Analysis of Habermas' "Technology and Science as Ideology"

Do humans use technology, or does technology use us? Does technology allow us to reach into the future, or does it constrain us to the social order. These ideas are central to Jürgen Habermas’ piece “Technology and Science as Ideology.” In this essay, Habermas criticizes Herbert Marcuse’s ideas that technology corrupts our idea of what we need to do to succeed and makes us resistant to social change. Rather, Habermas states that technology is the natural method of outsourcing our tasks that has been universally growing for all of history. Habermas divides our interactions with technology into purpose driven and culturally driven actions. Unlike Marcuse, Habermas believes our problems are not with our relationship with technology, but rather which parts of that relationship we put more emphasis on.

Marcuse’s “One Dimensional Man” portrays technology as a tool used to maintain social order in a society. While there are many instances in which technology appears to be forcing us to conform to society, technology is more a reflection of society than a unique aspect that can be changed. To illustrate this idea, we can compare the ideas of technology and government. Governments are tools built to solve problems, however they are built on the ideas of people and can freely adjust itself. However, technology is not a human institution but rather an organic progression of our means to solve problems. Governments tend to be tightly connected to the culture in which they govern, new alternative governments rise once they become too disconnected. Habermas points out that, unlike government, we can not connect technology to social projects because there is no alternative to a world with technology. Technology will always remain a major part of society and our relationship with technology will only change as our culture changes around it.

Throughout history technology has evolved to match the challenges faced by humans. Just like early humans used technology as a method of solving their primitive problems like heat and shelter, we continue to develop and use technology to solve our modern problems like communication and transportation. Technology allows humans to extend our natural capabilities to be more efficient and successful. For example, a farmer can work his crops by hand, but using a plow allows him to outsource that task to technology. Humans can easily communicate verbally, but by handing the process of communication to technology, we can communicate at far greater distances. Therefore, technology can not necessarily be connected to it’s historical and political context, as it is human nature to try to preform our necessary tasks with as little effort as possible. Furthermore, Habermas finds issue with Marcuse’s claim that modern technology is always part of a system of repression.
To explain the ways in which we interact with technology in a modern society, Habermas draws a distinction between work and interaction. Work is actions made to accomplish a task and is “governed by technical rules based on empirical knowledge.” Interaction is is actions that allow us to connect to our environment and engage on a social and political level. Interaction less efficient, as it is not centered around rational, purpose driven action, but rather adherence to the social norms. A “traditional society”, as defined by Habermas, is one in which interaction is the dominating force. These societies are constructed around “developed technologies” and work remains an important force in sustaining the society, but remain grounded in traditional values.

Unlike traditional societies, capitalist societies do not feature interaction as the dominant force. “Capitalism is the first mode of production in world history to institutionalize self-sustaining economic growth,” explains Habermas, which is an attribute that is both very helpful but also causes many problems. Capitalism leads to an extremely fast rate of economic growth, which can increase living conditions and lead to a more prosperous country. However, Habermas explains that the problem is that this growth is unconstrained and constantly increasing, leading work to become the dominating force of the society. No longer is work part of the subsystem of the society, work becomes the driving force in the society. This means that interaction becomes less important, and many of the social and cultural attributes of society fall apart. As an example, Habermas discusses the modern protester. Protesters should tend to be oppressed minorities, such as lower-class and poor citizens, however modern protesters are typically made up of privileged college students. In our society, those who actually have legitimate issues to fight for are swept away by the capitalist system, leaving only college students with significant resources as well as a disengagement from the capitalist environment. Political protest, one of the founding ideas of this country, is swept away as work comes to dominate it.

“Technology and Science as Ideology” lays forth Habermas’ beliefs that society's problem is not simply the abundance of technology or our dependence on it, rather it is the way we use technology to interact with society. When work is the driving force of society, we lose many of the elements that make modern societies diverse and cultural. I find Habermas’ views much more accurate than earlier philosophers such as Marcuse. His opinion that we must chance technology to fix the problems associated with it is rather irrational, as the growth of technology is a natural progression that can’t be simply redirected. Habermas accepts technological growth and the ways in which it applies to our culture, but believes that our problems with technology come from a dis-balance of the ways we use technology.

Heidegger vs Marcuse

Few would disagree that technology has become an important part of almost every aspect of our lives. We use cars and to quickly transport us miles away, share vast amounts of information with each other over the internet and depend on our cell phones for communication. Despite the benefits of these technological advances, some are critical of this dependence on technology. Martin Heidegger’s "The Question Concerning Technology" and Herbert  Marcuse’s One-Dimensional Man are both philosophical pieces critical of modern societies’ relationship with technology. 

