Science, Technology and Society

History of technological development

Technological development is often told as a story of heroic inventors and inevitable progress, but sociologists and historians emphasise systems, networks and social choices. Early technologies such as agriculture, irrigation, metallurgy, printing and navigation were embedded in states, religions, trade and warfare, and they redistributed power as much as they raised output. Industrialisation combined steam power, factories, railways, telegraphs and new forms of labour discipline, urbanisation and time regulation, producing both productivity and exploitation, pollution and public health crises. Electrification, automobiles, telephones and mass media in later industrial societies reorganised cities, consumption, gender roles and politics, while colonial contexts received technologies through imperial priorities, such as railways for extraction and administration, with uneven benefits for colonised populations.

Science and technology studies offers tools for this history. Social construction of technology argues that artefacts have interpretative flexibility: different groups see different problems and solutions in the same artefact, and closure occurs when one design stabilises through negotiation, power and markets. Actor-network approaches trace heterogeneous networks of humans, machines, standards, laws and materials that must align for a technology to work. The concept of sociotechnical systems stresses that a railway needs tracks, timetables, tickets, labour, law and finance, not only a locomotive. Technological momentum describes how, once systems grow large, they appear autonomous, though they remain shaped by institutions and choices. Diffusion is not automatic adoption: it depends on cost, skills, infrastructure, language, trust and compatibility with existing practices. A technology that works in one setting may fail in another because maintenance, spare parts, training or cultural meanings are missing. History therefore teaches that progress is uneven, contested and reversible, and that questions of access, labour and environment must accompany questions of invention.

Media, e-governance and surveillance

Media are institutions that produce, circulate and frame information, culture and public discourse. Mass media, including newspapers, radio, television and cinema, shaped national publics, politics, consumption and identities, while digital and social media fragment audiences, enable participation, and create algorithmic publics shaped by platforms, advertising and engagement metrics. Media effects are not simple injections: audiences interpret, resist, remix and produce content, though ownership, state power, advertising and algorithms structure what is visible. Misinformation, hate speech, echo chambers and polarisation are sociological problems, not only technical glitches, because they involve trust, identity, political economy and regulation. Media literacy, public broadcasting, independent journalism and platform accountability are therefore democratic issues.

E-governance uses digital technologies to deliver services, collect data, make decisions and engage citizens. It can reduce discretion, corruption and travel costs, improve targeting and transparency, and enable participation through portals, mobile services and grievance systems. Yet it can also exclude people without connectivity, devices, literacy, documents or digital skills, and it can create new errors when databases, biometric authentication or algorithms fail. Digital identity systems raise questions about privacy, consent, function creep, where data collected for one purpose are used for another, and about the right to be forgotten or to correct records. Surveillance, in Foucault sense, is not only state watching: it includes workplace monitoring, consumer tracking, CCTV, location data, health apps and social media profiling. Surveillance capitalism describes business models that extract behavioural data to predict and influence conduct. Citizens may accept surveillance for security, convenience or services, but consent is often uninformed, unequal and difficult to withdraw. A sociological assessment of e-governance therefore balances efficiency against inclusion, privacy, accountability and the ability to contest automated decisions.

Technology, family, health and food

Technology reshapes intimate life. In families, mobile phones, video calls, messaging and social media sustain long-distance relationships, coordinate care, and create new intimacies, while also producing surveillance between partners and parents and children, distraction, conflict over screen time, and pressure to be constantly available. Dating apps, matchmaking platforms and social media transform courtship, marriage markets and reputation, expanding choice for some while reproducing caste, class, religion and beauty norms in profiles, filters and algorithms. Assisted reproductive technologies, including IVF, surrogacy and genetic testing, raise questions about kinship, parenthood, bodily autonomy, commercialisation and regulation, and they distribute hope and risk unequally by income, gender and law. Household technologies, from cooking appliances to washing machines, have historically reduced some domestic labour while raising standards of cleanliness and care, showing that technology does not automatically liberate women from housework.

In health, diagnostics, telemedicine, electronic records, wearable devices and artificial intelligence promise wider access, earlier detection and personalised care, but they also raise issues of data privacy, algorithmic bias, deskilling of clinicians, over-medicalisation and unequal access. A diagnostic tool trained on unrepresentative data may perform poorly for women, darker-skinned patients or rural populations, turning technical bias into health inequality. Food systems are similarly transformed: high-yield seeds, fertilisers, irrigation, cold chains, processing, supermarkets and delivery platforms increase availability and variety, but they also concentrate market power, reshape farmer livelihoods, change diets toward processed foods, and raise concerns about nutrition, food safety, biodiversity and waste. Genetically modified crops, organic farming, local food movements and food sovereignty debates show that food technology is political: it involves seed ownership, farmer autonomy, consumer choice, ecology and trade. In each domain, technology should be judged by who accesses it, who controls data and standards, who does the labour, and whose health, care and dignity improve.

Cyber crime

Cyber crime refers to crimes committed through or against computer systems, networks and digital data. Categories include hacking and unauthorised access, malware, ransomware, phishing, identity theft, financial fraud, online harassment, stalking, non-consensual sharing of intimate images, child exploitation, hate speech, and attacks on critical infrastructure. Cyber crime differs from conventional crime in scale, speed, anonymity, jurisdiction and evidence: an attacker in one country can victimise thousands in another, digital traces can be deleted or spoofed, and platforms, banks, telecom firms and police must cooperate across borders and sectors. Routine activity theory helps explain cyber crime: motivated offenders, suitable targets, such as poorly protected data or trusting users, and absence of capable guardians, such as security, awareness and enforcement, converge online. Social engineering exploits trust, authority, urgency and emotion rather than technical flaws alone, which is why awareness, design and organisational practices matter as much as software.

Victims experience financial loss, privacy violation, reputational harm, psychological distress and, in cases of harassment or image abuse, long-term trauma and silencing, especially for women, children and public figures. Reporting is hindered by shame, fear, lack of knowledge, jurisdictional confusion and police capacity. Regulation involves criminal law, data protection, platform liability, content moderation, international cooperation and victim support, with tensions between security, privacy, free expression and state surveillance. Overbroad surveillance or censorship in the name of cyber security can threaten rights, while under-regulation leaves victims unprotected. Prevention combines technical security, such as authentication, encryption and updates, with social measures: digital literacy, safe design, platform accountability, rapid takedown and support services, and attention to gendered and age-specific risks. Sociologically, cyber crime is not a purely technical problem: it reflects inequality, trust, platform business models, global networks and the same power relations that shape offline crime, now mediated through digital infrastructures.

Technology myths versus sociological accounts

Cyber crime types and responses