Dominant group/Technology

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Technology has opened up doors that lead to skill development where these possibilities were never even considered decades earlier. One such talented musician from Manipur who has used YouTube to share music to the world is June Neelu. The usage of free and open software itself translates into a counter hegemonic development against the dominant paradigm of the recording industry. Credit: Thoichang.

Technology is the making, usage, and knowledge of tools, machines, techniques, crafts, systems or methods of organization in order to solve a problem or perform a specific function.

It can also refer to the collection of such tools, machinery, and procedures. Technologies significantly affect human as well as other animal species' ability to control and adapt to their natural environments.

Technology[edit | edit source]

In 1937, the American sociologist Read Bain wrote that "technology includes all tools, machines, utensils, weapons, instruments, housing, clothing, communicating and transporting devices and the skills by which we produce and use them."[1] Bain's definition remains common among scholars today, especially social scientists.

"[E]qually prominent is the definition of technology as applied science, especially among scientists and engineers, although most social scientists who study technology reject this definition.[2]

"The Merriam-Webster dictionary offers a definition of the term: "the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area" and "a capability given by the practical application of knowledge".[3]

Ursula Franklin, in her 1989 "Real World of Technology" lecture, gave another definition of the concept; it is "practice, the way we do things around here".[4]

Bernard Stiegler, in Technics and Time, 1, defines technology in two ways: as "the pursuit of life by means other than life", and as "organized inorganic matter."[5] Stiegler has more recently stated that biotechnology can no longer be defined as "organized inorganic matter," given that it is, rather, "the reorganization of the organic."[6]

Technology can be most broadly defined as the entities, both material and immaterial, created by the application of mental and physical effort in order to achieve some value. In this usage, technology refers to tools and machines that may be used to solve real-world problems. It is a far-reaching term that may include simple tools, such as a crowbar or wooden spoon, or more complex machines, such as a space station or particle accelerator. Tools and machines need not be material; virtual technology, such as computer software and business methods, fall under this definition of technology.[7]

Dominant group[edit | edit source]

Examples from primary sources are to be used to prove or disprove each hypothesis. These can be collected per subject or in general.

  • Accident hypothesis: dominant group is an accident of whatever processes are operating.
  • Artifact hypothesis: dominant group may be an artifact of human endeavor or may have preceded humanity.
  • Association hypothesis: dominant group is associated in some way with the original research.
  • Bad group hypothesis: dominant group is the group that engages in discrimination, abuse, punishment, and additional criminal activity against other groups. It often has an unfair advantage and uses it to express monopolistic practices.
  • Control group hypothesis: there is a control group that can be used to study dominant group.
  • Entity hypothesis: dominant group is an entity within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.
  • Evolution hypothesis: dominant group is a product of evolutionary processes, such groups are the evolutionary process, produce evolutionary processes, or are independent of evolutionary processes.
  • Identifier hypothesis: dominant group is an identifier used by primary source authors of original research to identify an observation in the process of analysis.
  • Importance hypothesis: dominant group signifies original research results that usually need to be explained by theory and interpretation of experiments.
  • Indicator hypothesis: dominant group may be an indicator of something as yet not understood by the primary author of original research.
  • Influence hypothesis: dominant group is included in a primary source article containing original research to indicate influence or an influential phenomenon.
  • Interest hypothesis: dominant group is a theoretical entity used by scholarly authors of primary sources for phenomena of interest.
  • Metadefinition hypothesis: all uses of dominant group by all primary source authors of original research are included in the metadefinition for dominant group.
  • Null hypothesis: there is no significant or special meaning of dominant group in any sentence or figure caption in any refereed journal article.
  • Object hypothesis: dominant group is an object within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.
  • Obvious hypothesis: the only meaning of dominant group is the one found in Mosby's Medical Dictionary.
  • Original research hypothesis: dominant group is included in a primary source article by the author to indicate that the article contains original research.
  • Primordial hypothesis: dominant group is a primordial concept inherent to humans such that every language or other form of communication no matter how old or whether extinct, on the verge of extinction, or not, has at least a synonym for dominant group.
  • Purpose hypothesis: dominant group is written into articles by authors for a purpose.
  • Regional hypothesis: dominant group, when it occurs, is only a manifestation of the limitations within a region. Variation of those limitations may result in the loss of a dominant group with the eventual appearance of a new one or none at all.
  • Source hypothesis: dominant group is a source within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.
  • Term hypothesis: dominant group is a significant term that may require a 'rigorous definition' or application and verification of an empirical definition.

Radiation[edit | edit source]

"Such a relationship may just as well result in the adoption of the dominant group's language as a lingua franca without significant pidginisation."[8]

"[T]he fact that in this myth this change in technology also accompanies a change from female to male control of circumcision ritual might encourage us to give consideration to ideas that radical change in ritual and social organisation has occurred and its traces can be detected."[8]

Theoretical technology[edit | edit source]

Def. an "organization of knowledge for practical purposes"[9] is called technology.

Def. the "application of [mathematics and the physical sciences][10] to the needs of humanity[11] and the development of technology"[10] is called engineering.