Heidegger uses the concept of “revealing” in his piece to explain the issues concerning our connection to technology. “Every bringing-forth is grounded in revealing,” is how Heidegger explains this concept, or in other words, our exposure to new ideas. He believes that our dependence on technology has lead to only accepting factual information as truth, therefore limiting our revealing. Heidegger does not believe that technology should not be a part of our life, but rather that it should be considered as one of many ways of revealing the world around us. He emphasizes this point by discussing modern physics. Physics describes the entire world as “a calculable coherence of forces,” but clearly there is more to life than forces interacting. Heidegger shows that although technology reveals one aspect to you, you need to consider other points of view as well to increase your understanding.

Marcuse’s piece explains that it is human nature to fulfill our needs. Some of these needs are essential to our existence, others are “repressive” needs, needs that we want to fulfill. Marcuse believes that repression is necessary for humans to flourish, however technology leads us to repress things simply to maintain the status quo. For example, father may chose to repress the desire to spend time with his children because he needs to work and maintain his position at his job, his job being a type of technology. I have noticed this type of repression at concerts and public events where I see attendees more focused on filming the event on their phone than enjoying the event in person. They are repressing their desire to take in the event because our society puts more value on experiences that have evidence to back them up. Although the video will probably never be played again, the person standing there filming wants to make sure that he will be able to prove his experiences.

Marcuse’s Marxist ideology is evident throughout his work as he points out the issues behind capitalism and democracy. He is clear to point out that although America was built around the principles of freedom and liberty, those ideas are constantly being limited as our society progresses. Some of these are explicit limitations put in place by the government, such as the PATRIOT Act, which allows warrantless wiretapping and surveillance of private citizens. However these limitations aren’t as powerful as the controls set in place by our culture, such as the political news media, which funnels political viewpoints into one of two defined ideologies. These limitations essentially remove the need for critical thinking, making people more one-dimensional. Marcuse asserts that without this capitalistic system, corporations and governments would not be able to exert this type of control on the masses.

Both Heidegger and Marcuse provide thoughtful critiques of our society and culture, bringing to light many ways in which technology shapes our lives. However, Heidegger suggests that we should hold the technological approach to the world as one of many methods of revealing. Essentially, Heidegger is saying that factual information has it’s place, but we also need to look in other places such as our beliefs and faith to reveal new ideas. Personally, I believe that the societal issues described by Heidegger are not the result of too much focus on technology, but too narrow of a focus on technology. When presented with a challenge, a person will most likely turn to familiar technologies in order to reveal solutions. By broadening the scope of technologies one uses to “reveal”, people are more likely to question the status-quo and escape the technological restraints set by our culture.

Imagine a man tasked with caring for his elderly mother in the hospital. This man may face the challenge of deciding whether she should be given care to extend her life further, or allow her to perish. The technology-focused institution of modern medicine would say that every effort should made to keep her alive. Heidegger would say that the person’s beliefs may tell him that his mother would not be happy in this state. However, I think that being to relate to their needs and desires as well as knowing the information is another type of technology. It is acceptable for a person to follow emotions, but only if they understand the purpose of those emotions.

I agree more with Marcuse’s view, although he does imply that our focus on factual information leads to “indoctrination and manipulation”. While it may be true that the most commonly available information can often simply be a reflection of society’s norms, the intake of more information will lead to a fuller view of the world. 

It is nearly impossible to directly change a culture in a drastic way, and it is unlikely that Heidegger or Marcuse’s ideas will ever resonate with an entire population. The human attributes described in these works evolved over time and, for good or bad, allow society to continue to function as normal. However, by further understanding the problems that face our society, one can work to better themself as an individual, and that is the true purpose of these works.

"Brave New World" Analysis

“Actual happiness always looks pretty squalid in comparison with the over-compensations for misery,” states Mustapha Mond, as he explains the workings of the futuristic society in Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World”. This society is remarkably different than our own, and is intended to be a cautionary tale of how undesirable the world can become as we use technology to shape away our problems. In this world, Mustapha Mond is one of the few Controllers, the most powerful position in the government. In our current society, many people view happiness as achieving goals such as wealth and human relationships through hard work. However, Mond believes that humans are happy when they can quickly satisfy their urges without pain or suffering. By shaping the culture around this idea, many of the major problems that face humanity have been solved, however Huxley tries to point out the cost of this type of society.

