Nascent,Liminal,and Emerging Technologies

Abstract

In this article, I consider how innovations emerge. I first look into what constitutes an innovation by asking about who benefits from the innovation and how it changes the institutional structure of society. I then trace the process of emergence as innovation moves through a liminal stage where different social groups work to interpret and perhaps contain the trajectory of the innovation. The discussion is illustrated by considering the path of different technologies such as printing, steam, digitalization, and artificial intelligence.

Introduction: Nascency

In this piece, I consider the social processes that lead to the emergence (development) of consequential technology. Further, and perhaps more importantly, how does the emergence of a technology or media change and shift the preexisting context (and for whose benefit)?

The question of what constitutes an emerging technology has produced a line of research over the past decades (see, Day and Schoemaker, 2000; see, for example, Martin, 1995; Small et al., 2014). Common elements include the fact that the innovation is novel, it emerges quickly, and that there is uncertainty associated with its trajectory (Rotolo et al., 2015).

This article will look at the different phases of emergence for socially consequential technology and the related social processes. After a technologies’ conceptualization, we go through the process of receiving the nascent technology into our life world. In some cases, the development may immediately be seen as unfit for purpose and, in the best case, become a type of curiosity. Another alternative is that the technology may be used in its pre-conceptualized position for some period, but not move beyond that constrained position.

The third possibility, that will be in focus here, is that the technology will not only be used as originally intended, but grow beyond its intended niche or “affordance sphere” (Parallada, 2009). The use of the technology may expand from its original conceptualization to encompass other domains and processes. Indeed, it may reach beyond one technological niche and disrupt the organization of related domains. In doing this, it may not only disrupt processes in these domains, but it can also fundamentally change social and cultural superstructures.

A set of technologies have moved beyond their nascent conceptualization, for example, the steam engine moving beyond pumping water out of mines. As they did this, they begin the process of becoming what Helpman calls general-purpose technologies (Basu and Fernald, 2007; Bresnahan and Trajtenberg, 1992; Crafts, 2004; Helpman, 1998; see also Jovanovic and Rousseau, 2005; Lipsey et al., 2005). These are technologies that have the potential to restructure institutions and disrupt pre-existing social and economic structures on a wide level. ¹

How do consequential innovations emerge, for whom, and how does its emergence rearrange the social furniture (e.g., social institutions)?

The diffuse nature of innovation

It is incorrect to discuss the development of a nascent technology and not consider the social forces that combine to shape its development. Technologies emerge for a diffuse variety of reasons and as a result of different innovative forces.

Gutenberg and printing, for example, established itself because it was far cheaper to print books and other items than it was to produce them by hand. A strong pecuniary motivation drove Gutenberg (Baron, 2000; Eisenstein, 1979; Epstein, 2008). ² The printing of Bibles was a well-tuned application of the technology focused on realizing a profit. ³

There is the popular idea that innovation is a type of heroic act (Tuomi, 2002, p. 219), that is budding innovation arises from the brave insight of a single individual or some small-scale collaboration. This narrative is often used when discussing Gutenberg and his printing press, Newcomen and Watt with steam technology, Brattain, Bardeen, and Shockley with the transistor, etc. While there is the trope of innovation as heroic, in almost every case, the individual credited with the innovation draws on a wide variety of other developments, each with their own web of innovators.

To continue with the example of printing, Gutenberg wove together several contextual factors and technical threads of development to build his printing press. To start with, he benefited from the fact that German (and other European languages) had an alphabet with a limited phonemic-based character set. In German, there are 30 characters that, in addition to the 26 of the Latin character set, include ä, ö, ü, and ß. These characters are rearranged to form all the words. Developing printing is far simpler in this context when compared to the logographic writing of China, with its 10s of thousands of characters.

