Ethiopian Journal of Science and Sustainable Development

e-ISSN 2663-3205 Volume 8 (2), 2021

Journal Home Page: www.ejssd.astu.edu.et ASTU

Review Paper

Technological Determinism versus Social Determinism: A Critical Discussion

Daniel Tessema Firrisa

School of Social Science and Humanity, Adama Science and Technology University, P. O. Box 1888, Adama, Ethiopia

Article Info Abstract

Article History:

Received 19 May 2020

Received in revised form

26 March 2021

Accepted 16 April 2021

Technology influences the way human beings connect with the outside world in their day-to-

day businesses. Adopting new technologies can offer opportunities. It, also, poses threats. In

the last many years it has been attempted to understand the very sophisticated relationship

between society and technology. There is a belief that technology develops independently and

that development in technology follows a somewhat linear order. Putting an emphasis on socio-

cultural factors that have a role in technological development, some theorists become reluctant

to claim that technology mainly determines society. The author of this paper is motivated to

look at the issue of technology from philosophical perspective. Thus, this paper is intended to

critically discuss the philosophical theory of technological determinism against social

determinism, the two conflicting schools of thought in philosophy, and then open a room for

further investigation/debate by researchers. Qualitative research method has been used. It used

critical discussion as a tool. Literatures in the topic have been used so as to make a relatively

comprehensive discussion. The finding of the literatures reviewed shows that the debate

between the two schools has no end. The paper contributes to showing the unsettled debate

between the two schools and summarizes by recommending further investigation.

Keywords:

Autonomy

Ethics

Social constructivism

Social determinism

Technology

Technological determinism

1. Introduction

Technology is a broad term that refers both to

artifacts created by humans and the methods used to

create those artifacts. Technology is the process by

which humans modify nature to meet their needs and

wants. Technology includes the entire infrastructure

necessary for the design, manufacture, operation, and

repair of technological artifacts. Twentieth century is

marked by technological progress, though the

advancements in technology brought about unintended

socio-environmental effects. The German philosopher

Hans (1979) gives emphasis to the need for anticipating

and evaluating technology. For him, technology has

impacts that extend in space and time. Paul (2007)

mentions Hans’ argument as, “technological ethics

must integrate science-based attempts to understand the

Corresponding author, e-mail: daniel.tessema@astu.edu.et

https://doi.org/10.20372/ejssdastu:v8.i2.2021.250

systematic and distant effects of technology with ethical

concepts attuned to the fact that many people who will

be affected by technology will not be known to those who

plan and implement a technological practice.”(Paul,

2007).

Technology has actual and potential advantages to

agriculture, medicine, the food industry, and the

conservation of natural environment and many more. It

needs to address several issues while assessing the

benefits and risks associated with the introduction and

application of new technologies. Scientific and ethical

issues are raised in relation to the development of

technology. Science describes the world in which we

live in. On contrary, ethics deals with what we ought or

ought not to do. Thus, ethical principles tend to give

http://www.ejssd.astu.edu/
https://doi.org/10.20372/ejssdastu:v8.i2.2021.250

Daniel Tessema Ethiop.J.Sci.Sustain.Dev., Vol. 8 (2), 2021

standards to evaluate a given action. It is difficult to

separate the achievements of technology from that of

ethics. Ethics and technology are not only tightly

coupled but also conflicting. An ethical understanding

of the natural world is the basis for much of

technological development today. Conversely, technology

is the basis for a good part of ethical research. Both

focus on the application of unique skills, knowledge,

and techniques.

Different literatures have been reviewed to analyze

the issue in question. The author used qualitative

method to make a critical discussion on the topic.

According to Strauss and Corbin (2008), qualitative

research, which is inductive in its nature, allows a

researcher explore meanings and insights about a certain

discourse. Moreover, as Denzin and Lincoln (1994)

stated, “Qualitative research is an interdisciplinary,

trans-disciplinary, and sometimes counter-disciplinary

field. It crosscuts the humanities and the social and

physical sciences….” Hence, this method allowed the

author to connect physical science with humanity by

critically discussing the two theories. Discourse analysis

is used while discussing the theories.

