HOW TECHNOLOGY SHAPES CULTURE

How Technology shapes Culture 1

BY [NAME]

STC 540 - Critical Cultural Approaches to Social Technology

Arizona State University

October 22, 2021

How Technology shapes Culture

How Technology shapes Culture 2

Introduction

There has been an immense connection between culture and technology since the

emergence of technology and its advancement. Since the stone technology emerged to the

emergence of the Personal Digital Assistant (PDA), it is evident that technology has influenced

human culture to a greater extent. According to Philbeck and Davis (2018, p.17), since its

inception, technology has brought tremendous changes in human lifestyle worldwide by

regaining the critical aspects of culture. Technology has shaped cultural elements such as gender

matters, knowledge, and information. It has also brought about a struggle between disciplinary

and control societies through the influence of networked societies, leading to informality and

individualism. It has also reworked how people socialized with one another through diverse

technological innovations. It has led to mass production that was small-scale and family-based in

the old times. Technology is also perceived to influence how people consume goods and services

in society. The way people desired certain goods and services has been reworked by technology

through diverse technological factors such as the presence of the internet. Further, technology

has interconnected people in society like never before, creating a global village where people can

be quickly mobilized towards a common goal regardless of location. Indeed, over the years,

technology has shaped human culture to a greater extent, making it an important topic of

discussion in this essay. The essay explains how technology has influenced culture.

Technology and Gender Roles

Gender is a critical aspect of human culture. It shapes the way people behave, relate with

one another, and even perceive their world. Technology has influenced gender through its

diverse aspects, such as how it is understood, which has shaped human relations over the years.

According to Atanasoski and Vora (2019, p.2), technology has changed the engendered aspects

How Technology shapes Culture 3

of society such as manual labor, care work, and reproductive work blue-collar work in the

factories, among others. However, with the advancement in technology, Atanasoski and Vora

(2019, p.3) articulate that automation of these jobs divided based on gender has rendered the

issue of gender roles absolute. For instance, Atanasoski and Vora (2019, p.2) explain that the

tasks above were considered researched for the women, the colonized people, and the

uneducated members of society. However, the emergence of new technology, such as digital

technology, has brought innovations such as the Tec boom 2.0, the second machine age, artificial

intelligence, robotics, etc. According to Atanasoski and Vora (2019, p.3), these technologies

have ceased or eradicated the differentiation of tasks and jobs based on gender, which was

common in ancient cultures. It has led to the emergence of digital automation, which blurs the

engendered boundaries regarding work or tasks.

The issue of gender is a vital component of human culture. It influences the manner in

which individuals interpret, conduct themselves, and even understand their world. Technology

has affected gender in various ways including the way it is comprehended and this has impacted

human relations over the years. Atanasoski and Vora (2019, p.2) establish that technology altered

the engendered aspects of society, which included manual labor, care work, and reproductive

work blue-collar work in the factories among others. Nonetheless, as technical progress was

made, the automation of these gender-differentiated jobs has made the problem of gender role

absolute, according to Atanasoski and Vora (2019, p.3). As one example, Atanasoski and Vora

(2019, p.2) tell that the above-mentioned tasks were regarded as researched by the women,

colonized people, and the uneducated members of society. The advent of new technology,

including digital technology has however, introduced new innovations including Tec boom 2.0,

the second machine age, artificial intelligence, robotics, etc. These technologies have eliminated

How Technology shapes Culture 4

or avoided gender differentiation of tasks and jobs that was popular in the ancient societies

(Atanasoski and Vora, 2019, p.3). It has given rise to digital automation that obstructs the

boundaries that are engendered in terms of work or tasks.

Advancing technology in education has also altered the gender roles by changing the

technological confidence and involvement in technology among the male and female students.

Huffman, Whetten, and Huffman (2013, p.1780) established that female technology self-efficacy

was in most cases not a result of the abilities difference but a socialized gender expectation.

Female students are as digitally competent (or more so) than males when the educational settings

are specifically designed to minimize gender stereotyping. In addition, the better access to

helpful training programs and balanced classroom dynamics can overcome the technological

confidence gap. Learning technologies can be designed to support or remove gender bias based

on inclusivity and accessibility. Huffman et al. (2013, p.1783) assert that since digital learning

has become a dominant part of education, it is important to learn more about how the gendered

expectations influence engagement. The gender disparity in technology confidence might also be

reproduced in the professional field as a whole, particularly in the artificial intelligence and data

science-led ones, without any conscious action.

Even the attitudes toward the use of technology are gender oriented, and are usually

influenced by the cultural, psychological and social conditioning. According to Cai, Fan, and Du

(2017, p.4), men have more positive attitudes to use new technologies, mostly due to the

influence of the society on their use of tools and machines since early age. On the contrary, the

use of technology among women might be determined by community principles and utility view

as opposed to novelty. Interestingly the difference has been reduced with the increasing

integration of technology in both life and profession. As Cai et al. (2017, p.7) note, knowledge

How Technology shapes Culture 5

and exposure to digital contraptures can contribute highly to the confidence of women to use

technology. These findings suggest that there is no natural difference in attitudes, but all depend

on education and the workplace ethos as well as availability of resources. Therefore, policies

regarding the adoption of technology should take into account the gendered patterns of behavior

so as to establish an environment that will enable the empowerment of every user to act both

equally and creatively within the digital ecosystem.

In the professional and academia context, specifically the STEM areas, this gender gap in

participation and progression still manifests itself. Wang and Degol (2017, p.122) state that

despite the performances of both girls and boys being equal in early levels of studying science,

the cultural stereotypes of technological mastery continue to discriminate against girls, thus

making them not want to take up careers associated with STEM. Such gender difference

continues biases in technological innovation and design which restricts diversity in digital

systems. Wang and Degol (2017, p.126) postulate that role models and mentorship programs can

be used to overcome these barriers and provide visibility and validation to women in technology.

Also inclusive policies which encourage equal pay and representation in research institutions

have been associated with increased number of women in technical positions. It takes time to

overcome the systemic stereotypes and structural barriers and both education and task culture

investment is needed to solve the inequalities, which cannot be solved solely by technology

without planned reforming of the social system.

In addition to education and STEM, technology influences gender by being involved in

commerce and economic participation. Online entrepreneurship and e-business have emerged as

important means of helping the woman achieve financial freedom especially where gender

restraints are limited. Faqih and Jaradat (2015, p.39) argue that gender also instigates a strong

How Technology shapes Culture 6

difference in the case of adoption of mobile commerce since women tend to highly endorse trust

and social influence when dealing with digital markets. The emerged mobile banking and online

shopping systems have offered unmatched financial independence. Nevertheless, individualism

and collectivism are some of the cultural dimensions that have an unequal impact on the patterns

of its adoption in different societies (Faqih and Jaradat, 2015, p.44). Technology brings not only

gender roles transformation by allowing women to conduct business outside the conventional

frameworks but also social power systems by making them more inclusive, thus forming more

viable economic biosystems.

Gender identities are now being performed, challenged and rebuilt in the social media

and online spaces. Digital spaces give a platform of self-expressed or empowered gender, but

replicate the existing gender inequality via online harassment and algorithmic bias (Cai et al.,

2017, p.10). As an example, the online activity is more likely to be lower, as females tend to be

disproportionately judged about the looks or tone of voice in comparison with male peers at

work. Huffman et al. (2013, p.1785) claim that this online world has the capacity to disrupt

traditional gender appeals as well as support them based on the manner in which sites mediate

interactions. Still, as Faqih and Jaradat (2015, p.47) point out, the participation of women in the

digital business and networking makes them more visible, which helps to redefine gender norms.

Therefore, although technology creates room of voice and agency, the balance of participation is

susceptible in case of deliberate policy, design ethics, and social responsibility.

Technology, Knowledge, and Information Handling

Technology has shaped culture through other cultural aspects such as information and

knowledge. The way information was handled, transferred, stored, and the way knowledge was

acquired and transmitted utilized has changed due to technological advancements. According to

How Technology shapes Culture 7

Tiqqun (2001, p.27), cybernetics has changed how knowledge and information are handled and

used for both present and future purposes. Technology brought significant changes in the

handling of knowledge and information. Peters (1988, p.13) explains how the ideas of war, such

as homeostasis, communication, and feedback, became the general model through which

humans, mental health, machines could work for better results. Before the world war and even

before the modern age, information handling was solely based on communicating orally,

memorizing, and recalling information. However, digital technologies led to the transformation

of information into form, directed to the human beings allowing them to connect. Its regulation,

storage, and retrieval mechanisms through computer technology have allowed human beings to

use information and knowledge from the present effectively. The past to predict the future

(Tiqqun, 2001, p.31). In other words, Tiqqun (2001, p.28) explains that technology has brought

about the integration of machines into human thinking, making the objects speak, shaping the

power relations in contemporary society. It has created a hybrid social arrangement in

communities by creating a hybrid man-machine culture (Tiqqun, 2001, p.28). It is evident from

the above arguments that technology has revolutionized human culture by handling knowledge

and information.

