reconstruct the historical trajectory of a technology

Prompt

[1] Select a technology of interest. It may be any technology at all, invented anywhere, but provided that it has been very influential for societys form its key routines and allied roles and understandings, and/or its social order (who is influential, whose interests/values dominate, who participates in key matters), are clearly influenced by the technology.

[2] Study the history of your case, as history. Your argument will be far better if you immerse yourself in the story first, and on its own terms. E.g., think about how we read Mumford on the clock prior to the analytic reconstruction in class.

[3] Develop your argument your claim, causal threads, and warrant, as described above. Include a citation for each causal thread i.e., data that could be verified.

[4] After your argument, in a separate paragraph, describe a substantive influence of a non-US culture on US culture, in relation to your societal change trajectory.

• If your change trajectory centers on the US, then identify a non-US influence that was substantive for one of your turnings (causal threads) in the developmental trajectory (i.e., that you have represented as reasons — disturbances and realignments — in your argument). This could be a new reason you introduce.
• If your change trajectory focuses on a non-US culture, then identify an effect or side-effect of your trajectory on US culture. In essence, describe how the societal change trajectory you’ve focused on influences a societal change trajectory in the US (perhaps a disturbance that influences US technology, or perhaps just an influence on US society generally).
• If your change trajectory features US and non-US elements, be sure to describe a particular substantive influence on the US from a non-US entity, even if it repeats elements in the main body of your argument.

Which is:

You will reconstruct the historical trajectory of a technology as it co-evolves with society a societal change trajectory. You will explicitly consider non-US influence on US culture as part of this.

You will do this by identifying what we refer to as causal threads distinct elements of the overall trajectory that you deem necessary to explain the origin of the technology, its influence on society, and its evolution and further influence on society. Each causal thread has the form of a disturbance and the follow-on realignment of society around the features of that disturbance … i.e., it is a thread in the overall story you are weaving. Each causal thread is unified in the sense that the social realignments you identify are in some manner clearly related to the properties of the disturbance and/or the context in which the disturbance arises.

disturbances may be conceptual (insights that unlock possibilities, new characterization of a present predicament), material (technology innovation, crisis owing to physical/ biological/ecological factors), or societal/agentic (new social formations, new forms of practice). These disturbances arise in their circumstances, influence locally, and then may diffuse outward (the disturbance itself, or propagating effects of local realignments) so that further, later disturbances occur.

The form of your essay will be that of a three-part argument. A claim is your way of summarizing an unfolding trajectory of society as it relates to your selected technology it is what you have concluded about the essential arc of change. This summary will likely highlight some of the causal threads you identify. Reasons are your evidence for the claim. These reasons each have the form of a causal thread, and each is linked to data that others can verify. Last, the warrantdemonstrates that the claim is well supported by the reasons. Concretely, as discussed in the slide attached, the warrant argues that the reasons are collectively complete and are each necessary (see slide for definitions).

Include a statement, prior to the start of your essay/argument, affirming that on your personal honor, and in light of the University honor code, you have not used AI inappropriately.