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 tobelieve, 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?"
The author of the passage uses the expression "are supposed to" in the highlighted text primarily in order to
suggest that a contention made by constructivists regarding determinists is inaccurate
define the generally accepted position of determinists regarding the implementation of technology
engage in speculation about the motivation of determinists
lend support to a comment critical of the position of determinists
contrast the historical position of determinists with their position regarding the exchange modernization
此讲解的内容由AI生成,还未经人工审阅,仅供参考。
正确答案是 A。
表达方式“are supposed to ”在本文中主要用来暗示施构论者(constructivists)对决定论者(determinists)的提议是不准确的。作者列举了施构论者关于决定论者的提议,但也指出这种提议是不准确的。
还是定位第二段:"The constructivists gain acceptance by misrepresenting technological determinism: technological determinists are supposed tobelieve "
作者态度是负面的,A和C犹豫,错选C-质疑的是结论,不是动机,偷换概念
467错都是因为没有看懂第三段,第三段不是说C的观点,而是在说C对T的观点的错误认知
这个are supposed to主要是纠结A和C
但是这个C质疑的是motivation,动机属于偷换概念了,质疑的应该是结论
这里的 supposed to是作者的措辞
specific; 段落开头说它是通过 misrepresent 来得到认可; 所以作者 说 tech xx “应该” 怎么怎么样, 就是 来强调出 constru这类人的观点不准确。
定位:The constructivists gain acceptance by/ misrepresenting technological determinism/: technological determinists /are supposed to believe/, for example,前面说接受misrepresenting technological determinism,紧接着说这些接受。。。的人应该是相信。。。(misrepresenting的结果-不准确的)