Digitization of knowledge eco-systems has challenged the way organisations obtain,

process and utilise external knowledge. As noted by Trantopoulos et al. (2017, p.289) when

companies combine high level of information technologies with the external knowledge

networks, companies, to a great degree, amplify their innovative capability because of the

intellectual resources at their disposal. This development is a transition to networked knowledge

economies in which isolation is substituted by cooperation and interdependence. These benefits

however lie on the interpretive ability of the organization-the capacity to read data into

How Technology shapes Culture 8

actionable insight. According to Trantopoulos et al. (2017, p.292), knowledge is divided and

underutilised in the event that technological infrastructures do not facilitate open exchange. Such

a disintegration proves that technology itself cannot bring innovation unless the culture is ready

to collaborate and exchange the knowledge. As a consequence of this, the modern organization

does not operate as a closed system but is a permeable organism to which its progress relies on

the unceasing flow of information. Technology changes the character of organizational

intelligence by intensifying this process of exchange of fluids, making learning and adaptation to

be central in terms of competitive survival.

Another aspect to knowledge management is in the technological, cognitive and

conscious interaction. In Parsons et al. (2014, p.168), overall it was demonstrated that the

knowledge systems of digital security directly depend upon the knowledge that employees have

about it. The most high-performance technologies cannot be resilient to error, abuse or

manipulation even in cases of human awareness, which is weak. Such interdependence of human

behavior with technical systems shows the vicious cycle of the contemporary culture: the smarter

technology becomes, the more unethically unaware the knowledge ecosystem. The organization

culture that involves the inclusion of information security in its culture cultivates a sense of

shared responsibility and resilience (Parsons et al., 2014, p.170). This kind of integration makes

information management neither a technical undertaking nor an ethical and groupish exercise of

stewardship. In addition, the wise choice to foster cybersecurity literacy boosts cognitive control

and trust in online systems (Parsons et al, 2014, p.172). Technology is therefore a source of

efficiency as well as a reflection of moral and mental grown-ups in the knowledge societies.

The effects of the technological nature to the knowledge management extends to the

competition as well as strategic advantage sphere. Mao et al. (2016, p.1064) argue that the

How Technology shapes Culture 9

knowledge based advantage in organizations that have high technological capability is only

achieved by resource commitment in instances where the digital investment is consistent with the

resource commitment. Such orientation facilitates this culture of adaptive knowledge as

technology stimulates and does not substitute the interpretation on human part. Organizations

become strategic when they devote themselves to the knowledge resources thus turning data into

innovative solutions as opposed to an inert storage (Mao et al., 2016, p.1066). On the other hand,

companies that do not use people to interpret their technical infrastructure are in a stalemate

position because the technology cannot be the one to innovate. The interaction between people,

processes, and platforms is therefore dynamic and therefore creates long-term sustainability.

Mao et al. (2016, p.1068) claim that such integration causes a strong loop of learning in

organizations wherein feedback and reflection leads to improved quality of decisions.

Eventually, the competitive environment has ceased to be based on the ownership of knowledge

to the capability of reinterpreting and refreshing the knowledge on a continuous basis.

The cultural roots of knowledge processing have been changed again by big data and

cloud analytics. Demirkan and Delen (2013, p.415) argue that service-oriented decision support

systems now fuse data analytics and cloud computing to produce real-time intelligence across

industries. The power for this, in turn, allows organizations to imitate scenarios, predict trends,

and even optimize operations. However, the transfer of the thinking processes to algorithms

changes the epistemological authority in such a way that the share of decision-making among

humans is reduced and computational systems take over. As Demirkan and Delen (2013, p.418)

indicate, this transformation requires novel ethical frameworks along with human supervision.

The difficulty is not in the computing ability but rather in the contextualizing of the algorithmic

insight. If there is no reflection when analytics guide the strategy, then the decision-making

How Technology shapes Culture 10

process becomes mechanistic and is stripped of cultural subtlety. By combining human judgment

with machine intelligence, the latter's strength is used but the former's responsibility is still

preserved. Therefore, big data technologies have the potential to simultaneously open up

information to a wider audience and pose challenges to societies as to how they should identify

the most credible knowledge in the computational age.

Technology is one of the greatest influences that have changed the cultural processes of

knowledge transmission. It is well-known that teachers' information and communication

technology skills significantly influence the extent of students' engagement with digital learning

environments (Almerich et al., 2016, p.113). The technological skills, however, should always be

combined with pedagogical skills if one is to get genuine learning outcomes. The relationship

between the learner and the teacher changes when the content is accessed via digital devices as

teachers turn to be knowledge curators rather than just transmitters (Almerich et al., 2016,

p.116). This change shifts education to a dialogic process whereby knowledge is co-constructed

and updated on a regular basis. Almerich et al. (2016, p.118) argue that ICT training of teachers

results in students' acquisition of digital literacy skills to become critical and thus, capable of

handling complex information in a responsible way in future. Such a cultural shift makes

education not only an instrument for the delivery of knowledge but also the means through

which learners are equipped with the ability to discern and with ethical awareness. Hence,

technology turns education into a living system of collaboration and inquiry that matches

society's intellectual needs and is subject to change over time.

Technologically, knowledge management has moved from being a mere feature to a

structural feature of modern culture at the level of cities and industries. According to Komninos

(2013, p.21), smart cities are systems that are interlinked by digital networks, innovation

How Technology shapes Culture 11

ecosystems, and civic participation which together form continuous learning environments. In

such cities, data are not only the foundation but also the currency that determine urban policy

and economic activities. According to Noy et al. (2019, p.51), large-scale industry knowledge

graphs are a case in point of this transformation as they connect vast and ever-growing datasets

which allow machine-supported reasoning and collaborative discovery. The interaction of such

systems helps in the democratization of expertise whereby individuals and institutions are

enabled to co-create solutions beyond disciplinary boundaries (Noy et al., 2019, p.54). However,

the same gathering of informational power can, nevertheless, double digital inequality if

governance and access are left unleveled. Komninos (2013, p.25) cautions that smart cities that

are sustainable depend on digital cultures that are open, transparent, and participatory. In effect,

knowledge infrastructures that are technology-driven are at the core of the redefinition of

citizenship.

Technology and Societal Structure

Society is organized in a hierarchical manner where there is a way that regulates how

people relate. For instance, there are those with authority and subordinate members supposed to

follow specific rules and regulations. However, technology has brought about impersonal

systems in society, which have displaced the authority that existed in the ancient cultures

creating a struggle between disciplinary and control society. (Lee, 2020, p.24) In other words,

the argument above indicates that the community was used to the hierarchical dispensation of

control. Still, technology has changed how things worked before by bringing impersonal systems

with infrastructures, protocols, and systems which modulate the flow of activities in society,

unlike in the old ages. Email etiquette is an excellent example. It demonstrates the disciplinary

and control societies struggle through behaviors and regulations such as addressing authority,

How Technology shapes Culture 12

correspondence, and even educational matters. Further, Prior (2018, p.66) explains that through

networked societies, technology has led to the decentralization of hierarchies in society and the

flattening of authority. Through networked societies, individualism and informativity are

encouraged. People are free to do whatever they want based on their enthusiasm, taste, and style

(Prior, 2018, p.66). Therefore, technology has encouraged individualism and informality

through networked societies. As a result, it decentralizes societies' cultural hierarchies, causing a

struggle between disciplinary and control societies.

The impact of technology on social hierarchy has led the institutional organization to

change significantly in the case of education and professional systems. According to Almerich et

al. (2016, p.112), one of the effects of the teachers' technological competence is the

reorganization of the authority structures in the learning environments where expertise is more

important than seniority. Such a change echoes a larger societal trend where proficiency in

digital skills, rather than the traditional rank, is what determines the status and influence. In case

teachers with advanced ICT skills take other teachers under their wing, they break down the old

hierarchies which depended on tenure or position. Besides, technology allows the formation of

collaborative learning communities which have fewer administrative layers and thus are closer to

the employees. Almerich et al. (2016, p.116), these kinds of forms of organization lead to more

adaptability and shared governance in institutions. However, the problem of retaining coherence

and accountability arises as authority gets more distributed. The cultural implication is that, in

technologically mediated societies, knowledge rather than hierarchy is what increasingly defines

legitimacy. This new paradigm is an example of a cultural recalibration where digital fluency is

the main way of authority and trust instead of formality.

How Technology shapes Culture 13

On a large scale, the development of "intelligent cities" is a case in point of how tech is

changing the way power is distributed in people's everyday life in cities. To a certain extent,

Komninos (2013) defines intelligent cities as systems of governance, innovation, and

information infrastructures, which, by their interaction, create adaptive urban environments

(p.22). Such cities are characterized by the shift of control from the conventional centralized

bureaucracies to the vibrant digital platforms that can learn and react to the needs of citizens.

This decentralized model redefines the bond between the government and the community, thus

the emergence of those participatory governance. Komninos (2013, p.25) state that on the other

hand, the digital infrastructure has the potential to create new social strata that are predicated on

the access to data and technical literacy. Individuals with better digital skills are more likely to

have influence over urban systems, while the disadvantaged groups, on the other hand, may

become totally excluded. The reshuffling of power in intelligent cities is thus a paradox, on the

one hand, it is a source of empowerment and on the other hand, it is a cause of inequality. From a

cultural point of view, the intelligent city is the emblematic model of a modern society, where

technology is the mediator of power through connectivity and algorithmic governance rather than

through physical control.

