Technology as a socio-historical phenomenon

  • Leonid Griffen National Historical and Architectural Museum “Kyiv Fortress”
  • Nadiia Ryzheva V. O. Sukhomlynskyi National University of Mykolaiv
Keywords: technology, technosphere, technical thinking, technical devices, technocenosis


The article reveals the authors' vision of the essence of the technology as a sociohistorical phenomenon. It is based on the idea that technology is not only a set of technical devices but a segment of the general system – a society – located between a social medium and its natural surroundings in the form of a peculiar social technosphere, which simultaneously separates and connects them. The main objective purpose of the technosphere is to promote the effective rendering of society-generated entropy outwards; it defines the features of the technosphere as a sociohistorical phenomenon. The analogues of such material formations take place also in wildlife (from the spider-web to the beaver dam) but are very few and arise from the implementation of instinctive programs of the species. In a person's consciousness, such programmes are not given by “nature”, they are formed on the basis of “desobjectivation” of technical objects available in society. In the process of “desobjectivation” the essence, the “logic of the subject” becomes the achievement of a person and due to his abilities is filled with new meaning. As a result, the technology is a materially ideal phenomenon: on the one hand, it is a set of technical objects and on the other hand – technical thinking of a person, the highest manifestation of which is technical sciences nowadays. Properly technical objects are created by society to meet the individual and social needs of a person. These are primarily consumption items; due to their manmade nature, the question of production means development arises, which over time becomes increasingly important, especially by virtue of their significant impact on social relations (which in time also require certain technical devices for their implementation). The complex of these devices forms the techno sphere of society as a compound integrity. Not only groups of different in application technical objects become the constituent parts of the technosphere, but also their conglomerates designed to perform certain functions, which, similar to the biological branch, were called techno enosis; in the latter at the account of a peculiar “competition”, the development of these components in particular and the technosphere integrally takes place. However, despite consistency, the technosphere is a subsystem of a society, therefore, there is no perspective of creating certain laws of its development and an appropriate coherent periodization. For this reason, the scientific periodization of the development of technology as such is connected with the purpose of the given research and is defined by it.


Download data is not yet available.


Aliyeva, O. G.(2003). Fenomen texniky v suchasnij kulturi [The phenomenon of technology in modern culture]. Multyversum. Filosofskyi almanakh ‒ Мultiversum. Philosophical almanac, (37), 252–261 [in Ukrainian].

Chornomordenko, I. V., & Kachak, N. V. (2016). Teoretyko-metodolohichni zasady stanovlennia, rozvytku ta transformatsii filosofii tekhniky v epokhu hlobalizatsii [Theoretical and methodological basis of genesis, development and transformation of philosophy of technology in the era of globalization]. Hileia. Filosofski nauky ‒ Gileya. Philosophical sciences, 105(2), 225–229. Retrieved from [in Ukrainian].

Chursinova, O. (2014). Sotsialno-antropolohichni aspekty suchasnoi ukrainskoi filosofii tekhniky [Socio-anthropological aspects of modern Ukrainian philosophy of technology]. Bulletin of the National University “Lviv Polytechnic” ‒ Bulletin of the National University “Lviv Polytechnic”, (780), 53–57. Retrieved from [in Ukrainian].

Sajmon, G. (2004). Nauki ob iskusstvennom [Sciences of the artificial]. Moscow: Editorial URSS [in Russian].

Gryffen, L. A.(2012). Obshhestvennye formy znanyya [Social forms of knowledge]. Nauka ta Naukoznavstvo ‒ Science and Science of Science, (2), 135–142 [in Ukrainian].

Frojde, M. (1986). Zhivotnye stroyat [The animals are building]. Moscow: Mir [in Russian].

Kahlau, C., Schneider, A, & Souza-Lima, J. (2019). the social technology as an alternative to development: questions about Science. Technology and Society, 15(36), 190–213.

Libberta, Eh. (Eds). (1982) Osnovy obshchej biologii [Fundamentals of General Biology]. Moscow: Mir [in Russian].

Malaspina, S. (2019). Pure information: about infinity and human nature in a technical object. Culture, Theory and Criticism, 60(3-4), 205–222.

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.

McLain, M., Irving-Bell, D., Wooff, D., & Morrison-Love, D. (2019) How technology makes us human: cultural historical roots for design and technology education. Сurriculum Journal, 30(4), 464–483.

Melnyk, V. P. (2010). Filosofiia. Nauka. Tekhnika: Metodoloho-svitohliadnyi analiz – [Philosophy. Science. Technology: methodological and ideological analysis]. Lviv: Ivan Franko National University of Lviv [in Ukrainian].

Muratova, I. A. (2019). Sotsialna otsinka tekhniky v konteksti sotsialno-filosofskoho doslidzhennia tekhnolohii [Social evaluation of technology in the context of socio-philosophical research of technology]. Hileia. Filosofski Nauky ‒ Gileya. Philosophical Sciences, 149(10(2)), 100–106. Retrieved from [in Ukrainian].

Mykhailovskyi, A. (2018). Antropolohichnyi vymir tekhniky: filosofski aspekty [Anthropological dimension of technology: philosophical aspects]. Visnyk Lvivskoho Universytetu. Filosofsko-Politolohichni Studii ‒ Visnyk of the Lviv University Philosophical Political Studies, (16), 45–50. Retrieved from [in Ukrainian].

Nishimura, H., Kanoshima, E. H., & Kono, K. (2019). Advancement in science and technology and human societies. Science of Societal Safety: Living at Times of Risks and Disasters, 2, 15–26.

Oliveira, L. V. (2020). Science-technology-society: from the historical-ontological foundations to some analytical principles. Technology and society,16(42), 1–21. [in Portuguese].

Rozin, V. M. (2013). Filosofiya tekhniki: istoriya i sovremennost [Philosophy of technology: history and modernity]. Moscow: Directmedia [in Russian].

Rukovskij, N. N. (1991). Ubezhishcha chetveronogikh [Four-footed shelters]. Moscow: Agropromizdat [in Russian].

Ryolo, F. (1885). Tehnika i ee svyaz s zadachey kulturyi [Technology and its connection with the task of culture]. Sankt Peterburg: Ministry of Railways [in Russian].

Tolochko, P. P., & Stanko, V. N. (Eds). (1997). Davnya istoriya Ukrayiny [Ancient history of Ukraine] (Vol. 1–8). Kiev: Naukova dumka [in Ukrainian].

Vynnyk, U. (2016). Filosofskyi zmist perspektyvy humanizatsii tekhniky [Philosophical content of the technology humanization perspective]. Visnyk Prykarpatskoho Universytetu. Filosofski i Psykholohichni Nauky ‒ Bulletin of the Precarpathian University. Philosophical and Psychological Sciences, (20), 135–142 [in Ukrainian].

Ushakov, E. V. (2017). Filosofiya tekhniki i tekhnologii [Philosophy of technology and technology]. Moscow: Izdatelstvo Yurayt [in Russian].

Jaspers, K. (2012). Filosofiya [Philosophy]. Moscow: Kanon [in Ukrainian].

Abstract views: 168
PDF Downloads: 109
How to Cite
Griffen, L., & Ryzheva, N. (2021). Technology as a socio-historical phenomenon. History of Science and Technology, 11(1), 26-37.