Lecture 10: Who is in control here, anyway?

In the syllabus for the course I posed three questions: What is social change? How does social change affect individuals? Who is in control here anyway? We’ve covered the first two questions pretty thoroughly during the term. In this final lecture I plan to provide a sociological answer to the last question. My answer to the question goes contrary to the prevailing cultural belief that we are in control of social change and of the direction society will take in the future. I hope you will see how I come to this conclusion from a sociological perspective.

Do you remember the Great Power Outage experienced by the people in the NW quadrant of the country a couple of years ago? During the weeks and months that followed my question for the week, “Who is in control here anyway?,” was being raised all over the media and was soon a topic in Congress. Of course, they don’t mean quite the same thing by the question as I do because they both the media and congress were looking for someone or some group to blame. As a sociologist, I’m really asking, “Are we in control of the culture, including the technology, we’ve created or has it “taken over?” This question gives us a perfect opportunity to use sociological concepts & ideas to understand social change because the power outage is a perfect example of the ways in which technologies determine how we live our lives and how much change there would have to be in society if those technologies were not available. And, I think that means that we are not in control of the technologies or the culture we have created.

Course Concepts

Before I go on to give you my answer to the question of who is in control, here are a few examples of how the concepts we’ve covered in the course can be used to understand the social aspects of the power outage. This event provides a perfect example of a rational system in action. The power grid is a system with both human elements & material components. All of those parts of the system must function appropriately for the outcome to be stable. The goals of the system are efficiency, calculablity, and predictability. Normally those goals are met but once in a while something goes wrong and throws the system out of balance. Then you see the irrational consequences of rational systems. In this case, the very safeguards that are designed to perfect & maintain the power grid are the elements that throw it into chaos. Those “breaker switches,” designed to protect the other components, overreact and throw the system into chaos. The same is true if you add in not only the power grid itself but the social components that it supports – such as the economic institution, the transportation systems (local, national, & global), media, and law enforcement. All of those social activities were disrupted, became chaotic, and were affected by the outage for quite a while.

And that brings us to the sociological imagination. Remember that the sociological imagination suggests that the way we live our lives and the people we become are dependent upon the time and place in which we live. Technologies are a big part of the “time & place.” Nothing could demonstrate this idea more clearly than a massive power outage. The loss of electricity meant that very little was normal about people’s lives. They couldn’t work; lights are gone, machines stopped, computers are out. Couldn’t get home; transportation systems are disrupted. Couldn’t stay in their homes if they were there; no air conditioning and many people are totally dependent upon that to live in the type of homes we’ve constructed in the areas we’ve built them. Life is not normal without electricity. Our lives are dependent on the technology. The material conditions of our lives determine, I would argue, what happens to us and we are not in control of that. We can, of course, control how we respond to the material conditions but that isn’t the same as being in control of the technology.

One of our strongest cultural beliefs, as Americans, is that we are in control of our lives, society, culture, and the future. I heard people express that belief over and over in discussing the power outage. “We were promised this wouldn’t happen.” “How could this happen?” “Don’t we have safeguards in action to prevent this kind of thing?” One engineer said, “I have worked my whole life to make it impossible for this to happen.” All of those comments imply a belief that we are in control; that we can “fix” it so it doesn’t happen again. In our culture we value control over the environment and over our creations. We value our technological expertise. Despite warnings to the contrary, the dominant cultural perspective is that we can prevent shuttle accidents, power outages, and traffic jams. A sociological analysis using the concept of culture would suggest otherwise.

Finally, institution would be another useful concept for this analysis. While other institutions could ultimately be affected, the political and economic institutions are very closely linked in the energy system. Bill Richardson, former Secretary of Energy, now governor of New Mexico, was not surprised by the outage. He’s been lobbying Congress for years to upgrade the grid. Says we have a third world electrical system. It can’t handle current energy needs. The “fix” would cost billions & billions of dollars and no one can really make a profit from “electricity modernization.” It would be a “good” for all of society but recovering the cost of upgrades is prohibitive. Not upgrading, of course, will be expensive too, but that cost is diffuse – except in times of disaster. The airline industry and airline passengers pay part of the cost. There are also the businesses that require electricity for refrigeration (florists & restaurants), hotels whose clients did not want to pay for rooms they couldn’t use. Lost time at work for millions and lost opportunities for thousands. Some benefited, of course. Hot dog vendors, taxi drivers, and tourists with experience of a lifetime, but overall, great disruption for the patterns that make up the economic institution.

