Shaping Technology: Society, Users, and Media Narratives
1. Understanding the Social Shaping of Technology
The social shaping perspective argues that technology and society mutually influence each other, rather than technology shaping society on its own. This challenges technological determinism, which assumes that new technologies automatically cause social change. MacKenzie and Wajcman argue that technology is shaped by economic, political, and cultural forces, not just by innovation. Similarly, Oudshoorn and Pinch highlight interpretive flexibility, meaning users don’t just accept technology as it is—they modify, resist, and repurpose it in unexpected ways. When using a social shaping approach, three key considerations matter:
- Local Context and Social Relations: This refers to the specific time and place where technology emerges. For example, the TikTok ban in the U.S. isn’t just about the app itself but reflects national security concerns, U.S.-China relations, and economic competition in a particular political climate.
- Mutual Constitution of Technology and Society: Technologies are produced and distributed with specific political and economic motives. The shift from Loran to GPS was not merely a technical upgrade but a strategic decision shaped by military, commercial, and governmental needs.
- Interpretive Flexibility: Users adapt technology in unexpected ways. TikTok, originally designed for entertainment, has become a major platform for political activism and organizing social movements.
We use this perspective in this course because it helps us look beyond the technology itself and understand the bigger picture. MacKenzie and Wajcman explain that technological determinism is too simplistic because it ignores human decisions and social influences. The social shaping approach helps us see how power, culture, and everyday use shape media and communication, making it a better way to study technology’s impact.
2. Challenging Technological Determinism
The technological deterministic perspective argues that technology independently drives social and historical change. It assumes that once a technology is invented, its impact is inevitable, shaping society regardless of cultural, political, or economic contexts. MacKenzie and Wajcman critique this view, emphasizing that technology is shaped by human decisions and broader societal forces. Robinson’s study of the printing press further disproves this idea, showing that technology’s adoption depends on cultural and religious contexts rather than being an automatic force of change. A technological deterministic narrative often presents technology as an unstoppable force of progress, crediting a single genius inventor—typically a white, Western man—for world-changing innovations. However, technological development is rarely the work of one person and is influenced by social, political, and economic conditions. For example, Nikola Tesla’s quote about wireless electricity reflects this exaggerated view of technology as a transformative force. Another common feature is the belief that new technologies succeed because they are “better,” ignoring the role of government policies, corporate interests, and public acceptance. Similarly, the “Telephone Blame” example demonstrates how people often attribute social problems to technology itself rather than considering how societal behaviors influence its use. We reject this perspective because it oversimplifies how technology and society interact. MacKenzie and Wajcman argue that technological determinism ignores human agency and the complex factors shaping technological change. Robinson’s research on the delayed adoption of the printing press in the Islamic world illustrates that technology’s impact is not inevitable—it is shaped by cultural and institutional forces. By avoiding technological determinism, we gain a more nuanced understanding of how power, politics, and social structures influence media and communication.
3. Deconstructing the Orality/Literacy Binary
The orality/literacy binary is the idea that societies are either oral (traditional) or literate (modern and advanced). This belief assumes that literacy leads to progress, while oral cultures are seen as less developed. Teuton challenges this idea, explaining that oral traditions are sophisticated knowledge systems, but have been dismissed to justify colonialism. Mizumura also critiques the superiority of written language, showing how language hierarchies create power imbalances in society. This binary affects how we categorize people and cultures. Oral traditions are often seen as simplistic, while literacy is linked to intelligence and progress. For example, mnemonic devices in oral cultures, which require complex memory skills, are often viewed as primitive compared to written records. Similarly, TikTok discussions about “Middle Eastern” films show how oral storytelling traditions are sometimes dismissed as repetitive, even though they follow deep cultural structures. This perspective is problematic because it ignores the complexity of oral cultures and falsely labels them as outdated. Teuton explains that calling Indigenous societies “oral” has historically been used to exclude them from modernity. Mizumura argues that literacy is not just about progress—it’s shaped by social and political power. By rejecting the orality/literacy binary, we can better understand how knowledge, stories, and communication evolve across cultures. Both oral and written traditions are valuable, and one is not inherently superior to the other.
