 Trying to determine the effect of culture on technology is a difficult task. This is due to the cyclic nature of the relationship between culture and technology. Working with the general notion of culture (1), it is easy to see why the task of analyzing the effect of culture on technology is hard. This is because technology itself is part of this definition of culture, “all other products of human work and thought” (2). In a sense, we are trying to find the effect of culture on culture itself, which initially sounds strange. However, considering technology as one of the venues that a given culture utilizes to transform itself, the challenge to examine the effect of culture on technology can be narrowed down to the investigation of the cyclic relationship between culture and technology. Thus, this paper discusses, what we will label, ‘technology-induced cultures’ and ‘culture-induced technologies’, in order to show the feedback loop between culture and technology.
The class readings provide several instances of how technology affects and transforms its encompassing culture (i.e. the culture that was responsible for bringing forth the very same technology). One such technology is agriculture.
The hunting and gathering way of life was already being saturated when the world population was about 4 million. With human population reaching 200 million by 200 B.C., it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to survive by just gathering and hunting. (3). Even though it is hard to claim that early man consciously pursued agriculture as the solution to this problem, it is uncontested that the hunter-gatherer society is the culture that was responsible for the invention of agriculture, as Ehrlich points out, “agriculture was thus invented gradually, piecemeal, and quite probably sometime reluctantly as groups changed time-honored lifestyles”(Ehrlich 15/26). The effect of this technology on the hunter-gatherer society was phenomenal, as it “put humanity on the road to sociopolitical complexity”(Ehrlich 17/26).
The constant mobility as well as the scarce resources involved with the hunting and gathering way of life did not allow for the development of a complex society, as Ehrlich explicitly mentions, “Without the ensuring agricultural revolution and the sedentary life and divisions of labor it eventually made possible, cultural evolution could never have produced our complex modern civilization. Without farming, which freed some people of the chore of wrestling nourishment from the environment, there would be no cities, no states, no science, and no mayors”(4). The amount of food produced by agriculture was not only enough to support the growing population but it also allowed for the storage of surplus food, which permitted some individuals to turn to other occupations. This sedentary lifestyle and the availability of surpluses resulted in the division of labor and class and “required a new social arrangements and human societies underwent a sequence of changes through villages, clans, chiefdoms, and archaic states”(5). It even changed the fundamental relationship between ‘family’ members as Ehrlich points out, “[this] lifestyle also permitted closer child spacing because women did not need to carry their offspring on long foraging trips or migrations”(6). Cipolla summarizes the metamorphosis of the hunter-gather culture as a result of this technology (agriculture):
| Population expanded in size beyond any former ‘ceiling’. Villages sprang up and community life emerged. Accumulations of a social surplus become possible. Social groups emerged which became free of the continuous search for food. With the division of labor higher forms of activity and leisurely speculation became possible. New and vast historical possibilities opened up (7). |
The integration of this new technology with the hunter-gatherer culture not only modified the social structure, as discussed earlier, but it also propagated a new wave of technological advancements. For example, the administrative posts created due to the division of labor and class were responsible for “organizing the labor force for large-scale construction ... large-scale technological improvements that increased the efficiency of production” (8). The technical needs involved with early farming led to the ‘invention’ of the plough, hoe-stick, technique of working metals, heavy soil cultivation , and artificial fertilizers(9). Cipolla further argues that the “Greek and Italic civilizations would not have been possible without these developments”(10). A cyclic trait between culture and technology is noticeable in these examples.
The Industrial Revolution is another prime example of technology transforming its encircling culture. The use of coal, iron, and steam along with the machines that were being invented starting the 18th century transformed the agriculture-based society to an industrial one (11). Cipolla labels this period as one of the only two technological Revolutions in human history, Agricultural Revolution being the first one. He describes the resulting cultural transformation as such, “Wherever the Industrial Revolution penetrated, it brought into the entire structure of the society a general aggregate of changes that made industry, instead of agriculture, the dominant productive sector of society”(12). He reinforces the thesis of this paper when he explains how “each [technology] had a link with the [culture that promoted it] but created a deep break with the very same [culture]”(13).
Contemporary examples of technological advancements that have huge impact on their respective encompassing cultures include the invention of the automobile, TV, computers, and the Internet.
We have discussed or mentioned several instances of technology-induced cultures (i.e. the effect of technology on the culture that initiated the very same technology). Now, we examine the effect of culture on technology in order to show the cyclic nature of this relationship. Again, we have to work with the general notion of culture and accept broad terms such as religion, warfare, leadership, etc. to be entities that are part of a culture.
The technologies discussed so far have been a product of an encompassing culture. But which components of culture are responsible for promoting technology?
Despite the common notion that religion and technology are incompatible and each others’ enemies, some scholars claim that religion played a significant role in promoting technology. Ehrlich asserts that “beliefs in the supernatural clearly have had and continue to have enormous influence on human behavior and the evolution of human societies”(14). For example, writing is thought to have evolved in close conjunction with religious practices which required complex calendars for the timing of rituals and also necessitated the keeping of financial records that are related to religious officialdom (15).
