Exemplary Assignment 1 responses
January 27, 2009

Assingment: The papers by Heilbroner and Bijker take opposite sides of the argument about technological determinism. Decide which one wins the argument.Tell us, in 200 words or less, what in the paper clinched the argument for you. Be prepared to defend your decision in class. If you cannot decide who wins, say why and again be prepared to defend your judgment.

Pro-Bijker:
Heilbroner argues that the relationship between technological change and society is mutual, with social conditions influencing which technologies are successful and useful. He also argues that technological change follows a generally predictable path, following the development of increased knowledge and capability. Technology influences the social order by changing how labor takes place, and the social relationships involved. Bijker takes a different approach, by explaining why the high-wheeled Ordinary bicycle enjoyed a period of popularity before the safety bicycle became dominant. It is difficult to explain the popularity of the Ordinary bicycle when technological advance is seen as a uniformly improving progression. He shows that the Ordinary, while not safe for long-distance travel, served a purpose by allowing athletic, wealthy young men to exhibit physical strength and means. Bijker wins the argument by providing a nuanced history of a specific artifact, showing that the success and influence of new technology in society depends on the social groups using the technology, who interpret it differently. Bijker recognizes that society is too complex and varied to be uniformly changed by new technology, and that multiple aspects of society interact with the technological innovation, influencing it in complex ways that may not be predictable.
-JESSICA ANN MOLLICK

Pro-Bijker:
Heilbroner makes a valid argument; however, I do not agree that economic conditions are the dominant factors from which technology grows. Bijker clearly wins the argument with his concept of “relevant social groups”. Bijker notes that “technological development should be viewed as a social process” and also notes that improvements often come about when a relevant social group is ready integrate such a change in their lives. For example, Bijker links the bicycle to feminism and notes that until society was accepting of alternative women’s clothing and until the bicycle was constructed in such a way that allowed women to mount the machine in a dignified manner they were not seen as a group of bicycle consumers. A perfect storm must exist for a technology to “stick” one such factor is that society must be ready for it.

Even with the technology of the bicycle in existence, society was not necessarily receptive which hindered the machine from reaching massive popularity. Bijker notes that popularity of the bicycle had to wait for roads to improve but the roads didn’t improve until those already dedicated to cycling formed a group and put pressure on local government. This is not necessarily linked to economics (as would be Heilbroner’s argument); it is linked to groups taking action to mold society into accepting a technology that is already in existence.
-CHRISTEN JOY PENNY

Pro-Heilbroner:
Bijker puts forth that the development trajectory of technologies is in no way autonomous, and is always a part of a larger social process.  He makes this assertion using as his primary evidence the case study of the unusual maturation of the bicycle, which he asserts follows a seemingly circuitous path only as a result of social influence.  Heilbroner makes concessions to this argument in many ways, but ultimately contends, citing such evidence as simultaneity of invention and the predictability of technological growth, that technological trajectories are autonomous to a certain extent. 

The arguments of each author are not contradictory.  The main difference seems to be frame of reference: Bijker is viewing the phenomenon from the point of view of what might be called ‘societal determinism,’ the assumption that the unfolding of society follows its own course with technology following as a part of that growth.  Were Heilbroner to adopt this view, he may agree: the same arguments he uses to defend technological determinism – simultaneity of development in geographically separated groups, moderate predictability and continuity - are applicable to societal development.  Ultimately I tend to find Heilbroner’s paper more useful in evaluating the phenomenon, because his approach is less uni-directional.
-JOSHUA DAVID DOWNER

Pro-Heilbroner:
Technological Determinism – Heilbroner vs. Bijker

After having given you my title, the first thing I wish to do is problematize it, specifically the vs. It is a false dilemma to set the two arguments against each other in this way. If Heilbroner were simply the voice of technological determinism, then Bijker would certainly do a wonderful job of bringing those ideas into question. However, Heilbroner's piece does as good a job at attaking a plain, flat footed definition of technological determinism as Bijker's does! Heilbroner is wearing away at, refining, a definition for technological determinism that to him, as well as me, results in something much more accurate; or at least more appealing for a direction of investigation. I might even go out on a limb and say that Heilbroner could be seen to largely be in agreement (though they approach from different directions) with Bijker, hence his modifications to the theory at hand. For example, Bijker presents the problem of the parts of a safety bicycle existing far before the whole, and Heilbroner does not deny this, but provides the ideas of the gradual expansion of knowledge and technological congruence to enrich it (58).
-Andrew Blum

