From this perspective, people are the primary sources of change in both technology and society. Technologies arise from social actions. Human beings, not machines, are the agents of change.
We’re not just talking about individuals. Social forces that extend across societies influence the contexts that inventors work in. For example, investors have certain priorities that can shape the kinds of technologies that researchers are funded to develop. These funders provide resources to individuals and groups that support their success. Sometimes, developments are pushed in different directions by parties such as government agencies, regulators or business competitors. In short, many different sources of influence, often in conflict with one another, are involved in the social shaping of new technologies.
Howard Rheingold is a writer and speaker who has been studying the Internet since its earliest days. In his books, Rheingold tells readers to think about the political and economic environments linked to the Internet. It is not enough just to know where our privacy settings are on Facebook. Instead, we must understand why Facebook even has those settings in the first place – and specifically, what the company gets out of collecting personal information from its users.
Like McChesney, Rheingold says that the political, economic, cultural, and organizational factors that shape technology development have broad impacts on our societies. The flow of information from government to citizens helps ensure that we live in an open, democratic society. However, it is only one side of the communication process. We also need informed citizens to influence policy and policymakers so that their activities meet the needs of society.
The German philosopher Jurgen Habermas describes the space where citizens and governments interact as the ‘public sphere’. In that space public opinion is formed through rational and civil debate. It is a space where citizens can influence governments.
However, the concept of the public sphere has never been perfect. It is a theoretical construct. In real life, the public sphere is sometimes dominated by elites. It often leaves out the voices of marginalized individuals and groups. It is also subject to political and economic constraints, as powerful people seek to influence governments in various ways. Think about campaign donations, aggressive lobbying tactics, and legal manoeuvrings. For example, some critics argue that the field of public relations has subverted and manipulated the formation of public opinion in various ways. These actions lead to negative impacts on the democratic process.
Rheingold recognizes these challenges, and like McChesney, knows that a lot is a stake. At the same time, like McChensey, he suggests that we focus on what we can do as individuals and groups. He writes:
“Powerful forces most certainly do influence public opinion. And powerful counterpublics are indeed emerging to challenge power in various forms. To assume that the conflict’s outcome is already settled is to surrender to those who seek to control the public sphere, whether they are private interests, corporations, authoritarian states, nihilists, or all of the above” (p.242).
In the video below, watch Rheingold talk about the concept of the public sphere during the age of the Internet.
(Feb. 15, 2011)