Gianni Zucchet
13 April 2022
Technology: False Liberation
Technology has advanced rapidly within the last century, creating non-empirical empires on a cloud, facilitating the lives of many, and more recently, shackling the individual into mass-mindedness. Within the past thirty years we have become dependent to a point where we grow into a panic when we hover over our pocket, only to be relieved when we feel the rectangular alien sitting there; symptomatic of separation anxiety. Kant’s Fifth Thesis states: “The highest purpose of Nature… is attainable only in society, and more specifically in the society with the greatest freedom” (Kant, 49), humanity requires communication and connection, strengthening sympathy and empathy, whilst satiating the desire to share, listen, and speak. Technology has ingrained itself into society in such a way that social media mimics real life interactions, and some judge this type of parasocial interaction to be as real as life. However, the creation of these society-like platforms have not only bastardized society, but they are also limiting the freedom of the individual through the stimulation of addictive habits, its ease of access, and creating a false need to be constantly heard and/or noticed. Kant would certainly disavow contemporary technology, and most importantly our manner of abusing it as a means to substitute human connection.
Marx would argue that capitalism is the corrupting factor of social media, he states: “These labourers, who must sell themselves piece-meal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce” (Marx, 479). The existing middle class is now a commodity for conglomerate companies to exploit, this is seen clearly with targeted advertisement, in which the type of items you look for lead you to receive an advertisement for them weeks after you’ve made a search. We labourers, the middle class, have become avid consumers, and the internet has become a shopping mall without our consent; forcing their access to our data. Certainly, capitalism has allowed this to become a market, since the bourgeoisie have a firm grasp on the content we consume, and the forced marketing we are forced to gobble up in the targeted ad before our youtube video; which will then impact our financial decisions. Extending to such a point that the proletariat themselves will even sponsor certain products, and have their followers and friends exposed to them. Furthermore empowering the 1% through increased sales, while stretching the gap between the rich and poor. If Marx were to see that the 50 wealthiest Americans amass more wealth than the bottom half of America combined, he would certainly write another manifesto.
Heidegger argues that “Technology therefore is no mere means. Technology is a way of revealing. If we give heed to this, then another whole realm for the essence of technology will open itself up to us” (Heidegger, 308). Indeed, it is easy to think of the internet as the “whole realm” for technology, as it has become the central piece where everything and everyone connects, it is the contemporary Silk Road. Moreover, as Heidegger says, with the correct questions, it can uncover information for us about us with no geographical, or corporeal boundaries. Truly, it is a sublime, massive force that has been used as a double-edged blade, granting access to information for the price of your own information. Moreover, Heidegger was concerned that our preoccupation in the advancement of technology would leave art, and thus poesis behind, unfortunately, the fine arts have certainly seen better days. Heidegger says: “the more questioningly we ponder the essence of technology, the more mysterious the essence of art becomes” (Heidegger, 317), he worried that our hunger for the growth of technology would leave our humanity behind, and enter into a state more concerned with efficiency than depth, one where there would perhaps be no flowers left to smell as they pave the way for new infrastructure.
The idea of false needs is akin to the situation a crack addict finds themselves in, their body is convinced that they have a need for the drug, their thoughts are dominated by the idea of acquiring and consuming it, and unfortunately, the next fix they get could be the last. Marcuse argues that the new forms of media and technology have indoctrinated society into a herd of “free-will” possessing individuals who think they have free-will because they can make choices, however, the choices given to them are under deliberate control. Marcuse argues that false needs include: “the overwhelming need for the production and consumption of waste; the need for stupefying work where it is no longer a real necessity; the need for modes of relaxation which soothe and prolong this stupefication” (Marcuse, 451). Notably, we certainly produce, consume, and waste more so than we ever have in history. Then, we create arguments on twitter against the consumption and production of wasteful items, gathering millions behind the cause, plastic straws come to mind. And yet, you can find plastic straws just about anywhere still, if technology is capable of unifying and spreading the ideology of a large part of the public, and yet no effect is made, it would appear that the unified voice of the masses is largely unimportant, which shows how little the media is concerned with our opinions; as long as we continue purchasing, consuming, and wasting their product. The “soothing” aspect that Marcuse brings forth is an interesting one, since it implies a form of sedation offered to us, in order to get just enough rest to come back refreshed and ready to get back to work. You get just enough serotonin to stop you from suicidal ideation, while maintaining the levels of productivity to be an efficient, living pawn.
In Tools for Conviviality, Ivan Illich argues that we have gone the wrong direction with technology, that we ought to use technology to enhance “each person’s range of freedom” and that “People need new tools to work with rather than tools that ‘work’ for them” (Illich, 10). He argues that the creation of machines that do all the work causes us to lose our creativity, and become pure consumers in society, rather than purposeful, usefully happy individuals. Illich and Marcuse certainly resonate a bit, though Illich prescribes a very clear picture of what his theory would mean for man. The smartphone is a tool that certainly does the work for us rather than assist us in doing so, by way of GPS, calculator, communication, entertainment, etc. My dependence has at times made me question whether I could calculate 20% for the tip on a bill without my phone, as well as doubt myself when I reach a conclusion, quickly validating myself with a google search. If our feelings, confidence, and mood can be validated or invalidated by a metal brick, then technology has not only become autonomous, but our master.
Though technology has decreased the stress on our minds, it has numbed us to the point of obedience and constant consumption. The constant self gratification we are under with “like” buttons as the social media we “enjoy” uses our cognitive biases against us in order to keep us glued to the screen, and increase their revenue. Needless to say, the current state of technology is likely too deeply ingrained into our daily lives such that we cannot revert it, but I could certainly see some of Illich’s ideas becoming popular if implemented, and hope to see something like it in the future. To find the equilibrium between the efficiency we desire, while strengthening our creativity, allowing poesis to return as an equal to techne, slowly returning to our humanity as we step out of the zombie-like state, and truly advance, not as a massive corporation, but a unified, equal society.
Works Cited
Illich, Ivan D. Tools for Conviviality. Marion Boyars, 1985.
Scharff, Robert C., and Val Dusek. Philosophy of Technology: The Technological Condition: An Anthology. Wiley Blackwell, 2014.
Tucker, Robert C., et al. The Marx-Engels Reader. Norton, 1978.