Do you agree with the technological determinist perspective or the view of symptomatic technology, as introduced by Raymond Williams? Why do you agree with that particular opinion? What implications does that view hold for new media?
I would have to agree with Raymond William's opinion about the development of new technology. Everyone has heard that "necessity is the mother of invention"; I agree that there is "intention to the process of research and development" (293).
Williams' example of the development of the television is perfect: he points out through the history of the development of the new medium that "two facts are evident: that a system of television was foreseen, and its means were being actively sought" (295). He also points out that "the development of the press gives us the evidence" that a new way to distribute news eventually became necessary (296). I agree completely with his views; there is always a reason, whether apparent or not, why we need new media. It may not be a particularly important reason, but the key is that the mass public decides that there is a need for it, which I think it the catalyst for the development of new media.
As far as implications for new media today, I would say that as long as the public decides that there is a need for new media, development of technology will never cease. Another thing to keep in mind is the basic rule of economics: humans have unlimited wants. Because of this, I would say that our attempts to improve our lives through technology will also be unlimited.
I also agree with Williams' technological determinist perspective. In specific to the television, interpretation of this invention would explain certain intention to the process of research with certain known social needs and wants (293). I think it is interesting how Williams takes a look at the development of the television from a larger perspective of communication, starting from the printing press and evolving from there. He explains that the process from the printing press to the television was the "response to the political need and political crisis" (296).
This perspective makes the most sense to me because I tend to think fairly logical and with economics in mind. As Rebecca mentioned above, the invention of technologies such as the television stemmed from the public want of some sort of new technology. New media is constantly changing and reinventing itself because this public want has proven to be unsatisfiable. The implications of new media based on this perspective is that we are guaranteed to constantly be experiencing new media based on the direction of the wants of the mass public.
I, for one, agree with the determinist perspective that Williams puts forth. One of the quotes from him explains this perspective quite well. He says that “It is not only that the supply of broadcasting facilities preceded the demand; it is that the means of communication preceded their content.” With this, he explains that media evolves from the desire of humans to progress (which he also mentions, in an interesting point, that progress can also be seen as the history of inventions) in the field of technology and media. Once society beings to develop different forms, then the masses catch on and what’s popular will continue. It goes back to the market society from our reading a few classes ago. The masses are going to drive what forms of new media is successful and what is not. If they don’t want it, the media won’t survive. As long as people are intrigued by the advances in technology, businesses will continue to produce because their profit motive.
I disagree that technology is merely one of the symptoms of the change the occurs in society and history. I consider progressing technology to be the change itself and also the catalyst for further changes in society. The television is an invention that shaped our lives and acted as a stepping stone for the advancement of technology on the way to the computer from the printing press. The television was a huge contributing factor to the culture that exists today. The fashion that people accept and the music that they listen to are greatly influenced by what they see on television and other forms of media. This leads to the conclusion that the computer is the new determinant of the changes in our lives today. News has further advanced into an even more convenient form than before with the radio and the television. The internet allows us to view whatever we want whenever we want which is another great change in how our society functions.
I would have to say that William's symptomatic technology best corresponds to my own beliefs. "Any particular technology is then as it were a by-product of a social process that is otherwise determined. It only acquires effective status when it is used for purposes which are already contained in this known social process." The whole process is circular. I think that society influences technology; advances in technology are spurred by the demand of the masses. Society is changed a little by these new medias, and then society demands more improvements, and the cycle is continued.
I agree with both the technological determinist perspective and the symptomatic perspective, although I cannot say that I agree entirely with either. In my opinion, technological advancements have greatly shaped our world and set "the conditions for social change and progress” (293). However, I don't agree that these advancements were made unintentionally. The developments appear to have come about because of the needs and desires of society. For example, "the development of the railways" were "themselves a response to the development of an industrial system and the related growth of cities" (294). The railways were certainly something that society desired in order to make commuting much easier, faster, more cost effective, and overall more convenient. I think that an important clarification that Williams makes is that "the key question, about technological response to a need, is less a question about the need itself than about it's place in an existing social formation" (295). So we should stop looking solely at what society wants and how it has satisfied these aspirations, and instead, turn our attention to why we have these demands, how they have shaped our community, and what our needs say about our social structure and its intricacies/workings.
New advancements seem to spawn further developments based on how the needs of society have changed as a result of the implementation of the new advancement. This brings me to my next point: I certainly agree with the determinist view that the effects of technology have greatly altered our world in the ways that we interact, think, and go about our daily lives. I'm not sure I would go as far as to say, as Williams has, that "the steam engine, the automobile, television, the atomic bomb have made modern man and the modern condition," for modern man created these inventions, and thus, he created himself, but I do agree that these technological improvements have had a profound impact (293).
I also would have to agree with the technological determinist perspective. Some things in science are discovered by accident, then their possible applications are also discovered later. Williams states that television is "a technological accident, but its significance lies in its uses" (292). Technology influences society, because society adapts to that technology and learns how to use this improvement (or new extension of man, to go back to previous readings) to make life easier. We can go back as far as the wheel, the invention made life easier for the people at the time, but it took a while to really see what it was capable of producing. Williams also talks about this relationship between technology, society and needs/wants.: "It is not only that the supply of broadcasting facilities preceded the demand; it is that the means of communication preceded their content" (298). Basically, some great new technology comes out that people didn't even know that they needed, also once it comes out, people didn't really know what to do with it and how to use it in the most effective way.
The implications for new media are that the technology that we have now, we'll keep on developing and finding a new way to use it, which molds our society's needs and wants. I think it also means that new technology will come out (discovered by accident I'm sure, as is the way science works) and we won't really know how to use it best, but then it will become an integral part of our culture and society. I think it is also a good way for the relationship to function, society will grow and develop with technology; evolve their needs to what technology can produce.
As many students have pointed out already, without a need, there cannot be a product. For this reason I feel that the determinist perspective and symptomatic perspective both present valid arguments. William states that specific technology has "made modern man and society" (293). I do agree that the technology progress is what makes us modern, but I do not believe that media is the only thing that makes the changes in society. I think the two ideas go hand in hand. We have needs because we are a progressing society, so technology is produced to accomodate those needs. However, technology is what makes society continue to move forward, so I think one could argue that our need for technology has made modern man and is not simply a by-product, but it is our modern society that creates the needs for new media.
