When I returned to graduate school in the mid-1990s, technological determinism was not only out of fashion it was practically taboo. Any mention of Marshall McLuhan in class would have to be preceded by a disclaimer in which the words "technological determinism" were said with a sneer: "although I certainly don't support his tendency toward technological determinism, McLuhan makes an interesting point about XXXX."
Interestingly, a mere decade later, McLuhan has been more or less rehabilitated and the antipathy toward tech-det seems to have subsided. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a plausible argument against the fact that people communicate differently using cell phones, SMS, MUVEs, IM, etc. Admittedly, when we talk about these technologies and the shifting patterns of communication they have brought into our lives, it is also necessary to think about the ways that technology is shaped by culture and the needs of a given historical moment.
A particularly interesting set of cultural artifacts to consider in this regard is science fiction film and literature from the 1950s, many of which would be difficult to distinguish from the futuristic fantasies of today. Given the dramatic technological changes of the past half-century, it seems like a greater factor in our ability to fantasize about the future is a cultural imaginary that is not entirely determined by the technologies available at any given time. I have heard about some very interesting attempts to demonstrate that scientific theories and experiments are actually driven by science fiction and not the other way around. So, for example, the rocket scientists at JPL try to invent the technologies used on Star Trek and so on -- this was part of the thesis of Constance Penley's book, Nasa/Trek.
Chandler's article does a nice job of summarizing the concept of technological determinism and the debates surrounding it, but his writing is dry and seems more interested in demonstrating that he has done a lot of historical research and pulled out some relevant quotes without synthesizing them into anything new or interesting. His conclusion is weak, bordering on self-evident: technological determinism is both good and bad; technology and culture are codeterministic. But at the same time, I found his comparison with linguistic determinism to be kind of useful and I was not previously familiar with the Harold Innis book he cites -- it's interesting that Innis and McLuhan, two of the most adamant proponents of tech-det, are both Canadians. I'm not sure what to make of this, but maybe it results from a desire to explain how culture develops that is not just about how America dominates everything.
