Technological determinists argue that ”technology develops as the sole result of an internal dynamic, and then, unmediated by any other influence, molds society to fit its patterns.” (Winner, 1980). When molding society, it means to affect economic rationality, cultural attitudes, values, ideologies, political systems, and social structures.

Let’s take a look at a (nearby) futuristic idea and how it shapes and establishes itself in society. For instance, Autonomous cars. Are autonomous cars being developed independently from social concerns or interference? Do we as the users and adopters have no control over the choice of the matter? The argument here is underlying autonomous technology but the same could be made for the impact of Automation on human jobs influencing Universal Basic Income, a future on Mars, addiction to social media or the growth of any new tech that affects World-scale at large.

The ubiquity of technology is not as simplistic and pure as people imagine. I believe that digital artifacts (digital infrastructure, software, the internet, code, algorithms etc.) too have political qualities.

Think about how cars influenced society in the past. The ideas of Sidewalks, Hotels, Movie Theatres, Restaurants, Suburbs were all a byproduct and 2nd, 3rd, 4th order effects of the automobile.

Tomorrow, autonomous technology may make a clear decision- declaring human driving as a “public menace” to these systems. It has the power to create socio-political divisions in various social groups towards either adoption of driverless cars or completely distancing them from it. Furthermore, technology can influence “arrangements of power in human associations” or create discrimination and bias during its growth to universal adoption. Would only the rich benefit from this change initially? Would certain social-groups be offered the option at a later time or not at all?

Think about this:

Due to “economic pressure” from higher insurance premiums, would human drivers need to adapt to meet the needs of driverless cars?

There are 2 fundamental assumptions I am highlighting here.

First, tech has inherent political qualities. Second, tech determines use.

So let’s take a contrary view to the above. From a User Heuristic approach Claude Fischer, a famous sociologist and alumni of my university, UC Berkeley, in the Dexter Prize-winning book America Calling posit “The telephone did not radically alter American ways of life; rather, Americans used it to more vigorously pursue their characteristic ways of life. A technology could, instead, have contradictory consequences or different ones for different groups”

There is a famous study done where: “College administrators in the 1920s found that automobiles distracted students from their studies and led many to drop out” (America Calling, 1992).

Takeaway 1: Technology has unintended consequences that come out of how users perceive value from it.

However, what if the current system does not maintain its state and the final outcomes are totally different? What if cars became not just vehicles but moving homes? What if Autonomous cars were to exist as flying objects and all human drivers had to stick to roads on the ground?

Takeaway 2: There is always interpretive flexibility of a technology particularily until closure and stabilization are achieved.

The truth is not just the human drivers but also policymakers, car manufacturers, and even Data Scientists and machine learning engineers have a role to play in the interpretation of the artifact of an autonomous vehicle.

Until that closure is obtained, we are not bystanders or impediments to the system but critical in defining what it can and will be.