Sociotechnical+Systems+(Banks)

Sociotechnical systems are assemblages of both human and nonhuman components that act together in such a way that they are recognized as part of a single system. STS authors refer to sociotechnical systems to underscore the entangled nature of the social and the technical. A highway system is an example of a sociotechnical system. Roadbeds, politicians, cars, engineers, tunnels, adopt-a-highway programs, bridges, and highway patrols are just a few of the components that make up the Interstate Highway system. The relationships between human and nonhuman actors; the signifiers used to talk about sets of objects (and subjects); the importance of relationships; and the production of cause and effect are different for each school of thought.

=Social Construction of Technology= Social constructions are interested in shifts in relationships between actors and the overall shape and functioning of sociotechnical systems. Hughes (1989) states: “Because they are invented and developed by system builders and their associates, the components of technological systems are socially constructed artifacts. Persons who build electric light and power systems invent and develop not only generators and transmission lines but also such organizational forms as electrical manufacturing and utility holding companies” (P. 52). A more modern example taken from the IT industry would be the monetization schemes of social networking sites. Companies like facebook do not just code javascript and maintain servers. They also develop marketing tactics, business models for partners, and new forms of interpersonal communication. SCOT writers typically separate out the social and the technical to a larger degree than, actor network theorists or cyborg theorists such as Donna Haraway and Karen Barad. This is evidences Hughes, a social constructionist describes “technological systems” in this manner:

//“Technological systems contain messy, complex problem-solving components. They are both socially constructed and society shaping. Among the components in technological systems are physical artifacts such as the turbogenerators, transformers, and transmission lines in electric light and power systems. Technological systems also include organizations, such as manufacturing firms, utility companies, and investment banks, and they incorporate components usually labeled scientific, such as books, articles, and university teaching and research programs. Legislative artifacts, such as regulatory laws, can also be part of technological systems” (P.51).//

Sociotechnical systems, according to SCOT theorists, evolve and develop in relatively predictable phases. Regardless of the kind of technology, whether it is a power grid, Netflix DVD distribution, or neoliberal trade policies, the pattern remains somewhat similar: Invention, development, Innovation, transfer, growth, competition, and consolidation. Hughes is quick to note that, “The phases in the history of a technological system are not simply sequential; they overlap and backtrack” (P.56).
 * Invention- A new thing is made that alters the existing system or replaces it over a period of time. Because existing powerful institutions do not wish to spent money radically changing their business model, radical inventions usually come from small actors or individuals. Radical, in this case, refers to a strong change in the status quo, not necessarily socially radical.
 * Development- This is when the technological artifact begins to develop a system or alter existing networks to meet its needs. The invention must go from concept to functioning artifact with a heterogeneous network. Unaccounted for variables and externalities must be dealt with. This can require more invention and innovation of the original artifact.
 * Innovation- The “inventor-entrepreneur” (Hughes’ words) must make their product easier to produce or fit better into more and more instances in order to work. This means innovating the production process or offering slightly different variations on the same product. Standardized production of the invention must be established, or a decision must be made about the extent to which the invention will be distributed.
 * Transfer- Technological systems are adapted for radically new times or places. This might require new legislation (as was required for VCRs) or new components (McDonalds changes their menu for different countries).
 * Growth- adaptation, developing a distinctive style, and becoming resilient to major changes in external environments allows a particular sociotechnical system to grow.
 * Competition- New producers of similar or competing products that leverage drawbacks in the original artifact. A “reverse salient” –a kind of bottleneck or under-innovated component of a larger system- may be identified and updated. If the reverse salient cannot be alleviated, it might necessitate a larger revision of the system itself.
 * Consolidation- As competition continued, and transfer-through-innovation becomes the main frontier of future growth, sociotechnical systems consolidate efforts to conserve resources and maintain competitiveness.

=Actor Network Theory= Actor Network Theory (ANT) regards sociotechnical systems as the main unit of analysis. Heterogeneous assemblages of actants, such as fisherman, door closers, biochemists, electric cars, universities, and turbojets are all regarded as co-produced nodes in horizontal actor-networks. Each node has a set of salient features that relate them to other nodes. These salient features provide varying degrees of effectiveness when it comes to enrolling others in the actor-network. ANT describes these relationships, but does not provide robust explanations for why or how these relationships develop. John Law describes the usefulness of ANT this way:

//“Theories usually try to explain why something happens, but actor-network theory is descriptive rather than foundational in explanatory terms, which means that it is a disappointment for those seeking strong accounts. Instead it tells stories about ‘how’ relations assemble or don’t. As a form, one of several, of material semiotics, it is better understood as a toolkit for telling interesting stories about, and interfering in, those relations. More profoundly, it is a sensibility to the messy practices of relationality and materiality of the world. Along with this sensibility comes a wariness of the large-scale claims common in social theory: these usually seem too simple.”

//Besides its ambivalence toward explaining how things happen, one of ANT’s most controversial features, is its equal treatment of human and nonhuman entities. This ontological symmetry calls into question the basic relationships between actors and structure. Law tries to situate ANT’s concept of agency within the lineage of Deleuze and Guattari://

“We are offered an historical account of particular translations through time rather than a diagnosis of an epochal epistemic syntax. Even so the logic is not far removed from Foucault’s. It can also be understood as an empirical version of Gilles Deleuze’s nomadic philosophy (Deleuze and Guattari: 1988). Latour has observed that we might talk of ‘actant-rhizomes’ rather than ‘actor- networks’, and John Law has argued that there is little difference between Deleuze’s ‘agencement’ (awkwardly translated as ‘assemblage’ in English) and the term ‘actor-network (Law: 2004). Both refer to the provisional assembly of productive, heterogeneous and (this is the crucial point) quite limited forms of ordering located in no larger overall order. This is why it is helpful to see actor-network theory as a particular empirical translation of post- structuralism.”//

Both SCOT and ANT adopt a relativist stance on the effects of sociotechnical systems’ influence on society. Systems change but there is no standpoint by which we can measure social “progress.” Sociotechnical systems, rather, just exist and we can chart their rise, fall, and reinvention.