The year 2000 (Y2K) computer software problem is framed as a technological boundary and cultural object. The author documents and analyzes three subcultures' constructions of Y2K. The three subcultures are millennial (Evangelical-Charismatic-Pentecostal) Christians, militia-patriot survivalists, and computer professionals. Each subculture interpreted, received, comprehended, and explained the cultural object of Y2K. Combining the data from content analysis and interviews, the author creates a detailed picture of each subculture's response to Y2K. She compares and contrasts the three subcultures. Each subculture created a subcultural filter based on previously held value and belief systems, attitudes toward technology and computers, and interpretations of social environments to create a unique picture of Y2K. She examines how each of the subcultures framed technology through the framing of it as a technological object. Each response was located within the technological determinism versus social determinism debate and juxtaposed with its place in the technology as utopian or dystopian.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adorno, Theodor, and Max Horkheimer. 1947. The culture industry: Enlightenment as mass deception. In Dialectic of enlightenment, by Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno. London: Verso .
2.
Alexander, Jeffery C. 1992. The promise of a cultural sociology: Technological discourse and the sacred and profane information machine. In Theory of culture, edited by R. M. Smelser, 293-323. Berkeley: University of California Press .
3.
Arnold, D. O., ed. 1970. The sociology of subcultures. Berkeley: The Glendessary Press .
4.
Barkun, Michael. 1974. Disaster and the millennium. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press .
5.
Baxter, Irving. 1999. Y2Khaos and the mark of the beast. Endtime, March-April, 12.
6.
Belanger, J. D. 1999. Countdown to year 2000, Part IV. Countryside, January/February, 4.
7.
Bijker, Wiebe E. 1992. The social construction of fluorescent lighting, or how an artifact was invented in its diffusion stage. In Shaping technology/building society, edited by W. E. Bijker. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
8.
Bijker, Wiebe E., Thomas P. Hughes, and Trevor Pinch. 1987. The social construction of technological systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
9.
Bijker, Wiebe E., and John Law. 1992. Shaping technology/building society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
10.
Briant, J. O. 1999. Letter to the editor. Endtime, March-April, 7.
11.
Bull, M., ed. 1995. Apocalypse theory and the ends of the world. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell .
12.
Cohn, Norman. 1970. The pursuit of the millennium. New York: Oxford University Press .
13.
Cohn, Norman. 1993. Cosmos, chaos, and the world to come. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press .
14.
Cohn, Norman. 1995. How time acquired a consummation. In Apocalypse theory and the ends of the world, edited by M. Bull. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell .
15.
Davis, Erik. 1998. Techgnosis. New York: Random House .
16.
Desroche, Henri. 1979. The sociology of hope. Translated by Carol Martin Sperry. London: Routledge .
17.
Ellul, Jacques. 1965. The technological society. New York: Knopf .
18.
Feenberg, Andrew. 1991. Critical theory of technology. New York: Oxford University Press .
Heidegger, Martin. 1977. The question concerning technology. New York: Harper & Row .
25.
Hull, Stephen Wayne. 1976. A sociological study of the surfing subculture in the Santa Cruz area . Unpublished paper. Presented to the Faculty of the Department of Sociology San Jose State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the M.A. degree. Available from http://facs.scripps.edu/surf/srf_thes.html.
26.
Lamy, Philip. 1996. Millennium rage. New York: Plenum .
27.
Landes, Richard. 1996. On owls, roosters and apocalyptic time: A historical method for reading a refractory documentation . Union Seminary Quarterly Review49: 165-185 .
28.
Landes, Richard. 1998. Whilst God tarried: Disappointed millennialism and the genealogy of the modern West. New York: Basic Books .
29.
Latour, Bruno. 1981. Insiders and outsiders in the sociology of science . Knowledge and Society3: 199-216 .
30.
Latour, Bruno. 1986. Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Rev. ed. with Steve Woolgar. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press .
Marx, Leo. 1964. The machine in the garden: Technology and the pastoral ideal in America. New York: Oxford University Press .
33.
Marx, Leo. 1987. Does improved technology mean progress? In Technological change and the transformation of America, edited by C. Strain. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press .
34.
McLuhan, Marshall. 1965. Understanding media. New York: McGraw-Hill .
35.
Mumford, Lewis. 1934. Technics and civilization. New York: Harcourt Brace .
36.
Mumford, Lewis. 1970. The pentagon of power. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich .
37.
O'Leary, Stephen. 1994. Arguing the apocalypse. New York: Oxford University Press .
38.
Postman, Neil. 1992. Technopoly. New York: Vintage .
39.
Rozak, Theodor. 1994. The cult of information. Berkeley: University of California Press .
40.
Shields, Mark A. 1997. Reinventing technology in social theory . Current Perspectives in Social Theory17: 187-216 .
41.
Singleton, Royce A., Bruce C. Straits, and Margaret Miller Straits. 1993. Approaches to social research. New York: Oxford University Press .
42.
Star, S. L. 1989. The structure of ill-structured solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In Distributed artificial intelligence, vol. 2, edited by M. H. Huhns and L. Gasser, 37-54. London: Pitman .
43.
Strain, Charles R., and Steven E. Goldberg. 1987. Technological change and the transformation of America. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University .
44.
Swidler, Ann. 1986. Culture in action: Symbols and strategies . American Sociological Review51: 273-286 .
45.
Tenner, Edward. 1996. Why things bite back. New York: Vintage .
46.
Winner, Langdon. 1977. Autonomous technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
