Technology and our culture<\/p>\n
The government has long planned to build a nuclear reactor in
\nCentral Java. The plan has stirred some discussions and an
\nunprecedented public debate is on the government's agenda. Noted
\nsociologist Ignas Kleden outlines the relationship between
\nsociety and the application of technology in a developing
\ncountry.<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Technology plays a decisive role in the
\ndevelopment of modern society. This role has developed to the
\nextent that modern society is sometimes believed to risk
\ntechnicalizing social and cultural life.<\/p>\n
At a certain point technology stops being technical and
\nbecomes social and cultural. This change takes place when
\ntechnology is applied.<\/p>\n
Technology is not applied in a social or cultural vacuum, but
\nin a cultural system and within a social structure. From a
\ncultural point of view, the introduction of technology into a
\nsocial structure will engender shifts at the material base of
\nsociety. The shift can change consumptive habits and productive
\npatterns.<\/p>\n
Sociologically, using technology which serves the consumptive
\npatterns is easier for two reasons.<\/p>\n
Firstly, new consumptive patterns take less learning than new
\nproduction process. To drive a new car is much easier than to
\ndesign a new engine. To buy brown bread is much easier than to
\nproduce it.<\/p>\n
Secondly, the introduction of new consumptive patterns does
\nnot, in most cases, exert a direct influence upon the existing
\nsocial structure. If we want to consume new rice by importing it
\nfrom Thailand, this will not bring about many shifts in the
\nsocial structure. If we want to cultivate a new type of rice,
\nagricultural technology, ground preparation, harvesting
\ntechniques and even harvest agreements must change. This
\nnecessitates a new division of labor and new allocation of
\nagricultural produce. It therefore changes society.<\/p>\n
However, the relationship between technology and society lies
\nnot only in the impact the experts have upon the latter but also
\nin the sociocultural conditions which fit the application of
\ntechnology. Introducing a new culture into a society will get
\ndifferent responses, depending on how far the new culture is
\nperceived. Is it perceived as a continuation or the extension of
\nthe existing culture or a discontinuation or a rupture with it?<\/p>\n
Theoretically, the more a new culture is seen as a
\ncontinuation of the existing culture, the more the participants
\nare willing to accept the new development. The more the new
\ninfluence is at odds with the existing culture, the more likely
\nit becomes that the people will resist.<\/p>\n
This is the reason why it is so important to use traditional
\nsymbols and traditional semantics when introducing modern
\ntechnology. One reason the birth control program is so successful
\nin Indonesia is because the new technology for family planning is
\nintroduced and conveyed through traditional semantics. It relates
\nmodern contraceptive technology to traditional habits. Prof.
\nHaryono Suyono had a good point at a recent gathering with social
\nscientists in Yogyakarta at a seminar celebrating the 80th
\nbirthday of Prof. Selo Soemardjan. He said that the success of
\nthe birth-control program in Indonesia is a success for applied
\nsociology.<\/p>\n
However, precisely at this juncture, we are faced with the
\nambivalent workings of technology. The meeting of traditional
\nsemantics or traditional symbols with modern technology can
\nresult in two different situations.<\/p>\n
First, the application of technology can bring about social
\nchanges which bring people better lives or more problems. Air
\nconditioners, for example, make the working condition in offices
\nmore comfortable, but, in the long run, they will contribute to
\nthe worsening of ozone conditions which are so dangerous to the
\nsustenance of life on earth.<\/p>\n
Second, the workings of technology depend very much on whether
\nor not the sociocultural conditions are susceptible or supportive
\nof the applied technology. Modern printers and computerized
\nprinting technology are a very big technological achievement.
