Sojourns in the New World: Reflections on Technology 9780773581548

Citation preview

SOJOURNS

IN

THE

NEW

WORLD

R e fle c tio n s on T ec h n o lo g y

Edited and Introduced by Tom Darby Lightning S o u r c e Digital Printing Proof co p y

The Carleton Library No. 138 Carleton University Press Ottawa, Canada 1986

T H E C A R L E T O N L I B R A R Y S E R IE S

A series o f original works, new collections, and reprints of source material relating to C anada, issued under the supervision of the Editorial Board. C arleton Library Series. C arleton University Press Inc., O ttaw a. Canada. G EN ER A L EDITOR Michael Gnarowski ASSOCIA TE G EN ERA L ED ITO R Peter Emberley E D IT O R IA L BOARD Leslie Copley (Science) Bruce Cox (Anthropology) Jo h n deVries (Sociology) Peter Emberley (Political Scicnce) J. Keith Johnson (History) David B. Knight (Geography) Michael McNeil (Law) T.K. Rymes (Economics) ©Carleton University Press Inc.. 1986. ISBN 0-88629-050-3 (paperback) Printed and bound in Canada.

C anadian Cataloguing in Publication D ata Main entry under title: Sojourns in the new world (Carleton library scries; 138) ISBN 0-88629-50-3 I. Technology - Philosophy. 2 Philosophy, M odern. I. Darby, W. Thom as. II. Series: The C arleton library: no. 138. T I4.S64 1986

303.4'83

C86-090256-0

Distributed by: Oxford University Press C anada. 70 W ynford Drive, DON M ILLS, O ntario, C anada, M3C IJ9. (416)441-2941

A CKNO W LEDGEM ENTS Carleton University Press gratefully acknowledges the support extended to its publishing programme by the C anada Council and the O ntario Arts Council. This book has been published with the help of a grant from the Social Science Federation of Canada, using funds provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Soujourns in the New World

Edited by Tom Darby

The Contributors TOM Da r b y , who wrote The Feast: Meditations on Politics and Time, is a

m em b er o f th e D ep artm en t o f Political Science at C arleton University. H e is w riting a book on eros a n d power. BARRY C o o p e r , a u th o r o f The E nd History: A n Essay in Modern Hegelianism, is a m em ber o f th e D epartm ent o f Political Science at th e University o f Calgary. H e is w riting a book on politics a n d technology. l e x a n d e r , a m em ber o f th e D epartm ent o f Political Science at C arleton University, is co-author o f Science fo r What? an d is doing research o n the interrelation o f science, technology an d politics.

JO N A

e d ito r o f th e Canadian Journal o f Political and Social Theory an d m em ber o f the D ep artm en t o f Political Science at C oncordia University, is th e au th o r o f Technology and the Canadian Mind: Innis, M cLuhan and Grant. A R TH U R KROKER,

N a m i r K h a n , a Ph.D. candidate in th e D epartm ent o f Political Sci­ ence at th e University o f T oronto, is w riting a dissertation o n Friedrich Nietzsche. Wo l f g a n g Ko e r n e r , S enior Research Officer, Research B ranch,

L ibrary o f Parliam ent, an d a u th o r o f “Systems T heory: C an It Be Saved?” is w riting a book on intentionality an d political behaviour. R i c h a r d HAMILTON, a Ph.D. candidate in th e D ep artm en t o f Politi­ cal Science at C arleton University, is w riting a dissertation o n Plato. M I C H A E L D O R L A N D , associate ed ito r o f Cinima Canada, has w ritten The Double Cross Circuit, a novel, a n d is w riting The Grand Delusion: The Tragedy o f Canadian Nationalism.

CONTENTS

Preface Reflections o n Technology: A n Excursus as In tro d u ctio n — Tom Darby System an d W isdom : T h e Technological Way O f Knowing Technology a n d Freedom : N ature an d History O n M en a n d Gods: Technology an d M etaphysics C h a p te r O ne: H egelian Im perialism — Barry Cooper H egel a n d th e State M o d ern Im perialism M ultinational E nterprises Technological Society Final C onsiderations C h a p te r Two: Politics, Ideology an d Technology: A Perspective o n th e New W orld — Jon Alexander and Tom Darby T h e Political Cycle T h e Ideological Cycle T h e Technological Cycle C onclusion

R*ge v

1 4 10 16 25 26 37 45 50 56 71 75 84 90 94

C h a p te r T h ree: Nihilism , Politics an d Technology — Tom Darby 109 Poliucs, Power an d W isdom From Speculative Magic to Technology T h e “New W orld” D escribed C onclusion