While we all wish to construct strong relationships with those around us, there is a tremendous burden associated with this. Humans constantly struggle to build and maintain the relationships that society says we should create, whether with family or spouses. When we are unsuccessful at establishing these relationships, we feel sad and alone. There is further unhappiness when these relationships deviate from our expectations of them, such as when a couple gets into a fight. Finally, this struggle comes full circle when these relationships end, whether through death or separation, which is evident in America’s 50% divorce rate. The society of “Brave New World” removes these issues by removing both the concepts of family as well as long term relationships. The government engineers children in a lab, so they grow up without parents or relatives to be attached to. This means the children do not have to be connected to the ideas of their parents, which Mond would describe as “clinging to the past”. Furthermore, people in this society are then raised to avoid long term relationships and simply move from partner to partner. In a society where couples are not responsible for reproducing and raising a child, there is little need for couples to remain monogamous for long periods of time. Once again, people don’t “cling to the past” by saying in a sexual relationship with someone for a long period of time. Without these relationships to worry about, people can live more simple, stable lives.

In America, children grow up learning that they can be anyone and do anything if they put their mind to it. While this attitude leads to some amazing stories of hard work and success, many people are left disappointed with their lower position in society. Some may argue that social mobility and the promise of the American Dream gives false hope to the unskilled and unintelligent. However, any society needs people to preform these undesirable tasks. In the society of “Brave New World”, this problem is solved by the genetic engineering of humans. Every person “born” has been assigned to a specific social class, labeled Alpha through Epsilon. The Alpha’s are the most intelligent and capable, while Epsilons are rather stupid. Not only is each class engineered to fit in to their role in society, but they are conditioned to be happy with their role. “I suppose Epsilons don’t really mind being Epsilons,” Lenina observes in the book, to which Henry responds “Of course they don’t. How can they? They don’t know what it’s like being anything else.” When reading this, we may find it unsettling, as we are accustomed to the idea that anyone can become wealthy and upper-class if they work hard enough. However, everyone has physical limitations, whether they aren’t strong enough or aren’t smart enough. The new society matches everyone up with a role in society they are fit for, which means nobody struggles to move above their class and nobody fails and falls below their class. Not only does this system keep people from being unhappy with their social class, but it keeps the society calm and orderly.

One feature of the Huxley’s futuristic society that is especially similar to our modern society is the prevalent culture of consumerism. Through conditioning and teaching, humans in this society have the need to be constantly consuming. Mond describes how a culture of consumption keeps the economy healthy and allows the government to provide the new products that people consistently desire. Mond even uses this logic to explain why old texts like Shakespeare are banned, stating that “we don’t want people to be attracted by old things. We want them to like the new ones.” This culture parallels are current culture, where people are constantly purchasing new electronics, clothes and tools, even when the old products are fully functional and relatively new. In addition to stimulating the economy and providing manufacturing jobs, people game a consistent satisfaction by acquiring the new products they want. While these new technologies are not necessary for them to live their life, they have been conditioned to want new technologies. When the constant need for new products can be fulfilled by the government, it leads to a stable society.

To handle the emotional and physical burdens that humans face throughout their life, the government developed a drug called soma. Soma allows people to be more relaxed and content with their life. In our modern society, drugs often fill this same purpose. When people face problems and stresses in modern times, they often turn to drugs like alcohol, tobacco or marijuana to make them feel better. Use of these drugs has many health and legal issues, however soma has been perfected to the point where the government supplies it for free. Just like modern day drugs, soma provides an escape from reality by masking it in a haze. This drug is supplied by the government because they believe it is beneficial for people to regularly take these drugs. Soma clears people from their worries and problems, allowing them to be happy, functioning members of society. This allows individuals to clear their heads of their problems as well as keeping widespread discontent minimized.

The society portrayed in “Brave New World” is drastically different from our modern world, and almost no modern person would chose to live in this world. We can not envision ourselves living without our family, our freedoms and our values. However, Huxley’s world is one where people are consistently happy and are not burdened by many of the issues we face today. Like any society, it has it’s flaws, but that doesn’t mean that this society is inherit bad or wrong. This “brave new world” has implemented technology to correct almost all of the problems we face in life. Residents of this world don’t have to deal with maintaining relationships, succeeding in their career, or even getting sick and dying. It may be hard to imagine giving up the parts of our culture that we have grown accustom to, but we can’t ignore the benefits of a system in which everyone is happy with their place in the society.