Pro-Heilbroner:
Heilbroner and Bijker both are persuasive in their arguments however; Heilbroner’s approach to technological determinism is more convincing. Bijker, a social constructionist, repeatedly emphasized relevant social groups for understanding the development of technology by investigating their problems and solutions. However, I was in opposition with some of his methods. For instance, how do you distinct accountable social groups from a possibility of there being many globally, then which ones are best to include in the study and this leaves out the aspect of accessibility – powerless social groups. He seems to argue that technology doesn’t determine human action, but that human action forms technology. Contrastingly, Heilbroner seemed most persuasive when discussing the idea that there’s a sequence in technological evolution. Example, you need “a” to get to “b”. In that, scientist can make predictions about future innovations. Further, technology can impose a pattern of social relations. Example, technology can control the requirement of skills for the labor force, thus controlling the types of training, education needed. Lastly, a job could require highly skilled workers but require less labor time – this means these people have the luxury for more leisure time. Hence, more people would aspire to gain those skills.
-Jooyoun Kim

Neither:
It seems that the arguments presented in the papers by Heilbroner and Bijker are not so different if one reads carefully, making it difficult to take a side. Both authors agree that technological innovations generally upon closer inspection are more evolutionary than innovative. It seems Heilbroner believes that social conditions give rise to what succeeds in the market; that new technology at first has no rules, but then society catches up and irons out rules and regulations. It seems that a given technology’s capabilities shapes how people use it and what they use it for. Heilbroner is cautious in pointing out that he does not believe in absolute technological determinism, only that technological advancement plays a role in shaping society.
Bijker also discusses the relationship between technological advances and social issues. For example, the combination of the first bikes being difficult to ride (technical issue), combined with how they were “marketed” socially (riding to show off in parks, etc) resulted in bikes being seen as dangerous and sporty. With both technical, evolutionary advancements in manufacturing (improvements in safety, etc) and changing social ideas (with bikes being seen as a mode of transportation), bikes became accepted by all social groups.
-JESSE CHARLES ENDAHL

Neither:
No Winner, No Argument.
The two authors are arguing semantics. Bjiker argues against the hard technological determinism that Heilbroner softens up with regular caveats. This unnecessary disparity stems from each’s different level of analysis. Heilbroner’s global analysis sees the directionality of technology, and rightly says that innovations build on one another in a way that can not be reproducible in the inverse or random order. This is analogous to evolution were we see trends that favor complexity over time. Technology IS a good way to measure human progress and make predictions because our biology and morals are much more stable then the stew of innovations that writhe around it. Predictions based on far-reaching technology (say hybrid technology) rather than the current aesthetic fad for cars among middle class males (though both causal and necessary) are more accurate. Bjiker’s analytical history of the bicycle correctly illustrates that a technology evolves in tandem to mankind’s capacity and interest in it. Why did bikes take so long to evolve despite available technology? People were not sufficiently motivated, and it took changes in the social environment for this technology to flourish. Bjiker also created a determined lineage of history, he just included social changes as well.
-ROY DANIEL MALOON

Neither:
I do not think that either Heilbroner or Bijker won the argument over technological determinism. I believe that each argument stands true for its scale: Heilbroner discusses larger movements than Bijker. In Heilbroner’s article, yes, technology like the steam engine had a huge impact on society and culture, structure and social relations. Bijker’s book about bicycles discusses a narrower topic and focuses on details. I agree that in the instance of the bicycle, technological change occurred as a result of social and cultural attitudes. The notion of differing interpretations of an artifact driving technological change dictates that group opinion directly influences acceptance and change. The analysis of the safety bicycle reminds me of what I have learned about the electric car: we have had the capability of making and using it, benefitting the environment, our wallets, and perhaps foreign relations, but we do not because of the interests of big oil and car production companies. I believe that there is an important interplay and exchange between invention, society, needs, and acceptance. What Bijker refers to as a “detour” in the design of the bike may not be a detour at all but an important step revealing the desires of people at the time.
-Sarah Wyman