111 117 126 134

C h a p te r Four: Life A gainst History — Arthur Kroker

145

C h a p te r Five: A ncients a n d M oderns, T echnique, C ybernetics an d E ntropy — Namir Khan

155

In tro d u c tio n T echnique A ncient an d M odern Technology: T h e Concretization o f Reason C ybernetics a n d Entropy

155 158 162 170

C h a p te r Six: Rationality an d R eduction: T h e Roots o f M odernity — Wolfga ng Koemer 181 In tro d u c tio n T h e Rationalization an d R eduction of M odern C ulture Im plications for th e Study o f M an Toward Reconciliation C onclusion C h a p te r Seven: Im perial H um anism : H aberm as’s Interest T h eo ry o f Knowledge — Richard Hamilton T h e C ritique o f Positivism T h e Practical an d Technical Interests Reflection, E m ancipation an d T im e Conclusion

181 183 191 200 211 219 222 225 228 235

C h a p te r Eight: T h e Silence o f th e O th e r New World o r Hysterias an d H allucinations from H egel to the Tui Intellectuals — Michael Dorland 245 T h e H egelian Fiat Lux T h e M arxian Universal Particularity T h e N ietzschean C onsoling N arcotic T h e K afkaesque Average M an Tuism o r th e Pathetic Fallacy o f th e H egelian Idea

247 249 251 252 254

Sojourns in the New World

Points of Sodom slash the sky snatching us, flecks of reflection, piercing together and gathering between past and future drawn into needle-eye descending and erupting into a New World where gods roam the earth herds of holy animals stalking its streets. We have ridden the many wheeled steel steed the Occidental Express and can see the length of Sodom’s streets criss-crossing into alleyways where ground world bones rest under the gash of sky’s glance. Cold-ribbed and black brush-stroked white-striped roads run upon by dynamos corrals for hard wheeled and rubber-toed quadrapods ingesting, honking and digesting their inhabitants. We dismount and move through caverns and tunnels long and hidden as circuits in wires strung above us and arrive as the sun sets in Earth's deep hole, and float into the darkness of our fatigue. We swim Goat-horned in our dreams and without asking are snatched from Morpheus’ embrace and ascend into the storm that whacks our dreams and dredges them up forever. We cry: “Do not enter my shadow place without permission!” We cry: “Rape!" and rage with a buzz hot sounding as tongues acid stung poison spitting points that split Sodom’s sky, hurling: “Intruder, waker of sleep, sodomist!” We awaken yet remember our dream and with an offering of Job’s fish walk with our shadows a libation and a parting of flesh

history’s last eucharist and re-casting rituals and re-chattering chants awaken the dead to time’s expelled communicants. We then know each other - merchants bartering eyes, ears and tongues all for a feast of stuff sprouted from history’s compost. We depart in drunkenness with frocks tucked into the pockets of well-worn jeans and vanish. We summon a taxi and again fall into Morpheus’ embrace and the driver wings us to Leda’s pond dropping us on the bank where we continue to dream. We waken and see that we cannot argue with the sun who comes when he likes and throws us upon day’s hardness pouncing us upon brittle streets whose windows are open and we can no longer sleep. We ask: “Can one learn to dream in the sun?" So we walk along the scratched street aiming our eyes toward the point where vision vanishes and where smooth techni erupts into wilderness’ gentle thorns where the road gives out and Sodom’s gates are far behind at eros’ place where the hoary pulse enters, engulfs and laughs. We, enraptured, capture and are captured stash it into the throbbing bag that is our heart and return to Sodom with the hidden prize. T.D.