One of my favorite classes this semester (besides this one, of course) is Economics. In it, we just recently covered scarcity, or, as Rebecca pointed out, the problem of infinite human needs and wants. These unlimited wants are what drive our economy and our technological determinism. For, in order for man to satisfy his many needs, he engages in an "essentially internal process of research and development, which then sets the conditions for social change and progress" (293). Basically, man knows what he wants and he devotes the time and resources necessary to achieve that want. Given that technological determinism is what drives the advancement of media, then it follows that, as Williams points out, "the steam engine, the automobile, television, the atomic bomb, have made modern man and the modern condition." So, essentially, our advancements in technology define the modern man. But isn't this a narrow representation? How are man's morals, principals, and values reflected in technology? If we were to use the atomic bomb to define man, then the final definition would be a rather bleak, misanthropic one. I believe that technological determinism is what drives our advancement, but I am a little worried as to how this determinism defines us as a society.
I'm undecided in which side I support. Like others have stated before me, product is often invented based on need, because that is the only way that it will survive. However, as Cody pointed out earlier, inventions such as the television were not technically needed by the public. It did, however, shape how we view many aspects of society as well as dictate how we interact with others. I think certain inventions are put forth into society without a great need, but are accepted by multitudes. This in turn spreads the idea like wildfire, and our new "needs" in terms of that product support the invention of similar versions. Although our societies love new media and technological devices brought with it, I do not think that each invention we see was created due to a public need set forth. There are exceptions, but I do not feel as though it is the rule.
I agree with the majority of people that have yet posted on this blog. Most inventions are created by someone that realizes a need and therefore makes a piece of technology which they think will be successfully marketed and spread throughout society. An entrepreneur is not going to put their risk and money into something they dont think will be able to sell. Most people will buy something because they convince themselves they "need" it, even if this is merely a "want". Therefore inventors, entrepreneurs, and advertisers will sell products and technology that the public will demand. Inventions are created based on unspoken for demands that the public has voiced. New media takes advantage of these unanswered wants and creates something that society will use. When the media becomes popular and most of society is using it, it will be thought of as a necessity that people cannot think to live without (think TV, computer, cellphones). Because of this, I think that technology is created by a need that society voices, whether it is publicly or even known at all. The public ALWAYS has demands, and as one want is answered for, another want will replace it. Society is never satisfied, it always wants something that is bigger and better, and therefore new media will constantly be changing and being added to.
Williams' idea of symptomatic technology is different from the notion of technological determinism in that it actually makes sense.
Williams postulates that "a system of television was foreseen, and its means were being actively sought" since the mid-1800s or earlier, and that the television was "foreseen... before the crucial components... had been discovered and refined" (294-295). The idea that each of the inventors he listed was working toward inventing the television, with only the television in mind, is absolutely absurd. None of them had seen a television, so it is extremely unlikely that any of them envisioned an actual television. Technology is invented incrementally, and while the television was a groundbreaking innovation, it is nothing more than a group of technologies (most of which were created by non-collaborating inventors) working together.
For a specific example, let us look at the telephone, which has been used for standard telephone calls, as well as data transfer. Bell may have invented the telephone with the goal of instantaneous long-distance communication, and this purpose was achieved. However, for many years (though not as much today), the Internet was dependent on the telephone network for data transfer. There is no doubt in my mind that when Bell invented the telephone, he could never have imagined that we would one day use it to link computers together. In this case, the telephone was simply a contributing technology, and not some sort of amazing foresight on Bell's part.
I believe in symptomatic technology, which believes that research and development are self-generating and what is discovered in the margin is then taken up and used. Whatever technology is discovered is used for the human good through the development of inventions and new media. Change is always occurring and as a result, new things are bound to come from it. If we take TV for example, we can see that it is symptomatic technology because it is a combination of developments that led to the creation of the first TV. These developments (electricity, photography) can exist on their own but when they are combined, they create something new. I think this view implies that new media is the means of taking technology and developments and using it to invent new objects. The new media itself is the effort to use the newly discovered information and research to create a new medium for media.
I think our society works on a combination of the two different perspectives. With new technologies, social change and progress develop. New media can alter the social aspect of our society with each new invention. Our culture adapts to these new products and then becomes dependent on them. Technology is then produced based on the society's needs and desires and will continue to mass produce, until society has progressed to more thrilling technology, in which it will then produce the newest items. This is a basic overview of how a society works based on new media and the economy.
As for technological determinism, I agree in part. I do believe that some technology can ultimately be "accidental" and not related. As for the television, it was not necessarily accidental, but I do not think that the inventors entirely knew exactly what they were inventing. They had a certain blue print and mind set, but as they continued new ideas and new ways of creating this object arised. However, as for the symptomatic technology perspective, it also played a role in the invention of the television. "It depended on a complex of inventions and developments in electricity, telegraphy, photography, motion pictures, and radio." (293) This sentence is entirely true because without these previous inventions, the television could have never come about. So, overall the combination of the two makes up our society and how it is interelated to new media and technology.
I tend to agree with Williams’ views on new media. Williams describes the development of the television as a result of a direct and known social need (293). I agree and believe that all technology is started based on a known need. Occasionally there are side advantages to technology that were not anticipated, things discovered in the margins. However, I believe all new technology is originally developed with a particular purpose in mind. Now, what this means for future technologies? Society will always have needs, and as I’m sure most of us learned in economics class, where there is a demand a supply will soon be established. There are just some things society doesn't realize it wants yet.
I feel there is great understanding in William's statement about the difference between the determinist perspective or the view of symptomatic technology, "Each view can then be seen to depend on the isolation of technology. It is either a self-acting force which creates new ways of life, or it is a self-acting force which provides materials for new ways of life" (293). He is arguing what we have argued in class many times. It is the media that changes our culture or is it our culture that changes media. Is technology dependent on society or is society dependent on culture. This i feel is the basic difference between determinist perspective and the view of symptomatic technology.
Personally, I believe that our society leans more toward the view of symptomatic technology. We have some influence over what technology is presented to us. Manufactures have to keep in mind the appeal the masses. When new technology is invented it is presented to us, and we decide if it is culture-changing.
