ABSTRACT
At the present stage in the development of theories dealing with technology in general and ICT in particular it may seem like a waste of time to once again take up the issue of technological determinism, and to properly criticise and refute the notion. However, as we noted above, the idea of technological artefacts1 or technological systems with a certain rationality and a certain telos-a built-in future which will inevitably unfold itself across time and space-continues to have a strong attraction. This, we will argue, is for obvious reasons. Thus, we have all in our daily lives experienced how certain technological artefacts dictate our behaviour-how a car, an electricity system, a piece of software allows, enables, forbids or constrains us in doing certain things. For most people these artefacts represent ‘facts’ or ‘reality’; something we have to live with and can do little about.2 And as technology ‘develops’ we adapt, because there seems little else to do. These everyday observations of how technology seems to ‘determine’ our behaviour easily leads to the attribution of agency to the technological artefacts themselves. This attribution is the basis of technological determinism, and it is a way of perceiving technology which is quite compatible with the heritage of the Enlightenment, and which is therefore deeply rooted in Western culture.3 This deep-rootedness means that technological determinism as a mode of perceiving the role of technology in society is difficult to do away with; probably more so than its critics expect. Furthermore, the showdown with technological determinism is impeded by three factors. First, more ‘advanced’ theories for understanding the role of technology in society, for example the ‘social construction of technology’ (SCOT) theory, seem to have a difficult time being acknowledged by hardware/software developers and vendors, the community of politicians and other decision-makers. Second, even though such theories are moving to the centre stage in the social sciences’ attempt to understand technology, their diffusion to the natural sciences, for example, seems to be limited. Third, these theories are still in a developmental mode, and are thus, in our view, flawed in some respects. This might be one of the reasons for the lack of diffusion to other spheres of society, even though there are surely also other forces at work here.