iv

Preface

T h e th em e th at o u r world is radically different because o f o u r tech­ nology certainly does not originate w ith this text. B ut in recent years m any have com e to reth in k this th em e m ade m ost u n d ersta n d ab le to C an ad ian s by o n e o f o u r greatest teachers, G eorge G rant. It was G ra n t in his collection o f essays, Technology and Empire (1969), w ho m ade us p ro foundly aware o f th e uniqueness o f those o f us w ho inhabit C anada in p artic u la r an d this New W orld o f N o rth A m erica in general. G eorge G ra n t is forem ost in o u r tim e an d place am ong thinkers who have given us perspective by b rin g in g to g eth er varied yet interwoven discourses on this th em e. We h o p e this text will be seen as a continuation of a discussion beg u n by G ra n t that stretches back an d touches implicitly o r explicitly u p o n th e th o u g h ts of Leo Strauss, Jacques Ellul, A lexandre Kojfcve, M artin H eid eg g er an d , o f course, Nietzsche an d H egel. In th e practical a n d everyday m anifestation o f the New W orld one can take a taxi down a Los A ngeles freeway, catch a plane, an d in less than ten h o u rs be in Tokyo. O n e can stay at th e Hilton, rin g room service and have a m eal o f fresh sushi a n d chilled R hine wine. W hen finished one can have cognac along with Kenyan coffee, p u ff on a tru e Havana cigar, a n d while clad in a p air o f g enuine A m erican Levis, throw a careless leg over th e arm o f a crafted piece o f D anish furn itu re. T h e next day one can take th e B ullet train to Kyoto an d have lunch at M cD onald’s next to an an cient B u d d h ist shrine. W hen this stay is over, one can fly to T oronto, take a taxi hom e to a California-style m o dern house between th e English T u d o r an d th e French Provincial hom es o f the neighbours, a n d relax in o n e ’s own hot tu b that sits between a big stone an d a M ugo pin e in th e glassed-in Jap an ese g ard en . We resp o n d to this m ixing an d blending o f differences, this equaliz­ ing o f th e non-equal, e ith e r by com plaining that it is a deadly bore o r praising it for th e variety offered. I f we d o praise this variety, it is because th e sleep o f forgetfulness com es easily to those who are chronically satiated. R em em bering, in o u r boredom we may com plain that the truly new does not consist o f consum ing a seem ingly endless variety of com binations a n d perm utations o f th e sam e experiences. B ut if we n e ith e r w hine ab o u t n o r becom e intoxicated with this New World we may see two things m ore easily.

First, taken from different perspectives, we may see that both preceptions are correct. W hile th ere is continuity an d identity in th e space we inhabit, th ere is discontinuity o r difference in th e tim e that inhabits us. It was Im m an u el K ant w ho laid down th e principle in his Critique o f Pure Reason th at space an d tim e were at th e bottom o f all o f which we were conscious, th at in d eed it is consciousness o f space an d tim e that m akes consciousness o f all else possible. B ut it was th e first practitioners o f this principle - those truly m o d ern m en, political revolutionaries - who first used space an d tim e m anipulation to change consciousness. In doin g so, they were applying directly th e principles o f that truly revolutionary force —technology - to h u m an beings. Secondly, th e sam e principles o f control are best seen by realizing that u n d e r th e equalizing o f th e non-equal - th e hom ogeneity, th e identity a n d continuity - lies difference. T h u s the consciousness o f th e new age is possible because we constitute th e O th e r th ro u g h differentiation o r segm entation, which is th e first principle o f control. It is th ro u g h o u r constitution o f the O th e r that we com e to know him , an d th e m ore we know him th e m ore control we can have over him . This is so because as we constitute the O ther, we are able first to set him ap a rt from O u r­ selves, no tin g an d fixing this difference by designating him as O ther, an d next, sh ap in g him th ro u g h a m anipulation o f his desires, cap tu rin g an d co ntrolling his expectations a n d his hopes. H e is set ap a rt as O th e r a n d yet o u r control over him becom es greater as th e objects o f his desire com e to be m ore identified with o u r own. T his is the way o n e becomes master. T h e m anipulation o f th e experience o f tim e an d space at once m akes ideology an d m o d ern politics possible. By radically altering the experi­ ence o f tim e an d space, old worlds becom e shattered a n d from the ru b b le new ones can be fashioned. B ut this in itself is not new. M uch of th e m arb le used to build th e Vatican was pillaged from th e decaying walls o f th e C oliseum . W hat is new is that th e revolutionary knows what h e is doing. His tools for consciousness-shaping range from the blunt cu d g e l o f te rr o r to th e m ost re fin e d a n d su b tle p ro p a g a n d a . B ut w h eth er th e in stru m en t be blunt o r sharp, b ru te force o r psychological influence, it is a form o f power, an d because the revolutionary knows th at th e use o f power m ust be justified, he becom es an ideologue. In this m anner, because th e justification o f power is, at the sam e tim e, a reinforcem ent o f power, a refinem ent o f th e techniques o f power occurs. As power an d tru th co-penetrate, each becom ing a fertile g ro u n d in which th e o th e r can germ inate, power gains th e arm ature o f the m oral platitudes o u r century has com e to know. It does not m atter to what revolutionary we refer - th e Jacobin, th e co m m u n ard , the Bolshevik,