I agree with both the technological determinist perspective and the symptomatic technology view. Both play a role in contributing to the introduction of new media. In accordance with the view of symptomatic technology, I believe that new technologies are created when there is a need for or want of them. They are involved in the social change, but are not the cause of the change. Following the technological determinist perspective, however, I also think that in some cases a new technology can be introduced when there is no need for it, yet it can have the power to initiate social change. These two views are both correct in analyzing the interactions between new media and society.
Raymond Williams describes technological determinism “in that it would restore intention to the process of research and development.” I have to say I agree with the process of development due to the purpose of societal progression. Just as we have often talked about in class, technology develops because we demand it to. As the introduction states, “Once a technology is in place it operates as a life factor, embodying the social processes that led to its distribution and interacting with social institutions in important ways.” I feel that this sentence sums up the entire process as it makes it clear that once technology makes its way into society it also works to create future technology.
I agree with Williams view of symptomatic technology. "If television had not been invented...we would still be manipulated or mindlessly entertained, but in some other way and perhaps less powerfully." pg 292. The technological advances do not directly produce consequences, but the significance lies in the uses of the technology-page 292. We as a society demand new technology. If we didn't have a television or computer would have other technological things that would create similar results because it is part of who we are as a society and part of our central needs. Technology helps to bring about a change, but we as a society demand that change to come about.
As far as culture and social processes are concerned, I agree with Williams’ technological determinism theory. Although I think that society as a whole incorporates elements from his symptomatic technology theory as well. I think that for the most part, technology is responsible for setting “the conditions for social change and progress.” (293) Things like the internet and television changed the way we receive, view, and even think about life, the world, etc. With the introduction of these things to society, life as it was known changed drastically. It was not, however, a change in the general public’s way of life that necessitated the invention of these technologies, but they have adapted and grown accustomed to them so much so that life without these technologies would be difficult if not impossible for many people.
At the same time though, it is probably true that a large part of this new media and these technologies were invented due to the need of an organization or the military or some such entity. And as such, the symptomatic technology theory holds. If a technology were created in response to a need and then introduced into society, it could still change the way people work and think. In this case, however, it almost seems more likely that Williams’ symptomatic technology theory has more merit. I think it is rather unlikely that a majority of the new media we enjoy today was arbitrarily discovered and just happened to be a huge success (not to say that this could not be the case, it is just less likely).
I would agree with Williams. Many of today's media forms have come from the furthering of the technology due to government or military interest. The best example I can think of is with home computers. Computers were funded and developed by the government in the early days for military use. As they became more streamlined and efficient, they became available for institutions and businesses. They were then further refined until individuals could own a computer at home. And now that computers are a normal household object, things like blogs can proliferate, which is a form of new media. Without some force pushing development forward, new technology and media would stagnate due to a lack of interest, because civilians don't have the money or skills to create such things on their own.
I agree with the technology determinist perspective. As some people have pointed out, the needs of the mass are the motives that make technology innovates, and the invention of technology is for satisfying the needs of people. However, I have to admit that the change of technology has strongly influenced our society and the way people think simultaneously. These changes may create more demands and wants of people that are not yet satisfied. In this way, it seems like the technology is the by-product of the social process, but it’s actually not, because the need comes the first and affects the others.
Williams puts forth an interesting statement, “It is either a self-acting force which creates new ways of life, or it is a self-acting force which provides materials for new ways of life” (293). After reading this statement, I sided with the latter and supported the perspective of symptomatic technology.
Technology is a result of social progress. As society changes we find new ways of putting technology to use. For example, telegraphy and telephony was invented for military purposes and not for social communication. However, sparking from this invention was the advanced form of telegraphy, the radio. In an already “changed social situation” radio was applied as a new social form (295). Looking at where radio stands in society today, it is easy to see its huge role in the way we communicate. Consider it a “symptom of change” or a “by-product of a social process” (293). The invention of the press is also another technological development that came from the public’s need for messages in a time of political power. This implies that new media is developing as a result of social change and that technology is secondary to social progress. I have to agree that new media isn’t creating new ways of life, but certainly providing material for new ways of life.
This is difficult because I can see how either argument would be concrete yet I would have to agree with William’s Determinist perspective. The argument is as follows, “New technologies are discovered, by an essentially internal process of research and development, which then sets the conditions for social change and progress” (Williams, 293). Williams uses the television as the main example in the text, he also touched a little on the printing press. In my mind the invention of the printing press is the perfect example. Like Williams said, the research and development have been assumed as self generating, created as if it were an independent sphere and then created new societies or new human conditions. The invention of the printing press was in the making yet the social change brought about by the invention was immense. The printing press changed the world. I also agree with how Williams maps out the history of the world with technological advances like the era of the atomic bomb, television, and even the printing press. It is like what we were discussing with our fabulous guest speaker, with every death is a new beginning. The end of each era leads into a new era which will help society to adapt, change, and evolve. I believe that Wiliams best sums up the argument between the two positions in this statement found on page 293, "It is either a self-acting force which creates new ways of life, or it is a self-acting force which provides materials for new ways of life". The Guttenberg Press created new ways of life for the world by providing education to the masses.
I disagree with Williams when he said "It is eithera self-acting force which creates new ways of life, or it is a self-acting force which provides materials for new ways of life." I believe it is a combination of the two. As Vanessa said, it's a circular process. Society and technology are interrelated. I once watched a TV special called "Merchants of Cool." This program talked about researchers who go out and observe people. They watch for trends, and watch trendy people, to find out what's "cool." They then take their finidings to huge corporations, who mass-produce the "cool" items. So, they items are sold, and everyone buys the new "cool." Now the question is, was it the people who decided what was "cool," or was it the media advertising these items that decided what "cool" was? It's a huge cycle. Society says what it likes, so companies mass-produce it, putting advertisements everywhere, telling society what they should want. Thus, it cannot be one or the other - it is a combination of the two.
Like Dana, I'm unsure of which view I agree with. It seems to, as amr33 said, work "on a combination of the two different perspectives."
The second perspective claims that “we would still be manipulated or mindlessly entertained, but in some other way and perhaps less powerfully.” (292) I think that this is true. Generally, people had to work hard to survive -- growing their own crops, making and mending clothing, making repairs, tending to animals and children – but when there was leisure it was often used in mindless ways. Before there was television there were board games, card games, dolls, drinking games, etc.
