Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Pinch - The Social Construction of Technology PDF

    Uploaded by

    Vicente Losada Fadul
    6 views10 pages

    Original Title

    Pinch_The Social Construction of Technology.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    6 views10 pages

    Pinch - The Social Construction of Technology PDF

    Uploaded by

    Vicente Losada Fadul

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 10
    in Fox, @ Ad IAXG Technological change Tethods and Themes inthe Wishory of Techenology War wed The Social Construction of Technology: A Revi Trevor Pinch In the last decade “the social construction of technology” has become much in vogue. Not only do a plethora of authors refer to something they call the social construction of technology. but also the approach as a whole is perceived as @ school — something that is taken as challenge to other strands in the history and sociology of technology. In this review I offer some personal reflexions on the development of work in the social consttuction of technology. The review is intended to be neither systematic nor exhaustive; itis more a personal take on some ofthe issues.! VARIETIES OF SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF TECHNOLOGY Where does the term social construction come from, and what des it mean’? Its souree is (o be found in the extremely influential book by Peter Berger and ‘Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality, published in 1966." Drawing on the phenomenological tradition and particularly the work of Alited Schutz, Berger and Luckmann observed how the everyday reality of social institutions is actively constructed by ordinary members of society in the course "For a much move systematic review, see W.E, Biiker,“Sociohistriat technology ‘dies. in 8. Jasanofl, GE. Markle. JC. Peeren, and T. Pinch eds), Handbook of Science and Technology Studiex Thousand Osks, Landon. New Delhi 1995: Sage, 1985). pp. 220-86 * Poe Bergger and Thomas Lachman, The Seal Constructo of Reality A Teatve the Socioloes of Knowledge (New York: Deubledsy, 1966). 18 Technological Change ‘of their mundane social activity. Subsequently, whole areas of scholarship have ‘developed under the slogan “The Social Construction of X, where X stands for some notable institution or aspect of society, such as mental illness, deviance. ‘gender, education, the law, or science, It isthe latter school of thought — the social construetion of science — which lias inspired much of the recent upsurge of interes in the social construction of technology. In the early 1980s a number of scholars working within the social construc Livist tradition in the sociology of science tumed their attention 10 technology. If scientific facts — always taken to be the hard case for the sociology of Knowledge — could be treated ax social constructs. why not technological artefacts ton? Al the sume time a number of historians of technology, notably Edward Constant and ‘Thomas Hughes, were becoming interested in ideas ‘developed in the Sociology of science. The marriage of the owe groups is cconimonly heralded to have token place at 2 workshop held at the University of Twente in 1982, The subsequent volume from the workshop, The Social Consiruction of Technological Systems. jointly edited by a historian of technology (Thomas P. Hughes), a sociologist of technology (Wiebe E. Bijken) and a sociologist of science (myself. has become something of a flagship ‘volume for the new social construction of technology approach. ‘Although the sources and precursors for the social construction of techno logy movement can be readily identified. elucidating what exactly the “social construction of technology” means is much harder Indsed, the very success of social constructivism has meant that all oo often people are ready 1 label themselves as social consttuctivists without, it seems, any clear conception of ‘what that doctrine means and entails. Thomas Luckmann. in a piece celebrating twenty-five years of the publication af The Social Construction of Reality. te ‘marked thal “whenever someone mentions ‘constructivism’ or even ‘social cconstructionism” Tnun for cover these days™* 1 too wanted to run for caver at revent meeting on explorations in social eorstruction® drawn from the fields of education, communications, and social psychology. Social construction in such circles has been given a New Age “touchy feely” twist. Participants talked about becoming empowered through social constructions. One theropist at this meeting. when asked what social construction meant for bim. replied, in all seriousness, “My practice has been transformed, [ now always add “perhaps’ to any advice | give"! The flyer to a follow-up workshop, on "Experiencing social