Three technological revolutions and the sociological imagination

So let’s put these concepts to work. The sociological imagination tells us that the lives of individuals are shaped by our historical and social context. Nowhere does that process show up more clearly than in the history of technology. Remember that technology is a major component in culture. We humans have been through two technological revolutions so far and it looks as if we are in the midst of a third. A technological revolution is a period in human history when everything changes about the way we live our lives because of some set of technological developments. The sociological imagination tells us that the lives of individuals are shaped by our historical and social context. Nowhere does that process show up more clearly than in the history of technology. Remember that technology is a major component in culture. We humans have been through two technological revolutions so far and it looks as if we are in the midst of a third. A technological revolution is a period in human history when everything changes about the way we live our lives because of some set of technological developments. The first one was very gradual. It began about four or five thousand years ago when humans learned to grow cereal crops on a large scale. Prior to the agricultural revolution, virtually all humans lived in small family groups or tribes. They foraged, kept a few animals, and grew small crops of food. They typically moved around a lot but stayed with the same people. There were divisions of labor but relatively little inequality. Men and women, for example, might do different tasks but both tasks were valued for their contribution to the group. Religion and nature were closely interwoven. Power was limited to decisions about where to look for food next and who should marry whom. As people learned about all of the various technologies required to grow crops on a large scale (ranging from which seeds were most suitable to irrigation systems) everything changed. People stopped moving around so much and built cities where thousands might live in close proximity. Barter and trade became important economic activities. The division of labor between men and women became more pronounced and social classes developed. With a surplus of food, someone had to decide how the food would be distributed and someone had to be in charge of large project such as road or viaduct building. Kings and slaves emerged in human society and some religions shifted from a worship of nature to the worship of a deified human being.

The agricultural revolution continued to spread and develop into more and more complex social and economic systems all over the world. We watch the rise of “great civilizations” in the Middle East, the Far East, Africa, the Americas, and, Europe. By the year 1400, according to the European calendar, we begin to see the first stirrings of the second technological revolution. During this revolution, which is still taking place in some parts of the world, humans learned to substitute machine power for muscle power. Thousands of tasks, once done by human hand or animal muscle began to be done by machines. Among the earliest of these was the creation of cloth by mechanical looms in large factories. Because cloth making created industries where only crafts had existed before, this revolution became known as the Industrial Revolution. It began in Europe but again spread all over the globe. And, again, it changed political and economic institutions, family life, religion, and every other aspect of daily life.

The Industrial Revolution has led us to the 21 st century and to the development of a new kind of machine. While the elements for the development of computers have been around for several hundred years, it was only in the last fifty or so that electronic technologies became available as research tools or toys. In the last ten years they have become not only necessities to our way of life but also the foundation of the third technological revolution. Like the others, the Electronic Revolution or the Information Age (this is all so new we don’t have a name for it) will change everything about our lives but unlike the others it will do so quickly and inescapably. The Agricultural Revolution took thousands of years to change society. Many generations could adapt to the changes over time. The Industrial Revolution took a couple of hundred years to change society. Several generations could gradually adopt new ways as industrialization and capitalism spread across the world. The Electronic Revolution is, by its very nature, moving much more quickly to change our lives. I think it will totally change our institutions and our way of life within forty or fifty years. The interesting thing about this set of changes is that it is well within the lifetime of people alive today – namely yourselves. Rather than having generations to adjust, each individual will have to cope day by day and year by year. As individuals we can neither deflect nor stop this process. It is not a matter of what we want. It is a matter of how individuals are affected by social and material factors.

So far, despite some annoyances, the Electronic Revolution has been fun. It has been an interesting time to be alive. It has provided us with wonderful forms of entertainment, new ways to shop, and nifty gadgets for our cars. It has spurred the development of medical breakthroughs that may lead to longer lives for all of us and our children. It has provided new opportunities for businesses and education. You get to take classes at home in your fuzzy slippers instead of sitting in a stuffy classroom. We have access to amazing amounts of information on the web. But this technological revolution won’t be all fun and games. Once this thing really hits it will affect most of our cherished values and beliefs as well as how we spend our time and interact with other people. Many of us may not like this view of the future and some will be able to avoid it but mainly, the Electronic revolution will determine our culture and our future.