The move to digital has changed how organizations communicate internally and how they

share power. According to Leonardi, Huysman, and Steinfield (2013, p.3), the use of enterprise

social media has redefined the relationship between formal hierarchies and informal

collaborations. Now, employees are able to exchange information on the same level, thus the

upper management is less of a monopoly over the decision-making process. The change not only

introduces transparency but also puts in question the managers' control–power. As per Leonardi

et al. (2013, p.5), such communication tools generate different kinds of communication spaces in

How Technology shapes Culture 14

which the personal and professional interaction merge. Consequently, the authority in such a

work environment is more subject to being operated via the involvement and recognition of the

individuals rather than being imposed by the hierarchy. While the growth of employee

empowerment has been parallel to the expansion of employee surveillance, these digital tools

that make the organization more transparent to employees are at the same time recording the

employees' behavior in a very detailed manner. This ambivalence uncovers the status of

technology as a tool which, on the one hand, is a means of democratization and, on the other

hand, an instrument of disciplining. The cultural outcome is a significant reconfiguration of

power that is marked by the replacement of the traditional ways of commanding by the

networked influence and algorithmic visibility.

Technological innovation systems open up a different aspect of social change beyond

what has already been known. Bergek et al. (2015, p.54) stress that these systems are heavily

dependent on interrelated networks of companies, governments, and universities that generate

and maintain innovation. As technology permeates different institutional settings, it not only

diminishes the possibility of a tightly controlled center but also facilitates the spread of

coordination among various actors. According to Bergek et al. (2015, p.54), this level of

connectivity also entails a set of systemic dependencies that may, in turn, expose the system to

greater risks. The failure of one node to the innovation network thus may cause the entire system

to undergo interruption (Bergek et al., 2015, p.58). This interplay is akin to wider social shifts

wherein the equilibrium is maintained through collaboration rather than control. In fact,

technological innovation systems are the very examples of how culture moves away from the

vertical hierarchies of power towards relational governance. Bergek et al. (2015, p.60) suggest

that societies that engage in adaptive feedback and collective learning have a better capacity to

How Technology shapes Culture 15

absorb change. Technology is repositioning the core of structural power as a more fluid and

collaborative process with interdependence as the new basis of authority.

Grassroots innovation is another example that technology is a means of power

redistribution from the institutional elite to local communities. According to Smith, Fressoli, and

Thomas (2014, p.116), grassroots movements use cheap, locally suitable technologies to solve

social and environmental problems. These initiatives, unlike top-down innovation models, get

their legitimacy from the collective participation and the community being affected. Hence,

through such activities, technology turns into a cultural instrument for a more inclusive society

and the people's own rule. Smith et al. (2014, p.120) argue that these innovations frequently

transform local governance structures as they facilitate citizens' empowerment to influence

policy through technological skills. The endurance of these movements depends on their capacity

to engage with the wider institutional systems. Their triumph throws into question the dominant

narratives that link technological progress with the control of corporations or governments.

Smith, Fressoli, and Thomas (2014, p.116) says grassroots innovation engages society in a new

way by redefining social structure collaboration, agency and community-driven knowledge as

fundamental principles of social organization.

The industrial domain is an excellent example of technology’s restructuring effect being

visible. Leavitt (2013, p.1150) claims that the organizational hierarchies in industry have

changed from rigid, command-based models to fluid, information-driven networks. The

transformation of authority distribution and maintenance is what this change reflects. The

extensive use of digital communication means that decisions come from data analysis rather than

from the authoritative command (Leavitt, 2013, p.1155). However, decentralization of this kind

creates uncertainty as leadership is situational and collective. Adaptive organizations are the ones

How Technology shapes Culture 16

that successfully manage the technological autonomy and human accountability. The conflict

between technological control and human judgment as the new industrial ethos is based on a

return to the traits of flexibility and collaboration. According to Leavitt (2013, p.1158), this

change makes the differences between labor and management less clear, thus creating hybrid

professional identities. Hence, technology not only changes the industrial society structurally but

also co-culturally, by making adaptability and interdependence the characteristics of the modern

workplace.

Large-scale data systems at the informational frontier further complicate societal

hierarchies by redistributing knowledge authority. Noy et al. (2019, p.51) characterize industry-

scale knowledge graphs as technological architectures that connect diverse information

repositories across platforms and organizations. In this way, these systems permit decision-

making processes to be enlightened by collective intelligence instead of centralized expertise.

Nevertheless, Noy et al. (2019, p.53) caution that the control over data infrastructure can be used

to deepen corporate monopolies that tactics of dominance hierarchies just resurface again in a

subtle manner. Knowledge graphs' paradox is that they have the potential to democratize access,

yet they empower those who manage and interpret data. Hence, societies have to negotiate the

terms of open collaboration and proprietary control to be able to maintain equitable knowledge

ecosystems. The rise of such data-driven hierarchies is a signal of a deep cultural shift;

informational power, rather than traditional authority, becoming the main factor in the formation

of the new social relations of a modern society.

Technology and Social Interaction

Technology has revolutionized the way people socialize with one another. Before the

emergence of telecommunication technologies and even digital technology, communication

How Technology shapes Culture 17

between relatives, friends, family members, and even loved ones. Nisha and Ramesh (2019,

p.2643) assert that telecommunication and digital technology have allowed people to

communicate with loved ones, relatives, friends, and family members irrespective of distance. It

is an aspect that was different before telecommunication technology emerged as communication

and socialization could only occur in the physical presence of other people. Also, it has changed

how people work where people can work through the internet and even attend meetings through

teleconferences which never existed before World War I (Nisha & Ramesh, 2019, p.2643).

However, there has been a rising concern and heated debate regarding the negative impact of

technology on culture through socialization. Technology has disrupted the cultural norm of

people coming together for social events, which allowed them to bond, reconnect and benefit

from face-to-face communication. Nisha and Ramesh (2019, p.2644) argue that technology has

shaped culture by reworking people's social lives. It has negatively impacted people’s social

interactions and well-being by encouraging people to live far away from their family, loved ones,

friends, and relatives. However, Hill, Bennett, and Hunter (2021, p. 1359) indicate that the

benefits of technology on culture through socialization exceed the negative implications because

the benefits are more. It helps combat the effects brought by the dynamic nature of society.

Therefore, technology shapes culture by shaping people’s social interactions hence their social

life.

The change of the online interaction to the new forms has really shifted the way people

make and maintain relationships. The recent digital communication platforms have made it

possible to have complex relationships that involve emotional, intellectual, and cultural aspects.

These kinds of environments not only facilitate the continuous participation of individuals but

also change the concept of social presence in the virtual world. Trantopoulos et al. (2017, p.289)

How Technology shapes Culture 18

hold the view that information technologies broaden people's access to external knowledge

networks, hence individuals can create bonds based on the exchange of ideas rather than being

physically close. This move to the virtual world from the real one has a positive effect on the

number of people we can work with, however, there is a possibility of a call for the emotional

side of the social contact to be left when it becomes transactional. The change of the emotional

base of relationships to a highlight that the way technology changes the closeness it puts forward

the fact that the communication is more in the form of sharing than empathy. Most digital

platforms, on the one hand, are geared towards the quick exchange of information, and both

parties get to share the same view leaving out the emotional aspect of the interaction which is

being subtly redefined as intimacy. Also, as cited by Trantopoulos et al. (2017, p.293),

knowledge-oriented connectivity mostly involves cognitive stimulation and has less affective

interaction between humans. The problem of the relation between the bond and the emotions

here as a reorganization of the cultural expectations of friendship and social closeness. These

changes indicate a cultural shift whereby the social value depends more and more on one's

informational contribution rather than on the emotional reciprocity. Thus, through technology,

the author is changing the way people relate to each other and work together, by turning

relational depth into informational utility, a change that is at odds with traditional ideas of

community and belonging in present-day society.

The other place where technology is transforming social interaction is the workplace. The

digital tools are becoming the medium as well as the message of organizational culture and the

mediator of relationships via virtual platforms and collaborative systems. The outcome is work

environment where being close to each other is not as important as being visible and digitally

responsive. According to Mao et al. (2016, p.1065), digital systems reduce the distance between

How Technology shapes Culture 19

employees in physical and organizational dimensions through connection. It is this

interconnection that enhances knowledge exchange and group problem solving as well as leading

to obscured separation between professional and personal communication. This hybridization

between worlds requires the workers to perform dual personas one individual and one which is

algorithmically presentable within networked realms. Technological social relations made may

be tracked and there is a high likelihood of information gathered that can be utilized to control a

behavior. Mao et al. (2016, p.1067) explain that teamwork through technology must have

technical infrastructure and social trust. Such interaction of trust and transparency is redefining

the workplace ethics and putting digital behaviour in broader moral and cultural context.

However, digital trust is weak -it is based on the sense of privacy, fairness, and reciprocity. In

this regard, the contemporary work place transforms into a sociotechnical ecosystem where both

cooperation and control co-exist. Since organizations are introducing social technologies into

their functioning, the relations between people are transformed into the hybrid version of

communication that includes emotional expression and algorithmic control, thus redefining the

social culture of work.

