Question Details

[answered] 2 Technology and the Future he sees as the right-wing bias

Bill Joy?s article starts off a bit slowly, but it moves increasingly toward a crescendo.? The last few pages are filled with insights and concerns about how technology shapes and will shape our lives in the future.? Write down two or three of these key insights or concerns and contemplate and/or analyze their significance.
2 Technology and the Future he sees as the right-wing bias of contemporary technology. Finally, Samuel Florman, an engineer and humanist, proposes an


alternative approach, a ?tragic? view that recognizes the role of


technology in human life, including its limits.


The reader looking for unequivocal answers to the problems


posed by technology will not find them here. On the whole, the


articles in this section, like those in the remainder of the book,


raise many more questions than they answer. Does Improved Technology Mean






The concepts of technology and progress have been jirmly linked in


the minds of most Americans for the past 150 years. Only in the


past two decades has the question that Leo Marx asks in his article


?Does Improved Technology Mean Progress?? begun to receive serious


attention in our culture. This question is the perfect starting point for


Technology and the Future. Deceptive in its simplicity, it underlies


most of what follows in this book.


Leo Marx is William R. Kenan Professor of American Cultural


History Emeritus at MIT He is the author of The Machine in the


Garden: Technology and the Pastoral Ideal in America ( 1964) and


The Pilot and the Passenger: Essays on Literature, Technology and


Culture in the United States (1988). He holds a Ph.D. in history


from Harvard and has taught at that institution and at the University


of Minnesota and Amherst College. He has twice been a Guggenheim


Fellow and was a Rockefeller Humanities Fellow in f983-84. Marx


was born in New York City in 1919.


In this essay (frst published in Technology Review in 1987), he


examines how the concept of progress has itself evolved since the early


days of the Republic and what that evolution means for understanding


the technological choices that confront us today. Improved technology


could mean pogress, Marx concludes, but ?only if we are willing and


able to answer the next question: progress toward what??


Does improved technology mean progress? If some variant of this question had been addressed to a reliable sample of Americans at any time


since the early nineteenth century, the answer of a majority almost


certainly would have been an unequivocal ??yes.? The idea that technological improvements are a primary basis for-and an accurate gauge


of-progress has long been a fundamental belief in the United States. Marx Leo. ?Does Improved Technology Mean


Progress?? Technoloav and the Future Teich,


Albert H (ed.) New York: St. Martin?s Press (1993):


p. 3 - 14. ISBN:031206747 DIT16082103J?DF source: T&nology Review (January 1987), pp. 33-41, 71. Reprinted with permission


from Technology Review, copyright 1987.


lt is a violation of the Iaw to reproduce this selection by any means whatsoever without


the written permission of the copyright holder.


3 -~- . ..-...~..-- -. ..-- -- ---..._...__. --^ -.- .__?. 4 Technology and the Future In the last half-century, however, that belief has lost some of its credibility. A growing minority of Americans has adopted a skeptical,


even negative, view of technological innovation as an index of social




The extent of this change in American attitudes was brought home


to me when I spent October 1984 in China. At that time the announced goal of the People?s Republic was to carry out (in the popular slogan) ?Four Modernizations?-agriculture, science and technology, industry, and the military. What particularly struck our group of


Americans was the seemingly unbounded, largely uncritical ardor with


which the Chinese were conducting their love affair with Westernstyle modernization-individualistic, entrepreneurial, or ?capitalist,?


as well as scientific and technological. Like early nineteenth-century


visitors to the United States, we were witnessing a society in a veritable transport of improvement: long pent-up, innovative energies were


being released, everyone seemed to be in motion, everything was eligible for change. It was assumed that any such change almost certainly


would be for the better.


Most of the Chinese we came to know best-teachers and students


of American studies-explicitly associated the kind of progress represented by the four modernizations with the United States. This respect


for American wealth and power was flattering but disconcerting, for


we often found ourselves reminding the Chinese of serious shortcomings, even some terrible dangers, inherent in the Western mode of


industrial development. Like the Americans whom European travelers


met 150 years ago, many of the Chinese seemed to be extravagantly,


almost blindly, credulous and optimistic.


Our reaction revealed, among other things, a change in our own


culture and, in some cases, in our own personal attitudes. We came


face to face with the gulf that separates the outlook of many contemporary Americans from the old national faith in the advance of


technology as the basis of social progress.