Changes in Culture & Institutions

Almost everyone agrees that globalization is one of the most important processes in the modern electronic world. Ritzer certainly thinks so. The ability to communicate instantly and reliably with anyone, anywhere in the world changes the nature of national boundaries and eventually calls into question the whole cultural framework of nations. Diversity is at once promoted and destroyed. There is a growing acceptance of cultural diversity which promotes the growth of a truly integrated global society that, in turn, blurs regional differences and cultures. While this process is slowed by what Ritzer calls glocalization, our own culture is changing due to the infusion of information and people from around the world. We like to think that immigrants become Americanized, and they do, but they change the culture in the process. This is a perfect example of a system in process. Cultures used to be open systems with input from other cultures. Now, I suspect, we are creating one large global culture, one system. Systemic forces, like rationalization, can be seen all over the world. China, which has resisted the spread of capitalism longer than any other global power due to its own material conditions, is now becoming part of the world economic system and concepts like efficiency, predictability, and calculability becoming part of the Chinese vocabulary as their economic system becomes part of the Electronic Revolution. You can bet that the Chinese did not choose to become a capitalist nation. They aren’t in control either.

Globalization will force changes in our political institutions in ways we cannot even imagine. As an example, we currently we have threats of global terrorism, dependent on electronic technologies, pushing our own society to consider limiting the personal freedoms that have been the hallmark of American society for 225 years. And, all this while electronic technologies facilitate more social control over individuals and groups. We can now be tracked from birth to death through our electronic footprints. That changes systems of social control that were developed during the Industrial age. Those are no longer adequate. We’ll need and see new ones in the future. Not because we want them but because they are necessary in the new global social strucuture.

  We’ll see changes in the family as well. Technological innovations such as television, automobiles, computers, and microwave ovens have already changed the nature of family interaction. Each technological revolution in the past has meant smaller primary groups and looser social bonds. The Electronic Revolution is no exception. People are already, even with the primitive technologies we now have, finding mates on the internet, conducting long-distance relationships, and developing new forms of sexuality. We, those of us who are adults now, like close relationships in physical proximity but remember that children born now and in the future will be accustomed to communicating in whole new ways. They will grow up with electronic relationships. Think about how differently older and younger folks adopt text messaging. Biotechnology will also change the institution of the family. We already have to have the courts sort out the “real” parentage of a child conceived from donor egg and sperm, grown in a surrogate womb, and adopted by “unrelated” parents who may later get divorced. Think that doesn’t change the basis of family life? What about human clones? How do we fit them into our existing social forms?

Conclusion

Most of the changes we will live through as our institutions change are caused by material factors that we will not be able to control or even direct. The kind of social change we are seeing now is not the result of what people want. It occurs in response to changes in material conditions. Attitudes, values, and beliefs are created by the new conditions we face in the world. They follow technology rather than the reverse. Global warming, produced by technology, globalization, produced by technology, the development of new sources of energy, required by technology, and population growth due to medical innovations are likely sources of massive change. Any ideological solutions for such overwhelming forces are difficult to envision. Within our own lives we can use our ideas about the world to adapt to and maybe even benefit from the Electronic Revolution, but the changes are coming whether we will them or not. Only intervention by another material force, such as a global war, could defer the Information Age from becoming the third technological revolution.

  I have to admit here that I am more of a structuralist and a technological determinist than most folks are comfortable with although I do recognize the role of agency in human actions. I really think that most of what happens to us is dictated by the technologies we use and therefore shapes our culture in ways we cannot control. Many, perhaps most, people would disagree with me. They would say that we are in control of our technology and our destiny. It is just a matter of deciding what we want and then doing it. They would argue that the choices we make now will shape the future. I’ve argued for a different answer from my sociological perspective – suggesting that we, as individuals or groups, are not in control of our institutions or our technologies. You will, of course, have to make up your own mind.

 I’d be happy to discuss this with any of you Out in the Hallway.

I look forward to some interesting conversations.