It’s become such a regular turn of phrase, we don’t even think twice about using it:
- From an old Forbes article: “How Google Search Results Will Evolve Throughout 2015“
- From Social Media Today: “Facebook Continues to Evolve Facebook Live, Announces New Tools“
- From Government Technology Magazine: “Twitter, Uber, Plan to Further Evolve Their Civic Engagement Strategies“
- Even in TED talks: “Kevin Kelly: How Technology Evolves“
- And I could go on and on, the examples being seemingly endless…
Do you see it?
That pesky term “evolve” has become a shorthand for talking about technological development. In fact, my 2013 dissertation research showed that this term was employed frequently in Google, Facebook and Twitter blogs when these companies wanted to talk about new developments in technology. I also see it frequently in student papers, or hear it when I speak to people who work in the social media or technology sectors. But I think that using the word “evolve” to describe technology needs to be challenged. Words matter, because they directly impact the way we view the world around us, naturalizing some processes or calling attention to others. Challenging the use of the term evolve in this context is important, because the use of evolution as a way of understanding technology obscures important elements of power, control and inequality that lie at the heart of technological development.
Allow me to explain.
Evolution implies a natural process, a sort of “natural selection” which is not engineered by an organism and in which the traits that allow an organism to flourish thrive, while other traits fall by the wayside. It is a process that is fairly democratic, insofar as any organism through chance and reproduction has an opportunity to evolve into something else. Evolution is not designed by a group of organisms or imposed by one organism onto another, although organisms can influence one another and co-evolve.
In contrast, technology does not develop naturally nor by chance. It is designed by specific people under a specific set of social and cultural circumstances. Its design tends to privilege those who engineer it, and support those who already have the most power and money in society. It thus cements some inequalities while exacerbating others, and the best technology does not necessarily survive, instead the technologies that can attract the most money (to advertisers or venture capitalists, for example) are the ones that thrive, even if these technologies possess inherent flaws (in security, access, usability, for example).
When we use the term evolve, even unintentionally, to describe technological development, we are naturalizing the process of technological design, and as such we are discursively erasing ALL the people and the power imbalances that are a part of technological development. We erase the underpaid janitors who sweep the Apple campus, we erase the mainly white male programmers responsible for the latest software update, we erase the venture capitalist diversity problems, we erase the billions of advertising dollars that flow into the technology industry and shape the algorithms of popular platforms.
An “evolution” of technology implies that technological development is inevitable. It implies that the strongest technological solution has won out by a natural selection. It implies that there is no one to hold accountable when we lose our jobs, our privacy, and our relationships with each other by using the technology.
This is why the examples above, particularly example 3, are so egregious. When Uber and Twitter “evolve” their civic engagement strategies, what is really being said is that Uber and Twitter are developing new ways to lobby governments for policies that work in their favor (instead of, perhaps, working in favor of contingent labor in Uber’s case, or protecting people from online bullying in Twitter’s case). This is not evolution, this is intentional government influence. Similarly, when we suggest that Google search “evolves” or Facebook live “evolves” or technology in general “evolves”, at best we are discursively creating a feeling that regular people have no control over whether the technology develops in their own best interest, and at worst, we are discursively giving those people who build the technology god-like status.
Words matter, and technology doesn’t evolve. It is built. By specific people, under specific social and cultural circumstances. It can be challenged. It must be questioned, so that we can develop technologies that improves the lives of everyone.