Technology has been defined as the application of scientific knowledge to the practical aims of human life. More often than not we think of this as the application of knowledge from sciences such as physics, chemistry or biology to provide new ‘things’ which improve life. However, perhaps this is too narrow a perspective, which doesn’t pay enough attention to what might be called social technologies that allow us to interact. For example, in his book ‘Money – A story of humanity’ David McWilliams frames money as just such a technology that has played a crucial role in shaping human development.
McWilliams contends that money is arguable the defining technology of humans over the last five thousand years as we moved from being a pyrophyte species shaped by fire, to a plutophyte species that has adapted to and been adapted by money. Unlike many of the scientific technologies money is ephemeral (particularly in its more modern forms), yet it is critical to the way we live our lives. When it does its job properly it is a means of exchange, a unit of account and a store of value. Amongst other things it facilitates trade and allows us to imagine, save for and invest in the future.
Social technologies might be defined as things that help humans work together more efficiently and effectively. The most fundamental of these would probably be language, which allows for greater cooperation and the sharing of knowledge. Others would include:
- writing, which enables the recording and sharing of knowledge (McWilliams argues that the earliest forms of writing may well have been the recording of credit records)
- organisational arrangements – such as companies, which allow the organisation of work between individuals and teams and a reduction in transactions costs
- markets, which allow exchange of goods and services and facilitate the division of labour
- property systems, which determine how limited physical resources are owned and managed
- legal systems, which set parameters within which contracts can be made and enforced
- insurance and social security, which spread and share risks
- social norms and conventions, which help regulate the behaviour of individuals in society
- institutions, which facility interactions between companies and individuals and facilitate the development of trust and reduce transitions costs
- political systems, which determine how decisions are made and implemented, not least in setting the framework in which other social technologies operate
There is an interesting relationship between the geography over which political systems operate and the geographical reach of other social and scientific technologies. Traditionally the frameworks for most technologies have been determined at a national or regional level, however increasingly, to be effective, these frameworks need to be multi-national, not least in the financial sphere where such things as the movement of capital can influence and constrain the actions of nation states.
As with science based technology social technologies are always evolving and often the two go hand in hand as scientific discoveries open up possibilities that society than has to grapple with to make the most of (such as with AI at the moment). McWilliams cites an example of such co-development in Africa where mobile phone credit is used as a form of money where banking systems are not well developed.
Innovation in the development of social technologies to increase productivity and improve outcomes can be as important as in the scientific technologies. The scope for innovation in social technologies may be higher given there are less physical constraints than for science based technology. Innovation in social technologies is in many respects only constrained by our imagination. The history of the development of money is a good example of how innovation in a social technology can be a facilitator of innovation elsewhere.
Mediation itself can be seen as a social technology. At its core it is a process which facilitates cooperation between participants to solve problems, build relationships, reduce costs and improve productivity. By deepening understanding and allowing scope for imaginatively exploring possibilities before decisions are taken it helps generate more effective outcomes and improves efficiency compared to more formal processes. Its flexibility as a process also allows room for innovation and experimentation – not least in the way in which new science based technologies such as AI might potentially enhance the mediation process.
________________________
To make sure you do not miss out on regular updates from the Kluwer Mediation Blog, please subscribe here.
Response from the Kluwer Mediation Blog Editorial Team
In response to “We have the technology” by Charlie Woods (June 8, 2025)
Thank you, Charlie, for your insightful contribution. Your piece reframes mediation in a compelling and timely way—as a social technology that, like money or legal systems, facilitates complex human interaction and fosters cooperative progress.
We particularly appreciate the broader conceptual lens you offer: one that shifts the conversation beyond digital or scientific tools to include the human-designed processes and institutions that shape our social, economic, and political lives. Identifying mediation as a social technology invites mediators, parties, and policymakers alike to see dispute resolution not just as a reactive tool for conflict, but as an enabling infrastructure—essential for collaboration, governance, and even innovation.
Your exploration of how scientific and social technologies co-evolve is particularly resonant in an age where artificial intelligence, blockchain, and other emerging tools are being incorporated into the dispute resolution space. The example of mobile phone credit functioning as currency in parts of Africa illustrates how necessity, imagination, and accessible platforms can combine to leapfrog traditional systems. Mediation, too, often bypasses rigid legal structures, allowing more context-sensitive, creative, and locally legitimate outcomes.
This observation leads us to two questions for our readers and the wider mediation community:
1. If we understand mediation as a social technology—alongside markets, legal systems, and language—how might this change the way we teach, scale, or embed it in public and private institutions?
2. In what ways can science-based technologies (like AI or big data analytics) be responsibly integrated into mediation without undermining the human-centred values that make it effective?
We welcome reflections from mediators, policymakers, technologists, and scholars on how we might consciously evolve mediation both as a practice and a social infrastructure in service of a more collaborative future.
— Kluwer Mediation Blog Editorial Team
How interesting Charlie and Paul. My immediate response is to say that mediation, in this context, can no longer be viewed as “ADR”, ie merely a part of the legal system. It stands alone as something qualitatively different from that system. If so, it seems like a category error to continue to view it in litigation or legal system terms. It could be freed from some of the constraints and expectations that such a narrow formulation imposes. Maybe that would give mediation the boost it needs to become a central feature of problem solving, solution seeking, policy making and decision making.
Thanks John, for your reflection. Your observation goes to what is for me a a long-standing tension in the mediation field: is mediation an adjunct to the legal system, or is it something altogether different—an autonomous mode of human problem-solving with its own philosophical and practical foundation? In the last 30 years we have tended to frame it as the former.
However, framing mediation as qualitatively distinct from litigation, rather than as “Alternative” Dispute Resolution, invites us to break free from a legacy vocabulary that often limits mediation’s potential. If mediation is more than just a method for resolving legal disputes—if it is, as Charlie suggested, a social technology—then treating it solely as a legal tool may amount to a category error.
Your suggestion that mediation could serve as a core framework for policy making, strategic decision making, and public problem-solving is not only ambitious—it is increasingly necessary in a world where complexity, interdependence, and stakeholder diversity challenge traditional adversarial models. Mediation, when liberated from purely legal contexts, becomes a facilitator of understanding, dialogue, and co-created futures.
This brings us to two questions for our readers and contributors:
1. What would it take—in structural, cultural, and educational terms—for mediation to be recognised and used as a standalone problem-solving discipline, rather than a legal subsystem?
2. Can you share examples where mediation has already stepped beyond the courtroom—into community building, policy development, corporate strategy, or public governance—and proven its independent value?
We invite the Kluwer Mediation Blog community to join this important conversation about the future identity of mediation—and whether it is time to reclaim its independence.
— Kluwer Mediation Blog Editorial Team