construction”, states: 7 WEE. Biker, TP. Hughes and TI. Pinch (es), The Social Construction of Telnooical Systems. Nese Directions inthe Sciologr and Histor of Tecnolog (Cambridge, Mass MIT Press, 1987), 2 Thomas Luckmann, “Social construction and aller” Perspective, The Theory Section Newsletter of the American Sociology Associaton (1992), 18, no, 24-5. pd * Ingites i social eonstruction. University of New Hampshire, 346 June 1993. The Social Constracton of Technology: A Review 19 ‘Our forms of ie, what we consider 1 be real and ive, ure social constructions ‘Social constructions enable and energize life as well as limit i. Living must be Viewed as process of ever Vansforming social consrutions.. We want ideas 10 pop ‘ur paradigms and expand oor socio-cultural sensitivity. We hope for ways of lazing about and enhancing the quality of fife In the postmodern. socially saturated, teehnological intense, weny fist century® Quite! Even within the narrower confines of the history and sociology of science and technology, social construction can mean a variety of things.’ Following ‘Sismondo the most important distinction to draw is between “mild” and “radi cal” social constructivism. In its mild form. social constructivism is simply equated with science and technology having social components: the seience and technology we get has in some sense been influenced or shaped by such social components, whether they be political interests, consumer groups. marketing, gender stereotypes, or whatever, This mild version of social constructivism is 10 be found in the work of historians of technology such as David Nye in his study of electricity in America’ Alex Rowland in his study of the war chariot, and Pamela Mack in her study of the development of NASA's LANDSAT remote viewing satelite system"! The technologies they examine are said to be socially constructed in the sense that consumer groups, politcal interests, and the like all played a role in determining the final form which the technology took. For example. David Nye argues that every new technology is a social con struction and, in his richly documented study, he focusses upon electrcity’s meanings and uses for ordinary people in America between 1880 and 1940. yes work is fascinating because he shows how the technolagy became woven Into the hopes and dreams of users, sometimes in quite unexpected ways, Certainly social reality became constructed in new ways for these users, He also shows convincingly how electricity acquired the predominant meaning. in Contribution guidelines 10 Experiencing Social Consruction. A Handbook of Transfor ‘mations, fom the Taos Institte, Box 4628, Carino dela Placita, Tans, New Mexico 87571, USA. » Soe Sergio Sizmondo, "Some socal consructions. Social Studies ef Science (1993), 2% 515-83, for a paricultly interesting discussion of different meanings of social consinuc: tion in the sociology of science and technology. * Siamondo, “Some social eonstructions" "David Nye, Electrifying America, Soctal Meanings of a New Technology. 1880-1940 (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1990) ® Alex Rowland, "Chariots ofthe mind: the Socal constuction ofthe war wagon”, Paper delivered 10 the “Techwslogical change” conference, University of Oxford, 8-11 Septersher 1993, " Pamela Mack, Viewing the Earth. The Social Consiruction of the Landsat Satelite Sytem (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. 1990) 20 Teehualosical Change ‘America as a commodity to be consumed by isolated users. But what Nye does, hot do is to show how the very working of the technology and the different technical options offered to users were socially constructed ‘The radical version of xocial constructivism is concemed ta show how social processes influence the very content of technology — what it means fora tec: nology to be deemed as working. for example, This version, which draws heavily upon work in the sociology of science, claims that the meening of the technology. including facts about its working — established perhaps through a process of engineering design and testing — are themselves social constructs" ‘This latter view is opposed to any conception of technological determinism which posits technology developing under its own immanent logic." There is ow a considerable corpus of such work. A good! example is Donald MacKenzie’s study of the development of ballistic missile technology."” MacKenzie shows that in the testing of such missiles there were competing definitions of what missile accuracy meant. Other work within a radical tradition of social construc- tivism include Wiebe Bijker's study of the development of bakelite and of fMuorescent lighting.'* Pinch and Bijker on the development of the safety bieyele." Elzen on the ultracentrifuge.” "Thomas Misa on the manufacture of steel, and Paul Rosen on the mountain bike.” n the rest of this review, [intend to Focus upon the achievements, problems, and potential of this radical social constructivism. I shall be concerned not only 10 draw attention to criticisms but also t0 show how the social constructivist ‘appach can be extended to deal with such enticisms, Before doing so. however, it 18 worth remarking once more on the confusion between the radical and mild "The agenda for the raical view is set cut in TS. Pinch ant WE, Biker. “The socal ‘construction of fact and aefuts: oF how the saving af science andthe soeiokapy of {echimology might benefit each ober”, Sora Studi of Science (1984). 4: 399 431, ' Technologie! determinism i semething of «bogey word For aparticulaly clear discus son of the neues. see Bruce Bimber. “Karl Marx and the three faces of tectiological sierminisn” Social Stas vf Science (1990), 20: 333-51 "See. for instance. Donald MacKeazie “From Kwajalein to Amargcadon? Testing and the social eonstruction of missile accuracy", in David Goeding. Trevor Pinch, and Sion Schaffer (eds). The Uses of Experiment (Cabridge: Cambridge University Press 1989), al Donakd MacKenre. Inventing accuracy A Historical Socalegy of Balle Missile Guidance (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1991), '*Wicbe Bijker. “The seis comucton of hakelite: tohards a theory of invention”. in Dijker, Hughes, and Punch, The Sacial Construction of Technological Systems, pp. 139-87 ° Pinch and Bijker. "The social eonsruction of fats and artefacts Bowtie Fizen. "Tho skeacentfages: a eomparaive study ofthe socal constrain of svete", Sacial Sues of Science (I9¥6, 16. 621-62, “Thoms J, Misa. “Controversy and closure in technological change: constructing ‘celia Biker and La Shaping Technolgy pp 108-39, " Paul Ranen. “The social eensraction if tintin bikes: technology and post moet in the cycle indusey” Soied Studies of Science (1993), 28-479-S13, The Sreial Construction of Teshnologs: A Review 21 versions of social construetivism. because this confusion has been the source of some recent eriticism, ‘THE “SO WHAT?" RESPONSE, ‘There is an old adage that new ideas go through three siages of development First, they are ignored. Secondly. they are explicitly rejected. Lastly, they are accepted, but people say "So what? What's all he fuss about? I's nothing new" In evaluating the progress made by the social construction af tectinolgy approach I would say that iis « mark of our achievernent that we seem to have reached this lst stage. Rather than ignoring the approach, or rejecting it, people now seem to say “So what? Sure we knew technology was a social constrict all along — what's new’? A recent expression of this position has come from David Edgerton in an essay review of MacKenzie's work and other social constructivist studies of technology: Edgerton correctly points out the roots of this approach in the social construction of sciemve and argues that, there, the social construction thesis had something novel to say because it was counterintuitive 10 challenge the predominant view that science is solely the produet of nature. When it comes to technology. however. everyone accepts that i is not exclusively the product of nature: so whst's new? Edgerton points out that the modern history of techno: logy as exemplified by the work of members of SHOT has tong accepted the “embeddedness of technology in the human world". Equating SHOTsh history of technology with the Model T and the SCOTtish (social construction of technology) approach with a Chevrolet, Edgerton asks: ‘Why go forthe anally restyled Chevrolet when the Mel Twill J just as well! In is clear that Edgerton’s riticisms here are ditected towards the mild form of social constructivism, And perhaps he is right. The mile form of social David Egerton, “Tiki (1993), 26: 67-75, 2 Edgerton. Tiking at paper tigers” p. 7. Eagerion, “Tiking at paper tigers”. 75 © Uninown to Edgerton. ia collaboration withthe Cosnel historian of technology. Row ‘Kine. have been examining the early history ofthe moore ine hang the Model T. We have found that this paradigmatic “black box” was actully opened fora while by rar consumers, wh found a adically Ufferent mes de Model Ta nesta this development, a SCOTUsh approach turns eu whe rather ase, Perhaps, jst nthe ata artefact. the Model T has not een stable as iy assumed in vonventional historia secounts. SHOT itsell may turn out to be less monolithic than some historians have ‘hough See Ron Kline and Trevoe Pitch. "Taking the black bos off ts whee the Sici ‘consrution othe American rural car. subvaied 1 Tetinoloey id Culture. at paper tigers”. The Brith Journal for the Hisar of Science 22. Techologicol Change

    You might also like