But that doesn’t mean the technology itself isn’t also responsible. The author also states “a more extensive development… could only be fully realized with electricity.” (294) This statement also seems true. Electricity sparked a crazy development in technology, and fueled an expansion of technological development that was unprecedented. Certainly many of these inventions changed the social norm. It was because of electricity that people could begin to stay up longer and do work past the natural daylight. If electricity had not been invented, I believe “certain definite social and cultural events would not have occurred.” (292)
Natasha reminds me that page 293 states: “It is either a self-acting force which creates new ways of life, or it is a self-acting force which provides materials for new ways of life.” Can’t it be both? Electricity definitively changed the way people act, but I feel that many [other] forms of technology are simply aiding a view we already had.
For me, it almost seems to be a combination of both. The technology needed to make the television was all set in place but at the same time, the people were not aware of what implications the television might have on the world. His examples set out in the beginning of the text outline some of the change brought on by the television; such as it greatly increased physical mobility", or "it altered our basic perceptions of reality, and thence out relationships with each other and the world." I don't feel that they were aware that they were changing the social landscape completely and would still be affecting people's lives now with the invention. The unforeseen consequences just came about while others may have been a little bit more understood before the television actually took hold. In conclusion, it wasn't the culture that fully brought out the television, just made it possible for it to be made but at the same time, it helped to shape the cultural landscape of America and other countries for many generations to come.
I am having a difficult time choosing only one of Williams's theories--he presents both arguments very well and each one seems convincing. However, I might be leaning toward the technological determinism perspective. The statement that seemed to ring true for me is, "The steam engine, the automobile, television, the atomic bomb, have made modern man and the modern condition (293)." I do believe that desire and demand are what fuel technological innovation, but not technological invention. Though people in the 1950s may have pondered about the faces belonging to the voices on their favorite radio stations, I do not think that there was a massive public outcry for a way to see the weatherman, for images to accompany any radio program, for a television set. The TV was simply birthed from the minds of a small group of people, not from the demand of the masses. Now, improvements to the television set are different--I believe they are a combination of the "internal process of research and development" and the idea of supply and demand (293). I am sure that inventors/innovators were contemplating the idea of a smaller, sleeker, thinner television set around the same time that the public started to fancy a flat, wall-mountable TV. In general, I believe that new media does mold our culture and our society. There was no outcry for blogs, or facebook, or myspace, yet these things have shaped us and impacted us immensely. Future forms of media are sure to the same.
While both technological determinism and symptomatic technology both agree that the internet is still developing and being changed today, I found myself agreeing with Williams’ view more than McLuhan’s. I agree with Williams’ view that media is still being formed by social and scientific interaction, whereas McLuhan thinks media leaves no room for social interaction but rather, IS the social interaction (“the medium is the message”). I also agree with the technological determinist view that people have a choice to interact with media, such as the Internet, or not. They can wait and see what will happen, or they can take an active part in changing and shaping the information on it. I think Williams is correct in his views that we must look into not only the effect T.V. and other media has had on our society, but the cause as well. I also believe that technology has the potential to have a profound impact on society, and that it already does every day. From television to music, we are being fed opinions, thoughts, and hundreds of “should” messages every day. We “should” look a certain way, we “should” buy a certain product –messages that have the potential to change our society’s views and values.
I agree with what Hannah said. I also thought that this quote, "Once a technology is in place it operates as a life factor, emodying the social processes that led to its distribution and interacting with social institutions in different ways", summed it up rather well.
Consider the cellphone. In the early twentieth century, people would have scoffed at the idea of carrying a means of communication in your pocket. In our day, it's a staple of life; it's strange when people don't have a cellphone. And still companies are making better, more feature crammed phones.
I know I talked alot in class, but i wanted to put up here a reader's digest version of my thoughts, and to add one more little thing that I thought of. My overall view is that of symptomatic technology, because I believe that every person wants a better life, causing a need that is recognized by only a small portion of society, who create the technology. The same overarching want is the fuel that makes society buy and use the technology. People take the deterministic viewpoint because they see people suddenly go from no want to want the instant they hear about something new. This isn't the case, in my opinion, because I believe the desire was always there, and since we don't necessarily know the means by which that want will be fulfilled we don't recognize it until we have been presented with it. We also see certain people in the population (the elderly and the super-religious i.e. the Amish) to be free of this want. However, they still have the same want, but believe that their want would be fulfilled in a different way that many parts of society, i.e. the Amish will still build a barn if it will make their life easier, even if they build it entirely by hand.
The thing i wanted to mention was that many people mentioned tribes in Africa or cave men as not having these desires, but I also believe this is flawed. My counterexample is religion: primitive peoples may not recognize technology as a solution to their desire for a better life, and instead believe that a better life can be obtained through living a virtuous life (i.e. they will go to heaven) or by performing certain non-technological activities (i.e. prayer, voodoo, or witchcraft). We don't consider these things technology because they don't fit our preconceptions of technology. We like to think of a line separating science and religion, but the fact is that this view is a *very* recent conception, arising within the last hundred to two hundred years. Newton and his contemporaries did not consider themselves scientists, but rather philosophers, and in fact Newton never says that he describes the laws of physics, but that he describes the way that God's world functions. The fact is that religion is a type of science (or perhaps vise-versa), an attempt to explain the world around us, and is another facet of our human capability to think and reason.
When it comes to whether one thing influences another or the other way around, especially in processes that are neverending, it is hard to come up with a black or white answer. I think that the debate between technological determinist or symptomatic technology is no exception.
There is a close tie/relationship between technology and society. I think that although when it comes to specific items either technological determinist or symptomatic technology might apply more than the other, in general nothing is very black and white. For example, in the case of the printing press, society had a need to mass distribute information and print. But in turn to that the press raised the literacy rate, and society itself was changed by technology. Then the personal computer came into existence--humans had clearly survived for centuries before without one, but technology changed society. It helped connect people more globally. After awhile people came to demand better performing computer models.
I can name many more examples, but my opinion is simply that throughout the history of humans beings, technology both were demanded by the public, while also changing the way societies were built. There isn't really a middle ground however--the process is varied in type and degree. One thing is for sure though, at present, society needs technology, while technology needs social demand to continue growing and progressing.
I would have to agree with Raymond William's opinion about the development of new technology. Everyone has heard that "necessity is the mother of invention"; I agree that there is "intention to the process of research and development" (293).