vi

th e Red G u a rd , th e Sandinista, th e m ultinational businessm an - it is in this m a n n e r th at th e revolutionary becom es an ideologue an d the ideologue a technician o f control. M odern politics is the technique for controlling h u m an beings. Ideology is its justificatory g ro u n d . L ong ago, in th e Cratylus, Plato noted that both techni and logos have to d o with differentiation, hence with difference. Techni brings forth and sets objects a p a rt from th e space in which they exist. Logos brings forth w ords a n d sets th em a p a rt in tim e. W ords can in tu rn be applied to objects as nam es, which ensures th e ir identity with themselves, th eir difference from o n e another, an d th e ir relationship with each other. T h u s it is difference th at lies at th e bottom o f that web o f relationships from which m ean in g em erges an d which we call a world. B ut not surprisingly, because difference also leads to reification, categorization, calculation, a n d ultim ately system ization, it too lies at the source of the principle o f control. It is th ro u g h o u r ability to rearrange th e space o f n atu re in such a way a n d have it conform to us that o u r power over it is increased. T his is to say th at th e space we inhabit, in its being progres­ sively differentiated by us an d for us, thereby becom ing m ore h u m an ­ ized, is tran sfo rm ed into tim e. F urtherm ore, th e space aro u n d us becom es m o re h u m a n iz e d because o f an econom y o f desire. It is th ro u g h controlling o u r desires an d coordinating them - th ro u g h o u r working to g e th e r — th at we com e to transform ourselves an d o u r technological landscape. It is only th ro u g h o u r universalizing and hom ogenizing ourselves that we com e to progressively universalize and hom ogenize th e planet. As we becom e m ore an d m ore alike, so does o u r technological landscape. Today o n e m ig h t w hine with boredom at th e sam eness o f th e tech­ nological landscape o r revel in th e variety one m ight consum e. B ut if a m an is to d o m ore th a n w hine an d gorge him self, h e m ust forget an d rem em ber. First, at least for a tim e, h e m ust forget th e increasingly h o m o g en eo u s surface o f th e technological landscape a n d try to re­ m em b er th e m ean ing o f th e differences that u n d erlie it. Secondly, one rem em b ers because o n e questions a n d it is precisely that which o n e form erly took for g ra n te d that is questioned. T h u s for a tim e we will fo rg et th e hom o g eneous landscape we inhabit an d take a sojourn to w here lie th ose differences that have m ade th e New W orld possible. T h u s we will go u n d e r th e landscape an d seek th e roots th at hold it firm ly to th e ea rth , a n d at th e sam e tim e m ake its ap p earan ce in th e w orld possible. T h e word “so jo u rn ” can be traced to the Latin, subdiurnave, which is com posed o f th e roots sub, u nder, an d dium us, o f a day. T h u s for a tim e, o n e m ust go u n d e r th e space one inhabits a n d take a so jo u rn to th e technological dynam o from w hence com es th e heartvii

th ro b o f th e New W orld. B ut because it is on th e surface that we live, an d because we are like th e m an in Plato’s Republic who h ad to re tu rn to the cave, after a tim e we m ust re tu rn to this landscape. T h e chapters in this book are eight such sojourns, separate trips along differen t paths from which th e sam e object is viewed. T h e object is th e New W orld we inhabit. From different perspectives, each ch ap ter is a glim pse o f a world that is set a p a rt from its past, its present defined an d its destiny sh ap ed by technology. T h u s all are different ways of looking at th e New W orld, b u t taken to g eth er they are a way o f seeing o rd er, identity, continuity an d hom ogeneity am ong all the different and discontinuous perspectives. T herefore the com m on th read that co n ­ nects th e chapters is th e New W orld that has technology as its m ost essential feature. They are differen t yet related ways o f speaking about how o n e sees th e world today a n d how it has becom e possible an d how o n e can a n d o u g h t to live in this world. T his is not to say th at this text presum es to be a work ab o u t th e future, for the fu tu re has not yet ap p eared . W hat is, is th e present. A nd as H egel has said in th e in tro d u c­ tion to his Philosophy o f Right, philosophy in o u r age is not concerned with w hat ought to be b u t with w hat is. As this text was com ing together, I often w ondered ab o u t som e o f th e m ore concrete m anifestations o f th e them es. Most o f all, I w ondered ab o u t th e particular ways th e universality o f technology has m anifested itself ou tsid e th e West. W ith this constantly on my m ind, w hen th e last co n trib u to r had m ade his subm ission, an d w hen I h ad w ritten the in tro d u ctio n , I found m yself acting o n th e conclusion that I h ad reached: th at it was tim e I took a sojourn o f an o th er kind. W ith this th em e in m ind 1 took a trip from th e O ccident to th e place w here it is said th at technique began, th e O rien t. T h u s H egel’s word that history m oved from East to West was h eed ed except, o f course, m y own course was backwards, from West to East. T h e way u p is th e way dow n, as H eraclitus would have it. A lthough India was to be first en route, th e first of the O rie n t I saw was Singapore. B ut this Asian em erald was a gem so polished by the technology o f the West as to be th e envy o f any tycoon lam enting - as he would, with a com bination o f resentm ent a n d respect - that “those p eo p le” d o not have any restrictions that inhibit “developm ent.” H ere was th e ep itom e o f developm ent concentrated in a few h u n d re d kilo­ m etres o f earth. To be in S ingapore is ra th e r like being inside a “plea­ sure m achine,” b u t b etter still, w hat Deleuze an d G uattari have called a “desirin g m achine” inside which gratification so closely follows lack that desire an d its h u m an world are eclipsed. I did not stay too long in this em erald city. It was too excessively fam iliar an d soon becam e boring. viii

