This post was originally written for my Social and Organizational Issues of Information class at UC Berkeley’s School of Information. We’ve been reading much to my (dis)satisfaction about social theories of technology, most notably Social Construction of Technology and Technological Determinism. The format of the original article was written for the class blog, which is available in the link provided above.

This ‘blog post has been socially constructed. Or has it? Some years ago, I decided that I needed a higher income, and a job I enjoyed more. My Bachelor’s degree couldn’t afford me the employment opportunities or mobility (or pay) I desired. Why? Because society has dictated what you can and cannot demand for work (or pay) with a lowly Bachelor’s degree. To get a ‘better’ job, I needed to conform to society’s expectations. A Master’s degree sets you in a different employment category, not for any reason, ultimately, other than because of society’s expectations. If I did not follow the compromise of giving two years of my life to study, in order to meet those expectations, I would not be here writing this post.

Or, wait, has my fate truly been a deterministic one?

Isn’t it true that a Master’s degree holder has received a better education, more training and more experience than a student who only has earned a Bachelor’s? Part of my rational to return back to school (and be stuck writing essays like this one) was to find a new path for myself, and eventually work for myself that I found more rewarding and interesting. Having my Master’s will ultimately allow me to do this, right? Is that deterministic? My Master’s degree will influence my future employment opportunities, in a both positive, and potentially negative, way.

My point is not to conflate the two ideas of constructionism and determinism, but rather to question if they are both applicable in certain situations. Certainly society comes together to form a need for a technology, which it then develops through the process of interaction of many people, or groups (or agents or any other creative name some bored sociologist would like to come up with). Factors such as economic viability, cost to manufacture, life span of a product, health implications, and even technological implications all go into the design of a technology. Cell phones for example did not simply ‘appear’ as one might expect from a deterministic point of view. Their implementation is only possible through a series of complicated negotiations between many social factors. This theory is supported by the cultural differences of the cell phone industry in the US versus pretty much anywhere else in the world. Here you buy into a cellular company, in most other countries (at least those I’ve visited) you buy the phone, and then chose your carrier company. At the same time, I do believe that cell phones have ultimately influenced the way individuals interact, and thus, societal norms. People do answer phone calls while out on dinner dates, in the middle of meetings and even during one on one conversations (how rude!). Or, is it rude? Maybe this is just society changing, altering its interactions over time; evolving with the technology that must be impacting it.

To me constructionism and determinism seem like Ouroboros, the snake eating its own tail. Constructionism provides an adequate framework for suggesting how technology is actually conceived and ultimately created into a tangible, usable entity in the real world, while determinism allows us, as introspective and thoughtful individuals, to question what the impact of that technology is. Yes, all you social constructionists, technology does have an impact on society. No, I don’t have the empirical data to prove it.

A final issue I have with constructionism; this notion of ‘closure’. I’m sorry but that does not sit well with me. One example provided is the bicycle, and the expectation is that we’ve, as a society, decided that the form and function of a bike has been defined and no longer is open for interpretation. What? I wish we could fast forward 100 years, I guarantee that the notion of what we consider a bike will be dramatically different from its current instantiation.

Blasphemy! How can you support both opposing theories! I know I’m walking a tight rope here (and possibly not even understanding what is going on at all). That said, I can’t logically displace one theory with the other. Constructionism does not say anything about technological impact over time, except that it is based on the complicated needs of a society, and determinism does not account for the development of technology adequately for my tastes. All I want to know is whether or not me being back in school is a consequence of social construction or deterministic ideologies (or am I just absolutely missing the boat on this whole thing?).