In modern society, the term “technology” is often thought at first glance to have quite a basic definition and associations. These associations and definition are regularly perceived as being/concerned with the mechanical. This would not be incorrect, but it does not give a complete picture. The technological has inarguable ties to culture and social evolution, and can tell stories. Having only a basic understanding and knowledge of technology is not enough to fully grasp it’s importance and associations, nor it’s impact on the course of human history.
As previously stated, technology has concrete ties to culture and social evolution. To help explain this, the idea that technology begins and ends with the mechanical must be dispelled. Some of the earliest known examples of technology came before the current species of humanity even existed. Our ancestors, the Homo erectus, used tools such as hand axes as far back as 1.6 million years ago to achieve specific goals. In his work “Can We Define ‘Technology’?,” David Nye argues, “the meaning of a tool is inseparable from the stories that surround it,” (pg 3). What he means here, is that technologies are more than tools that help complete a task, they are the product of a desire to do something and the means to create that opportunity. These desires are also superfluous, a result of wanting more than is necessary. José Ortega y Gasset argued this idea, pointing out that the vast majority of animals do not develop technologies because they are content as they are. For example, humanity is the only species discovered to have created cave paintings, yet are only one of thousands of species that have used caves as a place of shelter at some point. Bears, bats, etc are not concerned with something like art, yet we are. This brings up another topic about technology, it’s similarity to art. Cyril Stanley Smith, who was one of the people responsible for designing the atomic bomb, argued that technology was more similar to art than it was to science. Art and technology both involve the “selection and manipulation of matter,” with those creating both also having to “work with unanalyzable complexities.” In contrast, he argues that science and technology has a mistaken connection, and that science for most of human history was conducted by people who simply had a great familiarity and level of experience with the subject at hand. The use of tools/technologies helps in understanding on a scientific level why something works or not. As the human race continued to expand upon its superfluous desires, technologies developed with it. In that sense, a chronological listing of all the technologies of humanity would simultaneously be a chronological depiction of humanity’s social evolution. Each technology carries a story with it, telling us about the culture at the time, the objective behind the technology’s creation (which could simply be art or leisure, not necessarily something like a nail being invented in order to fashion objects together more sturdily), and potentially even more depending on the technology.
By only being aware of the more common and modern associations and false definition of technology, one fails to understand a considerable amount about it’s history, process, and social relevance. Knowing more about the “truth” of technology opens one up to viewing it as something inarguably linked to human behavior and history, instead of just as tools of science.
Sources:
David Nye, “Can We Define ‘Technology’?,” pp. 1 – 15.