Image source: Keurig

Technology has become pervasive in Western society.  Almost every activity or behavior in which we engage is related to, if not dependent upon, technology.  We wake up in the morning to a programmed alarm.  We shower using modern plumbing and water heaters.  We make coffee using a coffee pot, and we dress ourselves in clothing created using modern methods of textile production.  All of this happens before we even leave the house for work!  Are these technological advances beneficial, or are they harmful? 

Andrew Feenberg (1991) begins his book Critical Theory of Technology by comparing and contrasting two views or approaches of modern technology: instrumental and substantive.  The instrumental view states that technology is inherently neutral and is independent of politics and culture; the use and measurement of technology in one culture is therefore generalizeable to any other culture (Feenberg, 1991).  Feenberg (1991) soon abandons the instrumental view and spends the remainder of the chapter elaborating on why technology is not, in fact, neutral.  He goes on to contrast the instrumental view with the progressive view, which states that technology is inextricably intertwined with culture.  According to progressives, the value of technology is not in its function, but is beyond pure function.  Its value is the gestalt: the combination of its function, social appeal, and status, and the reciprocal influence technology has upon society and society has upon technology.

Feenberg (1991) quotes Heidegger, who states that it is the individual who becomes the raw material, controlled and manipulated by the technology we profess we are manipulating.  From being rational, cognitive beings, we are reduced to mere objects, bent to the will of those who create the technology.  We have become dependent upon technology, past the point at which we use it for necessary daily activities (waking up, brewing the ever-present cup of coffee).  Cell phones that were cutting edge six months ago are now considered obsolete, and owners of these expensive (and still functional!) objects are pressured by friends, family, and the media to upgrade to the newest, most advanced piece of technology.  The function of technology has moved past that of physical and practical function to that of social and political arenas.

Feenberg (1991) introduces critical theory of technology, which states that technology can “be redesigned to adapt it to the needs of a freer society” (p. 13).  Critical theory aligns with instrumentalism in that the use of technology is not fatalistic (Feenberg, 1991).  However, Feenberg’s theory acknowledges that technology is not neutral; it is designed by the ruling class and is therefore a tool of the ruling class.  Rather than describing technology as neutral, critical theory elaborates on its ambivalence—the struggle between its positive and negative influences upon society.

Image source: "There's an App for That: Top Student Apps"

Decades before the ubiquitous use of cell phones and other technology, Marx and the Frankfurt School embraced the integration of technology, humanity, and nature.  By using technology to the advance of the proletariat, Marxist fundamentals and technology can coexist in harmony.  If the working class is involved in the design and implementation of technology, they can reincorporate an aspect of skill into production workers’ jobs.  In this manner, workers would be functioning in positions of increased skill and value.  The prevalence of mobile phone applications (“Problem?  There’s an app for that!”) is one related phenomenon; skilled workers—in this example, software engineers—compete to create useful applications for a variety of situations, from the banal (a level to ensure horizontally displayed picture frames) to the unique.

If technology is inevitable and impossible to extract from society, what is our option?  Living “off the grid,” not paying taxes, using an outhouse, and growing all your own food without the aid of pesticides or herbicides?  Certain subcultures in the U.S. simultaneously embrace technology, with its constant updates and improvements, and the relative lack of technology.  Popular websites like Etsy promote the sale of individually-crafted products and celebrate the skilled labor of people across the globe.  The products created by these skilled laborers are exchanged for compensation at rates set by the laborer, not the ruling class—the laborer determines the “fair price.”  Although this market exchange is not exactly the equivalent of the dynamics between the ruling and working class that Marx idealized, it is closer to equality than that achieved by the early 1900s influence of Taylorism (1914). 

Image source: Etsy Business

As we trend toward a global economy, technological advances will likely lead to increased communication and interaction between societies and cultures.  Cultural differences which originally seemed exotic and unfamiliar are now becoming more accepted as simply another lifestyle, and the emergence of a global economy could accompany cultural globalization.  Differences in cultures may be subsumed into a single, global culture.  As one growing aspect of this new developing culture, technology use may continue to be more widespread, even beyond the seeming maximum capacity at which we all are now.  By being aware of our purchasing and technology use decisions, we can end the cycle of “gotta-have-it” marketing and be more intentional about our use of technology as individuals and the resulting influence it has on our society.

       

References:

Feenberg, A. (1991). Critical theory of technology. Critical theory of technology (pp. 2-20). New York, New York: Oxford University Press.

Taylor, F. W. (1914). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers.