Two Part Philosophy Discussion: Technology & Privilege
A recent book called Devices of the Soul by Steve Talbott argues how the preponderance of technology that claims to make life easier seems to, in a fundamental sense, make life harder. That, admittedly, is a rather poor exposition of the thesis… but you need know only the general idea here. Incidentally, this book is predated by a rather more famous example of a similar philosophical exploration called The Technological Society by Jacques Ellul. Basically, both works discuss the implications of “technology.” Don’t think of technology as simply computers, however. Here’s a helpful comment from the Amazon page selling The Technological Society (emphasis mine):
What almost everyone fails to grasp is the pernicious effect of technique (and its offspring, technology) on modern man.
Technique can loosely be defined as the entire mass of organization and technology that has maximum efficiency as its goal. Ellul shows that technique possesses an impetus all its own and exerts similar effects on human society no matter what the official ideology of the society in question is. Technique, with its never-ending quest for maximum efficiency, tends to slowly drown out human concerns as it progresses towards its ultimate goal. “…the further economic technique develops, the more it makes real the abstract concept of economic man.” (p. 219) Technique does not confine itself merely to the realm of technical production, but infiltrates every aspect of human existence, and has no time for “inefficiencies” caused by loyalties to family, religion, race, or culture; a society of dumbed-down consumers is absolutely essential to the technological society, which must contain predictable “demographics” in order to ensure the necessary financial returns. “The only thing that matters technically is yield, production. This is the law of technique; this yield can only be obtained by the total mobilization of human beings, body and soul, and this implies the exploitation of all human psychic forces.” (p. 324).
I’d like to take a two pronged approach to the implications of such a view on a young life such as my own. First, a comment from the Slashdot review of Devices of the Soul does a good job of summarizing my thoughts on the relativistic luxury of the developed world:
The ancient Greeks observed that if happiness is the result of having all of your wants satisfied, the surest path to happiness is to discipline your wants.
Philosophy is a pastime of the wealthy. Technological and social progress have created a society where almost everybody is, compared to the helots of ancient times, wealthy. Quite ordinary people now find themselves dealing with detritus produced by a life of unexamined wealth and consumption.
So, this is not a problem of technology per se; it is only that mass produced technology is one of the most abundant and affordable luxuries of our society. The medieval sin of gula or “gluttony” is not simply about gross overeating, it is about compulsive and unreasoning consumption of every kind, which happens to be the cornerstone of our consumer economy. The only reason we think of this in terms of food only is that food is the one overindulgence available to the rich of every society and technological level. Note that food gluttony does not imply massive consumption, it can also be characteristic of excessive delicacy or daintiness. This fits technological gluttony particularly well.
So, it is probably incorrect to call this an “intensifying” conflict. It is more of a “broadening” conflict: broadened to include more classes of peoples and desires than before.
In my continuing (and to me, extremely important) examination of my life and habits, I’m trying to justify my choices for things; by “things” I mean, well, everything… habits, hobbies, activities, opinions. I have a rather interesting bent towards the ascetic, which I think starves my strong artistic and creative desires. (In typical self-effacing fashion, I must stress that I am not asserting my artistic/creative results are strong… but my desire for them is.) In that sense, I am constantly looking for ways I can incorporate a more (for lack of a better word) “relaxed” life into my own self. However, I feel relaxed direction tempered by something more basic, and this passage describes it well: centering oneself in the spectrum of privilege means a combination of boundaries in the face of abundance and giving oneself over to what’s pleasurable. I tend too strongly towards the former. This is, of course, where we come into the second half of the discussion…
In a production called “Play, Spirit, + Character,” the radio show Speaking of Faith outlined an extremely interesting thesis:
Stuart Brown, a physician and director of the National Institute for Play, says that pleasurable, purposeless activity prevents violence and promotes trust, empathy, and adaptability to life’s complication. He promotes cutting-edge science on human play, and draws on a rich universe of study of intelligent social animals.
Dr. Brown is scientifically proving what should be intuitively true: if we are to thrive as healthy humans, we must give ourselves over to “purposeless activity” in which we are “out of time.” That is, not “out of time” but “out of time.” See the difference? The idea is, in addition to play being a critical and rejuvenating component of our daily life, it also contributes to the proper functioning of a fully/properly adjusted human. Dr. Brown discovered this relationship when he quantified the play pattern of homicidal individuals: they universally lacked play in their childhoods. So what is the answer to the society described by Ellul, where efficiency is valued above all else and as the metric for all accomplishment? Why the answer (amongst others) is play, of course. And the point becomes even more salient as we discover that play is universal: witness play in the wild between a polar bear and tame dogs, narrated by Stuart Brown.
