I think my point on the societal vs personal is that this isn’t exactly the actual boxing match in question. In any given situation, and person can make a choice against the status quo, etc. (heck, I know people that won’t get on planes!). I think personal choice isn’t in jeopardy or even in focus with technological determinism. Isn’t it more the idea that, among the things that have the ability to move great societies over time–philosophy, war, art, nature–that human technological advance is one of the most striking and undeniable forces for change.

I think I’d basically be in total agreement with you on the relationship between determinism and values and ends. I like to call it “Tendency Theory” which is basically what you describe with cell phones. Once enough people choose to use a technology, the values of the society change and that pushes a person to do something (pick up the phone) although it never forces them to.

With cars, I tried to show how the reception of a technology is different based on the preexisting values of that society. Americans were already individualist so the car reinforced that, whereas Europeans liked to stay in their cities so they didn’t take to cars as quickly.

So yes, I’d propose some kind of middle road that takes both societal transformation and personal choice seriously.