Jon Clark’s study of the effect of the modernization of a telephone exchange on exchange maintenance work and workers is a solid contribution to a debate that encompasses two lively issues in the history and sociology of technology: technological determinism and social constructivism.
Clark makes the point that the characteristics of a technology have a decisive influence on job skills and work organization. Put more strongly, technology can be a primary determinant of social and managerial organization. Clark believes this possibility has been obscured by the recent sociological fashion, exemplified by Braverman’s analysis, that emphasizes the way machinery reflects social choices. For Braverman, the shape of a technological system is subordinate to the manager’s desire to wrest control of the labor process from the workers. Technological change is construed as the outcome of negotiations among interested parties who seek to incorporate their own interests into the design and configuration of the machinery. This position represents the new mainstream called social constructivism.
The constructivists gain acceptance by misrepresenting technological determinism: technological determinists are supposed to believe, for example, that machinery imposes appropriate forms of order on society. The alternative to constructivism, in other words, is to view technology as existing outside society, capable of directly influencing skills and work organization.
Clark refutes the extremes of the constructivists by both theoretical and empirical arguments. Theoretically he defines “technology” in terms of relationships between social and technical variables. Attempts to reduce the meaning of technology to cold, hard metal are bound to fail, for machinery is just scrap unless it is organized functionally and supported by appropriate systems of operation and maintenance. At the empirical level Clark shows how a change at the telephone exchange from maintenance-intensive electromechanical switches to semielectronic switching systems altered work tasks, skills, training opportunities, administration, and organization of workers. Some changes Clark attributes to the particular way
management and labor unions negotiated the introduction of the technology, whereas others are seen as arising from the capabilities and nature of the technology itself. Thus Clark helps answer the question: “When is social choice decisive and when are the concrete characteristics of technology more important?”
我有更好的解析 
暂无雷哥网文字解析
文章翻译：
Jon Clark的关于电信交换现代化影响的研究对两个热议的话题—科技决定论和社会建构论提供了可靠的贡献。
Clark指出科技对工作技能和工作组织都起着决定性的影响。详细地说，技术是社会和管理组织中的首要决定因素。Clark认为这种可能性被近期的社会学流派模糊了，就以Braverman的分析举例。Braverman强调了机器反映社会选择能力。对于Braverman， 一个技术系统的形态隶属于经理从工人那攫取控制劳动过程的愿望。科技改变被解释成相关团体协商的结果，这些团体把自身利益结合到机器的设计与配置中。该立场代表了称为”社会建构主义”的新主流。
建构主义者通过讹传科技决定论的观点来获得大众接纳，例如假定科技决定论者相信机器对社会施加正确的秩序形式。换句话说，建构主义者将科技看作存在于社会之外，能直接影响工作技能和工作机构。
Clark对于社会构建主义者的极端性进行了理论和实践上的反驳。从理论层面，Clark将“科技”定义为社会和技术变量的一个关系.。将科技的意义简化为冰冷,坚固的金属的企图是错误的, 因为机械不过是碎片,除非当其被功能性地组织起来, 并由适当的操作系统和维护所支持。从经验层面,Clark展示了电信交换从维护密集型机电转换到半电子交换系统是如何改变工作内容, 技能, 培训机会,管理, 工作人员的组织。Clark把一些变化归因于管理层和工会组织协商技术引进的一种特殊方式,另一些则视为科技自身的自然性质和性能的一种体现。所以Clark帮助回答了:何时社会选择是决定性的,何时科技坚定特性更重要.
2.文章结构：
① Introduce Clark’s study as a solid contribution to the debate between technological determinists and social constructivists.
② Present Braverman’s view about social constructivism that Clark takes issues with.
③ Clark refutes constructisim theoretically and empirically
文章可以分为三部分：
第一部分：首先阐释Clark的研究对于科技决定论和社会建构主义的可靠贡献。
第二部分：引入了Braverman为代表的主要社会建构论，说明了Clark所支持的社会建构的全面性。
第三部分：Clark对于社会建构极端化从理论和实验上的驳斥。
文章的主旨
A. 主张对科技改变持有积极态度
B. 讨论电信交换现代化雇员的潜在影响
C. 描述了对科技改变建构主义挑战的观点
D. 挑战技术决定论的观点
E. 提议应在真实情况下研究社会进程中的科技改变
题目解析：
A. 文章并未提出对科技改变的积极态度，仅仅是提到了科技改变在社会中的角色。
B. 文章仅仅举例电信交换现代化后雇员来更好描述两种对立观点，并未提出其潜在影响。
C. 正确。文章主要是描述Clark反驳社会建构论的观点。
D. 文章主要支持Clark的观点，并不是科技决定论。
E. 文章主要讲反驳社会建构论的观点，并不是说科技决定论需要在现实中实践。
科目：
阅读RC
来源：
精选题库
3m13s
平均耗时
72%
平均正确率
该题由网友wjRzvT提供 上传GMAT题
分享
周末、晚班滚动开班 
24+35+35+6课时 
