The Neutrality of Technology
In The Gutenberg Galaxy (1962), Marshall McLuhan wrote, "The theme
of this book is not that there is anything good or bad about print but that unconsciousness
of the effect of any force is a disaster, especially a force that we have made
ourselves" (p. 248). Insert any technology for the word "print" and you realize that for McLuhan it is not the content that really matters. In
this case it is not even the channel but rather our knowledge and understanding
of the medium's potential impact.
Is print an amoral technology? Can any technology be amoral? These are issues that must be addressed and answered before we can begin to develop a philosophical system to address the convergence of media and technology, and its impact on society.
The instrumental theory
In Communication As Culture (1992), James Carey wrote, "Electronics is neither the arrival of apocalypse nor the dispensation of grace. Technology is technology; it is a means for communication and transportation over space, and nothing more" (p. 139). Andrew Feenberg, in Critical Theory of Technology (1991), argued that theories of technology fall into one of two major categories: the instrumental theory, and the substantive theory. The instrumental theory, "offers the most widely accepted view of technology. It is based on the common sense idea that technologies are 'tools' standing ready to serve the purposes of their users. Technology is deemed 'neutral,' without valuative content of its own" (p. 5). Technology is not inherently good or bad, and can be used to whatever political or social ends desired by the person or institution in control. Technology is a "rational entity" and universally applicable, thus allowing similar standards of measure to be applied in diverse situations. Given these propositions, the only response is unreserved commitment to its employment. One may make exceptions on moral grounds, but one must also understand that the "price for the achievement of environmental, ethical, or religious goals...is reduced efficiency" (p. 6). Arnold Pacey (1992) described the person who holds to an instrumental theory of technology. For such a person, when technology fails them or when it has negative consequences, it is not the technology but the improper use of it by "politicians, the military, big business, and others" (p. 2).
The substantive theory
In contrast to the instrumental theory is the substantive theory of technology. Best known through Ellul and Heidegger, the substantive theory "argues that technology constitutes a new type of cultural system that restructures the entire social world as an object of control" (Pacey, p. 7). Heidegger (1977) claimed that we are engaged in the transformation of the world and ourselves into "standing reserves," raw materials waiting to be used up in the process (p. 17). According to Feenberg (1991), "Heidegger asserts that the technical restructuring of modern societies is rooted in a nihilistic will to power, a degradation of man and Being to the level of mere objects" (p. 7). Feenberg continued, "The issue is not that machines have 'taken over,' but that in choosing to use them we make many unwitting cultural choices. Technology is not simply a means but has become an environment and a way of life: this is its 'substantive' impact" (p. 8). While acknowledging the apparent neutrality of a basic machine, Pacey (1992) said that we must look further, at the "web of human activities surrounding the machine, which include its practical uses, its role as a status symbol....Looked at in this second way, technology is seen as apart of life, not something that can be kept in a separate compartment" (p. 3). According to Pacey, "a technocratic value system...gives rise to what is often called a 'technocratic' outlook that is single-mindedly insistent on an unambiguous view of progress, of problem-solving, and of values" (p. 127). Those intolerant of ambiguity see only once course for technology, one that leads to greater progress and efficiency (p. 127).
Whether one accepts the neutrality of technology depends on one's valuing philosophy--whether one tends toward the pragmatic and situational, or the absolute and authoritarian. Those who believe that technology is neutral argue that "guns don't kill people, people do", or that a knife can be used to "cook, kill, or cure." Those who believe the opposite counter with evidence that technology cannot be evaluated in a vacuum. Monsma (1986) argued for the "value-ladenness" of technology (chapter 3). He based his premise on two traits that he believed are common to all technological developments: (1) technological objects are unique; they are designed to function in a particular and limited way, and (2) technological objects are intertwined with their environment; they interact in unique ways with the rest of reality.
Ellul even went to far as to claim that whether one believes the technological system to be a good or bad influence is immaterial. The nature of technology, for Ellul, was so encompassing that it defied being judged. Whether we believe in it or not, and whether we think it is good or bad, technology continues on its course doing what it always does--subjugating our humanity.