In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

  • Notes from the Field
  • Ossama Abd Elrahman (bio)

The authors' treatment of the historical process of mass motorization and the domestication of the car in Swedish and Norwegian societies reinforces critical elements in the transfer and diffusion of technology across cultural borders. The authors' accounts refute the view that technology follows a deterministic path, a view that played a powerful role in the conceptualization of technological development in the West (Heilbroner, 1967). Such a view sees technology as an independent force, which follows an "autonomous process," "fixed sequence," or path, and is not subject to human choice. A study of the diffusion of the automobile in these two societies, however, illustrates the centrality of the human element in the transfer process. The remaking of Sweden and Norway into car societies necessitated the existence of human agency, which served as the driving force, propelling the institutionalization of this technology.

"Far from having an independent and necessary dynamism of its own, technical design has no force whatever unless it has become embodied in the choices and commitments of some set of cultural institutions or individuals" (Staudenmaier, 1984, n.p.). The role of these institutions and individuals was critical, as shown in the accounts of the authors in ensuring the domestication of this technology. They served as the negotiators and mediators who actively aligned differing interests, diffused cultural tensions, and dismantled the resistance. They acted as political strategists who rescued the technological idea from an imminent demise, stripped it of its foreign dress, and gave it a "face lift" and a new indigenous packaging, which made it respectable and acceptable in the local culture. They reconditioned the technological idea to fit the frame of reference and worldview of that environment, [End Page 334] then reintroduced it into the environment in a new light. These individuals and institutions were thus the creators of the "technological momentum" rather than passive spectators. Under the cloak of "education," they relentlessly disseminated skillfully crafted messages through a deliberate, careful, and proactive process, which was by no means the offspring of accident.

In the Swedish context, the transfer efforts reinforced the image of the car as the symbol of freedom, individuality, and mobility, and as the antithesis of repressive communist regimes and orders. Such discourse at the time facilitated the domestication of the car. In the Norwegian context, the indigenization of the car meant that the technology champions had to shift the discourse away from the car, and refocus it on the building of roads, a critical step toward the remaking of the car society. The environment was too hostile to the car, which was viewed as an unnecessary luxury that threatened the national economy, and revived images of a rejected past. Therefore, a straightforward process of recasting the car in a new and more appealing indigenous image would have been an exercise in futility, given the level of hostility. Taking a broader path was warranted to institutionalize such technology. Values of scientific objectivity and rationalism cherished in the Norwegian public discourse were borrowed to strengthen the argument for road building. Science was employed to serve the cause.

The relationship between science and politics revealed in the authors' accounts is indeed an interesting one. To my mind, it seems that the success of the transfer of mass motorization in Norway entailed the subordination of politics to the authority of science. The portrayal of the separation between science and politics was meant to protect the sanctity of science and avoid the perception of politics corrupting or dominating science. This would have meant the loss of science's objectivity and rationality, and the demise of the transfer project, which rested on this idea. Hence, although the success of science in serving the mass motorization cause rested on its ability to portray itself as separate and independent from politics, it seems that the success of politics in pushing the technology rested on its projecting the image of subordination and dependency on science.

This political strategizing is of critical importance to the transfer of technology. In the United States, public policy was aggressively employed to aid the objective of total car domination. Since 1912, the state has promoted automobilization by aggressive road building...

pdf

Share