Gender has remained an intermediary through which technology is shaping socialization

especially in the digital realm. Online networks, cultural scripts determine the visibility, power,

and social demands that individuals give to get meaning of their experiences in gendered ways.

Technology thus not only serves as a channel of communication but also a tool of reproduction

or trouble-making social hierarchies. According to Cai, Fan, and Du (2017, p.5), the attitudes

towards the use of technology vary between men and women, which can be presented through

the more general social expectations and trainees. These disparities have an effect on how people

join Internet discussion and social construction of their identities. These distinctions prove the

How Technology shapes Culture 20

overlap of gender roles with digital literacy, which stipulate the tendencies of empowerment and

exclusion in the virtual world. There is also a possibility of putting women under increased

demands of performing emotional work across the digital realms as compared to men who are

more likely to be placed in roles that are attributed to the expertise in technology. This kind of

gendered differentiation like the one advanced by Huffman, Whetten, and Huffman (2013,

p.1781) gives muscle to such social tendencies during the offline communication. This

interrelation is important because it offers insights on how to make digital construction that

encourages non-duplication and non-reinactment of inequality measureable. Nevertheless, the

digital technologies also enable to challenge such hierarchies through providing the ability of

inclusive and participatory communication (Cai et al., 2017, p.10). The interaction between

gender and technology and communication then creates a dynamic field of empowerment and

constraint co-existing. It is in this light that technology is viewed as a mirror and a platform of

cultural negotiation between gendered social norms.

Social mobilization has also been enlarged by digital communication technologies,

increasing the scale and speed thereof. The real-time flow of information has changed the mode

of community gathering, protesting, and cooperation. The virtual networks have become

common as squares and platforms of civic identity formation. In accordance with Wang and

Degol (2017, p.127), online platforms provide opportunities to cooperate among genders,

disciplines and geographical locations that transforms collective action organizing as a

community. Social activism and civic involvement have been reinvented by the capacity of

mobilizing at extremely fast rates due to dissemination of shared information. In these new forms

of interaction, what can be seen is an increased dependence of activism on the online world of

literacy and tactical presence online. As the number of individuals who are getting involved with

How Technology shapes Culture 21

the digital world increases, it has created a risk of superficial involvement as well. Trantopoulos

et al. (2017, p.291) insist that overload of information can water down the commitment so that

there is what scholars refer to as networked individualism in which an individualistic expression

is made more prominent than collective solidarity. This is a paradox which demonstrates a more

profound conflict between self-promotion and common cause in the online groups. As a

promotional instrument, however, no other means has as great communicative power as

technology. It has also allowed the voices of the marginalized to go beyond the gatekeeping

mechanisms (Wang and Degol, 2017, p.130). Therefore the role of technology in performing

social interaction is not simply attached to some form of connection but rather it forms a new

kind of cultural force that determines the ways societies deliberate, organize and actualize social

change.

Mobile technologies have grown to be part of our daily communication and this has

created a culture of constant connectivity. People in the modern world are left to live in a socially

isolated world where being connected is an unnatural aspect and continuous access is entirely the

norm. Such constant interaction makes communication a need and a liability. According to Faqih

and Jaradat, consumption has been transformed by mobile commerce and communication

technologies (2015, p.41), so have interpersonal communication styles. The 24-hour access has

created a paradox of proximity and burnout where one feels that they are both connected and

exhausted. Such effects can be used to understand how convenience is being used to compromise

the reflective distance that supports emotional well-being. This process is indicative of greater

cultural shifts regarding the importance of immediate response and responsiveness of

relationships to people. According to Faqih and Jaradat (2015, p.45) gender and cultural

orientation mediate the adjustment of individuals to mobile technology and it is evident that not

How Technology shapes Culture 22

all individuals anticipate accessibility of mobile technology among the different social groups.

These results highlight the manner in which social etiquette is transforming to some sort of

temporal discipline in which time and attention have become social currencies. These variations

can affect the ways individuals define social responsibility in the digital age- when one does not

respond quickly they may be seen to be socially disengaged. Such cultural effects of mobile

interaction are therefore not only about the convenience; they reestablish the presence on

emotions and rework the social etiquette creating a new kind of both intimacy and alienation.

Technology has also been determined to have an impact in the construction and

representation of social identity through the digital platforms. Visualizing surfacing through

visibility, feedback, and algorithm suggestion, social media has transformed the process of

identity formation into a cycle. The need to remain consistent in the authentic and performed self

expression is increased with the convergence between online and offline realities. As Parsons et

al. (2014, p.168) emphasize, values regarding online security and online privacy are directly

related and so affect the identity regime applied by individuals. When individuals understand that

their behaviours are traceable, then they resort to strategic self-presentation, which is a mix of

sincerity and attentiveness. This consciousness is an indicator of transformation to self-

surveillance as a mode of social membership. This renders the social environment performative,

in which people negotiate on the visibility and vulnerability. Parsons et al. (2014, p.170) would

continue to suggest that the digital literacy allows one to deal with such tensions through

knowing the risks and affordances of the technological interaction. This literacy also improves

emotional intelligence to enable users read through social cues in mediated settings. In so much

awareness, the users learn how to be open and yet to protect themselves. Technology can

therefore encourage a kind of reflective socialization - wherein building relationships requires a

How Technology shapes Culture 23

perplexing and always negotiated fabric of trust, identification, and privacy in the surveillance-

infested terrain of digital life.

The power of technology on social interaction is even spread to the emotional and

cognitive aspects of human connection. Human sense of belonging is becoming more and more

closely connected with the ability to navigate the complexity of the digital world and

representation of emotions at the same time. Online communication necessitates novel empathy,

temporal and tonal literatures. Huffman et al. (2013, p. 1783) postulate that the level of self-

efficacy that people have towards technology would dictate the quality of their online interaction

and feeling of belonging. Individuals who are changed to competent with digital tools develop

higher levels of social confidence and those who feel less comfortable might retreat, creating

further social divisions. There is the emotional burden of competence, that the ability to operate

digitally has turned into a key social characteristic. Such a dynamic generates what can be

termed as "technological stratification of social networks. According to Mao et al. (2016,

p.1068), inequality in digital skills is closely associated with social capital, which determines

individuals joining the virtual community meaningfully. The interrelationship between ability

and availability, therefore, shows that technology increases connection as well as exclusion. The

outcome is a hierarchical culture that is not grounded on classes or geographical location but

technological fluency. However, through adequate education, and equal availability, technology

can also be used to close these gaps forming spaces of empathy and co-operation. The digital era

of social interaction is still an aspect of greater cultural spaces between power, accessibility, and

human connection.

Technology and Production

How Technology shapes Culture 24

The culture of a community hinges on aspects such as producing goods such as food,

where diverse cultures have diverse and distinct methods of producing food. It is an aspect that

technology has influenced to a greater extent. Burley (2010, n.d.) postulates that industrialization

in America and Britain, for instance, led to the invention of machines that manufacture food and

other goods. Unlike in the pre-industrial era, technology has led to the mass production and

manufacture of goods, food, clothing, and other products (Burley, 2010, n.d.). It has made

workers more skilled and more productive than ever before due to effective and efficient tools

and machines. Technology has improved the skills and the productivity of the local artisans

created jobs as it led to the emergence of factories and machinery. For example, in America,

people purchase processed food, goods, and products from stores and supermarkets, which has

replaced the need to make tailor-made clothes. Also, the hand-making of food, clothes, and other

products led to an immense waste of time and resources. Still, with the emergence of technology,

mass production has become possible in a short period and excellent quality and standards

(Burley, 2010, n.d.). Therefore, technology has shaped culture by introducing mass production

made possible by new machines and production processes.

Technological innovation systems have changed production from isolated industrial

processes to interconnected ecosystems of learning and adaptation. Bergek et al. (2015, p.53)

describe how modern production depends on networks that integrate firms, researchers, and

policymakers to stimulate innovation across sectors. These systems move the emphasis from

single inventions to the complex interactions that provide the continuation of technological

progress. Such systems' collaborative character ensures production and innovation are constantly

fed back into each other, thus innovation being responsive to environmental and market

pressures. Bergek et al. (2015, p.57) affirm that production systems' performance is a function of

How Technology shapes Culture 25

not only technology but also institutions that facilitate knowledge exchange. This change

challenges and alters cultural expectations of productivity by cooperation being the main

principle rather than competition. Consequently, production becomes a social as well as a

technological one, in which collective intelligence is the main driver of efficiency. In allowing

innovation to become part of culture, technology has the power to turn production into a living,

adaptive entity which is able to co-evolve with society instead of just getting back to it.