In d ia h ad seem ed interesting because it is a country that explodes atom ic bom bs an d produces an d launches its own satellites b u t whose prin cip le fuel is cow d u n g . U nlike in S ingapore, I h ea rd an d saw m any th in g s in In d ia th at were m ore stran g e th an fam iliar an d som etim es m ore incredible to m e th an credible. T h ere was m uch talk ab o u t ‘indig­ en o u s technologies’ th at were said to have arisen m any centuries before th e invasions by barbarians - well before the M ongols, an d o f course, before th e B ritish. It was said that these were techniques that d o not, as d o o u rs, separate th e m ind an d th e body, inside from outside, an d that d id not thereby alienate o r isolate m an from his total environm ent. A lthough m uch o f w hat com prises these indigenous technologies is speculated u p o n by Pandits, D igam barea Sophists an d Yogis, som e o f this I h e a rd from people who, in th e West, we call serious - which, o f course, is o n e o f o u r ways o f saying scientific, o r b etter yet, W esternized. I was shown th e practical, that is political, corollary to these specula­ tions, th e ‘ap p ro p riate technologies’ applied to th e In d ian village. This In d ia n solution to th e poverty o f th e countryside is said to have been derived from th e principles o f decentralization an d self-sufficiency, w hich I was told are akin both to th e original H in d u technologies an d to th e teachings o f G andhi. I was shown ru ral developm ent projects fu elled by biogas an d a village - a place in that country that W esterners usually find d a rk - illum inated by a strin g o f street lights each powered by its individual battery o f solar cells. B ut I m ust say that my enthusiasm was d a m p e n e d w hen I learned that th e silicone chips in th e solar cells h a d not o riginated in th e R ajasthan d esert u p o n which we stood; ra th e r they h ad been m an ufactured in an d im ported from S outh Korea. From lessons such as these I b etter cam e to appreciate th e complexity o f those necessary conditions th at m ust pertain in o rd e r for anything to becom e possible, th at in frastru ctu re to which even th e sim plest techniques are th e prerequisite. B ut, my lesson o f rem em brance was not from M arx; it was from Plato w ho teaches in Book Two o f th e Republic that th e city of speech is m ad e possible by th e city o f work an d that which gives rise to w ork is th e lack th at en g en d ers desire. With this lesson I also learned som e new m eanings for things ab o u t which I was already familiar. For exam ple, a m iddle-aged rickshaw d riv er asked m e with th e kind of c a n d o u r an d w onder that m any a m o d ern an d W esterner m ight envy: “D id you know th at in C hina they eat with sticks?” T h u s I w ent to C hina, th e C hina th at took th e m ajor tu rn in 1949 that som ehow b ro u g h t it to w hat it is today an d which a decade ago tried to becom e m ore th an w hat it was a n d failed. In C hina they do eat with sticks, this o f course is well known an d not new. B ut what is less known b u t w hat W esterners are h ea rin g m ore about is that except in a few