2. Theoretical Discussion

During previous time, technology was assumed as an

external force with deterministic influence on different

dimensions of an organization. Recent studies, however,

come up with the human aspect of technology. As a

result, technology becomes a subject of study having

both positive and negative impacts on society. It is

believed by sociologists or industrialists that technology

lies at the center of society. What is technological

determinism? The concept of technological determinism

is defined by different scholars differently. Technological

determinism is a view which states that technology is an

external force capable of shaping the society. In this

regard, technological determinists hold the view that

technology is self-governing and it is the sole cause for

social change. However, there is an argument that

technology also causes several problems. They see

technology as a dominating force which poses physical

or psychological threat to human beings. One example

for supporting their evidence is the use of atomic bomb

during the Second World War. Technology in this

respect has an adverse effect upon the human race.

Concerning the role that technology plays, writers

discuss three models.

The technological imperative model sees the

influence that a particular technology brings on such

organizational properties as structure (Hall, 1962). This

model views technology as independent with greater

influence on organizations as well as humans. The

second model called strategic choice sees technology as

a product of human action (Child, 1972; McLoughlin,

1999). This model holds different perspectives in it. In

the first place, we find the socio-technical perspective

which focuses on how a certain technology is built on

the basis of human choice and decision. It views

technology as a dependent variable. Second is the socio

constructionist perspective. This school tries to

emphasize on the meaning of a certain technology in

terms of its creation and sustainability. The third

perspective is that of Marxian which states that

technology is a tool to keep the economic as well as

political interests of strong groups. According to this

school, designers have the power to shape the

technology while employees of an organization are

endowed with little or no power to do so.

For the third model called technology as a trigger for

structural change, technology is perceived as

interference. The relationship between organizational

structure and human agency is intervened by

technology. It is the stand of this school that the physical

form of a given technology remains permanent even if

its meaning might change overtime. The models

discussed above are applicable in either similar or

different situations. Moreover, changes in society are

implicitly or explicitly related to the advancement in

technology.

How is technological determinism then imaged?

Some discussion of technological determinism might

create a pessimistic image while others optimistic. For

example, according to Ellul (1964), human beings

become helpless unless technology supports them. For

him, the rejection of a technique involves the application

of a new technique. How could human freedom be

controlled and oppressed by technology? Ellul’s image

towards technology looks harsh.

Determinism views everything as being determined

by a mere sequence of earlier events that operate with

predictability. Technological Determinism (TD in short)

Daniel Tessema Ethiop.J.Sci.Sustain.Dev., Vol. 8 (2), 2021

holds the view that technology is determined to develop

in a particular pattern. It considers the historical

development and autonomy of technology. Determinism

looks associated with the issue of free will. If everything

is determined by previous conditions, then how could

human beings owe enough choices? By the same token,

technological determinism implies that human choices

are controlled by technology. This view seems that it

stands against human freedom and dignity. Human

beings have the freedom to influence technological

direction. They direct, order and influence it.

Technological Determinism is an influential theory

of the relationship between society and technology. TD

tries to describe social and cultural phenomena in terms

of a single determining factor. It was an American

sociologist called Veblen who coined the term (Ellul,

1964). According to TD, technology is seen as the

mover of society. It is the main cause of social changes.

It is technology which controls the pattern of social

organization. Technology is the foundation of society,

according to technological determinists. They argue that

it is technology which changes society and society is

being determined by it. Moreover, technology is capable

of transforming society. That is why the proponents of

this theory insist that technology is primary, followed by

human factors.

Is society a product of technology or is technology a

product of society? It is argued that technology gets

separated from the influence of human beings. It is clear

that technology has an impact on our lives.