Big data and analytics have revolutionized the process of production decision-making by

integrating a new dimension of intelligence into industrial systems. According to Demirkan and

Delen (2013, p.415), cloud-based decision support systems enable enterprises to rapidly sift

through massive data volumes, hence they are able to not only manage their manufacturing in a

cost-effective way but also to initiate the creation of new products. Such systems become the

agents for doubt removal and are also means for high-precision-driven planning that is spreading

all over the supply chain. However, the reliance on predictive algorithms raises questions about

human rights and the interpretative judgment of humans in production. As Demirkan and Delen

(2013, p.418) emphasize, combining analytics with human proficiency is the way to keep

production ethical and sensitive to the surrounding context. This hybrid method changes the

concept of data-driven logic and creative intuition being two separate things, which is a cultural

evolution where computer and human decision-making are two different levels of the same

system. Hence, apart from technology merely increasing the output, it is also reshaping the

epistemology of production, changing the way societies understand value, efficiency, and

creativity in the industrial sphere.

Knowledge representation technologies have changed metaresearch to be highly

explainable in signal and have also changed industrial production to be similarly transparent.

How Technology shapes Culture 26

According to Noy et al. (2019, p.50) industry-scale knowledge graphs are the best next tools to

link the most complex data from multiple-third parties to achieve the smartest and fastest

decision-making in the production units. Such systems grant the holistic interaction between

product design, logistics, and market analytics under a single informational model. Nevertheless,

as Noy et al. (2019, p.54) warn, dominance in the data structuring can result in the

monopolization of power among the few big-firms, thus the power to decide the direction of

industrial innovation. The raising of this concentration problem gives rise to ethical and cultural

issues of transparency and accessibility. But at the same time, knowledge graphs when used

properly, serve as a vehicle for sectoral collaborative learning and industries can co-evolve

through shared information. They are not just a technological breakthrough but a cultural one,

changing industrial production into a collective cognition exercise where knowledge sharing

becomes another way of value creation and social participation.

Technology and Consumption

The consumption of goods and services in a society is a cultural aspect as cultural norms

and regulations regulate the way people consume goods and services. However, the

technological changes in society have changed how people consume goods and services.

According to Burley (2010, n.d.), technology has brought about new consumption behaviors in

America and other parts of the world as manufactured goods permeate all regions of the globe.

New technologies have made it possible to produce goods in large quantities, good quality, and

at lower prices, increasing consumption (Burley, 2010, n.d.). The other factor is expanding the

consumption of goods and services through technologies that allow investors to set up retail

stores, supermarkets, groceries, cereals stores, and others (Buerley, 2010, n.d.). It has eased the

burden of transportation which limited consumption in the past. Further, technology has allowed

How Technology shapes Culture 27

people to order everything they need under one roof and even make catalogs. It has made it easy

for customers to locate and purchase large quantities of goods in a short period under the same

store. It is evident from the arguments above that technology has influenced culture immensely

by shaping its essential component of consumption by allowing mass production to take place.

Technological innovation has essentially changed consumption in a major way by

affecting the latter to be not merely an economic act but a social act, which is also data-driven.

Leavitt (2013, p.1152) states that when companies introduce new technological systems,

consumer behavior changes along with changes in industrial production and service delivery. As

a result of this change in consumer behavior, cultural norms get redefined with respect to speed,

convenience, and personalization. With the help of technology, producers can use algorithmic

insights to anticipate consumer preferences and thus, data collection and consumption become

the two sides of the same coin. Actually, Leavitt (2013, p.1156) emphasizes that these kinds of

systems have merged production and consumption so deeply that now consumers are online

interaction and feedback they are co-creating value. This change constitutes a cultural shift

towards participatory consumption which is to say that people are not only users but also

contributors. The technological mediation of everyday choices is a proof of how consumption

has ceased to be merely the purchasing of goods but rather a performance of one's identity and

engagement. Technology essentially makes the consumer an active participant within the

production ecosystem thus the social aspect of consumption being redefined is at the core of

modern culture.

The success of digital infrastructures has been one of the major factors that led to the

integration of consumption systems with information systems. According to Noy et al. (2019,

p.49) industry knowledge graphs at a large scale are the key that opens the door for companies to

How Technology shapes Culture 28

merge and scrutinize huge data sets related to consumer behavior, preferences, and purchasing

patterns. These are the means to carry out hyper-personalized marketing strategies which, in fact,

are the mechanisms that determine what individuals see, want, and ultimately purchase.

Therefore, the use of such systems is very effective and is the main reason for the new

asymmetry phenomenon that has occurred in the area of corporations and consumers where

knowledge is the main currency of influence. As a result, Noy et al. (2019, p.54) give an example

of the control over data infrastructures that is what gives companies not only the cultural

authority to be trendsetters but also the power to invent consumer aspirations. The corollary of

such reign, however, inevitably invites ethical questions about transparency and autonomy in

digital consumption environments. Noy et al. (2019, p.49) says these technologies have the

potential to empower consumers if they are implemented correctly by offering consumers

options that are sustainable, informed, and value-driven. If data through the use of technology

becomes a source of negotiation, consumption will be the meeting point of culture, ethics, and

information politics.

Besides reshaping large-scale consumption, technology has also made it possible for local

and community-based alternatives to thrive, which in turn, challenge global consumerism. In

their paper, Smith, Fressoli, and Thomas (2014, p.117) state that the grassroots innovation

movements promote the sustainable forms of consumption when they make use of technological

tools in tune with their social and environmental values. These kinds of projects, such as local

food networks and digital cooperatives, are not only the cultural resistance to the consumption

patterns that have been industrialized, but also the redefinition of consumption as care and

reciprocity rather than accumulation. As Smith et al. (2014, p.120) point out, these movements

employ technology to spread out the production potential among different communities, thus,

How Technology shapes Culture 29

access to goods and services becomes less centralized. This move toward democratization of

technology opens up the way for consumers to become creators, hence cutting the need for

global supply chains. On the other hand, keeping these models alive necessitates the

embracement of innovation with social participation and policy support. The cultural shift is

major: technology, when community ethics is its home, has the power to change consumption

from a private one into a collective act of sustainability and solidarity.

On the organizational level, the use of digital communication tools has changed the social

dynamics of consumption. According to Leonardi, Huysman, and Steinfield (2013, p.2),

enterprise social media provide companies with the means to communicate directly with

consumers, thus enabling new forms of conversational marketing and brand co-creation. These

technologies remove the walls of the traditional producer-audience relationship, thus turning

consumption into an ongoing dialogue. These platforms, therefore, become the soil where

communities around products grow, in which loyalty and identity are nurtured through digital

participation. As Leonardi et al. (2013, p.6) put it, the embedding of social media in business

models gives consumers the power to influence corporate strategies by means of feedback and

visibility. This interplay changes the power relations between corporations and consumers, thus

public opinion becomes the main driver of innovation. Nevertheless, this openness also turns into

a means of issuing social interactions into a commodity since engagement is becoming a

quantifiable form of value. The interconnection between communication and consumption is an

indication of a larger cultural trend: technology, in this case, is actually embedding social

belonging within the marketplace, thus transforming ordinary participation into both expression

and economic activity.

Technology and Global Connectivity

How Technology shapes Culture 30

As argued by scholars, technology has made the world a global village as it has

connected the people through effective communication, sharing of ideas, opinions, and other

ways, making mobilization easier. Philbeck and Davis (2018, p.18) assert that technology has

shaped human culture by transforming how people communicate with each other through a

language they can understand at a higher speed and cost-effective manner. For example,

technology has brought digital communication platforms such as social media,

telecommunication devices, the internet, and others, which allow people to connect and mobilize

globally. A good example is the mobilization of people across the globe by the Black Lives

Matter Movement in their various protests, such as the protest against the murder of George

Floyd. Through social media and other digital platforms, people communicated shared their

opinions and bitterness about his murder. They even mobilized themselves into social networks

and groups which protested both online and in the streets of the cities across the globe (Philbeck

and Davis, 2018, p.19). Technology has also brought about the emergence of online and offline

communication channels. These channels inform people about what is happening worldwide,

making people take a collective action based on the transmitted information. Through such

technological platforms, technology has shaped culture by mobilizing people to control their

behavior which is a core aspect of culture.

Interconnectedness around the world has not only altered the manner with which we

communicate but has also affected to a significant extent the knowledge exchange across

borders. Trantopoulos et al. (2017, p.289) argue that the incorporation of external source of

knowledge is made faster with the use of information technology, therefore organizations or

individuals are able to receive information that is beyond their geographical or cultural

boundaries. The effect of this is the fall of the old space and time barriers and thus creating a

How Technology shapes Culture 31

global knowledge ecosystem where ideas can collaboratively evolve. However, there are some

concerns that are associated with democratization of knowledge which include the problem of

information overload and the problem of credibility. According to Trantopoulos et al. (2017,

p.293), the global networks are susceptible to the misinformation magnification without

institutions capable of guaranteeing the quality of the information. These transformations

demonstrate that global connectivity is not on access but discernment as well. It has transformed

the learning process into a decentralized and interactive learning process in which the user is

expected to strike a balance between the speed of the learning process and the critical reflections.

Consequently, the cultural effect of technology is not merely in its capability to unite but also in

the manner in which it confounds the epistemological ideology of the users that becomes more

global, flexible, and critical because of the ability to share or exchange the information on the

planet.