The standard explanation for this change includes that familiar


litany of death and destruction that distinguishes the recent history of


the West: two barbaric world wars, the Nazi holocaust, the Stalinist


terror, and the nuclear arms race. It is striking to note how many


of the fearful events of our time involve the destructive use or misuse, the unforeseen consequences, or the disastrous malfunction of


modern technologies: Hiroshima and the nuclear threat; the damage


inflicted upon the environment by advanced industrial societies; and


spectacular accidents like Three Mile Island. Marx / Does Improved Technology Mean Progress? 5 Conspicuous disasters have helped to undermine the public?s faith in


progress, but there also has been a longer-term change in our thinking.


It is less obvious, less dramatic and tangible than the record of catastrophe that distinguishes our twentieth-century history, but I believe


it is more fundamental. Our very conception-our chief criterion-of


progress has undergone a subtle but decisive change since the founding


of the Republic, and that change is at once a cause and a reflection


of our current disenchantment with technology. To chart this change


in attitude, we need to go back at least as far as the first Industrial




The development of radically improved machinery (based on mechanized motive power) used in the new factory system of the late eighteenth century coincided with the formulation and diffusion of the


modem Enlightenment idea of history as a record of progress. This


conception became the fulcrum of the dominant American worldview. It assumes that history, or at least modern history, is driven by


the steady, cumulative, and inevitable expansion of human knowledge of and power over nature. The new scientific knowledge and


technological power was expected to make possible a comprehensive


improvement in all the conditions of life-social, political, moral, and


intellectual as well as material.


The modern idea of progress, as developed by its radical French,


English, and American adherents, emerged in an era of political revolution. It was a revolutionary doctrine, bonded to the radical struggle


for freedom from feudal forms of domination. To ardent republicans


like the French philosopher Condorcet, the English chemist Priestley, and Benjamin Franklin, a necessary criterion of progress was the


achievement of political and social liberation. They regarded the new


sciences and technologies not as ends in themselves, but as instruments for carrying out a comprehensive transformation of society.


The new knowledge and power would provide the basis for alternatives to the deeply entrenched authoritarian, hierarchical institutions


of l?ancien r&me: monarchical, aristocratic, and ecclesiastical. Thus


in 1813 Thomas Jefferson wrote to John Adams describing the combined effect of the new science and the American revolution on the


minds of Europeans: 6 Technology and the Future Marx / Does Improved Technology Mean Progress? 7 Science had liberated the ideas of those who read and reflect, and


the American example had kindled feelings of right in the people. An insurrection has consequently begun, of science, talents,


and courage, against rank and birth, which have fallen into contempt. . . . Science is progressive. I declined it from a principle which has ever weighed with me on


such occasions, namely; viz., that as we enjoy great adwantuges from the


inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others


by any invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously


[emphasis in original]. Admittedly, the idea of history as endless progress did encourage


extravagantly optimistic expectations, and in its most extreme form,


it fostered some wildly improbable dreams of the ?perfectability of


Man? and of humanity?s absolute mastery of nature. Yet the political


beliefs of the radical republicans of the eighteenth century, such as


the principle of making the authority of government dependent upon


the consent of the governed, often had the effect of limiting those


aspirations to omnipotence.


The constraining effect of such ultimate, long-term political goals


makes itself felt, for example, in Jefferson?s initial reaction to the


prospect of introducing the new manufacturing system to America.


?Let our work-shops remain in Europe,? he wrote in 1785.


Although a committed believer in the benefits of science and technology, Jefferson rejected the idea of developing an American factory


system on the ground that the emergence of an urban proletariat,


which he then regarded as an inescapable consequence of the European factory system, would be too high a price to pay for any potential


improvement in the American material standard of living. He regarded


the existence of manufacturing cities and an industrial working class


as incompatible with republican government and the happiness of the


people. He argued that it was preferable, even if more costly in strictly


economic terms, to ship raw materials to Europe and import manufactured goods. ?The loss by the transportation of commodities across


the Atlantic will be made up in happiness and permanence of government.? In weighing political, moral, and aesthetic costs against


economic benefits, he anticipated the viewpoint of the environmentalists and others of our time for whom the test of a technological


innovation is its effect on the overall quality of life.


