Technology vs. Culture: What is the driving force?

Being an American Studies major with a concentration in politics, I personally know a lot about extremes, as there certainly are many of them when it comes to our nation’s government. There are always the same stories of Republican vs. Democrat, this opinion vs. that opinion, us vs. them. Yet, this has always brought one, single question to my mind: Why? Why does it have to be one thing or the other? If we recognize things to be extremes and/or opposites sides of a spectrum, then surely it is only logical that there is something that lies in between, some lost middle ground which nobody seems to remember anymore. Thus, this brings me to my view on the recently assigned readings.


In the readings that this post covers, numerous issues were brought up, such as determinism, control, etc. Yet, just as in politics and nearly everything else, it is just another “fight” (so to speak) between two clashing views: Technological vs. Cultural Determinism, technology controlling humans vs. humans controlling technology, and so on. So, once again, I raise the question: Why does it have to be either one side or the other? What about taking the stance that lies in between the two sides? Surely it does not have to be entirely one or entirely the other? Last time I checked, there is never really anything in the world which is that black and white.

Take the argument over determinism, for example. Technological Determinism states that technology determines history, and that it is the cause rather than the effect. On the other hand, Cultural Determinism takes the stance that technology is the effect of a cultural change. Side by side, these are two compelling arguments with evidence to support their claims, and both seem to be reasonable to a certain degree…So, who’s to say they aren’t? Take the NRA quote repeatedly used on the textbook: “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Personally, I have a problem with this quote, primarily because I feel it fails to capture the true issue at stake, especially since many people have strong opinions when it comes to guns. Thus, I will instead use the example of computer programming. Computer programming is the process through which computer programs are coded using one of the widely known coding languages, responsible for nearly every function a computer can perform. For example, Microsoft Word, which I am using right now to type this, is made possible through computer programming. Yet, so are the viruses that several of my friends managed to download onto their computers over the summer.

Thus, you could rephrase the gun quote to be somewhere along the line of “Viruses don’t hurt computers, computer programming does” or “computer programmers do.” Well, as is obvious, that doesn’t work all that well as an argument, does it? More or less, it is the same code being used in both types of programs, and if you removed it entirely you would remove both the good and the bad. In this sense, both the positive and negative sides are fueled by the same thing. As with the gun argument, it would be incredibly foolish to say that the existence of the code causes people to make viruses (actually I would argue that human nature does that). When a programmer sits down, the code he/she is using does not actively influence he/she to use it in one way or another. Certainly, the code has the potential to be used in the wrong way, just as a gun does. Yet, it does not have to be used in such ways, or at all, just as a gun does not.

As such, it cannot be said that technology is strictly the cause or that culture is strictly the cause. It is instead a combination. Yes, computer programming was developed by humans to make life easier, therefore indicating a cultural cause. Yet, some found ways to use this technology in ways which are harmful to other people, which is even still a cultural/human-based cause. However, the development of these ways to use the code to take advantage of others spread, and the knowledge of their existence led to others making use of these methods, making it so that the existence of the technology is leading them to try it out. Nevertheless even this is not as cut and dry as it seems, as not all human beings have it in their nature to use such things for the purpose of abusing others…and so on. In actuality, this argument passes back and forth, continuing on to the smallest details without ever finding a single, true answer. This is because, as I have hopefully shown by now, there is no single answer: Both technological and cultural determinism are partially right and partially wrong, merely depending on the issue. After all, the term “technology” means quite a few things, and to think that all technology can be compared to a gun or computer programming is kind of…odd (though this issue will have to be saved for another of my rants, or else this will go on for far longer than it should). What the causes and effects are will differ depending on the technology in question. The internet was obviously developed for reasons far different from those behind the development of the toaster, or indoor plumbing, or a nearly-endless list of technologies. In conclusion, I believe that this argument must be solved by taking the middle road, for the two extremes in this case just don’t cut it.