The simplistic life and the essence of technology January 5, 2007
Posted by mwj as philosophy, technology. trackback.A friend sent me a link to an interview with Eric Brende, an MIT graduate who has written about his decision to forsake the hi-tech life and go live with the Amish.
My friend asked me for my response, and I gave it to him, in perhaps a slightly longer version than he expected. Nevertheless, I found this a great opportunity to consolidate my critique of the modern day luddite into three broad categories: historicism, romanticism and escapism. I thought I might post my observations here for all to enjoy.
The essence of technology… in no way confines us to a stultified compulsion to push on blindly with technology or, what comes to the same thing, to rebel helplessly against it and curse it as the work of the devil.
– Martin Heidegger, The Question Concerning Technology
Historicism
Eric Brende describes all the social ills of modern life as “related directly or indirectly to this takeover by technology.” Depression, isolation, disarray, you name it. However, these things have been around throughout history, at times in even more abundance than today. The Romans, for example, experienced all manners of social decay, and it wasn’t because their horses were getting faster or they were playing on the internet all day. If these problems were around before “technology” appeared on the scene, there must be another explanation other than the historicist claim that technology is the root of all ills.
The other side of this is that there actually was technology in the Roman empire, as well as on an Amish farm. Wherever we go, humans make things that make work easier, faster, better. I know that Eric isn’t advocating a complete abstinence from technology, but in the interview he seems to place all the emphasis on the negative side of technology without acknowledging that it has given us the tools to, say, be able to read about how technology is bad, to find a community that we could escape to, and then to write article and a book about it and promote it to the rest of the world.
Romanticism
I did like his explanation of discussion over manual labour which becomes “self-automating” and then “serves as a kind of musical undercurrent that gives a certain depth to the experience.” The idea of multi-layered experiences - physical labour, conversation, nature - is profound and something that we all must cherish and protect. However, along with the deep bass of lived experience I also heard the shriller note of romanticism. The idea of “peasants deliberating under the oak tree” to use Rousseau’s imagery, is a potent one, and carries with it the promise that we can remove ourselves from all the pressures of an interconnected world and choose our own destiny, work the plough and enjoy the simple life again.
But the very absence of technology is not necessarily a catalyst for close bonds between people. In fact, it can actually be the problem itself. Like the movie, The Village, we cannot bar ourselves from all of the intrigue that lies in the human heart, and isolating ourselves from everyone else still leaves us with ourselves. Not to mention the fact that, as in The Village, there almost always comes a point when a small and isolated community needs the medicine/expertise/supplies of the rest of humanity.
Escapism
This leads me to my final point, which is that the danger with a view such as Eric Brende’s is its tendency towards escapism. Let us say for a moment that it is possible to run away from globalization, from the internet, from lights, cars, clear-cutting and more. Let’s say that
Eric and Mary and others did it: where does that leave the rest of us? Technology, in all its glory and all its danger, is here to stay. We have just seen the tip of the information revolution, the internet, “web 2.0,” whatever. Bio-engineering is in its ascendancy. Nuclear proliferation is beginning to churn again. Things out here are scary. But I don’t think that is a good reason to pretend they’re not here, and I think that such pretense can only lead to a distorted perception of the world, for ourselves and for our children.
And I don’t think that it’s all so bad, either. Every single oil company that I’ve heard of is now paying at least lip-service to environmental concerns, and some are doing a lot more. The global economy is changing and new metrics are being invented that take into account our ecological capital. The body has received renewed interest as people realize that they are not just ghosts in a machine, and there is all sorts of interesting work that seeks to unite technology with our bodily being-in-the-world. And human interaction through technological mediums, first e-mail, and now facebook, youtube, wikipedia and more, has been at its healthiest in decades. So healthy, in fact, that TIME magazine has optimistically named “You” as the person of the year for 2006. This “you” is the new citizen of the digital democracy, and the unadultered creativity that I see erupting on the net has given me cause for some optimism as well.
Technology and freedom
I have a deep conviction that technology properly understood is not a force that is somehow independent from the rest of our humanity, but is an integral part of what makes us human. We never can fully distance ourselves from it, though we can be swallowed up by it, just like the people of The Village were swallowed up by their elaborate ruse, the Romantics by their imagination, and the Romans by their power. Even if we think we have escaped modern technology into some sort of idyllic pastoral life, the drive to systematize and control and make tools of is still present. Heidegger called this move towards tool-making “enframing,” and sought to articulate a “free relationship” between human being and technology in “The Question Concerning Technology.” He saw clearly (though he didn’t always articulate it as such) that technology contains both the danger and the saving power for the human condition. So with him I will close this diatribe, and, as always, I welcome any thoughts that you may have:
when we consider the essence of technology, then we experience Enframing as a destining of revealing. In this way we are already sojourning within the open space of destining, a destining that in no way confines us to a stultified compulsion to push on blindly with technology or, what comes to the same thing, to rebel helplessly against it and curse it as the work of the devil. Quite to the contrary, when we once open ourselves expressly to the essence of technology, we find ourselves unexpectedly taken into a freeing claim.
