Blog #2: Social Shaping: 'A little bit of this, a little bit of that'

I believe the social shaping of technology perspective to be best suited for describing the anxieties concerning the interactivity of new digital media, as evidenced in the article about Katherine Pommerening. Social shaping is a ‘happy’ medium; taking into consideration the intended use of a specific technology, but also recognizing that its affordances are often governed by both society and technology respectively. The article is composed in such a way to make technological determinism seem like the best fit for describing the ‘moral panic’ attached to Katherine’s mediated relationships, but I believe it’s important to redirect some of the ‘blame’ from technology. The fluidity of social shaping is reminiscent of the way Katherine talks about wanting to “get better at her phone.” While she is busy mastering apps like Instagram, Snapchat and Facebook, I can only imagine that programmers from each of these companies are conjuring up new ideas that will inevitably make it easier for Katherine and other users to interact with each other in ways they never thought possible.
If you look at the evolution of a social media app like Instagram, it’s easy to see how society and technology are intertwined. In its earliest stages, Instagram was very one-dimensional, allowing you to only share pictures and tag other users. Over time, Instagram added new features like filters and even hashtags, piggybacking off the success of other social media apps like Twitter. Eventually, Instagram picked up on the fact that users want to be able to converse, much like they would on Facebook or through texting, so Instagram added the Direct Message (DM) feature. Social shaping is a mixture of users knowing what they want (society), and at other times, getting things they never knew they wanted (technology).
The reason as to why I chose the social shaping perspective is because I found myself cherry-picking ideas from each of the other perspectives; most notably technological determinism and social constructivism. While I agree with a milder form of technological determinism (media choice, p.29); whereby people use different media for different purposes, resulting in change at an individual rather than societal level, I simply cannot bring myself to buy into the idea that technology is using us, and not the other way around. The social constructivist perspective balances the equation by reminding us that social forces (public sector, tech sector, private investors) are heavily influential in deciding what new technologies are ultimately pursued.  

Comments

  1. Hi Adam,

    Great post! I too found myself picking bits and pieces from social constructivism and technological determinism and feel like you explained both theories along with social shaping very well. I couldn't agree more that social forces are heavily influential in determining which new technologies are produced, but we also receive both positive and negative implications from these technologies that we didn't necessarily expect them to bring. I think you are spot on to say that social shaping is a happy medium between social constructivism and technological determinism. While I can understand both deterministic perspectives, it seems a little extreme to say only technology influences society and not the other way around or vice versa!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Social Media Anxiety

Blog Post #3

Just a social human-being