CONSTRAINED CHOICE AND CONTINGENCY: MILITARY AND ECONOMIC COMPETITION AS THE MECHANISM FOR TECHNOLOGICAL DETERMINISM A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts by Allan Dafoe August 2006 © 2006 Allan Dafoe ABSTRACT The study of technology is divided. There are scholars, found especially in sociology and history, who emphasize interpretive flexibility, agency and historical contingency. These I label ‘mild-constructivists.’ Other scholars, found especially in business, economics, military studies and macro-history, emphasize functional adaptation and “deterministic” trends. These I label ‘sociotechnical adaptationists.’ A theory of sociotechnical evolution can unify the insights of these seemingly contradictory approaches to technology. Competitive processes constrain sociotechnical variation: the range of interpretations and choices available to an actor are constrained by the imperative to survive. Economic and military competition, in particular and in the long run, constrain an actor’s decisions to those that promote, respectively, the profit or power of the encompassing ‘social organism,’ such as a firm or state. Thomas Misa has noted that scholarship with large-scales of analysis tends to be technologically deterministic. At large scales of analysis, instances of economic and military competition are more common. I argue that economic and military competition is the mechanism that gives rise to emergent deterministic patterns. New technology “merely opens a door; it does not compel [us] to enter.”1 It is economic and military competition that shoves us through. Military competition tends to operate over longer time scales and constrain economic and social competitive processes. Economic competition operates over middle time scales and constrains social competitive processes. These competitive forces “select” for economically and militarily functional sociotechnical 1 White, Lynn. 1962. Medieval Technology and Social Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 28. configurations. Thus, at larger scales of analysis the competitive processes giving rise to functionalist adaptation are more apparent. A unified theory of sociotechnical evolution can reconcile the detailed micro- narratives of mild constructivism with the functionalist insights of the adaptationists. Almost all theories of technology are appropriate in their proper analytical context, defined by the character of variation (in particular, the degree of path dependency) and the kinds of competitive processes present. There are, however, two approaches to technology which cannot be reconciled within a theory of sociotechnical evolution. They are radical social constructivism and naïve technological determinism. Scholars in the first group claim that there is unlimited interpretive flexibility, agency and contingency. Scholars from the latter group naively attribute agency to technology, failing to acknowledge the absence of a micro-theory for their claims. The history of Japan’s use of firearms provides an illustration of the utility of the sociotechnical evolution framework. The introduction of firearms into Japan, beginning in 1543, follows the adaptationist script: two firearms arrived with some Portuguese adventurers, were bought, reverse engineered, and soon produced and used in the hundreds and then thousands. From the 1600s to 1853, though, Japan’s use and development of firearms stagnated. Constructivist scholars could productively explore the social reasons for this ‘reversion to the sword’. Their findings are bounded, though, by the conditions that characterized this period, namely: the absence of internal and external military competition. In 1853 Commodore Perry’s ultimatum ended this 250 year ‘retrogression’ by imposing a painful imperialist challenge. Japan could no longer maintain its isolation without risking following the fate of China in the Opium Wars. Japan’s ensuing industrialization and modernization poses a problem for both constructivist and adaptationist theories of technology. Japan eventually adopted superior Western military technologies, but not in the simple functionalist way that an adaptationist would expect. A satisfying history requires an appreciation for both the cultural and military context, and the ways that they interact. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Allan Dafoe completed an undergraduate degree in Arts and Science, with a minor in Mathematics, at McMaster University in 2003. He pursued graduate work at Cornell University in the Department of Science & Technology Studies from 2003- 2006. He will begin a Ph.D. program in Political Science at UC Berkeley in the Fall of 2006. iii To Nana iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I owe my utmost gratitude for my completion of this MA thesis, an exciting and productive three years at Cornell University, and my successful transition to the next stage of my academic career to my committee chair: Judith Reppy. Though she didn’t necessarily agree with all (or most) of my theoretical ventures, she reliably provided thorough feedback, extensive institutional support, and invaluable encouragement throughout. Thank you. I am grateful to Margaret Rossiter for attending my MA defense. I also enjoyed and learned much from my experience working as a teaching assistant for her, and from our many conversations. I thank my other committee members, Ronald Kline and Kathleen Vogel, for stimulating conversations and support. My colleagues, especially Naubahar Sharif, Shay David, Jofish Kay, Lisa Onaga, Janet Vertesi, and Manjari Mahajan, helped me with my ideas and presentation in many ways. I wish to acknowledge the Cornell Graduate School and the graduate field of Science and Technology Studies for their generous financial and institutional support, and in the case of the latter, for supporting scholarly research that deviated from the department’s orientation. v For filling the non-scholarly parts of my life with love and happiness, I am deeply grateful to my family—Mom, Dad, Joanna—friends, and especially to my wife, Charlotte Jandér. Charlotte also read drafts, helped me with my expression of ideas, encouraged my better arguments, picked away at my weaker arguments, and did her best to keep me working. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................1 THEORY...........................................................................................................7 What is Technology?..............................................................................8 Technological Determinism .....................................................................12 The Techno-Utopianists .......................................................................15 The Year 2000. .................................................................................16 Technocratic Concept of Progress........................................................17 Techno-Utopianism Today...................................................................17 The Technological Determinists...........................................................19 Lewis Mumford................................................................................20 Jean Jacques Ellul.............................................................................21 Langdon Winner...............................................................................23 Do Artifacts Have Politics? ..............................................................24 Technological Imperative.................................................................25 Unintended Consequences................................................................26 The Magnificent Bribe: the Socialization of Allegiance to the Technostructure ............................................................................................28 Technological Trends ...........................................................................33 Social Study of Technology .....................................................................36 Constructivism in Technology Studies.................................................37 SCOT: the Social Construction of Technology....................................40 vii Technological Momentum (or SCOT + Sunk Costs)...........................49 Actor-Network Theory .........................................................................51 Technological Politics and Technical Power .......................................61 Scales of Analysis.....................................................................................64 Misa’s Correlation................................................................................64 The Lunar Determinist: A Parable .......................................................68 Epistemological Responses to Conflict: Dismiss Other or Seek Nuanced Synthesis............................................................................................69 Sociotechnical Adaptationism..................................................................72 Selection: Competition for Scarce Resources ......................................73 Sociotechnical Variation ......................................................................75 Competition: the Constraint on Action.................................................77 Competition: the Motor for Technological Progress............................78 The Fatal Conceit .................................................................................80