ReplyDeleteWilliams' example of the development of the television is perfect: he points out through the history of the development of the new medium that "two facts are evident: that a system of television was foreseen, and its means were being actively sought" (295). He also points out that "the development of the press gives us the evidence" that a new way to distribute news eventually became necessary (296). I agree completely with his views; there is always a reason, whether apparent or not, why we need new media. It may not be a particularly important reason, but the key is that the mass public decides that there is a need for it, which I think it the catalyst for the development of new media.
As far as implications for new media today, I would say that as long as the public decides that there is a need for new media, development of technology will never cease. Another thing to keep in mind is the basic rule of economics: humans have unlimited wants. Because of this, I would say that our attempts to improve our lives through technology will also be unlimited.
I also agree with Williams' technological determinist perspective. In specific to the television, interpretation of this invention would explain certain intention to the process of research with certain known social needs and wants (293). I think it is interesting how Williams takes a look at the development of the television from a larger perspective of communication, starting from the printing press and evolving from there. He explains that the process from the printing press to the television was the "response to the political need and political crisis" (296).
ReplyDeleteThis perspective makes the most sense to me because I tend to think fairly logical and with economics in mind. As Rebecca mentioned above, the invention of technologies such as the television stemmed from the public want of some sort of new technology. New media is constantly changing and reinventing itself because this public want has proven to be unsatisfiable. The implications of new media based on this perspective is that we are guaranteed to constantly be experiencing new media based on the direction of the wants of the mass public.
I, for one, agree with the determinist perspective that Williams puts forth. One of the quotes from him explains this perspective quite well. He says that “It is not only that the supply of broadcasting facilities preceded the demand; it is that the means of communication preceded their content.” With this, he explains that media evolves from the desire of humans to progress (which he also mentions, in an interesting point, that progress can also be seen as the history of inventions) in the field of technology and media. Once society beings to develop different forms, then the masses catch on and what’s popular will continue. It goes back to the market society from our reading a few classes ago. The masses are going to drive what forms of new media is successful and what is not. If they don’t want it, the media won’t survive. As long as people are intrigued by the advances in technology, businesses will continue to produce because their profit motive.
ReplyDelete-Nathan
I disagree that technology is merely one of the symptoms of the change the occurs in society and history. I consider progressing technology to be the change itself and also the catalyst for further changes in society. The television is an invention that shaped our lives and acted as a stepping stone for the advancement of technology on the way to the computer from the printing press. The television was a huge contributing factor to the culture that exists today. The fashion that people accept and the music that they listen to are greatly influenced by what they see on television and other forms of media. This leads to the conclusion that the computer is the new determinant of the changes in our lives today. News has further advanced into an even more convenient form than before with the radio and the television. The internet allows us to view whatever we want whenever we want which is another great change in how our society functions.
ReplyDeleteI would have to say that William's symptomatic technology best corresponds to my own beliefs. "Any particular technology is then as it were a by-product of a social process that is otherwise determined. It only acquires effective status when it is used for purposes which are already contained in this known social process." The whole process is circular. I think that society influences technology; advances in technology are spurred by the demand of the masses. Society is changed a little by these new medias, and then society demands more improvements, and the cycle is continued.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both the technological determinist perspective and the symptomatic perspective, although I cannot say that I agree entirely with either. In my opinion, technological advancements have greatly shaped our world and set "the conditions for social change and progress” (293). However, I don't agree that these advancements were made unintentionally. The developments appear to have come about because of the needs and desires of society. For example, "the development of the railways" were "themselves a response to the development of an industrial system and the related growth of cities" (294). The railways were certainly something that society desired in order to make commuting much easier, faster, more cost effective, and overall more convenient. I think that an important clarification that Williams makes is that "the key question, about technological response to a need, is less a question about the need itself than about it's place in an existing social formation" (295). So we should stop looking solely at what society wants and how it has satisfied these aspirations, and instead, turn our attention to why we have these demands, how they have shaped our community, and what our needs say about our social structure and its intricacies/workings.
ReplyDeleteNew advancements seem to spawn further developments based on how the needs of society have changed as a result of the implementation of the new advancement. This brings me to my next point: I certainly agree with the determinist view that the effects of technology have greatly altered our world in the ways that we interact, think, and go about our daily lives. I'm not sure I would go as far as to say, as Williams has, that "the steam engine, the automobile, television, the atomic bomb have made modern man and the modern condition," for modern man created these inventions, and thus, he created himself, but I do agree that these technological improvements have had a profound impact (293).
I also would have to agree with the technological determinist perspective. Some things in science are discovered by accident, then their possible applications are also discovered later. Williams states that television is "a technological accident, but its significance lies in its uses" (292). Technology influences society, because society adapts to that technology and learns how to use this improvement (or new extension of man, to go back to previous readings) to make life easier. We can go back as far as the wheel, the invention made life easier for the people at the time, but it took a while to really see what it was capable of producing. Williams also talks about this relationship between technology, society and needs/wants.: "It is not only that the supply of broadcasting facilities preceded the demand; it is that the means of communication preceded their content" (298). Basically, some great new technology comes out that people didn't even know that they needed, also once it comes out, people didn't really know what to do with it and how to use it in the most effective way.
ReplyDeleteThe implications for new media are that the technology that we have now, we'll keep on developing and finding a new way to use it, which molds our society's needs and wants. I think it also means that new technology will come out (discovered by accident I'm sure, as is the way science works) and we won't really know how to use it best, but then it will become an integral part of our culture and society. I think it is also a good way for the relationship to function, society will grow and develop with technology; evolve their needs to what technology can produce.
As many students have pointed out already, without a need, there cannot be a product. For this reason I feel that the determinist perspective and symptomatic perspective both present valid arguments. William states that specific technology has "made modern man and society" (293). I do agree that the technology progress is what makes us modern, but I do not believe that media is the only thing that makes the changes in society. I think the two ideas go hand in hand. We have needs because we are a progressing society, so technology is produced to accomodate those needs. However, technology is what makes society continue to move forward, so I think one could argue that our need for technology has made modern man and is not simply a by-product, but it is our modern society that creates the needs for new media.