Technological determinism holds the view that no

technology is directed by man. Rather, it follows its own

course. Moreover, technology is something outside of

human control. Technological determinism is aimed at

dissociating humans from the role they play in the

design and use of technology. Though technologies

mirror human values, they might bring undesirable

effects. According to TD, technological progress is

inevitable.

Unlike TD, social determinism views society as

independent force which can alter technology (Green,

2001). Technological determinism has hard and soft

forms (Chandler, 1995). Let me take a simple example

to make this idea clear. If I say, “mobile phone will

improve my life”, I mean that mobile phone, being a

force, is dominant. It implies the hard form of TD. But,

if I say, “mobile phone will help me improve my life”,

it means that there are other factors which determine my

life. Hence, I am using the soft form.

The soft version of technological determinism holds

the view that not only technological change derives

social change, but also responds to social pressures. But,

for hard technological determinism, development in

technology is independent of social barriers. Hard

technological determinists argue that cause and effect

relationships allow people to know with certainty about

future consequences. Some of them say that humans are

not free to make choices. But, this view is against

humanity. In my view, technology could not be the only

determinant of change. It functions within a social

structure. I argue that humans create technology. By so

doing, they create their future. How could creations of

their hands determine their destiny or future? For

Postman (a technological determinist), every use made

of technology is determined by the structure of the

technology itself. Winner (a social determinist) comes

up with a counter argument. For him what matters most

is not the technology itself. Rather, socio-economic

systems, in which a technology is embedded, determine

it. Society controls technology. Technology is shaped,

for instance, through the influence of culture. To what

degree is the development of technology determined?

So far as a technology is socially constructed, its

development is determined by socio-cultural as well as

political factors. For example, politicians argue about

how a certain technology is designed, developed and

used. Related to this, Pinch once said, “what the social

constructivist work points to is that the design and

adaptation of technology should be part of the political

agenda. In other words, these issues should be opened

up for debate among wider constituencies than at

present. There is no inevitable logic of development.

There is choice. And this draws attention to the

technology we never get.” (Pinch, 1996).

The hard version of technological determinism

stresses that technology is a determinant factor for social

existence. In this connection, Marx once said, “In

acquiring new productive forces men change their mode

of production, and in changing their mode of production

they change their way of living- they change all their

social relations. The hand-mill gives you society with

the feudal lord, the steam-mill, society with the

Daniel Tessema Ethiop.J.Sci.Sustain.Dev., Vol. 8 (2), 2021

industrial capitalist” (Marx, 1847). A particular

technology, according to hard technological

determinism, is a necessary condition for determining

social organization. The soft version, on the other hand,

considers technology as a facilitating factor which leads

to social changes.

Winner gives two hypotheses on TD. In his words,

“technological determinism stands on two hypotheses:

(1) that the technical base of a society is the fundamental

condition affecting all patterns of social existence and

(2) that changes in technology are the single most

important source of change in society” (Winner, 1977).

The notion of technological determinism is also

discussed by some anthropologists. For instance, the

anthropologist Leslie White, once said, “we may view a

cultural system as a series of three horizontal strata: the

technological layer on the bottom, the philosophical on

the top, the sociological stratum in between. These

positions express their respective roles in the culture

process. The technological system is basic and primary.

Social systems are functions of technologies; and

philosophies express technological forces and reflect

social systems. The technological factor is therefore the

determinant of a cultural system as a whole. It

determines the form of social systems, and technology

and society together determine the content and

orientation of philosophy” (White, 1949). Does

technology determine society? In my view, it is society

which has the capacity to influence every single pattern

of technology. Human freedom will be diminished if

technology becomes the primary determinant of society.

Social construction of technology approach argues

that humans shape technologies and vice-versa.

Technology is shaped and reshaped by humans to satisfy

their needs. The focal points of social constructivism are

social groups and flexibility in technological

development. Social constructivists, such as Bijker et al.

