20 The New Ecology
scientific method or direct experience is the best way to understanding. These topics could be approached via an interest in regulating to
preserve stability or in the search for radical change, as well as either
subjectively (individualistically) or objectively (structurally), leading to
their four paradigms: functionalist (objective-regulation), interpretative
( subjective-regulation), radical humanist (subjective-radical change),
and radical structuralist.
43
From this matrix, the functionalist paradigm has often been the default for sociological study, assuming a rationalist approach to organisations and human behaviour, while the
interpretative paradigm seeks to explain processes from the individual’s perspective the better to understand the world. Radical humanist
paradigms are usually opposed to organisations and seek change because individuals are separated from their “true selves”, while radical
structuralist paradigms, such as Marxism or the current penchant for
disruptive technologies, see conflicts as inherent within society and necessary to generate change and progress.
It is tempting to see the radical structuralist and radical humanist
paradigms as the modus operandi of Silicon Valley in terms of its investment structures and advertising agencies, respectively. Disruptive investors are constantly looking for means to shake up existing practices (and
to make a great deal of money in the process) while advertising to consumers and users of these new technologies that old ways of doing things
are preventing them from finding their true selves: “think different”
and “do the right thing.”
44
Paragas and Lin observe that the traditional
distinction between “hard” and “soft” determinism – that is between
ascribing technology to the necessary and sufficient qualities to effect
social change versus being a key factor that may facilitate change – has
more recently been reconceived as technological determinism versus social constructivism, whereby according to the latter technology is viewed
as a more neutral instrument whose effects are shaped by users and social conditions.
45
By using Burrell and Morgan, Paragas and Lin argue
that a refined and more nuanced version of technological determinism
can be applied to explore a multiplicity of relations between technology
and society, rather than insisting upon a binary opposition whereby we
must come down on one side or the other in all cases. Thus, objectivist positions tend to focus on how new technologies can cause certain
behaviours (for example, whether video games cause certain types of
aggressive behaviour or whether online tuition enhances learning), while
subjective responses may demonstrate how technology is affected by
other social relations (such as men dominating skilled trades during the
industrial revolution to the exclusion of women). Technological innovations may indeed result in disruptive and powerful social changes, but at
other times, they seem to be constrained by how privileged actors control the design process.
46
While Paragas and Lin provide an immensely
flexible and thus more useful model of technological determinism that
scientific method or direct experience is the best way to understanding. These topics could be approached via an interest in regulating to
preserve stability or in the search for radical change, as well as either
subjectively (individualistically) or objectively (structurally), leading to
their four paradigms: functionalist (objective-regulation), interpretative
( subjective-regulation), radical humanist (subjective-radical change),
and radical structuralist.
43
From this matrix, the functionalist paradigm has often been the default for sociological study, assuming a rationalist approach to organisations and human behaviour, while the
interpretative paradigm seeks to explain processes from the individual’s perspective the better to understand the world. Radical humanist
paradigms are usually opposed to organisations and seek change because individuals are separated from their “true selves”, while radical
structuralist paradigms, such as Marxism or the current penchant for
disruptive technologies, see conflicts as inherent within society and necessary to generate change and progress.
It is tempting to see the radical structuralist and radical humanist
paradigms as the modus operandi of Silicon Valley in terms of its investment structures and advertising agencies, respectively. Disruptive investors are constantly looking for means to shake up existing practices (and
to make a great deal of money in the process) while advertising to consumers and users of these new technologies that old ways of doing things
are preventing them from finding their true selves: “think different”
and “do the right thing.”
44
Paragas and Lin observe that the traditional
distinction between “hard” and “soft” determinism – that is between
ascribing technology to the necessary and sufficient qualities to effect
social change versus being a key factor that may facilitate change – has
more recently been reconceived as technological determinism versus social constructivism, whereby according to the latter technology is viewed
as a more neutral instrument whose effects are shaped by users and social conditions.
45
By using Burrell and Morgan, Paragas and Lin argue
that a refined and more nuanced version of technological determinism
can be applied to explore a multiplicity of relations between technology
and society, rather than insisting upon a binary opposition whereby we
must come down on one side or the other in all cases. Thus, objectivist positions tend to focus on how new technologies can cause certain
behaviours (for example, whether video games cause certain types of
aggressive behaviour or whether online tuition enhances learning), while
subjective responses may demonstrate how technology is affected by
other social relations (such as men dominating skilled trades during the
industrial revolution to the exclusion of women). Technological innovations may indeed result in disruptive and powerful social changes, but at
other times, they seem to be constrained by how privileged actors control the design process.
46
While Paragas and Lin provide an immensely
flexible and thus more useful model of technological determinism that