art form in Islamic culture led to books and manuscripts being predominantly produced by hand, making it the primary reason for limited printing during this period.

Lynn White Jr., a historian and medieval scholar, argued in his influential article, “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis,” that the widespread adoption of the heavy plow in Northern Europe during the Middle Ages significantly contributed to population growth and urbanization. Studies suggest the heavy plow accounted for ten percent of the increase in population density and urbanization during the High Middle Ages. Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie acknowledged the heavy plow’s role in boosting agricultural productivity but maintained that it was not the sole driver of progress during the High Middle Ages. Other factors, such as technological innovations, population growth, and economic changes, also played significant roles in advancing society. Interestingly, Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie was surprised when White shifted his view on the primary reason for agricultural progress from tools to religion.

Curiously, peasants often resisted adopting the heavy plow and horse-drawn plow despite their potential to boost agricultural productivity. This resistance might be attributed to fears of job replacement, a theme common throughout history regarding automation. Conversely, individuals tend to oppose changes that may increase workload or complicate their jobs. Nevertheless, they might embrace new technologies if they perceive clear benefits such as higher productivity, wages, or improved quality of life. Historically, Russia’s harsh winter conditions have impeded agricultural growth. Animals’ inability to graze during winter results in reduced strength, leading to less animal plowing and diminished manure production for fertilization. Further constraints on Russia’s agricultural economy stemmed from limited market exchange and outdated technology.

In feudal systems, lords typically prioritized maintaining their power and wealth over maximizing agricultural production. New agricultural methods were more commonly adopted and disseminated through peasant communities rather than being introduced by lords. Due to the exploitative and unjust nature of feudal lords, their suggestions for agricultural improvements were often met with skepticism and resistance from peasant farmers. Unlike in Europe, the concept of a working class in Russia served as a source of discontent among the peasant population. Russian peasants faced numerous challenges, such as grueling working conditions, limited access to land and resources, and minimal political representation. Lords tended to oppose technological innovations that could replace peasant labor since this would result in a landless class, potentially causing social unrest and political instability. These factors threatened the lords’ power and wealth, leading to their resistance against such innovations.

Reform can occur through various means, including popular uprisings against deeply rooted problems or the elite introducing novel ideas, hoping the populace will embrace them. For change to succeed, people must perceive these ideas as beneficial to their interests. New technology has the potential to disrupt existing power structures and redistribute power in society. This potential can lead to either resistance or support of the technology. In China, rural labor markets significantly contributed to economic development. Utilizing a large, expanding population and a multi-crop agricultural system were key components of China’s rural labor market. China’s economy is often characterized as “hybrid” or “state-led capitalism,” recognizing the distinctive blend of market forces and state control in the nation. Markets, class differentiation, and property rights are often essential features of capitalist systems. Many rural Chinese residents pursue employment opportunities in urban areas, aiming to enhance their economic prospects.

Paintings Depicting Technological Progress and Expansion

“Across the Continent. Westward the Course of Empire Takes Its Way” is a painting by Frances Flora Bond Palmer that depicts the westward expansion of the United States in 1868. The artwork reflects the notion that the group with superior technology, represented by the settlers, displaced the group with less or no technology, represented by the indigenous people. While the colonial settlers are shown diligently working, the Native Americans are portrayed as being choked by the train smoke, symbolizing their struggle against technological advancement. Telephone lines signify the progress of technology, and the train driving westward, drawn by the gold rush that attracted nearly 300,000 settlers to California, further emphasizes this theme. The vast landscape seems to eagerly await further technological progress. Similarly, “Science on the March” is a painting that illustrates the progression of technology over a century, from 1902 to 2002. Both artworks highlight the profound impact of technology on the development and expansion of societies.