ix

isolated places, th e nearly o n e billion C hinese have m ore th an en ough to eat. T hey even have th e proverbial su p erb trains that ru n on tim e, som e big cities that som ehow work, an d th e frivolous funk that always seem s to catch in technology’s d ra g n e t - discos in the cities and video gam es in small towns - all self-consciously flaunted by th e C hinese. B ut in ad d itio n to the relatively high rate of food production th ere are o th er serious changes that are being u n d erta k en in o rd e r that this rate be m aintained. For exam ple, this success would not have been possible were they not able to transform m uch o f th e peasantry into a proletariat an d p etit bourgeoisie an d to b rin g a m easure of rationalization and m echanization to agriculture. T h e revolution o f 1949 was, am ong o th e r things, an attem pt to erase th e g reat disparity between rich a n d p o o r an d th e C ultural Revolution an attem p t to “eroticize civilization” by forcing th e “p u re ” countryside o n th e “c o rru p t” cities. B ut m any o f the changes that 1 saw taking place ap p e a re d to be tied u p with th e idea o f bringing th e city to th e co u n ­ tryside. Repeatedly I was told that th e m ain problem in C hina today is ig n o ran ce. A t first I assum ed th at I knew what this m ean t b u t w hen 1 started to question it I found th at it m eant non-W esternized o r n o n ­ efficient. W hile I suspect th ere to be m uch tru th in this - that m ost o f th ese peo p le are still far from being transform ed - an d while o n e m ight be ho rrified to think what calam ities would probably befall that country h a d she not th e will to u n d erta k e such controversial policies as those th at are checking h e r birth rate a n d increasing food production, o n e w onders ab o u t th e violence necessary to b rin g this about a n d th e loss o f h e r soul th at is likely to com e with success. In th e West m uch is m ade o f this new C hina an d what is usually stressed are those m ost evident m arks o f success, m arks that show that they are looking m ore like us: th e New Econom ic Zones (NEZs), the increased p ro d u ction an d consum ption o f consum er products, an d the plans to o p en coastal cities for tra d e an d com m erce. B ut lest capitalists sm irk in satisfaction, they should be rem inded that th e C hinese are still far from b eing Asia’s new Babbits. Not only d o they still claim to be the spokesm en for th e T h ird W orld an d to be attem pting a “th ird o p tio n ,” b u t o n e is d elu d ed if one thinks the results o f such com plex and dynam ic transform ations can be predicted. A fter C h in a I reversed my course an d tu rn e d aro u n d toward the West. As I rolled along th e train tracks th ro u g h M ongolia an d on across Asia toward Moscow, I read a book b ro u g h t along should such occasion arise: Red Star by A lexander Bogdanov. It shows what a harm onious an d rational life on M ars m ight be like. Somehow it m ade m e think of

x

Singapore a n d this m ade m e think o f H egel an d how correct he was in saying th at th e path o f history is o n e that follows th e sun from East to West, b u t th at w hat h e said would have been m ore tru e had he ad ded th at th e world is ro u n d . M uch o f this preface was w ritten as 1 sat in th e Beijing Hotel in a room unofficially called th e “Red Bar.” T h e room was so called because o f its rich red ru g a n d th e o th e r d eco r o f sim ilar colour. To both my right and left sat businessm en. O n e g ro u p discussed electric cable, th e other, d rillin g eq u ip m en t. B oth groups were com posed o f Asians an d Cauca­ sians. I h a d b een told th at this particular p art o f the building was co nstructed in 1953 with th e help a n d style o f the Soviets. W hile the aid is now a m atter o f historical record, th e style is equally incontestable. O n several occasions I h a d lu n ch in th a t great hall w here I ate w ith chopsticks k eep in g tim e to th e tu n e o f Peter and the W olf an d Strauss waltzes played o n C hinese m uzak. T h e room somehow seem ed ap p ro ­ priate for th e reign o f T s a r Nicholas. T h e six enorm ous chandeliers resem ble those th at h an g in th e C anadian Senate C ham ber - th e latter a gift from a th e n new Soviet governm ent to my own. Som etim e d u rin g th at n ig h t th e chairs in th e ‘Red B ar’, received fresh new pink slip covers. I now th an k Peter Emberley, Michael Spourdalakis an d Ian Lee for th e ir h elp fu l com m ents an d suggestions, th e Shastri Indo-C anadian Institute, th e C hinese N ational C ouncil o f Science an d Technology for D evelopm ent (CNCSTD) an d C arleton University for m aking that par­ ticu lar so jo u rn possible. For this sojourn I th an k th e C anada Council for th eir financial su p p o rt an d th e C arleton University Press for pub­ lishing it. T.D.