Another instance of the constraining effect of republican political


ideals is Benjamin Franklin?s refusal to exploit his inventions for private


profit. Thus Franklin?s reaction when the governor of Pennsylvania urged


him to accept a patent for his successful design of the ?Franklin stove:? What makes the example of Franklin particularly interesting is the


fact that he later came to be regarded as the archetypal self-made


American and the embodiment of the Protestant work ethic. When


Max Weber sought out of all the world the exemplar of that mentality


for his seminal study, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,


whom did he choose but our own Ben? But Franklin?s was a principled


and limited self-interest. In his Autobiography, he told the story of his


rise in the world not to exemplify a merely personal success, but rather


to illustrate the achievements of a ?rising people.? He belonged to


that heroic revolutionary phase in the history of the bourgeoisie when


that class saw itself as the vanguard of humanity and its principles as


universal. He thought of his inventions as designed not for his private


benefit but for the benefit of all. Governor Thomas was so pleased with the construction of this


stove as described in. . . [the pamphlet] that. . . he offered to give


me a patent for the sole vending of them for a term of years; but THE TECHNOCRATIC CONCEPT OF PROGRESS


With the further development of industrial capitalism, a quite different conception of technological progress gradually came to the fore


in the United States. Americans celebrated the advance of science


and technology with increasing fervor, but they began to detach the


idea from the goal of social and political liberation. Many regarded


the eventual attainment of that goal as having been assured by the


victorious American Revolution and the founding of the Republic.


The difference between this later view of progress and that of Jefferson?s and Franklin?s generation can be heard in the rhetoric of


Daniel Webster. He and Edward Everett were perhaps the leading


public communicators of this new version of the progressive ideology.


When Webster decided to become a senator from Massachusetts instead of New Hampshire, the change was widely interpreted to mean


that he had become the quasi-official spokesman for the new industrial


manufacturing interests. Thus Webster, who was generally considered


the nation?s foremost orator, was an obvious choice as the speaker at


the dedication of new railroads. Here is a characteristic peroration of


one such performance in 1847: 8 Technology and the Future It is an extraordinary era in which we live. It is altogether new.


The world has seen nothing like it before. I will not pretend, no


one can pretend, to discern the end; but everybody knows that


the age is remarkable for scientific research into the heavens, the


earth, and what is beneath the earth; and perhaps more remarkable


still for the application of this scientific research to the pursuits of


life. . . . We see the ocean navigated and the solid land traversed by


steam power, and intelligence communicated by electricity. Truly


this is almost a miraculous era. What is before us no one can say,


what is upon us no one can hardly realize. The progress of the age


has almost outstripped human belief; the future is known only to




By the 1840s as Webster?s rhetoric suggests, the idea of progress was


already being dissociated from the Enlightenment vision of political


liberation. He invests the railroad with a quasi-religious inevitability that lends force to the characterization of his language as the


rhetoric of the technological sublime. Elsewhere in the speech, to be


sure, Webster makes the obligatory bow to the democratic influence


of technological change, but it is clear that he is casting the new machine power as the prime exemplar of the overall progress of the age,


quite apart from its political significance. Speaking for the business


and industrial elite, Webster and Everett thus depict technological innovation as a sufficient cause, in itself, for the fact that history assumes


the character of continuous, cumulative progress.


At the same time, discarding the radical political ideals of the Enlightenment allowed the idea of technological progress to blend with


other grandiose national aspirations. Webster?s version of the ?rhetoric


of the technological sublime? is of a piece with the soaring imperial


ambitions embodied in the slogan ?Manifest Destiny,? and by such


tacit military figurations of American development as the popular notion of the ?conquest of nature? (including Native Americans) by


the increasingly technologized forces of advancing European-American


?civilization.? These future-oriented themes easily harmonized with


the belief in the coming of the millenium that characterized evangelical Protestantism, the most popular American religion at the time.


Webster indicates as much when, at the end of his tribute to the new


railroad, he glibly brings in ?Omniscience? as the ultimate locus of


the meaning of progress.


The difference between the earlier Enlightenment conception of


progress and that exemplified by Webster is largely attributable to the Marx / Does Improved Technology Mean Progress? 9 difference between the groups they represented. Franklin, Jefferson,


and the heroic generation of founding revolutionists constituted a distinct, rather unusual social class in that for a short time the same


men possessed authority and power in most of its important forms:


economic, social, political, and intellectual. The industrial capitalists


for whom Daniel Webster spoke were men of a very different stripe.