(1987), argue that there exists flexibility in the design of

technology. It is believed that the relationship between

humans and the natural world is complex. For social

constructivists, the cause and effect sequence of

technology is necessarily not linear. They come up with

an effective multi-directional model as the best

alternative. The model they suggest is believed to

integrate social groups and technological artifacts.

Social constructivism emphasizes on the relevance of

social groups, the multi-directional nature of

technological design as well as social conflicts on

values. It gives an insight that we use as a basis for

understanding the role of technology. It also explains

what factors make technological developments achieve,

how values are embedded in its development process

and how society is linked to technology. Social

constructivists reject technological determinism. For

them, no technology has a logical order of development.

Technological development is contingent on various

factors. In my opinion, technologists are capable of

looking at the natural world through human interests

lens and make things that are suitable for socio-cultural

contexts. Social constructivism puts emphasis on values

in technology. The material outcomes of technological

development are shaped by values. Thus, technology

becomes value-laden. According to this approach,

technology is constructed socially. Humans in different

walks of life engage themselves in demanding, making,

using and regulating technology. When humans design

technology, they are designing their way of life. The

transformation of society is created in the technological

design process. We need to understand what the

implications of a technology are because it is not easier

for us to know a lot about how a technology functions,

its environmental and social impacts. We should

examine technology. In my belief, examined technology

is worth having. Before we accept a new technology, we

need to question how it influences our day-to-day life

activities since technology is part of human interaction.

Technology is an element of culture. New technologies

get integrated into societal practices through diffusion.

Societies adapt themselves to new technologies. But,

when new technologies come into conflict with interests

of different groups, ethical questions arise. The impact

that a technology has on society and the need for ethical

reflection depends on who is affected by it.

The concept technological determinism is used to

show the relationship between technology and human

activity. Moreover, technological determinism ranges

from the explanation of autonomous technology to the

view that technology is the most dominant factor in

social change. According to Bimber (1994), there exist

different approaches, what he calls Accounts, to the

concept of technological determinism. Firstly, Norm-

based Account tends to interpret technological

Daniel Tessema Ethiop.J.Sci.Sustain.Dev., Vol. 8 (2), 2021

determinism as a cultural phenomenon. While

Unintended Consequences Account views technological

determinism in terms of unpredicted social effects of

technology, Logical Sequence Account sees

technological determinism as a natural universal law.

How Marx views TD? For Marx (1847), humans are the

main factors in the development of forces of production.

The role of technology for him is facilitating the

process. Different writers advance their arguments

about Marx and technology. For example, Winner

(1977) argues that it was Marx (1847) who designed the

coherent theory of autonomous technology. It seems

that Marx gave technology a central place in the area of

human development. On the other side, Marx is believed

to be no technological determinist. For instance,

Rosenberg (1976) argues that Marx viewed historical

change in terms of a social process rather than a

technological one. MacKenzie (1984) strengthens this

idea by arguing that Marx forces of production should

not be equated with technology. For Marx, technology

as a productive force has a role to play. However, the

link between technology and productive forces remains

the central problem or issue of discussion. Although

several interpretations are given by scholars concerning

why and how technology is influential, the main point is

the importance of it in bringing about social changes.

Bridging the gap between the two camps would seem

difficult, but not impossible. The concept TD is beyond

this debate. Marx should be acknowledged for laying the

foundation.

Is technology autonomous? According to some

philosophers such as Ellul (1964), technology is seen as

something outside of society. It is presented as

independent, self-governing and self-determining force.