Ottawa Jan u a ry 1986

Reflections on Technology: An Excursus as Introduction TO M DARBY

O n th e eve o f a fierce battle, the sound o f cannon shattering th e tense silence, H egel wrote th at a new age h ad e ru p te d into being. H e com ­ p ared th e new tim e to th e birth o f a child that h ad silendy m atured in th e womb, th e arrival o f which had herald ed an ab ru p t, unprecedented a n d qualitative change. H e called th e result o f this term inal break with th e past th e “New W orld.” T h e place was Je n a , th e year 1806, an d H egel’s w ords now are preserved in th e preface to his Phenomenology of Spirit. H ere we exam ine this p h en o m en o n called th e New W orld, ques­ tio n in g its m eaning, investigating th e conditions that allowed it to be, a n d speculating as to its fu tu re possibilities. W hen H egel spoke o f a “w orld” h e referred to th e shared identities a n d continuities th at provide a necessary context with which an d within which to co m p reh en d reality. W ithout this context, there would be no limits an d thereby no p u rp o se o r en d an d hence no com m on, intrinsic o r objective m eaning. H egel went on to describe th e previous world as “cru m b lin g to pieces” an d said that as this occurred the attitude toward th at world alternated betw een frivolity an d boredom . How could this have h a p p e n e d , an d how could H egel have claim ed to know that it had? First, H egel h ad to have seen a progressive m anifestation o f principles th at h ad m ad e possible th e New W orld, an d hence the present. Sec­ ondly, H egel could have seen this New W orld only because th e process th at h ad b ro u g h t it forth was over. H e could have seen the New World only if all th e possibilities th ro u g h which the previous world once had becom e m anifest h ad b een played out. T his explains why H egel said th at o u r attitu d e toward th e previous world alternates between frivolity an d boredom . To be frivolous is to be satisfied with what is, while to be bored is to be dissatisfied with w hat is. Because th e frivolous person is satisfied with what is, h e does not desire, an d because the bored person is dissatisfied with w hat is, h e does desire. B ut since it is th e present with which the 1

2

TOM DARBY

bored p erso n is dissatisfied, h e thereby desires th e past. However, this d esirin g backwards, this resenting, changes nothing an d thereby p ro ­ duces boredom ; because he cannot change th e past from which the p resen t arose, the resentful person whines. Because frivolity contains no desire and because boredom is en g e n ­ d ered by desirin g backwards, n eith e r brings forth change an d so nei­ th e r provides for a future. W ithout a fu tu re we are left clinging to m em ories o f th e crum bling w orld’s vital m om ents, m em ories to help us ignore th e sham bles o f a world th at constitutes o u r present. To be left with th e deb ris o f old m em ories is boring. B ut thro u g h forgetfulness we escape th e n eed to carry th e weight of th e old world’s values; an d so, flitting from on e petty indulgence to another, we tu rn th e present into a th eatre o f taste. Both frivolity a n d boredom eclipse th e fu tu re an d thereby narrow th e tem poral horizon to th e past an d present. T his division into past a n d present, into rem em bering an d forgetting, ac­ counts for th e isolation an d u n h ap p in ess o f th e m o d ern individual. M o d ern individuals d o not have a fu tu re to share, b u t they d o have in com m on a foreboding o f som ething new that will not be theirs. In th eir effort to forestall th e inevitable, uncertain, ru d e an d unw elcom ed a p ­ p earan ce o f th e New World, m o d ern s try to m anipulate an d calculate th e presen t an d the past. This attem p t to m ake the non-equal equal by m an u factu rin g continuities o f th e lum beryard o f the past, an d identi­ ties o u t o f th e rubble o f the present, results in a bad conscience. For those who know th at th e previous world has vanished, the com ­ binations a n d perm utations that h ad m ade u p the app earan ce o f the old world can be reflected u p o n an d p u t back together, rem em bered, an d d o n e so according to the principles that had allowed that world to a p p e a r in th e first place. W hereas th e New World could be detected only in o u tlin e in H egel’s day, in o u r own, that which had been m atu rin g in th e h id d en darkness has e ru p te d into su d d en visibility an d , “in a flash,” a New W orld has ap p eared . Snap! a chain o f continuity has been broken. A radical discontinuity has occurred. T his is th e m eaning o f the new. H egel was not th e first to speak o f this newness, this u n p recedented discontinuity. Various claims were m ade d u rin g th e eighteenth century th at m o d ern s were radicaly different from an d su p erio r to ancients. T h ese d en unciations o f th e past a n d praise o f th e present occasioned th e fam ous fight betw een advocates o f the ancients an d advocates o f the m od ern s, a n d it resulted in ab a n d o n in g a once revered past in exchange for th e new pretence o f progress. M any cam e to m ake th e arg u m e n t of radical discontinuity but, with o n e exception, none before Hegel ever attem p ted fully to account for th e break. T h e exception was Rousseau.