They derived their status from a different kind of wealth and power,


and their conception of progress, like their economic and social aspirations, was correspondingly different. The new technology and the


immense profits it generated belonged to them, and since they had every reason to assume that they would retain their property and power,


they had a vested interest in technological innovation. It is not surprising, under the circumstances, that as industrialization proceeded


these men became true believers in technological improvement as the


primary basis for-as virtually tantamount to-universal progress.


This dissociation of technological and material advancement from


the larger political vision of progress was an intermediate stage in the


eventual impoverishment of that radical eighteenth-century worldview. This subtle change prepared the way for the emergence, later


in the century, of a thoroughly technocratic idea of progress. It was


?technocratic? in that it valued improvements in power, efficiency,


rationality as ends in themselves. Among those who bore witness to


the widespread diffusion of this concept at the turn of the century


were Henry Adams and Thorstein Veblen, who were critical of it,


and Andrew Carnegie, Thomas Edison, and Frederick Winslow Taylor and his followers, who lent expression to it. Taylor?s theory of


scientific management embodies the quintessence of the technocratic


mentality, ?the idea,? as historian Hugh Aitken describes it, ?that


human activity could be measured, analyzed, and controlled by techniques analogous to those that had proved so successful when applied


to physical objects.?


The technocratic idea of progress is a belief in the sufficiency of scientific and technological innovation as the basis for general progress.


It says that if we can ensure the advance of science-based technologies, the rest will take care of itself. (The ?rest? refers to nothing


less than a corresponding degree of improvement in the social, political, and cultural conditions of life.) Turning the Jeffersonian ideal on


its head, this view makes instrumental values fundamental to social


progress, and relegates what formerly were considered primary, goalsetting values (justice, freedom, harmony, beauty, or self-fulfillment)


to a secondary status. 10 Technology and the Future In this century, the technocratic view of progress was enshrined in


Fordism and an obsessive interest in economies of scale, standardization of process and product, and control of the workplace. This shift


to mass production was accompanied by the more or less official commitment of the U.S. government to the growth of the nation?s wealth,


productivity, and global power, and to the most rapid possible rate of


technological innovation as the essential criterion of social progress.


But the old republican vision of progress-the vision of advancing


knowledge empowering humankind to establish a less hierarchical,


more just and peaceful society-did not disappear. If it no longer inspired Webster and his associates, it lived on in the minds of many


farmers, artisans, factory workers, shopkeepers, and small-business


owners, as well as in the beliefs of the professionals, artists, intellectuals, and other members of the lower middle and middle classes.


During the late nineteenth century, a number of disaffected intellectuals sought new forms for the old progressive faith. They translated


it into such political idioms as utopian socialism, the single-tax movement, the populist revolt, Progressivism in cities, and Marxism and




Let me turn to a set of these late-eighteenth-century ideas that was


to become the basis for a powerful critique of the culture of advanced


industrial society. Usually described as the viewpoint of the ?counterEnlightenment? or the ?romantic reaction,? these ideas have formed


the basis for a surprisingly long-lived adversarial culture.


According to conventional wisdom, this critical view originated in


the intellectual backlash from the triumph of the natural sciences we


associate with the great discoveries of Galileo, Kepler, Harvey, and


Newton. Put differently, this tendency was a reaction against the extravagant claims for the universal, not to say exclusive, truth of ?the


Mechanical Philosophy.? That term derived from the ubiquity of the


machine metaphor in the work of Newton and other natural scientists


(?celestial mechanics?) and many of their philosophic allies, notably


Descartes, all of whom tended to conceive of nature itself as a ?great


engine? and its subordinate parts (including the human body) as lesser


machines. Marx / Does Improved Technology Mean Progress? 11 By the late eighteenth century, a powerful set of critical, antimechanistic ideas was being developed by Kant, Fichte, and other


German idealists, and by great English poets like Coleridge and


Wordsworth. But in their time the image of the machine also was being invested with greater tangibility and social import. The Industrial


Revolution was gaining momentum, and as power machinery was more


widely diffused in Great Britain, Western Europe, and North America,


the machine acquired much greater resonance: it came to represent


both the new technologies based on mechanized motive power and


the mechanistic mindset of scientific rationalism. Thus the Scottish


philosopher and historian Thomas Carlyle, who had been deeply influenced by the new German philosophy, announced in his seminal


1829 essay, ?Signs of the Times,? that the right name for the dawning


era was the ?Age of Machinery.? It was to be the Age of Machinery,


he warned, in every ?inward? and ?outward? sense of the word, meaning that it would be dominated by mechanical (utilitarian) thinking


as well as by actual machines.