Furthermore, technology is not considered as a product

of society. No human can control it. One of the

renowned theorists who adopted this perspective is Ellul

(1964). He declared confidently that ‘Technique has

become autonomous; it has fashioned an omnivorous

world which obeys its own laws and which has

renounced all tradition’ (Ellul, 1964). For him, no

society is able to shape technology and every

technological system is being shaped by technology

itself. Postman also argues that “Technique tends to

function independently of the system it serves”

(Postman, 1993). Denying the inevitability of

technological effects, Postman (1993) insisted on the

unpredictability of such effects. Autonomy, being a

Western liberalism idea, gives persons the ability to

govern themselves. But, it is seen that social conditions

restrict individuals’ autonomy. Ellul (1964) does not

agree with such an idea. For him, there can be no human

autonomy in the face of technical autonomy. My

question here is does technology have its own will? It is

true that technology has a purpose. But, its purpose is

Technology is subject to human control since it could

easily be turned off by humans without its consent.

Although some theorists such as Pitt (1987) consider

technology as a self-generating force, they fail to present

it as a conscious being having a desire. Technology is

incapable of being explained and its autonomy is

confined within some limits. According to Habermas

(1970), technology is not an independent force. It is

society which exercises sovereign power over

technology. For him, societies are capable of employing

ethical conceptions to control the norms of practice in

technological advancement. Habermas’s (1970)

conception of TD puts emphasis on norms of practice.

In my view, it is possible to consider technology

autonomous when these norms are removed from ethical

discussion. Heilbroner’s (1961) view of TD is

incompatible with that of Habermas’s (1970). For

Heilbroner (1961), technology is independent of

cultural and social factors. He is describing a fixed

sequence of technological developments. I also believe

that it is not by chance that the steam-mill follows the

hand-mill. The sequence is given by nature and it is

capable of deriving social changes independently.

For Heilbroner (1961), the rise of capitalism and its

demand led to technological innovation. As a result,

technology has started to be seen as impersonal force.

According to Winner, it is possible to manipulate

individual developments. But, technological evolution

cannot easily be controlled. Technological change is an

accumulation of unanticipated results. Thus, we adapt

such a technological drift rather than controlling it. The

system embeddedness of technology might have a

constraint on our cultural system. This, in turn, might

result in the loss of human agency. Ellul (1964) views

technology as something which has replaced nature.

Technique, for him, is the home in which human beings

Daniel Tessema Ethiop.J.Sci.Sustain.Dev., Vol. 8 (2), 2021

live. His technique is something artificial, autonomous,

that is, self-determining. Moreover, technique is not

goal-oriented, but it is known for its growth. The parts

of a technique are inseparable. Technique is capable of

encompassing every social phenomenon. Because

technique comprises psycho-social patterns, it forces

human beings to adapt themselves to it. Technique

dominates our values and ideas, according to him.

Technological determinism as a theory pays due

attention to a cause and effect relationships. It attempts

to differentiate a cause from an effect. Moreover, as an

explanation of change, it gives a single cause. Being

monistic, TD involves a kind of reductionism aiming at

reducing a complex whole to a part. Reductionism is not

far from criticism since it is hardly possible to isolate a

single cause from any social process.

Technological determinists attempt to see everything

in terms of technology. Determinists consider human

beings as Homo Faber-users of tools. In this connection,

Thomas (1841) said that, “without tools man is nothing;

with them he is all.” It is true that technology has been

contributing its part to the success of human activities.

Whenever we develop a certain technology, we are

directly or indirectly shaping ourselves. Writers on

technological determinism argue that technological

system is primary and any type of social system is a

function or product of technology. It is the technological

factor which solely determines the form of social

system. TD is a mechanistic mode of explanation. A

machine serves a designated function. It operates

according to cause and effect. A machine is autonomous

which can run. It can run independently of human

intervention. A machine, however, fails to select its own

goal. Application of sophisticated technology might

have an implication which is not wholly protected. But,

we need to take in to account that to what degree we the

users become part of a technology when utilizing it.