\nHowever, whether or not the application of this kind of
\ntechnology helps promote reading depends very much on whether or
\nnot writing is treated as a proper substitute for the oral
\ntradition. It also depends on whether a society relies more on
\noral sources than written sources.<\/p>\n
If we look at the bus station and railway stations in Jakarta,
\nwe are struck by the fact that there is very little written
\ninformation about where to go, which buses or trains to take,
\nwhen they depart and what platform to go to. The information can
\nbe obtained only if one asks other passengers or the officials,
\nif they happen to be around. In other words, if the society is
\nstill an oral society, the application of sophisticated printing
\ntechnology will not help much.<\/p>\n
Sociologically, technology is a specific way to organize and
\napply knowledge and discipline. The amount of expertise and
\ndiscipline required are directly proportional to the level of
\ntechnological sophistication. This implies: The more simple the
\ntechnology, the more errors that are tolerable. The higher the
\ntechnology, the fewer errors that are tolerable.<\/p>\n
This is quite easy to understand. If something is out of order
\nin our car, we can stop and try to repair it. But if something is
\nout order on a plane, this is much more serious and dangerous,
\nbecause passengers' lives are at stake.<\/p>\n
In other words, the capacity to apply high-tech is measured
\nagainst rather negative criterion. The success of its application
\nis not seen in terms of the ability to deal with technological
\nsophistication, but rather the capacity to reduce or even
\neliminate error. The reason for this is that high-tech, like a
\nnuclear plant, is laden with high risk. This implies that the
\nbenefit brought by such technology is accompanied by possible
\ndisasters enormously greater than the expected benefit if human
\nerror gets out of control.<\/p>\n
The problem which makes technology socioculturally dependent
\nis that human error is due not only to a lack of expertise, but
\nalso a lack of discipline. Expertise is a technical matter which
\nshould be attributed to technicians. Expertise is something which
\npeople outside the experts's community have very little to say
\nabout.<\/p>\n
Discipline, however, is a social matter which has its root in
\nthe mental life of the whole society. The discipline of
\nindividuals depends very much on the discipline of their society.
\nThis is the very reason why we cannot assume that technologists
\nbehave according to a certain discipline entirely different from
\ntheir society. Those who are not used to the rules of traffic or
\nwho are not accustomed to punctuality will very likely breach the
\nprofessional discipline necessitated by their job.<\/p>\n
One can safely say that technology is a sociocultural matter
\nas far as work ethos and discipline are concerned. In that sense,
\ntechnology cannot be treated as something which can simply be
\ntransferred from outside and superimposed upon society. In
\nwestern countries, technology is a phenomenon of a certain stage
\nof social development which is characterized by philosophical
\nrationalism and the flowering of a scientific mentality.<\/p>\n
There is a basic relationship between general sociocultural
\ndevelopment and the flowering of technology. Of course one can
\npush for technology development without taking society into
\naccount. But this will result in technology developing without
\nsociety, as was the case in countries of the former socialist
\nblock. There, a very big share of social product was allocated to
\nthe war industry at the expense of the welfare of the people.<\/p>\n
Ironically, liberal ideals were initially ingrained in the
\ncreation of technology to alleviate life's burdens. But this is
\nsuperseded by the conservative purposes of technology which
\nignore the welfare of the society.<\/p>\n
Besides that, we forget that technology is nothing but an
\nextension of human beings. Computers are an extension of human
\nbeings as thinking animals just as nuclear weapons are the
\nextension of human beings as killing animals. In that case,
\ntechnology has no moral or political priority. These priorities
\nmust be set by serious and critical deliberations among those who
\nwant to develop or to apply it. Technology can be the extension
\nof human inclinations and human capacities, whether morally good
\nor bad, politically beneficial or socially disastrous.<\/p>\n
To put it more philosophically, the choice to use one sort of
\ntechnology is not only a technical act but also a political and
\nmoral act. The choice is made on the basis of certain values
\nwhich are by no means merely technical. Economic progress,
\npolitical security and national pride are some value
\nconsiderations which play a very important role in the selection
\nand application of technology.<\/p>\n
The selection of technology should be subjected to a political
\nand public debate for the simple reason that Indonesians have the
\nright to know what benefits to expect, what economic and social
\ncost must be paid, and what risk is run. Many risks are not yet
\nproven, but if we wait until we have some evidence, it will
\ncertainly be too late. With the evidence comes disaster.<\/p>\n
The writer now works with the Jakarta-based SPES Foundation
\nResearch Center.<\/p>\n
Window A: The problem which makes technology socioculturally
\ndependent is that human error is due not only to a lack of
\nexpertise, but also a lack of discipline.<\/p>\n
Window B: To put it more philosophically, the choice to use one
\nsort of technology is not only a technical act but also a political
\nand moral act.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/technology-and-our-culture-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}