In his criticism of this new era, Carlyle took the view that neither


kind of ?machinery? was inherently dangerous. In his opinion, indeed,


they represented potential progress as long as neither was allowed to


become the exclusive or predominant mode in its respective realm.


In the United States a small, gifted, if disaffected minority of writers, artists, and intellectuals adopted this ideology. Their version of


Carlyle?s critical viewpoint was labeled ?romantic? in reference to its


European strains, or ?transcendentalist? in its native use. In the work


of writers like Emerson and Thoreau, Hawthorne and Melville, we


encounter critical responses to the onset of industrialism that cannot


be written off as mere nostalgia or primitivism. These writers did not


hold up an idealized wilderness, a pre-industrial Eden, as preferable


to the world they saw in the making. Nor did they dismiss the worth


of material improvement as such. But they did regard the dominant


view, often represented (as in Webster?s speech) by the appearance of


the new machine power in the American landscape, as dangerously


shallow, materialistic, and one-sided. Fear of ?mechanism,? in the several senses of that word-especially the domination of the individual


by impersonal systems-colored all of their thought. In their work,


the image of the machine-in-the-landscape, far from being an occasion for exultation, often seems to arouse anxiety, dislocation, and


foreboding. Henry Thoreau?s detailed, carefully composed account of 12 Technology and the Future the intrusion of the railroad into the Concord woods is a good example; it bears out his delineation of the new inventions as ?improved


means to unimproved ends.?


This critical view of the relationship between technological means


and social ends did not merely appear in random images, phrases, and


narrative episodes. Indeed, the whole of Walden may be read as a sustained attack on a culture that had allowed itself to become confused


about the relationship of ends and means. Thoreau?s countrymen are


depicted as becoming ?the tools of their tools.? Much the same argument underlies Hawthorne?s satire, ?The Celestial Railroad,? a modern


replay of Pilgrim?s Progress in which the hero, Christian, realizes too


late that his comfortable railroad journey to salvation is taking him to


hell, not heaven. Melville incorporates a similar insight into his characterization of Captain Ahab, who is the embodiment of the Faustian


aspiration toward domination and total control given credence by the


sudden emergence of exciting new technological capacities. Ahab exults in his power over the crew, and he explicitly identifies it with the


power exhibited by the new railroad spanning the North American


continent. In reflective moments, however, he also acknowledges the


self-destructive nature of his own behavior: ?Now in his heart, Ahab


had some glimpse of this, namely, all my means are sane, my motive


and my object mad.?


Of course there was nothing new about the moral posture adopted


by these American writers. Indeed, their attitude toward the exuberant national celebration of the r...


Solution details:

This question was answered on: Sep 18, 2020

PRICE: $15 (25.37 KB)

Buy this answer for only: $15

This attachment is locked

We have a ready expert answer for this paper which you can use for in-depth understanding, research editing or paraphrasing. You can buy it or order for a fresh, original and plagiarism-free copy from our tutoring website (Deadline assured. Flexible pricing. TurnItIn Report provided)

Pay using PayPal (No PayPal account Required) or your credit card . All your purchases are securely protected by .

About this Question






Sep 18, 2020





We have top-notch tutors who can do your essay/homework for you at a reasonable cost and then you can simply use that essay as a template to build your own arguments.

You can also use these solutions:

  • As a reference for in-depth understanding of the subject.
  • As a source of ideas / reasoning for your own research (if properly referenced)
  • For editing and paraphrasing (check your institution's definition of plagiarism and recommended paraphrase).
This we believe is a better way of understanding a problem and makes use of the efficiency of time of the student.


Order New Solution. Quick Turnaround

Click on the button below in order to Order for a New, Original and High-Quality Essay Solutions. New orders are original solutions and precise to your writing instruction requirements. Place a New Order using the button below.


Order Now