Technological determinism is also associated with

what is called reification, treating an abstraction as a

material thing. While reifying, we treat technology as a

single tool with a homogenous character. Such

philosophers as Heidegger treated technology as a

monolithic phenomenon and Ellul (1964) referred

technique as “the totality of methods rationally arrived

at and having absolute efficiency in every field of

human activity”. Moreover, technique is “the ensemble

of practices by which one uses available resources to

achieve certain valued ends” (Ellul, 1964). One

shortcoming of Ellul’s (1964) definition of technique is

that a technology has different manifestations in

different social contexts. The flexibility of technology

might vary according to different services it provides. In

this regard, technology remains non monolithic.

Is technology a means or an end? According to Ellul

(1964), technology is an end in itself rather than a means

to some other ends. Some critics, however, argue that

technology serves as a means to meet societal demands.

In this sense, if technology is a means then it would be

hard to stop its developments. It is also difficult to avoid

such technological developments.

Is technology neutral? Some theorists propose that

technology is neither good nor evil in itself. It rather

remains neutral. They say that what matters most is not

the technology but the way in which we prefer to use it.

Moreover, technology is not either moral or immoral. It

is ethically neural. Standing against the neutrality of

technology, Ellul (1964) claims that whether or not

technology has good or evil outcomes mainly depends

upon the way how it is utilized. According to him,

“technique carries with it its own effects quite apart

from how it is used. No matter how it is used, it has of

itself a number of positive and negative consequences.

This is not just a matter of intention’’. Technology

seems somehow neutral in the sense that its use might

have a role in molding our activities.

Commentators on technological determinism argue

that technology is non-neutral. They say that the

technology we use determines our world view. For

Postman, technology is not neutral. He argues that,” the

uses made of technology are determined by the structure

of technology itself.” (Postman, 1993). In addition to

this, Winner is tending to see the political non-neutrality

of technology in the sense that technology is designed

to open some social options and to close others. I also

argue that technology is not-neutral. It is associated with

its social usage. We cannot detach technology from

social context since technology itself is a social product.

Technological determinism can also be manifested

in terms of universalism. Technology could be outside

the framework of specific social, cultural or historical

context. It does not, however, mean that a particular

technology is universally associated with identical

Daniel Tessema Ethiop.J.Sci.Sustain.Dev., Vol. 8 (2), 2021

social patterns. Technological determinism is also

associated techno-evolutionism which is a type of

developmental determinism and the theorists endeavor

to interpret change in terms of progress. Progress is

defined by such theorists in terms of successive

developmental stages. There is a link between social

progress and that of technological since development in

technology is an important precondition for societal

development. Technological change produces certain

social changes. Thus, society and technology are

related.

Is technology creating problems or solving them? It

is true that human beings have been benefiting from

technology. Humans are living in a world of technology.

Thus, ethical issues should be included together with the

advancement of technology before the moral fabric of

the society is eroded and civilization is collapsed.

Human values must be taken in to consideration. Some

writers argue that although humans are eager to exploit

technology, it remains autonomous. The main point is

that for human beings to remain subjects of technology,

they need to accept the common value of technology. It

is believed that society and technology shape with one

another. They are interconnected. The point I need to

underline is that socio-cultural as well as political

factors have an influence on the development of

technologies that are existing now. In this connection,

Winner, in his work, “Do artifacts have politics?” tries

to address the relationship which exists among systems

of power, authority and that of technology. His

argument is that no particular artifact exists without a

distinctive type of social arrangement. Thus, whenever

we adopt a particular technology, it means that we are

also adopting a particular social order. According to

Winner, artifacts are capable of enforcing social agenda.

It is subtle that technology is a collection of artifacts and

socio-cultural practices and no technology has a

meaning by itself. A technology becomes meaningful

when it is attached to social practices. It can never exist

and be used independently of social relationships.

Similarly, social practices may fail to exist without

technology. Can man-made material objects come in to

being in a vacuum? Do they have meaning in a vacuum?

