The concept of technology has radically revolutionized how society relates to human advancements, which were previously referred to as useful arts. Increasingly, people have been influenced to believe that technological innovations are the force that drives human history and that societies experience changes primarily because of technology. In his article ‘Technology: The Emergence of a Hazardous Concept’, Leo Marx’s primary argument seeks to dispel this notion and argues that, while technology, both the objects it describes and the word itself, are rampantly used in the present world, this perspective is detrimental to the understanding of the reality. This conferment of causal powers on technology merely because people have developed increased reliance on it disregards other influential factors, including political and socioeconomic elements, which are largely responsible for precipitating innovations and human advancements. In Marx’s view, this is the hazard that underlies the concept of technology as it conceals the relations between people as its origin, leading to such flawed descriptions as social changes triggered by technology.
Summary of Leo Marx’s ‘Technology: The Emergence of a Hazardous Concept’
Human history and societies have been characterized by constant changes and transformations. However, contrary to popular belief, technological innovations, from Eli Whitney’s cotton gin and James Watt’s steam engine, is not the driving force of societal changes. Indeed, technology does not have causal powers, and the widespread perception of it as a driving force of social change is flawed (Marx 966). This conferment of causal powers on technology is a misrepresentation that is significantly detrimental to the understanding of reality, a phenomenon that Marx considers hazardous. In ‘Technology: The Emergence of a Hazardous Concept’, the author notes that technology does not have agency powers and was historically developed to enhance the attainment of an ultimate goal (Marx 972). For instance, the development of the telescope, microscope, telegraph, and wireless systems was inspired by the desire to achieve specific aspirations, which included continuous knowledge expansion that would result in the universal improvement of human life. Notably, Marx contends that technology is indeed an indispensable component that has played an integral role in human activities, as evidenced by its progressive integration into all aspects of life but refutes the notion that it is a driver of social change. To reinforce his argument, Marx (982) posits that technology is never autonomous and does not exist independently of its human creators. In this regard, the imagination that technology drives social change is fallacious, and the formulation of such descriptive assertions as technologically instigated social change is misleading.
Conversely, the political and socioeconomic relations between people precipitate social changes, and technology is only an enabling factor that enhances the realization of a particular goal and transforms society. This implies that viewing technology as a driver of social change is hazardous as it is misleading by overamplifying the significance of technology, which undermines the role of social relations in driving change. As a result, this could lead people to neglect and shift their socioeconomic and political relations, which shape society, to technology.
Additionally, the concept and the word ‘technology’ is relatively new, entered the English language lexicon in the seventeenth century, and only acquired mainstream application and usage towards the end of the nineteenth century. Even then, it was rarely used, and when utilized, it typically referred to a field of study as opposed to a specific object (Marx 981). However, the proliferation of inventions during the Industrial Revolution necessitated the development of a comprehensive word that would encompass all the productions that emanated from the arena of mechanical arts due to an existing semantic void (Marx 968). This implies that the application of the word ‘technology’ was purely accidental, and the social changes that had been achieved in the previous centuries could not be attributed to technology.
Response to Leo Marx
While technological advancements and social changes are related, a prominent question that emerges is whether the relationship is bidirectionally causal and from what point. Indeed, it is irrefutable that human relations and not technology drive societal changes since these transformations are realized as societies utilize knowledge to achieve a specific goal or address a specific problem. For instance, such technological innovations as the internet, computers, electricity, airplanes, automobiles, radio, and television were tools created to address the challenges in communication and transportation. However, it is indisputable that societies which have interacted with these technological leaps have been impacted significantly and are distinctively different from those that are yet to experience them, especially in the context of modernity. For instance, while motorization changed the movement of people and goods, it resulted in the drastic transformation of how cities were planned and built since they ought to have been built in a way that accommodated motorized transport. From this perspective, is there a bidirectional causal mechanism between technology and social change?
Conclusion
Although technology is widely perceived to drive social change, Leo Mar’s article ‘Technology: The Emergence of a Hazardous Concept’ illustrates that technology is not a driver of social transformation. Historically, humans have developed new technologies to achieve some goals, including advancing knowledge and improving the condition of life. These objectives were primarily influenced by socioeconomic and political relations between people. From this perspective, technology is a means of enabling people to achieve progress and not the driver of such progress. Regarding it as a driver of social change is undermining the role of socioeconomic and political relations. It could potentially and hazardously trigger people to shift their responsibility of changing society to technology.
Work Cited
Marx, Leo. “Technology: The emergence of a hazardous concept.” Social Research, vol. 64, no. 3, 1997, pp. 965-988.
write