Comments»
First of all, Brende isn’t arguing against technology completely, as you noticed. Even now, he lives in St. Louis and works as a rickshaw driver and soap maker, both of which use technology. When he lived with the Minimites, he and they used farming equipment and lived in houses. It seems like the main crux of Brende’s argument is that there’s a theoretical line drawn in the sand of technology. Either technology is a tool that enables humans to do things easier and more efficiently and with greater benefits than costs, or it is counter-productive, is less useful in the long run than it is intended to be, or is harmful. From this point one could branch off in many directions and discuss specific types of technology. But, to put it plainly, his message seems to be that society believes so much in technology that they are blindly devoted to it. We will often automatically, or eventually, subscribe to new inventions because we think that they will make our lives easier or of greater quality (and this is what its inventor or producer desires for us to believe and even pays millions for us to believe) when, in fact, there are a number of costs of using the technology, usually hidden, that very often makes our lives less easy or of less quality. For instance, personal vehicles most of the time fall into this category; sometimes a computer does; in my opinion, MySpace, Facebook, etc., also fall into this category. Regardless of the specifics, one thing that Brende is fighting against is this blind and devoted allegiance to technology and a belief that more advanced technology will continually solve the problems created by previous technological advances.
He stresses the point, more so in his book than in the interview, that what we believe to be something good for us, i.e. more advanced technology, and more technological inventions, is actually oftentimes bad for us. We often would be better off - economically, physically, and even emotionally - using purely our hands and legs and muscles and brains to do the things that certain technological inventions are intended to do for us.
You mentioned that people are seeking to unite technology with the bodily being-in-the-world. This is true. But, you know, this solution is addressing a problem caused in the first place by a blind adherence to technology, both by its manufacturer/inventor and by its user. Many, if not most, of the modern technological advances we’ve made in the past have fallen short of the types of bodily being-in-the-world experiences we have by living with minimal technology and by simply using our bodies. We continue to try to fix these past faults by developing “better” technology. To me it seems like fighting fire with fire. Do we need a more interactive chat room, one that allows for a greater sense connection with another, when we have always had, from birth, the greatest sense connection possible through simply being in some one’s physical presence. Do we need to make games more realistic when we have always had the physical ability to be outside, to play in the snow, to hunt, dance, sing, farm, interact with people, learn about different cultures, etc? Do we need vehicles that go faster, longer, and cleaner when we have already had the ability to walk, run, or ride a bike? I don’t want to get caught up in an argument about certain technologies. What I am trying to get at is that modern or advanced technology claims to give us we most often already have.
I don’t like your use of The Village in this argument, because it was a fantastic movie about a fantasy. Sure, there are very isolated communities in the world who are experiencing many social problems and personal disarray. Brende never advocates this, though. In fact, one of his main goals is the propagation of social ties and the lessening of disarray through intelligent, common sense living, whether that’s in a small community or in a metropolis. Common sense living, in part, is realizing that our use of certain technology may not be good in itself - it may be harming us instead of helping us. There is nothing romantic about it. Him and his wife didn’t love living with the Minimites because they were different, but because their differences made them happier and healthier.
I admit, and I know Brende would too, that there is a place for contemporary technological advances and inventions. And there are definitely technological advances that have been a great boon to society and have allowed us to be healthier and happier. But that’s exactly how we should approach it: it has a place - a place that we dictate. It is something that we are in control of - not the other way around, which, unfortunately, happens too much and causes alienation from ourselves. What happens when our car, cell phone, computer, alarm clock, telephone, heater, etc. malfunctions? You have to fix it. There’s no other way. For almost all of us, we are dependent on these things. We let it happen. It is in control. And then who are we? Brende simply is suggesting discretion, not elimination.
So, perhaps the biggest questions are: How do we use technology? Is it actually helping us and making our lives better when we take a closer look? Is it replacing what we already possess - our bodies, physical abilities, reason, social interaction - with an artificial or superficial medium?
You said technology is here to stay. Sure it is. We have bodies and we use them certain ways; we talk and feel things. Technology is in us. It is false to say, however, that technology needs to progress as it is currently doing and that we must promote technology as much as possible. The way advanced technology is in the world is not static. But that’s only if we realize that we dictate it, which is why Brende is writing in the first place.
http://www.stlouisrickshaw.com/
First, concerning Dawkin’s Gerin Oil, it reads like a poorly penned copy of Horace Miner’s Body Ritual among the Nacirema.
Second, you’re right, Matt, the absence of technology is not necessarily a catalyst for close bonds between people. Destruction, however, is. If horses and chariots will quicken us to general disaster, so be it. It’ll bring us together.
“The body has received renewed interest as people realize that they are not just ghosts in a machine…” On this I’m a little hesitant to agree. Efforts to reduce being-in-the-world to a world-in-the-being and no more are just as popular as ever. Time might celebrate the agency of individuals, while the Economist weighs the working of the brain over human agency.
Third, I’m with you on the idea that “technology contains both the danger and the saving power for the human condition.” What our condition is and what we want out of technology, that is a subject I’d like to hear more from you on. This is where I think I’m with Tim.
hi, andar here, i just read your post. i like very much. agree to you, sir.
Good for people to know.