This blog post examines whether smartphones led societal change or if society drove smartphone development, exploring perspectives from technological determinism and social constructionism.

Smartphones and Society: Technology-Driven Change or Society-Shaped Change?

Today, smartphones have transcended their role as mere mobile phones to become integral parts of our lives. These small devices not only provide users with convenient functions but also play a central role as cultural content. So, is our society being transformed by smartphones, or did the social demand for smartphones drive the emergence of this technology?
The perspective that technological progress is the central cause of social change, as in the former example, is called technological determinism. Conversely, the view that technology develops according to societal needs, with social factors intervening in the process, as in the latter example, is called social constructivism. Some people support social constructivism, believing that most technology advances based on user needs, with factors like politics, economics, and culture also playing a role. However, examining history reveals that the emergence of new technologies has brought about rapid societal changes and significantly impacted the lives of its members. Conversely, the examples of technological progress cited by social constructivists often resemble the convergence of different technologies rather than true technological ‘progress’. Even if progress is acknowledged, its driving force stems not from social necessity but from the direction set at the time of the technology’s invention, meaning technology develops autonomously beyond human control.
Furthermore, the intervention of social factors in technological progress occurs only after technology has already significantly impacted society; thus, the direction of technological progress is itself already predetermined. In other words, technology determines everything.

Examples of Social Change Brought by Technology

Examples of technology bringing significant change to society and its members can be found in many places. First, consider the invention of the wheel. First appearing in ancient Mesopotamian civilization, the wheel, when applied to chariots, completely changed the nature of warfare. The advent of carts enabled the easy transport of large loads and greatly expanded people’s range of movement. This also influenced the development of land routes and the rise of cities, becoming a catalyst that further accelerated the progress of civilization. The fact that the invention of the wheel ultimately contributed to the advancement of civilization demonstrates how technology can bring about major societal changes.
Another example is Gutenberg’s movable metal type. Following its invention, mass printing became possible, leading to the popularization of knowledge. Previously, only a small, economically privileged aristocratic class could access knowledge. Thanks to movable type, however, more people gained access to knowledge and information. This paved the way for the beginning of the cultural renaissance period known as the Renaissance. This example supports technological determinism, as it shows that printing technology did not develop to bring about social change; rather, the development of printing technology itself triggered social change.
Even today, numerous examples exist of technology bringing societal change. One prime example is the smartphone. Since its emergence, people’s lifestyles have rapidly transformed: enjoying leisure activities like watching movies or reading books while commuting, handling work in real-time, taking photos, and sharing talents with others. Smartphones have become so integral to our lives that a social issue called smartphone addiction has emerged, where people feel anxious without them. Devices widely used before smartphones, such as MP3 players, PMPs (portable media players), and digital cameras, have faded into obscurity as smartphones took over their functions. This shift in lifestyle wasn’t driven by a social need for smartphones. Even before smartphones, people adapted to the technology of their time without complaint; it was the emergence of this new technology that unilaterally transformed our lives.

The Arguments of Social Constructivists and Their Flaws

Despite numerous examples like this where technology reshaped social structures, social constructivists argue that social factors intervene not in the emergence of technology, but in its evolutionary process. In the case of smartphones, they claim that while early smartphones lacked operating systems, these were added in response to user needs, leading to their widespread adoption. However, this argument is flawed because it focuses only on part of the phenomenon. The original goal of smartphone development was to realize the era of portable PCs. Comparing this to the invention process of PCs, early computers were large mainframe machines, and only after long progress did they become personal computers equipped with operating systems. Similarly, equipping smartphones with operating systems was inevitable during their evolution into portable PCs. In other words, the direction of technological progress for smartphones was predetermined from the outset.

An example of technological advancement observable in the evolution of computers

Another case demonstrating that the direction of technological advancement is predetermined can be found in the evolution of computers. Some might think that unlike smartphones, computers evolved into today’s personal computers for user convenience. However, examining the original purpose of computer development makes this equally clear. Early computers were machines developed to assist with military calculations, such as calculating the trajectory of artillery shells. Since they were created to reduce human effort, their subsequent evolution for convenience was inherently predetermined.

The Limitations of Social Constructivism and Misunderstandings in the Process of Technological Progress

While this kind of technological progress determinism appears in most technological development processes, social constructivists often view the process of technological progress within a limited scope. Even if technology has developed and changed outwardly, considering the purpose for which it was first developed reveals that the direction of its progress was not altered by external factors. If progress follows its original purpose, it is following a predetermined trajectory, not altered by external intervention.
We must be cautious about equating the process of technological progress with social necessity. Marconi’s invention of wireless communication ushered in the era of modern telecommunications, but this trend did not inherently demand the development of wireless technology. Perceiving these two as synonymous is a form of the fallacy of over-extension of intent.

The Case of Bicycle Evolution and the Limits of Social Constructivism

One famous case study supporting social constructivism concerns the evolution of the bicycle. It argues that early bicycles lacked pneumatic tires, and that the development of pneumatic tires involved a consensus process involving bicycle racing and developers. This is presented as evidence that technological progress was not solely about the selection of superior technology, but involved a consensus process among groups involved in the technology, thereby proving social constructivism.
However, this argument contains a fundamental error in viewing the installation of pneumatic tires on bicycles as technological progress. Bicycles and pneumatic tires are two distinct technologies; one cannot be considered the advanced form of the other. While both technologies share a common origin, the bicycle evolved from the wheel for the convenience of mobility, while the pneumatic tire evolved from the wheel for the convenience of the body. They are not in a relationship of inclusion but rather a parallel relationship. Therefore, the installation of pneumatic tires on bicycles should be seen as the convergence of differentiated technologies rather than technological progress, and it is not an appropriate argument for social constructivism.

The Interaction Between Technology and Society

Even if we temporarily accept the social constructivist position, the error in its argument becomes apparent. The social elements intervening in the process of technological progress ultimately arise because the technology exists. Looking at the bicycle example, the need for comfort and speed emerged precisely because the bicycle technology existed. Without the bicycle technology, neither this need nor the invention of the pneumatic tire would have existed.