Beyond this, Gutenberg drew on developments in metallurgy that allowed him to make punches, dies, molds, and letterpress blocks. This is in addition to the use of metal in various parts of the printing press itself. Further, Guttenberg benefited from the ability to manufacture large amounts of fabric-based, and later wood pulp-based, paper since the vast increase in demand for printed material could quickly run through the available supply of vellum and parchment. ⁴ He also benefited from the development of printing ink that was needed to be more viscous that with the ink used for writing. Gutenberg was able to re-purpose the presses used for pressing grapes and olives. Indeed, the metal woodworking tools that are needed to, for example, saw the beams, form the joints, and cut the threads of the press demanded some of the same metallurgy as was needed for the development of the movable type. Thinking somewhat more widely, he was also reliant on various types of financial systems in order to gather investors for his development. He was also able to draw on the demand for printed material and some level of literacy.

In sum, while Gutenberg is rightly seen as the person who brought together the development of the nascent printing press, the idea of the heroic innovator is perhaps not a complete picture. A better understanding would suggest that while he was masterful at gathering many different threads, and was able to re-conceptualize them in the form of the printing press and its printed material.

Affordance expansion and the liminality of emerging technology

As an innovation moves beyond its original affordance sphere, it encroaches on other processes, domains, and institutions. As embryonic technology moves into a wider social sphere, it does not have a fixed position. Rather, it enters a type of liminality. That is, various groups examine and interpret it based on their own needs and perspectives. There are both structural and cultural dimensions to this liminality.

Structural challenges of affordance expansion

Technologies developed for one purpose, for example, pumping water out of mines or calculating the trajectory of artillery shells (as with the nascent computer), can be reimagined. As this happens, they are reappropriated and applied to other tasks in what can be a cascading process. The plasticity of the technology means that yet others reimagine the technology vis-à-vis their own needs. As this happens, people began to see that innovation can both enhance the position of some interests and simultaneously threaten the organization of the pre-existing technological regime. Thus, the expanding application of technology is both a possibility and a threat. This means that opposing social forces are mobilized to either reap the advantages or protect the existing social context.

This liminal phase sees the attempt to shape and mold the technology as it moves into society (Thomassen, 2009). The notion of liminality was first used by anthropologists as a way to understand the adulthood passage rites (V.W. Turner, 2010). The transition from childhood to adulthood was seen as precarious. In this passage, the individual is no longer a child, but they have not yet achieved the status of being an adult (V. Turner, 1974). In this transitory liminal stage, the rules of one status have been left behind, but the rules of the coming status have not yet been assumed. Thus, the individual is in a fluid and malleable state (Horvath et al., 2009). In the eyes of the group, they may be vulnerable to supernatural forces that will push the individual in an anti-social direction. Because of this, care must be taken to shepherd the individual through the process as they gain the insights needed to be an adult.

When applied to technology, the concept helps us to focus on the social forces at work. Different groups might contest, encourage, undercut, and change emerging technology. The liminal nature of new technologies as they diffuse into society means that many groups work (or work against) the technology in furtherance of their goals.

As the diffusion of technology progresses, it can enhance the position of some interests, while threatening the position of others. Those who find benefit in the technology can work to encourage its position by developing beneficial regulatory frameworks and developing the ancillary systems that are needed to firmly ground the technology. For example, the development of the cotton gin in the first decade of the 1800s dramatically increased the ability to produce cotton. To optimize its usefulness there was the need to restructure the financing of cotton production, and further develop the plantation system. ⁵ This resulted in an increased demand for land and enslaved labor to work the land. ⁶ In the period from 1800 to 1860 several new “slave states” were added to the union to accommodate the demand for more cotton-growing land—Louisiana (1812), Mississippi (1817), Alabama (1819), Arkansas (1836), Florida and Texas (1845). Thus, there were knock-on effects of the cotton gin in the form of national expansion and in the development of ancillary service industries including finance and most pointedly, the slave trade.

