It is undeniable that technology has fundamentally altered our relationship to our environment and to each other, and I believe the ultimate effect has been one of alienation. No longer do we make our own food (we might still prepare it, but we do not grow it ourselves, and most of us have no idea where our food even comes from), or our own clothes, or our own furniture—in fact, most of us no longer produce anything of our own.
Heidegger argues that the result has been a deterioration in our relationship with things (in the most general sense of the term, including natural and man-made objects): Because we merely see things as resources to be 'set upon' to maximize use, we no longer see objects as having intrinsic meaning, but just as entities to be manipulated to our needs and desires of the moment. And because we no longer have to accomodate ourselves to things, but force them to accomodate themselves to us, we drain the meaning from our lives. As Heidegger scholar Mark Wrathall interprets:
Dealing with objects and people that have fixed properties requires us to develop bodily and social skills, for example. Technological devices, by contrast, replace the need for bodily skills with a mechanism that does everything for us. . . If one wanted to enjoy music at home in a pre-technological age, one had to develop the skills to perform music. In the technological age, one needs only to be able to click a mouse or push a button to consume music. . . therefore, we ourselves lose the skills and capacities that give us our own identity and, as importantly, we lose a kind of receptivity to the things around us.In my last post on Heidegger, I touched on a different problem, the way we seem to sometimes treat ourselves merely as machines to be manipulated. Indeed, dietary supplements that claim to "maximize performance" sometimes seem like they are trying to sell themselves for automobiles rather than human beings; likewise, I can't help but be creeped out by the way antidepressants purport to alter your "brain chemistry." There's no doubt about it: man is mechanizing and automating himself, both literally and metaphorically.
 |
| Cyborgs, dude |
I know this is all very vague and not specific, so I'll try to clarify with an example of what I mean. Being in college, many of my friends are still trying to figure out "what they want to do with their lives," and some seem to have a pretty good idea. Of those who do have a good idea, I would further divide them into two groups: Those that follow their passions, and those that, more or less, seem to adopt the goals that their parents, or maybe even their peers, expect them to. Let's say, for instance, that one decides to become a doctor because that's what one's parents expect. I'm not trying to pass judgment here at all, but simply trying to note something that seems to occur in the latter case.
The person that is passionate about his chosen goals and projects naturally "throws himself" into his endeavors, while the reluctant pre-med student compels herself to study each night. That is, she feels that she works against her will, even though she is at the same time the one willing herself to work—this is the meaning of self-alienation: the feeling of coercing oneself.
What I take to distinguish self-alienation from mere self-discipline (i.e., forcing yourself to do homework even when you'd rather just relax and have a beer) is lack of self-knowledge. In the technological attitude, one does not question the "nature" of the things one harvests for resources—indeed, such a question does not even make sense, because things just are resources. Similarly, self-alienation occurs when one forces oneself to take up a certain project or goal without questioning the nature of oneself—what deters or attracts one to the goal in question, and why one may or may not be suited to pursue that goal.
I'm not sure how much of this is intelligible, but it's a good example of what happens when I let myself ramble for a while...So I'm eager to hear any thoughts you guys have!
“And because we no longer have to accomodate ourselves to things, but force them to accomodate themselves to us, we drain the meaning from our lives”
ReplyDeleteThough I agree with you, I think that by switching it around, we can see a different level of truth: that we accommodate ourselves to things, rather than them to us. Which might be worse, considering we should take priority over ‘things’.
Take food, for example. We basically eat the end product of someone else’s relationship with food. Therefore, we do not know the reality of what we eat or put into our bodies. Though we choose the specific foods we eat, in these foods themselves, I would say that no control. We settle, because we cannot manipulate our food to be as how we think it should be (for example: deciding what you feed a cow, or presence/lack of chemicals). Therefore, we accommodate ourselves to a limited number of already existing imperfect 'things'. For convenience, we give up power. This holds us back from reaching our fullest potential, which is your point here. The highest point we can reach depends on these things, rather than on us.
