Last Saturday in Room 706 I gave the first lecture in the course series How Technology Shapes Our Everyday Life. The first lecture consisted of two parts: first, an introduction to the overall philosophical framework; second, the first case study.
In the future, each class is planned to include one more case study, while the first half of the class will be mainly presentations and discussion led by students.
The introduction consists of two parts, “working out the problem” and “method.” First, I casually took apart each word in the course title and discussed it at some length, bringing in some views and styles from philosophy of technology; second, I explained the patterned method of analysis used throughout the course.
1. Working Out the Problem
That is, “technology—how—shapes—our—everyday—life”
1. Technology
“Technology” is the basic theme of all “philosophy of technology.” Many thinkers, from different angles, have tried to explain what technology means. Of course, this is a word in everyday language, and as such it is inherently ambiguous; there is no single correct answer. I have also given definitions from certain angles—for example, I once said that technology is “something that can be learned.”
But here I want to focus on a “definition” quoted by Kevin Kelly in The Inevitable. He says that technology is “everything that doesn’t work yet” (Everything that doesn’t work yet.) or, alternatively, “anything that has not yet taken effect.”
Kevin Kelly then quotes the writer Adams as saying:
1. Everything in the world when you are born is just normal;
2. Anything invented before you are 30 is incredibly exciting and creative.
3. Anything invented after you are 30 is against the natural order, as we know it, and is the beginning of the end of civilization. It doesn’t become truly satisfactory until it has been around for about ten years.
Through these amusing quotations, what Kevin Kelly really wants to say is: “We no longer think of chairs as technology; we just think of them as chairs.”
When it comes to “technology,” whether ordinary people or outstanding thinkers and entrepreneurs, we basically hold two kinds of attitudes: some praise technology and believe it is carrying us toward a better future; others are full of worry, believing that technology brings us more disaster or decadence. But whichever view it is, the focus is often on fashionable new technologies such as big data and artificial intelligence, and rarely do people dwell on everyday objects like chairs and tables.
Yet these seemingly ordinary, “normal” objects are precisely the “things that already work”; they are so “perfectly functioning” that they barely attract notice.
Pyramids, steam engines, and so on were once astonishing “new technologies” in history, but now they have become “obsolete.” They still astonish visitors, but as something strange—as “things that no longer work.”
Big data, artificial intelligence, and so on are rising at an astonishing speed and are changing the world, but their influence has not yet fully unfolded; the effects they exert on the lifeworld have not yet been completed.
But tables, chairs, pots, bowls, and the like—these everyday objects were once new things too. They are not yet obsolete; they have already completed their remaking of the lifeworld and have been seamlessly embedded in our everyday lives. So in fact, they are the most “perfect” technologies; their influence has already permeated our daily lives in every respect.
However, because of the “self-concealing” character of technology, the more perfectly an object works, the more inconspicuous it becomes. Only when something is lacking or broken do we notice its role. But precisely when a technology is neither in a museum nor in a science park, but quietly exists right around us, that is when it shapes our lives most fully.
2. How
We pay attention to how technology acts upon our lives. “How” means that we will focus on the process by which this effect comes about. It should be noted that the question of how technology works is different from the question of what use technology has.
For example, “How am I a teacher?” and “What kind of teacher am I?” are different questions. To the latter, the answer might be that I am a philosophy teacher, or a history teacher, and so on. The answer to “how,” however, is quite different: perhaps I became a teacher through training and evaluation, and then went on to perform the role of teacher conscientiously, and so forth.
As for technology, every technology has some purpose or function of its own—for instance, chairs are for sitting, tables are for eating—and this function or purpose is often used to explain what role a given technology “plays.” But what we are asking is a question on a higher level. The way technology takes effect and the role it seems to play on the surface are often worlds apart.
For example, the printing press was initially used to print and distribute the Bible, thereby spreading faith, but the effect it brought to society was more of “secularization.” Or, for instance, mechanized production technology can save labor, but the result it brings is the alienation and exploitation of workers.
What we need to examine is the subtle, quietly unfolding dynamic process, not the finished final effect.
3. Shaping
The word “shaping” carries two images: first, the application of influence from the outside in; second, the process from formlessness to form.
The effect technology has on us is, on the one hand, external: the influence it brings us is not an innate gift but something acquired through later cultivation.
On the other hand, before being shaped, we also do not yet have a definite form. Most of what it means to be human can be said to emerge gradually within the corresponding social and cultural environment.
An animal may be born and quickly learn to run and jump, and at a certain point it will hunt and reproduce. But if a person is not shaped by the environment, they basically cannot do anything. The “maturity” of an animal refers no more than sexual maturity, but a person’s “coming of age” contains a much richer meaning. In a certain sense, only “coming of age” means that a person has basically been shaped into form.
In the process by which human beings are shaped into human beings, the technological environment is of course an important component. This is also why the older people are, the harder they find it to accept new technologies, whereas children and adolescents are eager to learn new technologies. Children and adolescents are precisely in the stage of needing to shape and refine themselves; anything may become material for building their own personality, and so they seek it out. Adults, by contrast, tend toward fixed form; they no longer need to seek outward for materials with which to construct the self, and therefore they are more inclined to reject new things.
4. Done
I left out the character “了” in my previous announcement, but adding it does make things more accurate. Aside from being a modal particle, it also means that what we are concerned with is shaping that has already occurred, rather than things that are happening or about to happen.
This course is positioned from the perspectives of philosophy of technology and history of technology. Philosophy is the “owl of Minerva”; it takes flight only after dusk, and is professionally good at “after-the-fact analysis.” And history is even more about looking back. Looking ahead to the future is not the task of philosophers or historians.
Of course, what we care about is not the past, but always the present. Yet the present is precisely what comes from the past, what has settled and taken shape from it, so to analyze the present necessarily means tracing back into the past.
And all these inquiries ultimately point toward the future. Understanding the present is also for the sake of welcoming the future. But this dimension of the future should be responded to by each person in their own industry or field, facing their own environment and challenges, in their own different ways. In particular, every concrete frontier field faces its own confusions and opportunities, and understanding them requires the corresponding professional background. Philosophers or historians are complete outsiders with respect to any given technical field; they have neither the ability nor the need to make predictions. Of course, through exchanging ideas with scholars and with people from other industries, people with all kinds of backgrounds can broaden their thinking and horizons, and then look back more easily to see the future trends of the relevant field. This is entirely possible, and I also hope that my work will not be confined to the ivory tower, but can offer inspiration to all kinds of people beyond the academy. But I myself cannot overstep my bounds.
5. Us
In fact, “we” is the keyword of the entire topic. The focus of philosophy of technology is of course technology, but what all thinking ultimately cares about remains ourselves. When we reflect on ourselves and seek to understand ourselves, we notice that we are fated to exist within a lifeworld shaped by technology; therefore, to understand what kind of person I am, one must trace the origins and development of the technological environment.
Of course, such thinking first needs to go beyond the essentialist anthropology of traditional philosophy. When ancient philosophers thought about “Who am I?”, they tried to detach themselves from our real world and seek the “essence” of the “I” in some ideal world—for example, Plato’s world of Ideas, the Christian afterlife, or, more generally, the “soul.” They imagined that beyond the real world there was such an essential self, and that the various complicated conditions of the real world were not constructive of human essence but rather destructive, obstacles to recognizing the true self.
I do not intend to dwell on these large philosophical questions. In any case, we hold that understanding the real technological environment and historical situation is a necessary part of understanding “who we are.”
Leaving aside specious philosophical theories, in ordinary everyday language this kind of statement is easier to understand. For example, when we talk about what kind of person someone “is,” we are often talking about what they “can do,” “do,” or “what position” they occupy. For instance, if I say I am a teacher, it means I can teach and I work at a school; if I say I am a gardener, it means I can do gardening and I work in a place like a garden or park… When I ask myself in all seriousness, or introduce myself to others, what I am talking about are these things—in the final analysis, the “position” I occupy in the “technological environment,” and the abilities and skills I possess; never my position in heaven or in the world of Ideas, nor the nature of my soul.
Everything used to talk about, define, and identify “ourselves” comes from the actual technological environment. Our ways of thinking, habits of action, values, and so on are also shaped by the corresponding technological environment. So tracing the origins and development of the technological environment is to reflect on ourselves.
6. Of
The character “的” connects “we” and “life,” indicating the former’s ownership of the latter—“life” belongs to “us.”
But do we really own our lives? Does this life truly belong to ourselves? This is by no means a matter of course.
In fact, in most cases, we are living for others. Children rarely have lives of their own; going to school is the main way children live, but it is often not their own life. They may be studying in order to satisfy parents’ expectations, teachers’ demands, or society’s needs, but they do not know how to study for themselves.
This is not to say that only selfless people live for others. Selfishness does not mean having a life of one’s own; more often, people are simply rushing around to make a living, worn down by one busy task after another. A selfish person’s so-called “for myself” often means nothing more than considering other tasks of one’s own—for example, studying to get a good job, working to earn more money—but these tasks themselves are often still set by others.
Studying, the college entrance examination, going to university, choosing popular majors, taking civil service exams… Many people spend their whole lives living according to the way others have set for them. Only in the intervals of life, especially when carrying out the animal functions of eating, drinking, sleeping, and mating, do people feel they are living for themselves. “Life” and “work” are often set in opposition to one another: people’s skills, talents, and wisdom are all used for “work,” but “work” does not belong to oneself at all; whereas one’s own “life” requires no wisdom whatsoever. A “couch potato,” a vegetative person, or at most an animal, can handle it just fine.
Socrates said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” This is not an especially profound view; the reasoning is simple. Without reflection, you can never win your own life; you are merely “pretending to live,” or else disguising yourself as a vulgar and incapable animal. To truly win our life as human beings—to let our rich capacities, skills, learning, and wisdom fill our own lives—we must first win our own lives. This requires material conditions, and even more, spiritual preparation.
7. Everyday
“Reflecting on the life we take for granted” is the theme of this entire course series by the 706 Student Society, and of course also the distinctive feature of my course.
The very fact of “taking something for granted” is itself unusual. This is because anything we take for granted is, from the perspective of human history, often brief and rare, and from the perspective of biological history, the entire human way of life is brief and rare. As a species, humans, like other organisms, certainly have some innate capacity for adaptation, but the pace of development of the human technological environment has obviously long since far exceeded biological human endowment.
So if we are not born knowing how to adapt to these constantly changing technological environments, then how is it that we ultimately adapt to them? Indeed, how is it possible that human technical activity appears almost like biological instinctual activity?
We often say that when something becomes very familiar, it is “as natural as eating and drinking.” But in fact even the activities of eating and drinking are highly dependent on technology. The way we eat and drink today would seem very strange to ancient people, and even to people from only a few decades ago.
If we are to reflect on ourselves, of course we must reflect on those distinctive and unconventional aspects. But we need even more to reflect on those things that seem “as natural as eating and drinking.” It is precisely because they are so “natural” that their shaping of our thought and habits is deeper and more hidden.
8. Life
All thinking and all work are ultimately for the sake of allowing me or us to live a good life. As mentioned above, human life is different from merely being alive. Life in the biological sense—continuing life as animals or plants do—is of course important. But its importance lies precisely in this: only by being alive can one do other meaningful things.
Many people invert the relation between the essential and the secondary, insisting that only being alive is meaningful. For example, when it comes to the pursuit of truth, goodness, and beauty, many people sneer. They will say, “If you haven’t even had enough to eat, what’s the point of thinking about those empty things?” But what we care about is precisely life after one has eaten one’s fill. Eating is certainly a precondition for thought, but precisely because it is “the precondition of everything,” it has no meaning in itself; the other things one does after completing it are what have meaning.
Yet many people think that eating itself is the whole meaning. After one meal has been eaten, you should be thinking about the next meal, not about the question of truth, goodness, and beauty. But isn’t that ridiculous? Only the most miserable slave or refugee is forced to expend all of their energy dealing with the problem of subsistence. When we can temporarily be free from the pressure of survival, why should we instead put shackles on ourselves? Isn’t that utterly absurd?
Being alive is certainly important, but once the crisis of merely staying alive has been temporarily lifted, how to “live” is the more important pursuit.
Beyond “being alive,” beyond the mere continuation of bodily functions, one still has to seek a place for meaning. This is the fate of humanity.
In fact, the meaning of “technology” has always included two aspects: one is for simple subsistence; the other is to extend human beings themselves. The former is often secondary and incidental. The earliest forms of technology often served ritual, symbolic, or game-like activities. From the ancient pyramids to modern spacecraft, new technologies were usually not created or spread at first because of subsistence needs.
When we study the history of technology, what we care more about is how technology reshapes “life,” rather than how it promotes mere “being alive.” “Increasing productivity” and sustaining the survival of larger populations are certainly important consequences of modern technology, but these are not the most noteworthy aspects of modern technology.
2. Method
On the philosophical side, one could go deeper, but our course is aimed at a general audience, so we can weaken the emphasis on positions and arguments and instead stress practical exercises. You may not understand or may disagree with some of my views on philosophy of technology, but you can still proceed step by step through some analysis and reflection; that is enough.
We want to deconstruct the life we take for granted. This is not an easy thing to do, and the “formula” I am offering here is undoubtedly extremely simplified.
“Deconstruction” is, in philosophy, an advanced term, but we do not need to be too fussy about it. We can simply understand it as taking apart a jigsaw puzzle. To take apart what seems to be a “perfectly intact” puzzle, there are just a few steps: first, stare at it and observe and analyze it. Second, separate out some of its parts and trace their sources. Finally, try reassembling it and see whether other possible structures exist. Through the process of taking apart and reassembling, the puzzle that originally seemed seamless may reveal flaw after flaw; or even if it still looks beautiful, it may not be the only possible result.
The very act of staring at it is meaningful. Many things in everyday habit become strange once we stare at them. For example, the so-called phenomenon of “gestalt collapse”: if you stare at a familiar character, or at a photo of someone you know well, after a while it becomes strange, as if you need to relearn how to recognize it. Many aspects of our everyday lives are like this too. When we casually “write,” they can be used smoothly, “as naturally as eating and drinking”; but once we stop and think carefully, extracting them from their proper context, they often appear abrupt or uncanny.
Aside from certain rules of neuropsychology, what I want to emphasize about “Gestalt collapse” is this: whether it is one character in a sentence, one stroke in a character, one technical object, or one action or behavior… all of these are presented in an overall context, and what we grasp first is often the whole rather than the part. So once we strip the part away from the whole, it naturally becomes strange.
Of course, simply stripping away the context is not enough; we also need to reconstruct the context. That means tracing back the “origin” of each link in the chain, examining the historical process by which it gradually changed from something strange and abnormal into something ordinary; reconstructing the process by which the relevant links were assembled, and trying to understand the effects accompanying this process.
Specifically, our mode of reflection includes five steps:
1. Select a cross-section of daily life and examine its structural links.
2. Investigate the conditions (technology) that make the corresponding links possible.
3. Trace the history and examine how the corresponding links of life were realized in the absence of those conditions.
4. Enter the historical context and try to understand technology from an unfamiliar perspective.
5. Return to the present and compare it with history, comparing how different conditions may have different effects on oneself, what new possibilities they have added, and what dimensions of perception they have lost.
Recommended Reading
In the field of general histories of technology, there is not yet anything in the Chinese-speaking world that is especially worth recommending. As an introductory book on philosophy of technology, I would first recommend Professor Wu Guosheng’s Lectures on the Philosophy of Technology
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply