Analysis by: Myong Cho
Pacey argues against narrow linear views of technological development, and emphasizes that we need to leave the linear and volumetric graphs and statistics behind and use other ideas showing what innovative movements and waves mean in human terms. He views that history proceeds by changing the subject rather than by progressing from one stage to the next. I agree with Pacey that we need to keep open the possibility of experiencing new, radically different ways of dealing with economic problems and unexplored options for human benefit from technology. Pacey thinks that people in modern society are free to choose their views about what is important and consequently what type of world they wish to construct and inhabit. (However, I do not share Pacey's opinion on this entirely, because most of us are more like passengers on a ship without controlling power on where we are going, but depending on the captain's driving hand. We are affected by technological developments without clear realizations whether they are positive or negative.) Based on Pacey's view, innovation must be seen as an outcome of a cycle of mutual adjustments between cultural, social and technical affairs, and therefore often technological determinism is related to political purpose.
Pacey discussed four aspects of technological developments using specific illustrations in his essay:
He points out that the key aspects of the overall progress are expressed by quantitative measures such as numbers and graphs. However, he also sees that from the example (Grain output in Britain, 1550-1970) output figures of agriculture alone do not represent progress. He argues that improvement in one dimension is often accompanied by less desirable developments elsewhere, and therefore linear interpretation of progress based on over selective or generalized fact is dangerous. It is important to draw a composite picture of technology developments relating to a number of techniques or other aspects such as social circumstances, irregularity and characteristic organizational aspect. An interesting statement quoted from Donald Cardwell (I found very true for modern technology): "pace of advance was set not by brilliant and able engineers but by the capacity of the average individual engineer or skilled mechanic to master and use the improvements effectively".
The Organization of Work
Here, Pacey uses Britain's industrial revolution to point out some societal changes by technological development. He calls that industrial revolution is not solely technical revolution: spinning machine and steam engine brought organizational advantage by faster pace of work, and opportunity for the direction and coordination of labor. This resulted in changes of the organizational work, division of labor, and fragmenting and de-skilling work by mechanization. This also affected banking and finance, material resources, and population trends. Pacey also relates this negative aspect by the technology development to modern society: Computer on skilled occupations (Cooley), designer, etc. Computers change power relationships within firm and the community as knowledge-based power. Pacey considers that industrial revolution had no change in the nature of many processes, just reorganized based on the division of labor, whereas modern revolution transforms whole system and labor is used as interchangeable part.
Pacey again compares two contrasting beliefs about progress of technology:
Linear view (one dimension) which is smooth, steady, upward development, geometrical progression (J. Ellul), but conceals ambiguities/irregularities; context of innovation including its organizational aspects. This is more broadly considered and determines the ownership of industry because technology carries its own culture with it. Technological determinism a) is technical advance as a process of steady development dragging human society along in its train, b) accompanies 'culture lag' of social problems associated with new technology development from failure to adopt it, and c) has era in terms of its dominant technology (computer age/nuclear age). Therefore, we should think about technology in terms of the impact of technique on human affairs and concept of technology practice with its integral social components.
Pacey views that the movements of progress form successive waves of a clustering of innovations from one technology to inventions of wide variety of others (1870-80, chemical/steel/electricity/automobiles, Freeman), and these waves bring a major economic upswing depending on technical innovations and organizational changes (that is a whole cluster of related innovations and institutional changes). Pacey again emphasizes that concept of progress is to take an altogether broader view of the many factors which interact in mutually enhancing ways through analysis of Britain's industrial revolution. Britain recognized how to fit the ideas already developed previously/elsewhere to economic opportunity in effective ways (I think that this holds true for Japan these days). Each step needs to be characterized by specific organizational arrangements as well as new techniques, and these distinct phases of development can be described as movements in technology-practice. There are crucial moments of recognition when a varied collection of different factors fit together and a new form of practice takes off. These moments mark distinct waves of technology development in human society. These observations led Freeman draw his Long Waves of Industrialization.