Or can they be used in a vacuum? Technology as a

material object is created in a social context. It functions

in complex social arrangements. When we recognize the

inseparability of technology from society, it would

become vivid that no technology remains as an

independent entity. Focusing only on autonomous

technology is not only an attempt to separate it out from

the context it was made, but also from the socio-cultural

meaning attached to it. A technology accomplishes

designated tasks when members of a group work

together. Let me take an example. These days,

computers in an automobile industry are helping

mechanics during automobile repair. The introduction

of computer system helps mechanics’ task of diagnosing

cars. But, computers do not know how to interact with

clients. They function with the help of humans. Do

computers feel responsibility and accountability when

we assign certain tasks to them? As far as humans

design technologies, they are responsible. Though

technology is a dynamic force having an impact on

society, we need to interpret technology in the context

of society.

3. Conclusion

Technological determinism and social determinism

have answered some questions concerning the

independence, design and use of technology. However,

several issues remained unanswered because of the

complexity of the two perspectives. Technology has

penetrated all spheres of human existence. Ethics of

technology is not only vital for developing an ethical

framework for the assessment of emerging technologies

such as genetic engineering, but also for the ethical

issues related to creative and innovative technologies.

For technological determinists, technology not only

drives, but also defines social change. Social

determinists argue against this idea. For them, social and

cultural practices shape technological development.

When will the debate between the two camps end?

Reference

Bijker, W.E., Hughes, T.P., and Pinch, T. (1987). “General introduction” The Social Construction of Technological Systems:

New Directions in the Sociology of History and Technology, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1-6.

Bimber, B. (1994). Three Faces of Technological Determinism, in M.R. Smith and L. Marx (eds.), Does Technology Drive

History? The Dilemma of Technological Determinism. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, pp. 79-100.

Daniel Tessema Ethiop.J.Sci.Sustain.Dev., Vol. 8 (2), 2021

Chandler, D. (1995). Technological or media determinism. Retrieved from http://visual-memory.co.uk/daniel//Documents/

tecdet/tecdet.html

Child, J. (1972). Organizational Structure, Environment and Performance: The Role of Strategic Choice. Sociology, 6(1): 1-22

Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Introduction: entering the field of qualitative research. In: Denzin, Norman K. & Lincoln,

Yvonna S. (Eds.) Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks (CA); London: Sage Publications, 1-17.

Ellul, J. (1964). The Technological Society. Newyork: Vintage.

Habermas, J. (1970). Toward a Rational Society. Boston: Beacon Press.

Hall, R. A. (1962). Intra-organizational Structural Variables, Administrative Science Quarterly, 6: 295-308

Heilbroner, R. (1961). ‘Do Machines Make History?’ Technology and Culture, 2: 335-345.

Jonas, H. (1979). The imperative of responsibility: In Search of an ethics for the technological age. Chicago (Ill.): The University

of Chicago Press.

Mackenzie, D. (1984). ‘Marx and the Machine’, Technology and Culture, 25: 473-502.

Marx, K. (1847). The Poverty of Philosophy. Newyork: International Publishers.

McLoughlin, I. (1999). Creative Technological Change: The Shaping of Technology and Organizations, London: Routledge.

Paul, B. T. (2007). Food Biotechnology in Ethical Perspective, 2nd Ed. The Netherlands: Springer

Pinch, T. (1996). The Social Construction of Technology: A Review in R.Fox (ed.), Technological Change. Methods and Themes

in the History of Technology. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.

Pitt, J.C. (1987). The Autonomy of Technology. In: Durbin P.T.(eds) Technology and Responsibility. Philosophy and

Technology, 3.

Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. Newyork: Vintage.

Rosenberg, N. (1976). Mark as Student of Technology. Monthly Review: An Independent Socialist Magazine. 28(3):56-77

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory,

3rd Ed.. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: SAGE Publications.

White, L. (1949). The Science of Culture: A Study of Man and Civilization. Newyork: Grove Press.

Wiebe E. B., Thomas P. H., and Trevor P. (1987). The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the

Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Winner, L. (1977). Autonomous Technology: Technics-out-of-control. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

http://visual-memory.co.uk/daniel/Documents/