The cultural logic of mobility and work has also been changed due to the growth of

connectivity that has been catalyzed by technology. Mao et al. (2016, p.1065) claim that

information technologies help the organizations to improve their ability to coordinate across

borders establishing flexible and hybrid work environments. This interwoven nature provides the

professionals with an opportunity of working together in real time without regard to time and

place. Nevertheless, collaboration processes covert boundaries between local and global

identities using the same mechanisms. In the same way Mao et al. (2016, p.1067) explain that

global information infrastructures spread knowledge disparately favoring those who are digitally

fluent and have access. This disparity establishes emanation of fresh levels of participation,

whereby connectivity is a privilege. Mao et al. (2016, p.1067) says global networks may support

inclusive innovation when wisely used to take advantage of other perspectives and cultural

How Technology shapes Culture 32

practices. The culture of globalized work thereof is paradoxical in that technology is empowering

and interdependent on people at the same time, as it is enslaving them in transnational networks

of it all. Connectivity around the world, in that manner, redefines the organization as well as

morals of contemporary work.

Mobile and cloud technologies have increased the urgency of the global interaction even

greater. According to Demirkan and Delen (2013, p.414), service-oriented decision systems used

in cloud computing facilitate the straightforward movement of data and communication

processes across the institutions and nations. This has enabled digital globalization not only to be

a social phenomenon but also to be a necessity. These systems lead to a faster way of making

decisions and coordination in business, administration and education. However, with more

dependence on cloud systems, according to Demirkan and Delen (2013, p.418), the issue of data

sovereignty and privacy becomes a problem since the information can be transversed through

various legal jurisdictions. Such tensions highlight the fact that connectivity is empowering and

disabling at the same time- it helps to improve efficiency and make governance more difficult.

Global culture should then be able to bargain on the advantages of the open data exchange and

the threats of surveillance and control. The power of technology to connect people is therefore

subject to the ability to uphold ethical structures that could ensure that independence is upheld

despite the interdependence of digital reality.

With the spread of global mobile technologies, not only cultural identity but also social

norms have changed. According to Faqih and Jaradat (2015, p.40), the cultural orientation of an

individual, e.g. whether the person belongs to an individualistic or collectivist culture, impacts

the adoption and use of mobile technologies thus the people engaged in the mobile technologies.

Therefore, worldwide connectivity does not make culture disappear; rather, it shows that culture

How Technology shapes Culture 33

is still a very complex concept. In a collectivist culture, mobile communication is a means of

strengthening the community, while in an individualist society, it mainly serves to increase one’s

personal freedom. Moreover, Faqih and Jaradat (2015, p.45) say that technology is like a bridge

between global standardization and local uniqueness, which leads to the emergence of hybrid

cultural practices. These trends indicate that connectivity is not a process which leads to the same

result everywhere but rather a negotiation zone where cultural identities conform to the digital

mediation. In addition, worldwide mobile communication paves the way for the establishment of

transnational networks, which in turn, transforms the concepts of kinship, activism, and

consumption. The Impact of technology on global culture can be traced in the new forms of

belonging that are at the same time global in terms of their reach and local in terms of their

meaning.

As a result, global connectivity calls for different kinds of understanding and a sense of

duty when using digital technologies. Parsons et al. (2014, p.168) state that being aware of

information security measures is one of the main factors that help to keep trust in interconnected

networks. In a global network where information is easy to access, social stability is dependent

on the ethical and cognitive engagement of the users with technology. However, awareness has

not been spread evenly and thus, there are vulnerabilities that cross beyond national borders.

Therefore, as Parsons et al. (2014, p.171) note, raising digital literacy at different cultural levels

is the only way to make sure that connectivity is a source of empowerment rather than a means

of exploitation. Becoming aware of this requires education systems and organizations to have

technological ethics as a part of the global learning frameworks. The result is a new digital

citizenship that is based on the shared accountability for the common good of the global network.

By far, technology is not just a means to people’s connection but it also changes the moral

How Technology shapes Culture 34

agency concept thus, global connectivity becomes a cultural project of shared responsibility and

ethical innovation.

Technology and Digital Ethics

The deep integration of technology into our lives has raised complicated ethical issues,

ranging from privacy violations to algorithmic bias. Parsons et al. (2014, p.169) state that being

digitally aware and having ethical literacy are the main factors that help preserve trust and

integrity in highly connected societies. However, as more and more automated systems are used

to mediate human judgment, ethical decision-making is hidden within code rather than being part

of a person's conscience. Demirkan and Delen (2013, p.417) say that big data systems which

have the capacity to increase efficiency are usually designed in a way that they give priority to

computational logic over the moral side of the issue. The transfer of moral reasoning from

humans to machines changes the definition of accountability and agency in cultural systems.

These changes in technology show a paradox: on the one hand, technology has the power to

promote transparency, but on the other hand, it can make it difficult to see who is responsible.

Komninos (2013, p.27) points out that smart cities and digital infrastructures should be built with

ethical design principles if they are to preserve civic fairness and participation. Hence the need

for ethical frameworks that will keep up with technological advances in order to safeguard

human dignity and social equity. Technology not only influences people's behavior but also the

moral narratives which are the basis of human coexistence.

The ethical aspects related to the ownership of data that have been the focus of the

intense debate lately, are the leading concerns as the personal information is used both as the

currency and the commodity. Mao et al. (2016, p.1067) state that companies that invest more in

the management of technological knowledge have the opportunity to dominate the market for a

How Technology shapes Culture 35

longer period, however, this frequently happens to the detriment of user autonomy. This

disequilibrium makes the question arise of which group really benefits from digital innovation.

In cases when data is considered mainly as a corporate resource, the rights of individuals are in

danger of being downgraded to mere transactional terms instead of being considered moral ones.

Hence, the ethical management of technology implies the establishment of principles that do not

see users as mere data points but as co-creative agents in informational ecosystems. These

frameworks may enable the return of collective responsibility and accountability as the driving

forces behind the informational ecosystems rather than profit-oriented motives thus, reconciling

the gap between efficiency and ethics in technological systems that is getting larger and larger

(Mao et al., 2016, p.1068).

The escalating use of artificial intelligence (AI) for decision-making is creating a

significant ethical challenge as it becomes more difficult to see the intentions, the accountability,

and the responsibility. Peters (1988, p.17) noticed that information systems frequently change

quicker than the moral languages developed to regulate them, which makes society unprepared to

handle their consequences. This statement is very much valid even today, in the era of modern

AI, when predictive algorithms can imitate human reasoning but do not have the ability to do

moral reflection or be empathetic. When decisions are handed over to machines that are only

looking for efficiency and output, society is in danger of accepting decision-making as being

morally neutral just because it has been done by machines. These kinds of systems, although

they look objective, dramatically affect the areas of employment, criminal justice, and

healthcare, which are the fields in which the moral judgment is necessary. In the absence of

human interpretation and oversight, algorithms can become less human and thus less ethical,

which may result in them unintentionally deepening existing structural inequalities and

How Technology shapes Culture 36

consequently, they may cause bias as they pretend to be neutral. As Peters (1988, p.20) warns,

ethical and philosophical frameworks of equal complexity to the technological ones have to be

developed in parallel to the latter and to address their human impact. Hence, it is very important

to put back the moral discussion into the development and the regulation of algorithms. It allows

the innovation to be non-restrictive of human agency and be reflective of the collective values,

empathy, and justice, which is giving back the moral texture that acts as a bind between the

technical level of the world and the humane one.

The ethical aspects of social media are a prime example of how technology keeps

changing the standards of responsibility, authenticity, and moral behavior. Nisha and Ramesh

(2019, p.2645) state that digital communication environments fundamentally change the way

people interact socially as these environments favor visibility, immediacy, and emotional

intensity rather than thoughtful reflection and dialogue. In such spaces, users are frequently

given the means to performative ethics, moral stances are publicly signaled to get approval or

visibility rather than being a genuine conviction. Such performativity can weaken authentic

accountability, as morality is adjusted according to the times of algorithmic attention economies.

However, social media still has a transformative power in it despite these dangers. These

platforms can be used as fields of civic education and ethical dialogue (Nisha & Ramesh, 2019,

p.2647) if they are led by intentional design principles that put the priority on empathy, dialogue,

and inclusion. Platforms which concentrate on deliberation rather than competition demonstrate

that digital ethics can be engaged in by all and can change through collective reflection and

mutual respect. Parsons et al. (2014, p.172) also propose that ethical awareness training can be a

source of engagement that is conscious even in informal digital settings.

How Technology shapes Culture 37

Corporate data stewardship adds a complicated ethical aspect that deals with the way

knowledge is produced, structured, kept, and shared among the interconnected global systems.

Noy et al. (2019, p.54) state that large-scale industrial data systems are based on standardized

ontologies, which, on the one hand, support interoperability and efficiency, but on the other,

often jeopardize not losing the cultural diversity and local nuance. The knowledge frameworks

that are mainly geared towards speed and uniformity usually do not have room for the context-

specific meanings that are essential for ethical and accurate representation. Such epistemic

reductionism is reminiscent of the colonial times when there was a tendency to generalize

Western logic, thus imposing a single worldview on diverse societies through global information

systems. Mao et al. (2016, p.1068) hold the view that a sustainable competitive advantage in the

future will require, apart from technical excellence, an ethical commitment to the fair provision

of resources and data practices. Companies that deliberately implant the elements of fairness,

transparency, and inclusivity in their data infrastructures will not only be able to lessen their

reputational risk but also create the type of innovation that is a reflection of the pluralistic values,

thus, they will be in a win-win situation. Digital ethics, as a result of this interaction between

moral design and corporate strategy, is seen not only as a social obligation but also as a core

dimension of organizational intelligence. By doing so, it connects ethical consideration directly

with the capacity to endure, change, and create value over time in a digitally interconnected

global economy.