Also, because these things are imperfect, they become disposable to us. We go through thing after thing, waiting for the one that fits our perception of the ‘perfect thing’. We're sure it will come eventually from some unknown entity, but it never does. This perhaps leads to a general human feeling of dissatisfaction.
But as easy as it is to say these lofty things, let’s be real. If we had all the time, knowledge, resources, and mental capacity in the world, then great: we could control very aspect of our lives, and very aspect would be amazing (to us). But we don’t. Our discussion here doesn’t really celebrate human diversity. Technology, on the other hand, bridges the gap between human skills. It helps make the pesky parts of lives easier so we can hone in our efforts into a specific area. And in that specific area, we excel and spread our idea of perfection to others. Sure we eat crap, but to the maker of the crap, it’s the highest form of food there is.
I have a lot to say about this blog post but I reckon I should stop here, considering I don’t know if I make any sense..
By the way, lovin’ your choice of images
Haha, I try hard on the pic selection
ReplyDeleteI see your point, but for the sake of playing devil’s advocate I’ll offer a Heideggerean response. I think your argument presupposes the very technological attitude I’m criticizing, as well as a Cartesian conception of us as isolated egos existing independently of the physical world we inhabit.
“We should take priority over ‘things’”
Who is the ‘we’ that is taking priority over things, and what does it mean? What are we independent of our relations to things and other people? When you say we should take priority over things, I suppose you mean that things should not dictate our desires and projects. But who or what dictates them? We do not come out of the womb with fully formed goals—we create or acquire them as a result of social processes and interaction with the world. If our projects are totally isolated from our world, then they become mere whims, which have no objective power to motivate us.
“This holds us back from reaching your fullest potential, which is your point here”
Haha, while I like to think I’m into fulfilling potential, that is definitely NOT my point here. The idea of “maximizing potential” is itself a technological ideal. Maximizing potential, maximizing efficiency, maximizing utility, it all comes down to the same thing. But what exactly are we maximizing? Pleasure? Consumption? Where does it end? What is the meaning of this maximization?
“Because these things are imperfect, they become disposable to us”
I don’t think its because the things are imperfect—I think its because we’ve adopted a certain attitude towards the things. Instead of “lettings things be,” we see them as entities which exist merely for our consumption and manipulation. The fact that we look to things to “satisfy us” is an indication that something has gone wrong in our relationship to the world. Things cannot satisfy us, even if we “perfect” them via technology. Because things can never be perfected, as you recognize.
“If we had all the time, knowledge, resources, and mental capacity in the world, then great: we could control very aspect of our lives, and very aspect would be amazing”
I think that is what the developed world is trying to do now, and I think it’s wrong. Our attempt to control every aspect of our lives is stripping the inherent properties from the world, and turning it into bland clay to be manipulated for our desires of the moment, whatever they happen to be. When I say we have lost our relationship to things, I do not mean that we no longer have “power” over them, although that is sometime the case. I mean we no longer have a mindful relationship to them. I’m not sure if its quite clear what I mean…I guess I’m trying to say that things no longer carry any inherent meaning, other than what we see fit to assign to them. The problem is that we are seeing more and more of our lives as “pesky parts” to be automated, so we can focus on the “important things.” But what are the important things? It seems like, as technology progresses, more and more parts of our lives become “pesky” and fewer and fewer things actually matter to us. Where does it stop? When all our experiences are totally automated?
“Sure we eat crap, but to the maker of the crap, it’s the highest form of food there is.”
Bullshit it’s the highest form of food. If we’re talking about the American food industry (which I am), they know they are simply trying to “maximize” the bottom line with the cheapest and most abundant ingredients, and if they think otherwise, they’re fooling themselves. Their relationship to the food is one of mindless manipulation, and our relation to the food is one of mindless consumption. Btw, I’d be interested to hear about your experiences with the food culture in Italy…from what I understand, it’s a lot different from the one here, but maybe that’s just a stereotype
Thanks for the response! And please, say more…You know I love a good debate, haha