At the same time, those who see the “untoward” use of the technologies can develop various attempts to rein them in. In the case of Gutenberg's printing press, the Council of Trent where the Index Librorum Prohibitorum ⁷ was first developed, is an example of this. It occurred as the printing press was being used to publish the work of Luther (whose works we on the Index). Thus, while Luther was exploiting the technology to further the reformation, the Pope and the Cardinals were developing the structures that were intended to shape the use of the technology and preserve their position. ⁸

New technology can inspire the interest of many different groups, for example, cable TV encouraged utopian hopes of enriching and elevating the minds of society (Raulet, 1991; Streeter, 1987). At the same time, the existing domain can be seen the innovation as a threat to its entrenched interests (Lucas Jr and Goh, 2009). It can also be seen in the clash of interests associated with mechanical refrigeration (Duffy et al., 2017). Before the development of mechanical refrigerators, many homes had ice boxes that needed a supply of ice to cool the food. In the 1920s and 30s, there was a system of ice production in steam-based factories. ⁹ Ice was regularly delivered to homes using a well-developed distribution system. As mechanical refrigerators emerged and became more common, the old-line ice industry tried to defend its position by seeking to get ice delivery defined as a utility much like gas or electricity and through trying to develop alliances with the insurance industry to exploit the idea the refrigerants were toxic gasses that were potentially lethal. The advocates of mechanical refrigeration countered this by arguing that refrigerators could better preserve food. In addition, the corporate interests who manufactured mechanical refrigerators were also active in their advocacy.

In sum, as the recognition of an innovation's affordances expands, the innovation enters a liminal phase wherein different social forces work to either encourage or hinder its further development.

Cultural lag

Emergent technology, and its liminality, can also result in what Ogburn (1922) described as cultural lag. The basic idea is that while technical innovations can move quickly into a society, the folkways, norms, and mores of a society do not change as quickly. Ogburn described this lag between what he called material culture (largely technological innovations) and the non-material culture (the folkways, norms, values, culture, and more) of a society. He suggests that this leads to maladjustment arising from people's struggle to culture to the new technical regime.

Emerging innovations often push for a change in the entrenched non-material culture, including customs, and importantly their legitimation structures (Berger and Luckmann, 1967). The norms and values, and even the physical structure of society are often anchored in the previous techno-social regime. For, example, many European cities were conceptualized with horse-based transportation. The development of the automobile resulted in a clash between the existing physical structure of the cities, and the new transportation technology. This meant that the infrastructure was maladapted. In addition, in arguing against cars people evoked moral dimensions regarding the reliability of cars, their danger, etc. The transition is often framed as a moral issue. People are asked to forsake earlier practices that can also contain deeply felt legitimations. Thus, it is not simply a question of surfing from one technology to another. There is the need to socially dismantle our wider sense of what is correct that has been founded on an earlier, and increasingly outdated, set of tools.

In the transition between technologies, people can apply the moral framework of the previous regime and apply it to the new. According to Walsh (see also Cohen, 2002; Walsh, 2020), these can result in the elaboration of anxieties and, when generalized, social panics (Cantril, 1940). Walsh suggests that these transitions also allow people to layer other social discontents (e.g., homophobia or pedophilia as seen in the spread of social media), onto the anxiety associated with the social innovation. Drotner (1999) has noted that this is a recurrent issue that has accompanied the introduction of various forms of new media. In the liminal period, these currents circulate as we seek to work out the position of technology in our quotidian lives.

In sum, during the liminal phase between an innovation's development and its widespread diffusion, it is difficult to understand the ultimate trajectory of the technology, as well as its consequences for the existing legitimation superstructure. For example, the steam engine, and its cousin the internal combustion engine, displaced horse-based transportation systems and facilitated a dramatic increase in the radius of travel. In addition, it solved other issues such as the “pollution” associated with manure and indeed the corpses of dead horses. ¹⁰ On the negative side, the automobile was framed as being unstable, difficult to control, dangerous, and inhumane. ¹¹ As the development worked its way through the liminal stage, the technology was shaped and appropriated by different groups in society. In addition, there was the development of a set of norms and values that supported the integration of the technology and the supplanting of the previous transportation regime.