The rise of automation has made the concept of ethical agency even more complex, as it

mashes up human intention, technological function, and moral accountability in such a way that

it is very difficult to differentiate. As decisions are increasingly done by algorithms,

responsibility cannot be that of a single person or organization anymore, but it is rather that of

How Technology shapes Culture 38

different systems, data inputs, and people that it is spread among. Demirkan and Delen (2013,

p.419) state that in big data scenarios even ethics become a probabilistic process, moral judgment

is considered statistical inference, therefore prediction and optimization are given more priority

than reflection and empathy. This change results in the rise of what philosophers refer to as

"ethical distancing," a condition in which human emotion and moral sensitivity are thought to be

the outcome of several layers of code and computation. Parsons et al. (2014, p.169) caution that

such detachment from the issue causes the loss of real accountability as the inner voice of

conscience is substituted by externally imposed compliance metrics. However, automation can

also serve as a tool to directly embed ethical heuristics into machine logic, thereby resulting in a

system that is impartial, transparent, and consistent where human bias could have been. Thus, the

problem is not to be against automation, but rather to consciously plan it with moral purpose;

ensuring that algorithmic systems are the product of human collective values and ethical

reasoning and not just a computational efficiency or profit-driven one.

The ethical management of knowledge is another major issue that is deeply intertwined

with the development of smart cities that are powered by data-driven governance. Komninos

(2013, p.27) states that intelligent urban systems should be supported by civic values and

democratic principles rather than just technical performance indicators. In cases where urban

algorithms are used to optimize traffic flow, energy efficiency, or security, based on

measurements, they usually choose efficiency over equity and inclusiveness. The use of such

optimization can lead to the reinforcement of the existing social inequalities as decisions made

by systems that are not transparent can exclude those who do not have a digital representation.

Mao et al. (2016, p.1070) argue that technological investments that are based on the ethical

allocation of resources and social responsibility are likely to lead to the emergence of inclusive

How Technology shapes Culture 39

and sustainable patterns of growth. The integration of participatory ethics in the city data policies

is a way of recognizing citizens not only as data sources but also as co-creators of digital

governance. In this model, ethical smart cities become the means through which technology is

used for civic empowerment and shared accountability. According to the views of Philbeck and

Davis (2018, p.21), ethical urban design can be seen as a new frontier where digital

infrastructures not only serve the users but also educate them, thereby creating social trust

through transparency, fairness, and responsiveness, values that, in the end, lead to a redefinition

of what it means to live ethically in the digital city.

Technology, Sustainability, and Cultural Adaptation

Technology advancement has facilitated a large number of new sustainable development

goals but at the same time, it has deepened global inequality. Bergek et al. (2015, p.58) point out

that innovation systems can only be successful if ecological balance and social equity are the

main concerns of the cultural frameworks. Nevertheless, a majority of the current production

systems are still releasing harmful gases and pollutants in the atmosphere while at the same time

they are technologically progressing in areas that are not environmentally friendly. Smith,

Fressoli, and Thomas (2014, p.117) note that the grassroots innovation movements are creatively

and effectively using digital tools to help them challenge industrial models that are not

sustainable and at the same time to promote community-based alternatives. These projects

demonstrate the change in culture which now focuses more on the shared responsibilities and

care of the environment. In the same vein, Komninos (2013, p.26) says that the survival of

sustainable urban cultures is very much dependent on the presence of intelligent systems that are

capable of integrating the environmental data with citizen participation. Such methods are not

just giving new meanings to technology culture, they are also gearing technology to be a self-

How Technology shapes Culture 40

regulating ecosystem with morals that adapt to the changing environment rather than to be a

prime economic-living. If technology is brought in line with cultural ethics, then it is possible to

have a technology that can build sustainable communities which will be conscious of the fact

that long-term survival is more important than short-term gain. It is this marriage of innovation

with sustainability that makes the use of technology not a means to further exploit the earth but

rather as a form of giving back to the culture.

One major way for technological cultures to be sustainable is by ethically managing

resources and taking collective-responsibility while integrating digital-intelligence in societies.

Demirkan and Delen (2013, p.414) articulate that cloud-based analytics have the power to make

decision-making more efficient across complex supply chains which in turn can slow down

material waste, improve energy usage, and increase open operations. However, these without a

doubt still don't make sustainability a sure thing. They only accomplish their real ethical worth

when companies bring in the consciousness of morality and the social engagement into their

data-driven operations. As soon as cultural frameworks care for, support, and give back to the

community, focus on justice that will be inherited and take care of nature rather than just

maximize profits for a short period of time, digital structures can, in fact, be the means that

facilitate social equity and environmental care. Mao et al. (2016, p. 1065) assert that the decisive

factor in technology leading to either the resilience or exploitation of the system is the one

referring to the extent to which the technological investment is congruent with the shared ethical

values; i.e., resource commitment. This moral and technical accord elevates technology from

being a mere neutral tool of progress to becoming a medium which allows for cultural renewal

and ecological regeneration. To put it differently, ethically architected systems of analytics offer

the local people the possibility to harmonize nature conservation with the economic vigor thus

How Technology shapes Culture 41

giving rise to a feedback loop that is vibrant and data-driven insight is human responsibility,

openness, and long-term earth well-being.

Adapting a culture to sustainability is not only a matter of technology innovation but also

a matter of redefining technological ability as one of the common civic and moral skills.

According to Almerich et al. (2016, p. 113), ICT literacy provides the communities with the

means to deeply immerse into digital sustainability initiatives by which citizens become not

simply users but promoters of ecological and social change. When teachers purposely infuse

sustainability concepts into ICT teaching, people not only gain the necessary skills, but they also

become aware of the ecological side of the problem, thus, forming an integrated literacy that

links the digital skills with the ethical and environmental responsibility. This combined literacy

leads to a moral attitude towards the use of technology and it also helps individuals to think over

the consequences of their digital activities on the planet and society. In addition, Komninos

(2013, p.29) states that smart cities benefit when citizens willingly participate in digital

governance instead of just consuming services managed by algorithms. Such engagement of

citizens turns the city space into an experimental field for the processes of innovation,

collaboration, and sustainable trial. The digital skill, being part of the cultural identity, is a great

tool for community and intergenerational learning. Technology, in this way, is not just a fixed

and practical medium, but rather a cultural phenomenon that reflects shared values, supports the

care of the environment and is instrumental in making sustainability a socially accepted norm

that is lived, not only talked about.

Exploring the connection between sustainability and information security reveals the

ethical and social challenges of the digital revolution in societies of today. According to Parsons

et al. (2014, p.171), human aspects of information security, when deeply understood,

How Technology shapes Culture 42

significantly raise trust- a necessary foundation for the creation of sustainable technological

systems. Worldwide sustainability metrics, for example, carbon tracking, energy conservation

auditing, and renewable resource utilization become believable and verifiable only through

sustainable and transparent data environments. When these systems operate with integrity, they

democratize decision-making by equipping communities with accurate data and thus enabling

them to participate in eco-innovation with confidence. On the other hand, if trust is eroded as a

result of data breaches, misuse or lack of transparency, communities may react to digital

revolutions with distrust, which consequently may result in slowing down of environmental

reforms. Demirkan and Delen (2013, p.417) argue that service-oriented decision systems can

incorporate ethical controls directly in the analytics operations, thus making the system on one

side efficient and on the other side accountable. Hence, trustworthiness becomes a vital cultural

resource that connects moral behavior to technologically designed governance. As closely related

notions, digital ethics and sustainability together constitute one framework which intrinsically

has the capacity of guaranteeing the coexistence of data integrity and human dignity. This

implicates the presence of a smart, transparent and ethically-consistent innovation ecosystem

where progress remains a win-win situation between technological advancement and the

collective social good.

Exploring the connection between sustainability and information security reveals the

ethical and social challenges of the digital revolution in societies of today. According to Parsons

et al. (2014, p.171), human aspects of information security, when deeply understood,

significantly raise trust- a necessary foundation for the creation of sustainable technological

systems. Worldwide sustainability metrics, for example, carbon tracking, energy conservation

auditing, and renewable resource utilization become believable and verifiable only through

How Technology shapes Culture 43

sustainable and transparent data environments. When these systems operate with integrity, they

democratize decision-making by equipping communities with accurate data and thus enabling

them to participate in eco-innovation with confidence. If trust is eroded as a result of data

breaches, misuse or lack of transparency, communities may react to digital revolutions with

distrust, which consequently may result in slowing down of environmental reforms. Demirkan

and Delen (2013, p.417) argue that service-oriented decision systems can incorporate ethical

controls directly in the analytics operations, thus making the system on one side efficient and on

the other side accountable. Trustworthiness thus is one of the most important cultural resources

that bind ethical behavior with tech-based governance. Being very much interrelated concepts,

digital ethics and sustainability jointly form one system which by its very nature can ensure data

integrity and respect for human dignity to coexist. This means, in fact, the emergence of a clever,

clear and morally in line innovation community in which success is still a win-win relationship

between technological progress and the general social good.

