In Services of the Machine?

Technoculture and Critical Theory Book Review

Technoculture and Critical Theory - In Services of the Machine? is the second book I am examining with regard to my research question and the key message from Childhoods End in technology and futurology.

It is predominately the analysis and theorisation by Simon Cooper, into  humanities technological progress domination and exploration, but also its consequences; the ‘technocratic antihuman paradigm.’

Critical theory is used on Techocuture of the late 20th century to explore the complex relationship technology has with politics and culture.

Cooper also discusses the effect technological change towards our culture in the eyes of modern writers and philosophers.  

In the books abstract it states  “Technoculture and Critical Theory, theories the ambivalence most of us register towards technological progress.” 

This refers to the border argument between determinism and ambivalence and how each view answers the question are we in service to them machine?

Although this literature is focused more toward the philology of technology it still contributes to answering a portion of the masters research question:

What are the consequences and adverse effects that arise for mankind when adopting new and emergent utopian technology?

This question is reflected early in the first chapter of the book with the following quote: 

“the problem is knowing whether the master-slave conflict finds resolution in service of the machine” (Lacan 1977 :27)

One of the consequences of technology, mankind finds is the conflict over control. Are we in service to the machine or is the machine servicing us? 

Humanities relationship towards technological is an ambivalent one. Often an unknown and mixed answer to weather technology overall benefits mankind.

A grey area where mankind depends and develops technology only for it to get the better of our humanity.

Cooper states, ‘the central concern of this book: how technology-in-use works to reconstitute our mode of being in the world,  both directly and indirectly.’ 

Cooper conducts his critical theory of technology by introducing the reader to the counter argument of ambivalence, being is determinism. 

Through examining the writings of the German philosopher Martin Heideggers the author explains determinism. 

Heideggers, sees the answer to ‘In Services of the Machine? as the counter opposite to Cooper.

Determinism meaning that which (technology) drives us towards an irrevocable future. Narrating cultures of pessimism or utopianism. 

In the chapter, Heideggers and technology: salvation and danger, Cooper starts by exploring the counter argument to his theory through Martin Heidegger’s theorisation of technology through its essence.

Heidegger believed like most Italian Futurists technological possibilities relates to freedom. But with the exception to the ideology. He believed a freedom from ontological framework and not individual empowerment.

‘the essence of technology.. is not technological, but rather, concerns a particular mode of revealing.’

‘Heidegger finds that the technological mode of revealing takes the form of an aggressive, challenging a provoking which causes us to change everything, including ourselves as an objectified entity.’

The first interesting viewpoint from this chapter, is the comparison of ambivalence to technology withe the introduction of Determinism.

These conflicting philosophies can help describe the key message playing out in Childhoods End.

they also provide a larger understanding of the progression technology has characters and cultures such as the ones in childhoods End.

Determinism; The state of an irrevocable future that narrates culture towards pessimism or utopianism.  A theory that nature of technology is revealing and sets societies unwittingly track of determinism. 

Heidegger claims that the revealing radically alter the meaning of phenomena.  In his terms, ‘Genstell’ the revealing.

‘The transformation of the world into a pictorial representation constitutes for Heidegger, ‘the fundamental event of our age’

One of the best examples given in the chapter describing the determinism nature to culture is with Heidegger’s passage:

“ all distances in time and space are shrinking. Man now reaches overnight, by plane, place which formally took weeks and months to travel… the peak of this abolition of every possibility of remoteness is reached by television, which will soon pervade and dominate the whole machinery of communication. Man puts the longest distance behind him in the shortest time … Short distance is not in itself nearness. Nor is great distance itself remoteness.”   (Heidegger 1971: 165)

Cooper explains that Heidegger’s determinist assessment of technology leads to a despair in seeing the world reduced to a representation of itself.

The author then states, ‘this is unwillingness to explore the ambivalence and the ontological contradictions that result therefrom that prevents us developing a more effective response to technology.’

The reaction I gathered from the authors examination of determinism in answering the books question ‘are we in services of the machine?’  Is a unsatisfied verdict and a need to explore more thinkers, counter to Heidegger.

I was expecting the author to enlighten the reader with more evidence of ambivalence with regard to his question, are we in services of the machine?  However it is very rarely expanded forwards in the book.

In the following chapters, Cooper examines the work of Walter Benjamin and his discussion of technologies ‘radical potential’ but scantly mentions the ambivalence theory moving forward. 

The characteristics of ambivalence; mixed situations, feeling or contradiction to ideas about technological change are common in Benjamin’s ‘radical potential in technology.’

In the second chapter, one of the predominate facets of Benjamin’s radical potential in technology is its destruction of aura. 

Cooper extrapolates this theory from Benjamin’s essays ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’ and ‘Experience and Poverty’  Shining a light of the idea, destruction of aura.

‘Benjamin celebrates the capacity of technology to shatter humanities ties with both myth, and what he takes t be the more disempowering facets of traditional aesthetics.

Explained further in this example;  

‘Mechanical reproduction works to eradicate the notions of singularity and uniqueness that bind the acratic object to tradition. such mass production alter the status of the original, as Benjamin notes: ‘to ask for the authentic print makes no sense’  The loss of singularity leads to the loss of authenticity  of the art work and, in turn, of the cultural tradition to which it belonged.’  (Cooper. Technoculture and Critical Theory. 2002)

My initial interpreted this example of Benjamin’s statement was one of deterministic pessimism towards mass production technology.  However Cooper explains it’s the opposite, seeing a realistically mixed judgment to this destruction of the aura through technological change. Thus a ambivalent theory to technology, although Cooper doesn’t state it obviously;

‘The liquidation of aura and tradition by Benjamin as a largely positive development. He notes the mechanical reproducibility detaches the object from its original authoritative content, liquidating the traditional value of the cultural heritage.’

Drawing a conclusion from the relative chapters read on determinism and ambivalence. I gathered a better philosophical understanding of what technological change will bring to people. The fact we ask the question, ‘are in service of the machine?’ answers a lot about our preconceived notion towards technology.  The actual answer to whether we are in service of the machine isn’t definitively given in the book. The author gives one final statement that summarises the overall query and reflection on how we think about technology and its effect to our lives and environment. 

Unveiling we often opt for an ontological rational that manifests technological change as a personified effect.  An abstract ‘techno escape goat’? Or in actuality is it ourselves to blame and credit for the act.  Simply an act of fore filling human needs which run the risk of costing the reason we seek to improve ourselves.    

‘As technology enables our ways of being and acting to be reconstituted at a more abstract level, certain ethical, political and ontological dilemmas arise simultaneously…

Will technological freedoms further draw us into the circuit of the commodity?   To what extent does the attempt to resolve human needs technologically work to undermine the grounds through which such resolution could have meaning?

These questions have governed my examination of theorists and cultural movements discussed in this book. they are questions which posit choices that we have never had to make before.

I cannot hope to have answered them completely, but if I have allowed them to resonate, them I will have gone some way towards achieving my intention.’