ReplyDeleteOne of my favorite classes this semester (besides this one, of course) is Economics. In it, we just recently covered scarcity, or, as Rebecca pointed out, the problem of infinite human needs and wants. These unlimited wants are what drive our economy and our technological determinism. For, in order for man to satisfy his many needs, he engages in an "essentially internal process of research and development, which then sets the conditions for social change and progress" (293). Basically, man knows what he wants and he devotes the time and resources necessary to achieve that want. Given that technological determinism is what drives the advancement of media, then it follows that, as Williams points out, "the steam engine, the automobile, television, the atomic bomb, have made modern man and the modern condition." So, essentially, our advancements in technology define the modern man. But isn't this a narrow representation? How are man's morals, principals, and values reflected in technology? If we were to use the atomic bomb to define man, then the final definition would be a rather bleak, misanthropic one. I believe that technological determinism is what drives our advancement, but I am a little worried as to how this determinism defines us as a society.
ReplyDeleteI'm undecided in which side I support. Like others have stated before me, product is often invented based on need, because that is the only way that it will survive. However, as Cody pointed out earlier, inventions such as the television were not technically needed by the public. It did, however, shape how we view many aspects of society as well as dictate how we interact with others. I think certain inventions are put forth into society without a great need, but are accepted by multitudes. This in turn spreads the idea like wildfire, and our new "needs" in terms of that product support the invention of similar versions. Although our societies love new media and technological devices brought with it, I do not think that each invention we see was created due to a public need set forth. There are exceptions, but I do not feel as though it is the rule.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the majority of people that have yet posted on this blog. Most inventions are created by someone that realizes a need and therefore makes a piece of technology which they think will be successfully marketed and spread throughout society. An entrepreneur is not going to put their risk and money into something they dont think will be able to sell. Most people will buy something because they convince themselves they "need" it, even if this is merely a "want". Therefore inventors, entrepreneurs, and advertisers will sell products and technology that the public will demand. Inventions are created based on unspoken for demands that the public has voiced. New media takes advantage of these unanswered wants and creates something that society will use. When the media becomes popular and most of society is using it, it will be thought of as a necessity that people cannot think to live without (think TV, computer, cellphones). Because of this, I think that technology is created by a need that society voices, whether it is publicly or even known at all.
ReplyDeleteThe public ALWAYS has demands, and as one want is answered for, another want will replace it. Society is never satisfied, it always wants something that is bigger and better, and therefore new media will constantly be changing and being added to.
Williams' idea of symptomatic technology is different from the notion of technological determinism in that it actually makes sense.
ReplyDeleteWilliams postulates that "a system of television was foreseen, and its means were being actively sought" since the mid-1800s or earlier, and that the television was "foreseen... before the crucial components... had been discovered and refined" (294-295). The idea that each of the inventors he listed was working toward inventing the television, with only the television in mind, is absolutely absurd. None of them had seen a television, so it is extremely unlikely that any of them envisioned an actual television. Technology is invented incrementally, and while the television was a groundbreaking innovation, it is nothing more than a group of technologies (most of which were created by non-collaborating inventors) working together.
For a specific example, let us look at the telephone, which has been used for standard telephone calls, as well as data transfer. Bell may have invented the telephone with the goal of instantaneous long-distance communication, and this purpose was achieved. However, for many years (though not as much today), the Internet was dependent on the telephone network for data transfer. There is no doubt in my mind that when Bell invented the telephone, he could never have imagined that we would one day use it to link computers together. In this case, the telephone was simply a contributing technology, and not some sort of amazing foresight on Bell's part.
I believe in symptomatic technology, which believes that research and development are self-generating and what is discovered in the margin is then taken up and used. Whatever technology is discovered is used for the human good through the development of inventions and new media. Change is always occurring and as a result, new things are bound to come from it.
ReplyDeleteIf we take TV for example, we can see that it is symptomatic technology because it is a combination of developments that led to the creation of the first TV. These developments (electricity, photography) can exist on their own but when they are combined, they create something new. I think this view implies that new media is the means of taking technology and developments and using it to invent new objects. The new media itself is the effort to use the newly discovered information and research to create a new medium for media.
I think our society works on a combination of the two different perspectives. With new technologies, social change and progress develop. New media can alter the social aspect of our society with each new invention. Our culture adapts to these new products and then becomes dependent on them. Technology is then produced based on the society's needs and desires and will continue to mass produce, until society has progressed to more thrilling technology, in which it will then produce the newest items. This is a basic overview of how a society works based on new media and the economy.
ReplyDeleteAs for technological determinism, I agree in part. I do believe that some technology can ultimately be "accidental" and not related. As for the television, it was not necessarily accidental, but I do not think that the inventors entirely knew exactly what they were inventing. They had a certain blue print and mind set, but as they continued new ideas and new ways of creating this object arised. However, as for the symptomatic technology perspective, it also played a role in the invention of the television. "It depended on a complex of inventions and developments in electricity, telegraphy, photography, motion pictures, and radio." (293) This sentence is entirely true because without these previous inventions, the television could have never come about. So, overall the combination of the two makes up our society and how it is interelated to new media and technology.
I tend to agree with Williams’ views on new media. Williams describes the development of the television as a result of a direct and known social need (293). I agree and believe that all technology is started based on a known need. Occasionally there are side advantages to technology that were not anticipated, things discovered in the margins. However, I believe all new technology is originally developed with a particular purpose in mind. Now, what this means for future technologies? Society will always have needs, and as I’m sure most of us learned in economics class, where there is a demand a supply will soon be established. There are just some things society doesn't realize it wants yet.
ReplyDeleteI feel there is great understanding in William's statement about the difference between the determinist perspective or the view of symptomatic technology, "Each view can then be seen to depend on the isolation of technology. It is either a self-acting force which creates new ways of life, or it is a self-acting force which provides materials for new ways of life" (293). He is arguing what we have argued in class many times. It is the media that changes our culture or is it our culture that changes media. Is technology dependent on society or is society dependent on culture. This i feel is the basic difference between determinist perspective and the view of symptomatic technology.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I believe that our society leans more toward the view of symptomatic technology. We have some influence over what technology is presented to us. Manufactures have to keep in mind the appeal the masses. When new technology is invented it is presented to us, and we decide if it is culture-changing.