Communication[edit | edit source]

"New computer-based communications open up even more the possibilities for group interaction, and some of this potential is being realized (see other articles in this book), but the commercial uses now being developed serve mostly the dominant group's interests. The logic of ruling-class men then leads to a technology that reflects ruling- class men's experience and view of reality. As mentioned earlier, this view of reality is, to a large extent, shared by other men in the society."[12]

Conflicts[edit | edit source]

"This theory focused on how the values that rival groups attach to political dominance relate to each other and to the technology of conflict. The ratio of the value that the initially politically dominant group attaches to being politically dominant to the value the potential challenger group attaches to being politically dominant was critical."[13]

Controls[edit | edit source]

"One way for the dominant group to secure control is through the utilization of technology."[14] rather than the use of "middle- and lower-level supervisors, research and development scientists, and janitors."[14]

Educations[edit | edit source]

“However, skepticism about the educational value of the Internet and technology generally should not imply that language educators should abandon the playing field to corporate or any other dominant group interests.”[15]

Gender bias[edit | edit source]

"Add to that the convenience factor for the dominant group, and it becomes even more understandable. As Bacon postulated, science had led, through technology, to the "betterment of man's estate," and traditional gender roles helped pave the way."[16]

Regions[edit | edit source]

"The penetration of new computerized technologies system in terms of a dominant group of seven majors, into all stages of the motion-picture production and each of them vertically integrated across production, distribution process distribution and exhibition."[17]

Resources[edit | edit source]

”Redrawn from Re/. 12. levels of technology, the dominant group would have the option of moving on to fresh pastures as resources of any locality are exhausted, and would derive no advantage from traditions of sustainable, conservative use.”[18]

Superiorities[edit | edit source]

"[T]he technological superiority of European culture has, until recently, rendered the dominance of colonial groups secure."[19]

"Most dominant groups have been less fortunate. They have found themselves threatened, from the moment of their accession to power, not only by foreign invasion or domestic revolt but also by the insidious processes of assimilation which might, in the long run, destroy their distinctive powers and privileges. This threat was especially menacing when, as in most of the pre-machine age empires, the dominant and dominated groups differed little if at all in physical type."[19]

Hypotheses[edit | edit source]

  1. Competition based on technologies can often produce new dominant groups.

See also[edit | edit source]

References[edit | edit source]

  1. Read Bain, "Technology and State Government," American Sociological Review 2 (December 1937): 860.
  2. Donald A. MacKenzie and Judy Wajcman, "Introductory Essay" in The Social Shaping of Technology, 2nd ed. (Buckingham, England : Open University Press, 1999) ISBN 0-335-19913-5.
  3. Definition of technology. Merriam-Webster. Retrieved 2007-02-16. 
  4. Franklin, Ursula. Real World of Technology. House of Anansi Press. Retrieved 2007-02-13. 
  5. Stiegler, Bernard (1998). Technics and Time, 1: The Fault of Epimetheus. Stanford University Press. pp. 17, 82. ISBN 0804730415. 
  6. Stiegler, Bernard (2008). L'avenir du passé: Modernité de l'archéologie. La Découverte. p. 23. ISBN 2-7071-5495-4. 
  7. Industry, Technology and the Global Marketplace: International Patenting Trends in Two New Technology Areas. National Science Foundation. Retrieved 2007-05-07. 
  8. 8.0 8.1 Patrick McConvell (1990). "The linguistic prehistory of Australia: Opportunity for dialogue with archaeology". Australian Archaeology (31): 3-27. Retrieved 2011-08-27. 
  9. (5 December 2014). technology. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2015-01-01. 
  10. 10.0 10.1 Hyarmendacil (15 May 2013). engineering. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2016-05-29. 
  11. Uncle G (22 March 2005). engineering. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2016-05-29. 
  12. Margaret Lowe Benston (1988). Cheris Kramarae. ed. Women's voices/men's voices: Technology as language, In: Technology and women's voices: Keeping in touch. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul Inc.. pp. 12-22. ISBN 0-203-22193-1. Retrieved 2012-04-29. 
  13. Dmitriy Gershenson, Herschel I. Grossman (December 2000). "Civil Conflict Ended or Never Ending?". Journal of Conflict Resolution 44 (6): 808-22. doi:10.1177/0022002700044006006. Retrieved 2012-04-29. 
  14. 14.0 14.1 Richard M. Weiss (Spring 1988). "Will the Role of Managers Decline in the Corporation of the Future?". National Productivity Review 7 (2): 114-21. Retrieved 2012-04-29. 
  15. Jim Cummins (Autumn 2000). "Academic language learning, transformative pedagogy, and information technology: Towards a critical balance". TESOL Quarterly 34 (3): 537-48. Retrieved 2011-10-21. 
  16. William Kilbourne, Susan Weeks (1997). "A socio-economic perspective on gender bias in technology". Journal of Socio-Economics 26 (3): 243-60. doi:10.1016/S1053-5357(97)90018-4. Retrieved 2012-04-29. 
  17. Allen Scott (2002). "A new map of Hollywood: the production and distribution of American motion pictures". Regional Studies 36 (9): 957-75. doi:10.1080/0034340022000022215. Retrieved 2013-10-10. 
  18. Madhav Gadgil (December 1987). "Diversity: cultural and biological". Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2 (12): 369-73. doi:10.1016/0169-5347(87)90138-8. Retrieved 2011-10-21. 
  19. 19.0 19.1 Ralph Linton (April-June 1943). "Nativistic movements". American Anthropologist 45 (2): 230-40. doi:10.1525/aa.1943.45.2.02a00070. Retrieved 2011-07-26. 

External links[edit | edit source]

{{Dominant group}}