Sustainable technology relies not only on the breakthrough aspects of the product but also

on the capacity of the company to effectively deal with the balance between centralized

efficiency and local adaptability. According to Mao et al. (2016, p.1068), companies that manage

their resources flexibly are the ones that have a competitive advantage over a longer period and

at the same time are sensitive to cultural and environmental diversity. This flexibility makes it

possible for global technologies to live side by side with local ecological practices without the

need to disappear traditional knowledge systems or the community self-governance. The local

communities become more robust culturally and more responsible towards the earth when the

technological infrastructures are designed to integrate their different regional variations.

Komninos (2013, p.33) states that smart urban networks acquire deep sustainability when they

How Technology shapes Culture 44

take into account the local identities instead of forcing standard digital models. Respect of this

kind engenders the communication between the local experience and the global innovation

whereby technological advancement is in harmony with community values and environmental

realities. The merger of global intelligence with local wisdom is the origin of what can be termed

as contextual sustainability which is an innovative concept that stems from certain cultural and

ecological contexts. When communities are empowered to determine the technological solutions

that suit them best, sustainability ceases to be just a technical goal and turns into a mirror of self-

determination, cultural continuity, and shared responsibility for the coming generations.

More than that, automation can raise issues of ethics in the role of it in sustainable

cultures. On the one hand, digital automation can lead to less energy consumption and less

material waste. However, on the other hand, it can make people less aware of their

environmental responsibility as they are less directly involved in the process. Referring to

Demirkan and Delen (2013, p.419), it is proposed that the design of automation should be such

that it calls for, rather than replaces, ethical reflection in decision-making. There is a risk that by

automating the sustainability metrics we narrow ecological care to mere algorithmic outputs,

thereby, leaving the emotional and communal aspects of the earth's care unrecognized.

According to Mao et al. (2016, p.1070), companies which are characterized by strong human

oversight culture are more likely to experience a higher level of congruence between

sustainability objectives and actual operations. Here, the concept of automation has to be

changed to that of a conversation between human moral sense and digital intelligence. It is when

a technology that primarily serves to increase efficiency also has the effect of empathy that the

moral link between the innovative technology and its use to help the environment is thereby

sustained.

How Technology shapes Culture 45

Conclusion

In conclusion, technology can influence culture in diverse ways, such as shaping the core

components. Over the years, technology has shaped human civilization to a greater extent,

making it an important topic of discussion in this essay. This paper found that technology has

influenced culture. It has changed the engendered aspects of society, such as manual labor, care-

work, productive work, and blue-collar work in the factories. It has changed how knowledge and

information are handled and use for both present and future purposes. Such information handling

is made possible by integrating machines into human thinking, making the objects speak,

shaping the power relations in contemporary society. Technology has encouraged individualism

and informality through networked societies. It has decentralized societies' cultural hierarchies,

causing a struggle between disciplinary and control societies. Further, it found that technology

has shaped human culture both negatively and positively. However, it indicates that the benefits

of technology in shaping culture exceed the negative implications on culture. It has also brought

about industrialization leading to mass production and the mass consumption of goods and

services. Technology has made the world a global village by connecting people, making the

exchange of information faster, and, hence, efficiently mobilizing them towards a common goal.

In addition to those changes, the thorough examination reveals that the influence of

technology on culture is even more profound. The changes brought by the technology affect not

only the cognitive, ethical, and ecological aspects but also social life. As a result of societies'

embracing data-driven systems, smart cities, and global digital networks, they have in effect

altered the ways societies produce, share, and validate knowledge. Hence technological

rationality has been increasingly intertwined with people's everyday decision-making. The

changes in education and work have been revolving around digital literacy and self-efficacy,

How Technology shapes Culture 46

hence technological proficiency has become a new way of cultural participation. The growth of

grassroots innovation and community-based technologies is a strong signal that cultural

evolution in the digital age is not merely a top-down process but also local, democratic, and

environmentally sustainable (Komninos, 2013, p.50). Global connectivity and mobile

communication have altered the concepts of identity, belonging, and civic engagement, thus

resulting in the formation of new ethical interdependence across borders. Hence, technology is

still a method of efficiency, but it is becoming a less simple one. It plays the role of a cultural

medium, coordinating meaning, social relations, and human values. Therefore, the technological

change of culture is not merely a step forward in terms of material possessions but rather the

arrival of a new moral and intellectual framework through which humanity sees itself.

How Technology shapes Culture 47

References

Almerich, G., Orellana, N., Suárez-Rodríguez, J. and Díaz-García, I., 2016. Teachers’

information and communication technology competences: A structural

approach. Computers & Education, 100, pp.110-125.

Atanasoski, N. and Vora, K., 2019. Surrogate humanity: Race, robots, and the politics of

technological futures. Duke University Press.

Bergek, A., Hekkert, M., Jacobsson, S., Markard, J., Sandén, B. and Truffer, B., 2015.

Technological innovation systems in contexts: Conceptualizing contextual structures and

interaction dynamics. Environmental innovation and societal transitions, 16, pp.51-64.

Burley, A., 2010. Technology and Culture: A Circle of Influence. Global Studies.

Cai, Z., Fan, X. and Du, J., 2017. Gender and attitudes toward technology use: A meta-

analysis. Computers & Education, 105, pp.1-13.

Demirkan, H. and Delen, D., 2013. Leveraging the capabilities of service-oriented decision

support systems: Putting analytics and big data in cloud. Decision Support

Systems, 55(1), pp.412-421.

Faqih, K.M. and Jaradat, M.I.R.M., 2015. Assessing the moderating effect of gender differences

and individualism-collectivism at individual-level on the adoption of mobile commerce

technology: TAM3 perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 22, pp.37-

52.

Hill, K., Bennett, P. and Hunter, R., 2021. ‘It’s social interaction... but it’s not’: A qualitative

study investigating the psycho-social experience of social media by individuals with a

visual impairment. Journal of Health Psychology, p.1359105321995949.

How Technology shapes Culture 48

Huffman, A.H., Whetten, J. and Huffman, W.H., 2013. Using technology in higher education:

The influence of gender roles on technology self-efficacy. Computers in Human

Behavior, 29(4), pp.1779-1786.

Komninos, N., 2013. Intelligent cities: innovation, knowledge systems and digital spaces.

Routledge.

Leavitt, H.J., 2013. Applied organizational change in industry: Structural, technological and

humanistic approaches. In Handbook of organizations (RLE: Organizations) (pp. 1144-

1170). Routledge.

Lee, K., 2020. Michel Foucault in technology-enhanced learning: An analytic review of 10

Foucauldian studies on online education. Studies in Technology Enhanced Learning,

1(1).

Leonardi, P.M., Huysman, M. and Steinfield, C., 2013. Enterprise social media: Definition,

history, and prospects for the study of social technologies in organizations. Journal of

computer-mediated communication, 19(1), pp.1-19.

Mao, H., Liu, S., Zhang, J. and Deng, Z., 2016. Information technology resource, knowledge

management capability, and competitive advantage: The moderating role of resource

commitment. International journal of information management, 36(6), pp.1062-1074.

Nisha, S. and Ramesh K., 2019. The Influence Of Social Media On Academic Development And

Face-To-Face Communication. European Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 7(4),

pp.2642-2648.

How Technology shapes Culture 49

Noy, N., Gao, Y., Jain, A., Narayanan, A., Patterson, A. and Taylor, J., 2019. Industry-scale

Knowledge Graphs: Lessons and Challenges: Five diverse technology companies show

how it’s done. Queue, 17(2), pp.48-75.

Parsons, K., McCormac, A., Butavicius, M., Pattinson, M. and Jerram, C., 2014. Determining

employee awareness using the human aspects of information security questionnaire

(HAIS-Q). Computers & security, 42, pp.165-176.

Peters, J.D., 1988. Information: Notes toward a critical history. Journal of Communication

Inquiry, 12(2), pp.9-23.

Philbeck, T. and Davis, N., 2018. The fourth industrial revolution. Journal of International

Affairs, 72(1), pp.17-22.

Prior, N., 2018. Popular music, digital technology and society. Sage.

Smith, A., Fressoli, M. and Thomas, H., 2014. Grassroots innovation movements: challenges and

contributions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 63, pp.114-124.

Tiqqun, 2001. The cybernetic hypothesis. Tiqqun 2.

Trantopoulos, K., von Krogh, G., Wallin, M.W. and Woerter, M., 2017. External knowledge and

information technology. MIS quarterly, 41(1), pp.287-300.

Wang, M.T. and Degol, J.L., 2017. Gender gap in science, technology, engineering, and

mathematics (STEM): Current knowledge, implications for practice, policy, and future

directions. Educational psychology review, 29(1), pp.119-140.

How Technology shapes Culture 50

Students also viewed