I agree with both the technological determinist perspective and the symptomatic technology view. Both play a role in contributing to the introduction of new media. In accordance with the view of symptomatic technology, I believe that new technologies are created when there is a need for or want of them. They are involved in the social change, but are not the cause of the change. Following the technological determinist perspective, however, I also think that in some cases a new technology can be introduced when there is no need for it, yet it can have the power to initiate social change. These two views are both correct in analyzing the interactions between new media and society.
ReplyDeleteRaymond Williams describes technological determinism “in that it would restore intention to the process of research and development.” I have to say I agree with the process of development due to the purpose of societal progression. Just as we have often talked about in class, technology develops because we demand it to. As the introduction states, “Once a technology is in place it operates as a life factor, embodying the social processes that led to its distribution and interacting with social institutions in important ways.” I feel that this sentence sums up the entire process as it makes it clear that once technology makes its way into society it also works to create future technology.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Williams view of symptomatic technology. "If television had not been invented...we would still be manipulated or mindlessly entertained, but in some other way and perhaps less powerfully." pg 292. The technological advances do not directly produce consequences, but the significance lies in the uses of the technology-page 292. We as a society demand new technology. If we didn't have a television or computer would have other technological things that would create similar results because it is part of who we are as a society and part of our central needs. Technology helps to bring about a change, but we as a society demand that change to come about.
ReplyDeleteAs far as culture and social processes are concerned, I agree with Williams’ technological determinism theory. Although I think that society as a whole incorporates elements from his symptomatic technology theory as well. I think that for the most part, technology is responsible for setting “the conditions for social change and progress.” (293) Things like the internet and television changed the way we receive, view, and even think about life, the world, etc. With the introduction of these things to society, life as it was known changed drastically. It was not, however, a change in the general public’s way of life that necessitated the invention of these technologies, but they have adapted and grown accustomed to them so much so that life without these technologies would be difficult if not impossible for many people.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time though, it is probably true that a large part of this new media and these technologies were invented due to the need of an organization or the military or some such entity. And as such, the symptomatic technology theory holds. If a technology were created in response to a need and then introduced into society, it could still change the way people work and think. In this case, however, it almost seems more likely that Williams’ symptomatic technology theory has more merit. I think it is rather unlikely that a majority of the new media we enjoy today was arbitrarily discovered and just happened to be a huge success (not to say that this could not be the case, it is just less likely).
-Markleigh
I would agree with Williams. Many of today's media forms have come from the furthering of the technology due to government or military interest. The best example I can think of is with home computers. Computers were funded and developed by the government in the early days for military use. As they became more streamlined and efficient, they became available for institutions and businesses. They were then further refined until individuals could own a computer at home. And now that computers are a normal household object, things like blogs can proliferate, which is a form of new media. Without some force pushing development forward, new technology and media would stagnate due to a lack of interest, because civilians don't have the money or skills to create such things on their own.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the technology determinist perspective. As some people have pointed out, the needs of the mass are the motives that make technology innovates, and the invention of technology is for satisfying the needs of people. However, I have to admit that the change of technology has strongly influenced our society and the way people think simultaneously. These changes may create more demands and wants of people that are not yet satisfied. In this way, it seems like the technology is the by-product of the social process, but it’s actually not, because the need comes the first and affects the others.
ReplyDelete-Duoduo D
Williams puts forth an interesting statement, “It is either a self-acting force which creates new ways of life, or it is a self-acting force which provides materials for new ways of life” (293). After reading this statement, I sided with the latter and supported the perspective of symptomatic technology.
ReplyDeleteTechnology is a result of social progress. As society changes we find new ways of putting technology to use. For example, telegraphy and telephony was invented for military purposes and not for social communication. However, sparking from this invention was the advanced form of telegraphy, the radio. In an already “changed social situation” radio was applied as a new social form (295). Looking at where radio stands in society today, it is easy to see its huge role in the way we communicate. Consider it a “symptom of change” or a “by-product of a social process” (293). The invention of the press is also another technological development that came from the public’s need for messages in a time of political power. This implies that new media is developing as a result of social change and that technology is secondary to social progress. I have to agree that new media isn’t creating new ways of life, but certainly providing material for new ways of life.
This is difficult because I can see how either argument would be concrete yet I would have to agree with William’s Determinist perspective. The argument is as follows, “New technologies are discovered, by an essentially internal process of research and development, which then sets the conditions for social change and progress” (Williams, 293). Williams uses the television as the main example in the text, he also touched a little on the printing press. In my mind the invention of the printing press is the perfect example. Like Williams said, the research and development have been assumed as self generating, created as if it were an independent sphere and then created new societies or new human conditions. The invention of the printing press was in the making yet the social change brought about by the invention was immense. The printing press changed the world. I also agree with how Williams maps out the history of the world with technological advances like the era of the atomic bomb, television, and even the printing press. It is like what we were discussing with our fabulous guest speaker, with every death is a new beginning. The end of each era leads into a new era which will help society to adapt, change, and evolve.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Wiliams best sums up the argument between the two positions in this statement found on page 293, "It is either a self-acting force which creates new ways of life, or it is a self-acting force which provides materials for new ways of life". The Guttenberg Press created new ways of life for the world by providing education to the masses.
I disagree with Williams when he said "It is eithera self-acting force which creates new ways of life, or it is a self-acting force which provides materials for new ways of life." I believe it is a combination of the two. As Vanessa said, it's a circular process. Society and technology are interrelated. I once watched a TV special called "Merchants of Cool." This program talked about researchers who go out and observe people. They watch for trends, and watch trendy people, to find out what's "cool." They then take their finidings to huge corporations, who mass-produce the "cool" items. So, they items are sold, and everyone buys the new "cool." Now the question is, was it the people who decided what was "cool," or was it the media advertising these items that decided what "cool" was? It's a huge cycle. Society says what it likes, so companies mass-produce it, putting advertisements everywhere, telling society what they should want. Thus, it cannot be one or the other - it is a combination of the two.
ReplyDeleteLike Dana, I'm unsure of which view I agree with. It seems to, as amr33 said, work "on a combination of the two different perspectives."
ReplyDeleteThe second perspective claims that “we would still be manipulated or mindlessly entertained, but in some other way and perhaps less powerfully.” (292) I think that this is true. Generally, people had to work hard to survive -- growing their own crops, making and mending clothing, making repairs, tending to animals and children – but when there was leisure it was often used in mindless ways. Before there was television there were board games, card games, dolls, drinking games, etc.