The new technology may result in a fluid situation that is, in many ways, up for grabs as new institutional arrangements are minted. Proponents can work to engrain the technology into society while there can also be rearguard actions to preserve the morals of the previous era.

Changing/mutating social institutions as a sign of emerging technology

Rotolo et al. (2015) suggest that to determine whether a technology is emergent there is the need to go beyond its novelty or growth curve. In addition, it is asserted here that there is the question of whether an innovation is changing institutions. Emerging technologies can cause us to discard and/or readjust social/moral superstructures. As they work through a liminal phase, powerful social groups can channel technologies (and the related regulatory structure) such that they form, mold and shape social institutions. At the widest level, a prominent hallmark of determining what constitutes an emerged technology is the degree to which it has changed existing social institutions (and in whose favor). Indeed, this may be the sign of an emerging technology. That is, emergence is an interaction between technology and the social structure. This pulls the focus back from examining the internal characteristics of a phenomenon and takes a wider sociological perspective.

Digression regarding the idea of an institution

Given this framing, it is worth taking a moment to problematize the idea of an institution. There are a variety of ways that social institutions are defined (Caporaso and Jupille, 2022). However, institutions are generally seen as (relatively) stable and persistent social constructions with well-developed structures that govern and constrain a field of social action (Rojas, 2023). We can think of, for example, religions, economic systems, languages, educational systems, forms of government, etc. ¹² Institutions are often seen as being stable or a part of the social structure (Giddens, 1990). By looking at the effect of an emerging phenomenon on one (or many) social institutions, we can frame the examination of individual emerging phenomena.

The interaction of liminal technologies and social institutions

Once the technology has gained some purchase in society, it nudges, prods, and bumps a variety of existing social institutions as the technology nestles down into its niche. As noted, the nudging and prodding are often being done by social interests that see it to their benefit to use the technology for their purposes. Thus, there is the social application of technology to a particular social context.

To illustrate this, we can again look at the emergence of printing and its impact on religion. Several decades after Guttenberg developed the printing press, Luther engaged in a debate regarding the practice of the Catholic church granting indulgences. ¹³ Granting indulgences was a well-entrenched practice in the Catholic Church at that time. Indeed, in the early 1500s, Pope Leo X granted indulgences to partially finance the rebuilding of St Peters Cathedral in Rome. In 1517, the Dominican friar Jonathan Tetzel preached that one could gain the forgiveness of sins by purchasing a letter of indulgence (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2023). ¹⁴ This provoked Luther who subsequently wrote and printed his 95 theses.

As we know, the reach of Luther's writing was not limited to the copy of his theses that he nailed to the door in Wittenberg. Rather their reach was expanded by using the printing press. Although the idea of using money to purchase salvation had been around (and contested) for several hundred years, it was not until Luther began to amplify the message via the printing press that the reformation (and the consequent institutional change) was set into motion.

Luther and his use of printing came at a moment when it tapped into the wider tensions in society. The development of printing (albeit without movable type), had been understood in other cultures, notably China. However, its use there did not have the same widescale social consequences. In Europe in the 1500s by contrast, printing enabled social forces to act on latent strains that, when unleashed, had profound consequences for preexisting social institutions.

Indeed, it can be argued that the development of printing by Guttenberg released a wave of malevolence and savagery that lasted for several centuries. There were wars of religion across Europe well into the seventeenth century. There were wars between the Catholics and the Huguenots (including the religious cleansing of the St Bartholomew massacre in 1572 where as many as 30,000 died). There was the 30 Years War (1618–1648), fought largely for religious purposes, as well as the French Revolution and the Terror. ¹⁵

Coming back to the point of emerging technology and institutional change, the printing press moved through a liminal phase where its social consequence was being worked out. It gained a foothold in society in, among other places, in the practice of religion. Through this period, it became a central tool for both the Catholic Church and the Protestant movement. That is, printing changed the institutional structure of the institution of religion.