4. The User’s Central Role in Technology Adoption
Considering the user is crucial in understanding how media and communication technologies emerge, evolve, and integrate into everyday life. Technologies do not succeed or fail on their own—users shape how they are adopted, adapted, and marketed. Oudshoorn and Pinch argue that users are active agents, modifying, resisting, and redefining technology rather than passively accepting it. Nakamura extends this by showing how media consumption is not just about access but also about how people engage with and make meaning from technology. Users influence the design, marketing, and daily use of technology. For example, Apple’s iPhone advertisements have shifted from focusing on technical speed and efficiency to emphasizing individual users, leisure, and lifestyle appeal. This reflects how consumer preferences and behaviors shape how products are sold. Another example is the can opener, which was originally designed to be used horizontally, but users commonly adopted a vertical method, demonstrating how actual use can reshape the meaning and function of technology. Ignoring users means failing to understand how technology integrates into daily life. Oudshoorn and Pinch highlight that no technology has a single “correct” use—people adapt devices in ways that designers may not anticipate. Nakamura further argues that media technologies are shaped by social, cultural, and economic factors, not just technical innovation. By focusing on users, we gain a more complete understanding of technology’s role in society. Instead of assuming that technologies determine behavior, we recognize that people shape technology through their choices, adaptations, and interpretations.
5. Digital Culture & Big Data: Echoes of Orality
Digital culture and big data share key features with oral traditions, reintroducing orality into digital spaces. Papacharissi explains that big data functions as storytelling, shaping how information is presented and interpreted. Like oral traditions, digital communication is interactive, fluid, and shaped by social context. Data does not speak for itself—it gains meaning based on how it is framed and used. For example, when Elon Musk posts a chart on Twitter, it may appear objective, but the interpretation depends on who is viewing it and what questions they ask. Similarly, the Deep Sea Visualization project uses data to tell a story, creating a narrative through visual representation rather than just numbers. A more complex understanding of orality helps us see how technology and society shape each other. Teuton critiques the idea that orality is primitive, arguing that oral traditions are sophisticated systems of knowledge that evolve over time. This applies to digital media as well—social media platforms were not just created for communication but also emerged because people wanted new ways to share stories and connect. The Friend Reveal Trailer (Friend AI commercial) highlights this by portraying AI as a tool for natural conversation, reinforcing that digital orality does not just exist in digital culture—it drives technological development. Recognizing digital orality challenges the assumption that new media replaces older forms of communication. Instead, digital culture blends oral and literate traditions, showing that technology is shaped by human needs, cultural practices, and social interactions. By rejecting the binary between orality and literacy, we can better understand how technology and society continuously reshape each other.
6. Circulating vs. Telling: Shaping Media Narratives
The difference between circulating stories and telling stories is key: circulating stories evolve as they move across different media and cultural contexts, while telling stories involves actively shaping how history is remembered. Mizumura critiques how dominant storytelling traditions, especially those tied to Western literacy, create linguistic and cultural hierarchies that influence which narratives are preserved and valued. Nakamura similarly highlights how media histories tend to focus on technological advancements while overlooking the social and cultural forces that shape how stories are told. The Green Book exemplifies how stories transition from orality to digitality while maintaining their core narratives. Originally an oral tradition of shared advice within Black communities, the Green Book was later formalized into a print guide for safe travel during segregation. Today, its story continues to circulate in digital media, including film and online discussions, showing how oral cultural traditions persist through technological changes. Mizumura argues that such shifts in storytelling often reinforce dominant media structures, shaping whose voices are heard and how history is framed. At the same time, the stories we tell about media technologies influence how we view progress. Technological narratives often follow a deterministic pattern, where innovations are portrayed as inevitable breakthroughs driven by singular visionaries. Tesla’s quote exemplifies this by envisioning wireless communication as a revolutionary force that will turn the world into “a huge brain,” reinforcing the idea that technology alone drives societal change. However, Nakamura challenges this notion, emphasizing that social, political, and economic forces play a crucial role in shaping technological development. Media technologies do not evolve in isolation; they are shaped by cultural needs and historical contexts.