But that doesn’t mean the technology itself isn’t also responsible. The author also states “a more extensive development… could only be fully realized with electricity.” (294) This statement also seems true. Electricity sparked a crazy development in technology, and fueled an expansion of technological development that was unprecedented. Certainly many of these inventions changed the social norm. It was because of electricity that people could begin to stay up longer and do work past the natural daylight. If electricity had not been invented, I believe “certain definite social and cultural events would not have occurred.” (292)
Natasha reminds me that page 293 states: “It is either a self-acting force which creates new ways of life, or it is a self-acting force which provides materials for new ways of life.” Can’t it be both? Electricity definitively changed the way people act, but I feel that many [other] forms of technology are simply aiding a view we already had.
For me, it almost seems to be a combination of both. The technology needed to make the television was all set in place but at the same time, the people were not aware of what implications the television might have on the world. His examples set out in the beginning of the text outline some of the change brought on by the television; such as it greatly increased physical mobility", or "it altered our basic perceptions of reality, and thence out relationships with each other and the world." I don't feel that they were aware that they were changing the social landscape completely and would still be affecting people's lives now with the invention. The unforeseen consequences just came about while others may have been a little bit more understood before the television actually took hold. In conclusion, it wasn't the culture that fully brought out the television, just made it possible for it to be made but at the same time, it helped to shape the cultural landscape of America and other countries for many generations to come.
ReplyDeleteI am having a difficult time choosing only one of Williams's theories--he presents both arguments very well and each one seems convincing. However, I might be leaning toward the technological determinism perspective. The statement that seemed to ring true for me is, "The steam engine, the automobile, television, the atomic bomb, have made modern man and the modern condition (293)."
ReplyDeleteI do believe that desire and demand are what fuel technological innovation, but not technological invention. Though people in the 1950s may have pondered about the faces belonging to the voices on their favorite radio stations, I do not think that there was a massive public outcry for a way to see the weatherman, for images to accompany any radio program, for a television set. The TV was simply birthed from the minds of a small group of people, not from the demand of the masses. Now, improvements to the television set are different--I believe they are a combination of the "internal process of research and development" and the idea of supply and demand (293). I am sure that inventors/innovators were contemplating the idea of a smaller, sleeker, thinner television set around the same time that the public started to fancy a flat, wall-mountable TV.
In general, I believe that new media does mold our culture and our society. There was no outcry for blogs, or facebook, or myspace, yet these things have shaped us and impacted us immensely. Future forms of media are sure to the same.
While both technological determinism and symptomatic technology both agree that the internet is still developing and being changed today, I found myself agreeing with Williams’ view more than McLuhan’s. I agree with Williams’ view that media is still being formed by social and scientific interaction, whereas McLuhan thinks media leaves no room for social interaction but rather, IS the social interaction (“the medium is the message”). I also agree with the technological determinist view that people have a choice to interact with media, such as the Internet, or not. They can wait and see what will happen, or they can take an active part in changing and shaping the information on it. I think Williams is correct in his views that we must look into not only the effect T.V. and other media has had on our society, but the cause as well.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that technology has the potential to have a profound impact on society, and that it already does every day. From television to music, we are being fed opinions, thoughts, and hundreds of “should” messages every day. We “should” look a certain way, we “should” buy a certain product –messages that have the potential to change our society’s views and values.
I agree with what Hannah said. I also thought that this quote, "Once a technology is in place it operates as a life factor, emodying the social processes that led to its distribution and interacting with social institutions in different ways", summed it up rather well.
ReplyDeleteConsider the cellphone. In the early twentieth century, people would have scoffed at the idea of carrying a means of communication in your pocket. In our day, it's a staple of life; it's strange when people don't have a cellphone. And still companies are making better, more feature crammed phones.
I know I talked alot in class, but i wanted to put up here a reader's digest version of my thoughts, and to add one more little thing that I thought of. My overall view is that of symptomatic technology, because I believe that every person wants a better life, causing a need that is recognized by only a small portion of society, who create the technology. The same overarching want is the fuel that makes society buy and use the technology. People take the deterministic viewpoint because they see people suddenly go from no want to want the instant they hear about something new. This isn't the case, in my opinion, because I believe the desire was always there, and since we don't necessarily know the means by which that want will be fulfilled we don't recognize it until we have been presented with it. We also see certain people in the population (the elderly and the super-religious i.e. the Amish) to be free of this want. However, they still have the same want, but believe that their want would be fulfilled in a different way that many parts of society, i.e. the Amish will still build a barn if it will make their life easier, even if they build it entirely by hand.
ReplyDeleteThe thing i wanted to mention was that many people mentioned tribes in Africa or cave men as not having these desires, but I also believe this is flawed. My counterexample is religion: primitive peoples may not recognize technology as a solution to their desire for a better life, and instead believe that a better life can be obtained through living a virtuous life (i.e. they will go to heaven) or by performing certain non-technological activities (i.e. prayer, voodoo, or witchcraft). We don't consider these things technology because they don't fit our preconceptions of technology. We like to think of a line separating science and religion, but the fact is that this view is a *very* recent conception, arising within the last hundred to two hundred years. Newton and his contemporaries did not consider themselves scientists, but rather philosophers, and in fact Newton never says that he describes the laws of physics, but that he describes the way that God's world functions. The fact is that religion is a type of science (or perhaps vise-versa), an attempt to explain the world around us, and is another facet of our human capability to think and reason.
When it comes to whether one thing influences another or the other way around, especially in processes that are neverending, it is hard to come up with a black or white answer. I think that the debate between technological determinist or symptomatic technology is no exception.
ReplyDeleteThere is a close tie/relationship between technology and society. I think that although when it comes to specific items either technological determinist or symptomatic technology might apply more than the other, in general nothing is very black and white. For example, in the case of the printing press, society had a need to mass distribute information and print. But in turn to that the press raised the literacy rate, and society itself was changed by technology. Then the personal computer came into existence--humans had clearly survived for centuries before without one, but technology changed society. It helped connect people more globally. After awhile people came to demand better performing computer models.
I can name many more examples, but my opinion is simply that throughout the history of humans beings, technology both were demanded by the public, while also changing the way societies were built. There isn't really a middle ground however--the process is varied in type and degree. One thing is for sure though, at present, society needs technology, while technology needs social demand to continue growing and progressing.