SOC 456 -- Science & Technology in Social Context -- OSU Extended Campus

Unit 7

Lecture: Idealism & Materialism

In Lecture Six I asked you to think about a very abstract sociological concept – institution. In this lecture I’m going to discuss two fairly complicated concepts and one not so complicated. These three concepts are used by sociologists, philosophers, and historians to understand social change and other social processes such as industrialization, modernization, globalization, and urbanization. They are useful when thinking about the sources of social change and science and technology in a social context. The three concepts I will discuss are idealism, materialism, and technological determinism. I’ll begin with conceptual definitions. I hope you will read the definitions carefully because the ones we use in sociology are quite different than the ones used in everyday life. The three concepts I will discuss are idealism, materialism, and technological determinism. I’ll begin with conceptual definitions. I hope you will read the definitions carefully because the ones we use in sociology are quite different than the ones used in everyday life.While you probably think of idealism as referring to someone with high ideals, perhaps even a “starry eyed” idealist, sociologists think of idealism as the philosophical position that ideas matter- that our beliefs, values, ideals, hopes, and dreams influence what happens to society and to us. Human agency is seen as an important force in social change. An idealist, in the sociological sense, is one who believes that human ideas can affect the course of history and that we can fix social problems by recognizing the complexity of the system, taking responsibility, finding creative solutions, planning and implementing. This view puts us in control of society and social change if we have the will to take control. There is a famous quote from John Stuart Mill that is a perfect example of idealism: “No great improvement[s] in the lot of mankind are possible until a great change takes place in [the] fundamental constitution of their modes of thought (Hjorth et al, 2002: 442).

You are probably familiar with idealism as I’ve defined it above. It is a common belief in our culture and a number of you have expressed idealist points of view in the weekly discussions. But you may not be as familiar with materialism. Again, materialism to a sociologist is not quite the same thing it is to a non-sociologist. We don’t mean just a desire for material goods. For us materialism is a philosophical position that suggests that matter is the only reality and everything in the world can be understood and explained in terms of matter. “Matter” refers to material, things of substance, concrete; material things occupy space and have a tangible existence. Buildings, roads, mountains, and computers are all material objects. Materialism, in philosophy, is the belief that social change and individual attitudes and behaviors are the result of physical processes, not the ideas of individuals. Many sociologists also think that material forces are what determine the things that happen in a society or to an individual.

Trees are material objects. This is an example of a material condition.

Some examples of material forces are the physical environment, population size, and material technologies. While it doesn’t appear to affect us so strongly any more, it is clear that the physical environment shapes the lives and cultures of pre-industrial people. Groups who live in deserts have different religions, family patterns, political systems, and economic bases than groups who live in forests. However, global warming is a material force that may very well affect our own culture and way of life. Population size, as a material force, can be seen if we compare the cultures of people who live in small tribal groups with those who live in large industrial societies. It can also be seen by comparing rural and urban lifestyles in our own society. One of the most interesting examples of the effects of population size occurred during the middle ages. The Black Death, or bubonic plague, killed a huge proportion of the population of Great Britain during the 1400s. In some areas, so many people died and labor was so scarce that agriculture was no longer a feasible option and many farmers turned to raising sheep for the wool markets in the Netherlands. Large numbers of sheep could be managed with just a few shepherds and their dogs. The influx of wool from Britain helped to fuel the industrial revolution (which started with textiles) and thereby influenced all of our lives.

Since you are already familiar with the idealist perspective, I’m going to focus here on the impacts of technology as a material force. We’ve already discussed the impacts of technology on our on lives. Computers, the internet, automobiles, and cell phones are just a few of the more common material factors that affect what we do. The question that arises in this discussion is whether or not those material factors are more important in shaping society, social change, and ourselves than our ideas about the world. Now I know that your immediate response will be that, of course, our ideas matter; that what we think and believe are the most important causal factors. I would, as a sociologist, expect you to say that. But I’d like you to, for just a moment, consider an alternative point of view. Consider the materialist perspective. Link it to the lectures on the sociological imagination and systems theory. The sociological imagination suggests that the time and place in which we live shapes who we become. Not just how we live, but who we ARE. This shaping is done largely through the technologies we have available. Using a horse as our major means of transportation dictates a different way of life than using an automobile. Consider the materialist perspective. Link it to the lectures on the sociological imagination and systems theory. The sociological imagination suggests that the time and place in which we live shapes who we become. Not just how we live, but who we ARE. This shaping is done largely through the technologies we have available. Using a horse as our major means of transportation dictates a different way of life than using an automobile. System theory tells us that changes at larger scales have an immediate and often dramatic effect on smaller scales while it takes a long time for changes at the micro level to filter up to the larger levels. Look how quickly computers and the internet have changed our daily lives. Look how it has changed yours. You might not be enrolled in college at all and you certainly wouldn’t be reading this at home in your fuzzy slippers were it not for the internet. This opportunity is not the result of your ideas or beliefs. It is possible only because the material technologies exist.

Demonstrating your understanding of idealism and materialism.

Neither the shift from horses to automobiles nor the development of the internet was caused by changing ideas and values. The technologies became available, people used them, and social patterns altered. Ideas, beliefs, and values, as well as behaviors, changed as a result of technological innovations. Think how different life is in a modern home versus a log cabin. Technology changes; our ideas follow. If you carry this perspective out to its logical conclusion, it becomes technological determinism, our third concept. Technological determinists believe that technology determines what happens to us, the kind of people we become, and what our social institutions are like. Technological determinism has a bad name. It flies in the face of our most cherished beliefs about individualism, responsibility, and predictability. Americans want to believe, need to believe, that we control technology and that we can direct social change. But a technological determinist, like myself, says, look at the evidence. Technology has a very direct influence on society. Technological development drives social and cultural change. Changes in technology lead to corresponding changes in society. There are thousands of examples throughout history. Volti provides several in the reading for this week.

The argument is even more compelling, I think, if you turn it around. Can ideas stop technology? Do our beliefs and values have any impact on technological development? This is the question you will be exploring in Part II of your Paper. Many people hated automobiles when they started to become popular. There was a very widespread movement against the building of “macadam” (or asphalt) roads. People protested the building of the interstate highway system. But the technology was just too useful in a capitalist society. It enabled us to get ourselves and our goods from here to there faster and cheaper. The results were inevitable. Many people today hate computers. They dislike the fact that they must deal with computerized banks, that their cars have computers and must be repaired by experts instead of in the backyard, that grocery stores track us and our buying habits, that we must punch 47 buttons on the telephone to speak to a real person. None of this matters. It doesn’t matter if you love computers or hate them; they are here to stay. The material conditions of our lives make the technological devices inevitable. Take cloning as another example.

Most of us are uneasy about cloning animals and dead set against the reproduction of human in this fashion. Will the fact that we think it immoral stop the development of this technology? I don’t think so. We could ban it here in the US (we won’t but we could) but that won’t stop development in the rest of the world. If we don’t, they will. That material fact spurs the development of many technologies – cloning and other forms of biotechnology, nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction are just two examples among hundreds.
Although our culture encourages us to be idealists, most people, once they’ve thought about it a little, are more comfortable with a world view that explains technology in social context using a combination of materialist and idealist philosophies. While everyone needs to use what works for them as a way to understand the world, I urge you not to forget the material aspects of technological development and to consider the arguments of technological determinists. To do so will enhance your understanding of science and technology in social context. You certainly don’t need to become a technological determinist to succeed in this class but it will be important that you demonstrate an understanding of these three concepts in your responses to the discussion questions and in your own papers.