Steam technology had a similar trajectory. It emerged to address a specific need, that is, to pump the water out of mines (Davey, 1903). After a period of technological gestation, it was then perfected and reapplied to a wide variety of other applications. It was used to power factories and workshops of various types (Taylor, 1844), run refrigeration machines that produced ice (Duffy et al., 2017), and transport people and goods (Bostrom and Yudkowsky, 2011). Steam technology also facilitated the development of the factory system, wage labor, the development of cities, for a period, child labor, capitalist accumulation, etc. Again, we see the pattern where technology emerges, is shaped by various, often entrenched, social forces, and becomes a force in the restructuring of society.

Digitalization is also an example of this albeit with another provenance. Its roots were computing and the military exigency of the Second World War. Following the war, the transistor was developed and soon it was being packed into integrated circuits or “chips.” As noted by Beniger (1986), digitalization was applied to what he called the control revolution, that is, the logistical tasks of managing factories and the products that emerged (Boulding, 1955). Just as with the previous technologies, digitalization was soon applied to a wide variety of applications that were far beyond its original remit. From there, it was also applied to communication and information transfer. These chips were applied to a variety of applications including transistor radios, calculators, computers and now artificial intelligence. The digitalization of society has resulted in new forms of production; it plays into public administration and governance; and it has changed the way that we work, socialize, and entertain ourselves. Again, technological development has reciprocally shaped and rearrangement of our institutional furniture.

So what

Following the thread of emergent technologies reshaping social institutions, one can ask if, for example, social media is in the process of reshaping democracy as a form of governance. At the dawn of the internet, Kedzie (1996) suggested that non-democratic movements could not survive the diffusion of the internet. The free flow of information would, in Kedzie's estimation, limit the ability of tyrants and autocrats to hold their position. To be sure, events such as the Arab Spring seemed to fulfill this prediction.

From our location, Kedzie's perspective needs to be rethought. The current use of social media to spread all forms of disingenuous fake news and conspiracy theories (Tandoc et al., 2017) shows that the tyrants and autocrats are still with us. Indeed, both Kim (2021) and Weidmann and Rød (2019) note that the rise of autocracy is one of the major developments in the period since the Arab Spring. According to Weidmann and Rød, there is a negative relationship between the use of internet and democratic processes. Following this thread, Gershberg and Illing (2022) question the ability of democratic systems to survive digitalization since digitalization allows for the collection of subversive forces in a space within liberal democratic systems. They note that while the public sphere afforded by digital platforms facilitates deliberation, it also is a space in which disingenuous actors can thrive. This corrodes the sense of mutual tolerance and forbearance (the bulwarks of democracy) and can facilitate the growth of illiberal forces (see, for example, the situation in Hungary). The role of social media in the restructuring of democratic systems suggests that it is indeed an emerging technology.

Moving beyond social media to the rise of artificial intelligence, the same questions can be posed. Artificial intelligence is a technology moving from nascency to liminality. Its arrival is being seen in a variety of domains. For example, Chen et al. (2022) are using this technology to identify hitherto unrecognized state variables that describe complex motion. It is also finding a foothold in a variety of areas including insurance adjustment, ¹⁶ prisoner recidivism (van Dijck, 2022), mammography, ¹⁷ effective snow removal, ¹⁸ etc. As suggested by the idea of liminality, different interests, and forces are lining up on the various sides of this development. On the one hand, it is seen as being efficient and rational in its use of resources. At the same time, it is seen as a way for entrenched interests to maintain their position in society at the expense of others.

While it is possible to think that artificial intelligence will soon move beyond liminality, at the time of this writing, it is still in the process of being formed and shaped. Echoing the debate between Lipmann and Dewey, is the complexity of society too much as Lipmann noted, or can we rely on Dewey's faith in social interaction to steer this development? Following Dewey, can the ordinary, reasonably informed individual, (the hypothetical rider on the Clapham omnibus) winnow out the truth from the noise associated with artificial intelligence (Gershberg and Illing, 2022)? Time will tell.