Some scholars credit religion for promoting technology, not only in the early societies but also in the recent years of human history. David Nobel in his book Religion of Technology presents a rather surprising argument that the development of technology in the west over the past 1000 years has been based on religion (16). He describes, among several other examples, how Freemasonry was the dynamic force behind the ‘encyclopedias’ and that Freemasons were early advocates of industrialization and the fathers of the engineering profession (17). He also claims how technological advancement accelerated when it was invested with spiritual significance, giving examples of Isaac Newton who “devoted his lifetime to the interpretation of prophecy”, Joseph Priestly who was “the discovered of oxygen and a founder of Unitarianism”, and Werner Von Braun (the father of modern rocketry) who “saw spaceflight as a [Christian] millenarian new beginning for humankind”(18). This religious attitude was continued by other leaders of United States’ space program. For example, Jerry Klumas, a former systems engineer at NASA, wrote that “explicit Christianity was normal at the Johnson space center and that the increase in knowledge by the space program was a fulfillment of the aforementioned prophecy in Daniel” (19).
In addition, in Christianity, Earth is considered as God’s gift to man so man can utilize earth’s natural resources. And technology is “to a high extent utilization of natural resources”(web6). This argument was used to back up Colonialism and among other things, Colonialism promoted technological advancements in Europe in several field of technology (20).
Another main component of culture that has been responsible for promotion of technology is warfare. Whether it is as a result of geographic, resource, and social “circumscriptions , or due to the “innate drive or military instinct” described by Ehrlich, warfare has been part of human culture since the early days. This warfare culture has been responsible for several technological advancements throughout history, extending from the period of early civilizations to present. To take 21st century United States as an example, the contribution of the military to technological advancements is astonishing. The defense program of the nation “dictates that it be on the leading edge of creating technologies and products that, in the early development stage, have no commercial market and are beyond the normal level of risk acceptable to [civilian] industry”(21). The development of nuclear technology would not have been possible without this leeway created by the military.
By examining some technology-induced cultures and culture-induced technologies, it is shown that culture and technology have a cyclic relationship. Culture embraces and promotes technology and the very same technology ends up transforming its encompassing culture. This feedback loop guarantees the promotion of technology and the integration of new technology with the culture it just modified. This cyclic phenomena continues until the distinct line between technology and its embracing culture is blurred into a “way of life” (example: agriculture). TVs, automobiles, computers, internet, etc. were once just technologies that were products of a certain culture. With time, these technologies transcend their physical forms and become part of the definition of their encompassing culture, part of our day-to-day life.
top
Footnotes
|
| 1) Definitions of 1a – 1d from dictionary.com |
| 2) Also pointed out by Chris Milla on his second essay |
| 3) Ponting, Clive. A Green History of the World: The Environment and the Collapse of Great Civilizations. St. Martin's Press, New York, 1991. ISBN 0-312-06989-1, McCabe GF75.P66 1992 pp. 18-67. |
| 4) Ch.9, "The Dominance of Culture" and Ch. 10, "From Seeds to Civilization," Ehrlich, Paul R., in "Human Natures: Genes Cultures, and the Human Prospect" Island Press, 2000, pp. 228. |
| 5) Ch.9, "The Dominance of Culture" and Ch. 10, "From Seeds to Civilization," Ehrlich, Paul R., in "Human Natures: Genes Cultures, and the Human Prospect" Island Press, 2000, pp. 240. |
| 6) Ch.9, "The Dominance of Culture" and Ch. 10, "From Seeds to Civilization," Ehrlich, Paul R., in "Human Natures: Genes Cultures, and the Human Prospect" Island Press, 2000, pp. 239. |
| 7) Cipolla, Carlo M., "The Economic History of World Population" The Harvester Press, 1978, pp.45. ISBN 0-85527-735-5 |
| 8) Ch.9, "The Dominance of Culture" and Ch. 10, "From Seeds to Civilization," Ehrlich, Paul R., in "Human Natures: Genes Cultures, and the Human Prospect" Island Press, 2000, pp. 251. |
| 9) Cipolla, Carlo M., "The Economic History of World Population" The Harvester Press, 1978, pp.46. ISBN 0-85527-735-5 |
| 10) Cipolla, Carlo M., "The Economic History of World Population" The Harvester Press, 1978, pp.46. ISBN 0-85527-735-5 |
| 11) http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/industrialrev.html |
| 12) Cipolla, Carlo M., "The Economic History of World Population" The Harvester Press, 1978, pp.31. ISBN 0-85527-735-5 |
| 13) Cipolla, Carlo M., "The Economic History of World Population" The Harvester Press, 1978, pp.34. ISBN 0-85527-735-5 |
| 14) Ch.9, "The Dominance of Culture" and Ch. 10, "From Seeds to Civilization," Ehrlich, Paul R., in "Human Natures: Genes Cultures, and the Human Prospect" Island Press, 2000, pp. 215. |
| 15) Ch.9, "The Dominance of Culture" and Ch. 10, "From Seeds to Civilization," Ehrlich, Paul R., in "Human Natures: Genes Cultures, and the Human Prospect" Island Press, 2000, pp. 220. |
| 16) http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/mih/tech/p3-ls.htm |
| 17) http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/mih/tech/p3-ls.htm |
| 18) http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/mih/tech/p3-ls.htm |
| 19) http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa020200a.htm |
| 20) http://www.control.auc.dk/~jnn/smac/christech.html |
| 21) http://www.dodmantech.com/tech-trans/index.shtml |
top
|