REFLECTIONS ON TECHNOLOGY

3

In his disgust for the modern, Rousseau defined moderns as those who knew of this decisive break. This knowledge carries with it that peculiarly modern affliction —alienation. But Rousseau’s pathetic solu­ tion to this problem lay in rejecting the modern in favour of the primitive and spurning the political in favour of the intimate. Rousseau went no further than to express his disgust and resentment. Hegel agreed that modern man knows he no longer can inhabit the old world and, indeed, Hegel understood that this is tantamount to alienation. Yet Hegel also found that the process that accounts for the possibility of the New World is itself the progress of alienation. Thus progress is, at the same time, the process that rendered the old world exhausted and therefore uninhabitable, and that which makes the New World possible. Thus while progress incurred the growth of alienation, it also entailed the increasing elaboration of principles that allowed the human will to exercise control over human destiny. This is why, when it is revealed that control of destiny by human will is possible, the old world crumbles as these new possibilities emerge. But this only can be revealed once the process that made the realization possible is over. Knowledge of how this process came to be constitutes the radical discontinuity of modernity. To be a modern is to say with Hegel (and Marx), “Ah yes, it happened this way!” However, to say, “It happened this way but didn’t have to have happened as it did, thus it could have happened otherwise,” is to say as Pavel does to Bazarov in Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons: “There used to be Hegelians; and now there are Nihilists”. Only when man thinks “it could have happened otherwise” can he realize the full impact of the power of the will that is free to will itself. Only then can he recognize that it is our own self-willing will that forms the weld that seals together the New World. To be able to say this is to be more than modern. It is to be post-modern. It is to know how the previous world took shape through work and action and how it was explained, damned orjustified by human speech. But it is also to realize that the values by which work, action and speech themselves were gauged were not external to man but a product of his will. It is through our knowing this that those highest values - freedom, equality and brotherhood - have come to be devalued. Thus the post-modern man realizes that none of the previous world’s most valued assumptions still matter. The last moment of the last world was the modern period. It was a time in which a continuity of inter-related development could be seen along with its underlying logos. For post-moderns there is no underly­ ing logos, only discontinuity —difference. And whereas in the previous world one could rely on pre-existing but choosable values, there is

4

TOM DARBY

nothing upon which a post-modern even can pretend to rely. There is no inherent inter-relation among things and events, so that man orders the resulting chaos of the ever-novel only through the will to will. This is the meaning of nihilism, our nihilism, and this is the connection be­ tween our nihilism and our technology. The nihilist not only knows of the New World, he also knows that, to the extent to which it exists, it is man who has made it, willed it to be. Today if a person is not a nihilist he can be one of only three things. First, he can simply be ignorant of the New World, and in his ignorance remain unable to deny it exists. Secondly, he can know of it, yet, by his attempt to embrace and praise the values of the previous world, misun­ derstand it. Thirdly, he can know of it and deny it. The first is naive, the second foolish, the third cowardly. This is the discontinuity that frames our present; this is how we identify the conditions that have made our New World possible. Now let us look at our past.

System and Wisdom: The Technological Way of Knowing Over two thousand years ago, in what was probably a whimsical mood, a philosopher mused on how things would be if “the shuttle would weave itself and the plectrum touch the lyre without a hand to guide them.” Everyone recognizes the words of Aristotle. Even if Aristotle would have considered our own age wildly absurd, the images he adduced do describe our time. It is even more amazing that Aristotle fantasized about automated instruments such as the statues of Daedalus in the IIliad which “of their own accord entered the assembly of the Gods.” Aristotle concluded that if such were ever to happen then slaves would no longer be needed.1 Usually our opinions about technology are focused narrowly and superficially upon instruments or machines. Yet under this surface and contrary to the conventional wisdom —our technology is for more encompassing. Today our instruments serve not just to control and manipulate non-human nature but human nature as well. In doing so, they have truly of their own accord entered the assembly of the gods and they, as befits gods, have become holy. Although contrary to accepted opinion, this is something we should appreciate, for many of us are the sons and daughters of former peasants or slaves who have received our salvation by man's holy machines. The philosopher says instruments are for production (poiesis), (Politics, Book One, Metaphysics, Books One and Five), and we do tend to believe that production itself is the key to our

R E F LE C TIO N S O N TECH NO LO G Y

5

actual and potential freedom. But in order to understand the relation between production and freedom, it is necessary to make some basic distinctions. Let us first separate production from artifice (