Useless Technology? — Reflections on Mumford’s Philosophy of Technology

Today’s introduction to philosophy of technology class talked about Mumford, and his views are very interesting.

Mumford criticized the traditional account of human origins that says “man is the maker of tools,” replacing it with “man is the maker of symbols/meanings.” He upheld an idealist view of human nature, believing that human needs are first and foremost not material but spiritual. He thought that Maslow’s sequence—from the needs of survival, material provision, and food and clothing, all the way up to the needs for safety, aesthetics, and self-actualization—was exactly backwards: humans first have a need for self-actualization, and within any material need there already permeates a prior spiritual need. Mumford pointed out that spiritual technology, bodily technology, and social technology must come before material technology, manufacturing technology, and natural technology. Humanity’s immaterial language, culture, religion, and art come before the material civilization of tools (stone tools, iron tools, and so on).

Mumford was well aware that his idealist theory of human origins lacked evidence, but he pointed out that the usual tool-centered theory of human origins lacks evidence too: everything about the origins of humankind is conjecture, all of it myth. Still, Mumford’s account really does make a fair amount of sense—and in class I added a bit of evidence: modern studies of those remaining most primitive gatherer-hunter tribes at the margins of human civilization (such as the Bushmen and Hottentots) show that their nutritional condition is very good; not only do they not suffer from food scarcity, their nutritional structure is even better than that of the average modern person, and life is relatively leisurely as well—apparently two or three days of gathering can provide food for a week. And this was still the situation when primitive tribes had already been forced by agricultural peoples into the most marginal corners; one can imagine that in humanity’s earliest period, the need for food and survival may not have been urgent at all. But on the other hand, no matter how well fed a group may be, one unavoidable terror is death. So if it is true that the pressure human beings face from death was greater from the very beginning than the pressure of the environment for survival, and that the needs for religion and art were from the outset greater than the needs for material goods and food, then this is actually quite understandable.

This makes me think of the debate over “matriarchy”: when anthropologists first proposed that there may have been matriarchal systems in humanity’s ancient past, they pointed out that matriarchy may have existed because in gatherer-hunter societies, women were responsible for gathering and preservation and could therefore provide more stable and more abundant food, whereas hunting produced very poor returns and was extremely unstable, at best providing only an occasional change of flavor, and could not serve as a reliable source of food; therefore power was held by women. (I myself do not really support this line of argument, because I do believe in the existence of matrilineal clans, but I do not really believe that women held power. I am more inclined to believe that matrilineal societies were all primitive communist societies, because power is something men enjoy.) Some opponents, however, asked: how could that be? Men plainly have greater strength; the gathering work done by women could of course also be carried out by men, but if gathering alone could provide sufficiently abundant food, then why go hunting at all? It makes no sense whatsoever! But if one follows Mumford’s line of thought, this is no problem: hunting is precisely the release of the inner passion of the human spirit that Mumford speaks of, and not simply a means of obtaining food.

The entire history of technology also seems to support Mumford—for the driving forces behind technological development are often first and foremost spiritual and religious, rather than material and survival-oriented. For example, China’s earliest oracle-bone script was used for divination; among the several great inventions that propelled Europe’s rise, the compass was first created in China for feng shui, and gunpowder for firecracker celebrations (and its very birth was in the alchemical laboratory); Gutenberg’s printing press was originally for printing the Bible, and clocks were first invented by monks for monasteries… This shows that religious needs have always been an important driving force in technological development.

I used to think that so-called “technology” must be fatefully “instrumental,” that a technology is always “useful,” and that useless technology is absurd. But inspired by Mumford (actually, I had already begun to reflect on this some time ago), I feel that “useless technology” may after all be possible—first, one needs to broaden one’s horizon, not confining technology to “tools,” and break down the opposition between technology and art (their etymologies are originally the same). Technology is not only a tool for pursuing benefits, but also part of the human lifeworld. Perhaps, as Mumford said, it is precisely non-material, spiritual needs that are what make a human being human, and useless technology is precisely a sign of humanity. For example, ancient sacrifices, rituals, games, art, and so on can all be said to be “useless technologies.”

Mumford’s remarks about “pyramids—armies—mega-machines” and “priests—clerics—scientists” are also quite thought-provoking. For now I’m too lazy to write more.

April 5, 2007, 11:38 p.m.

Latest comments

•  unic

  2007-04-06 16:13:13 Anonymous 222.82.226.29

  A newly opened section, huh? Nature—craftsmanship.
  A few days ago the teacher said that Maslow’s view of “individual life value” holds that a person’s value lies in being recognized by the group.
  I told the teacher, I said this may not be quite accurate; I think it should at least be “an individual’s recognition by the group he recognizes,” that is to say, first he must recognize some group, and only then does being recognized by that group count as the realization of value.
  Of course, I was following his line of thought; as for the conclusion, I remain doubtful.
  As a result, the teacher’s reply was: “That’s too complicated…”
  Sigh. Sigh. Sigh…………
  I don’t know whether this is the case, but many people really dislike this nitpicking and hair-splitting aspect of philosophical discussion… to the point that once it comes up, they just STOP.
  FT………………………



• Gu Chi

  2007-04-06 17:09:26

  Your idea is very interesting!
  But I feel that your teacher’s introduction to Maslow seems to have had problems to begin with. I remember that saying a person’s value lies in being recognized by others is Heidegger’s view of “self-actualization.” Maslow’s “self-actualization” is different from Heidegger’s; in Maslow, self-actualization is mainly a kind of life state, referring to the full development of one’s talents and potentials, and there are many specific ways of putting it, so it is hard to sum up in one phrase.
  One of Maslow’s strengths is that he tried to change the earlier tradition in psychology of focusing on mental patients and the psychologically abnormal, and turned attention to normal people and even those outstanding individuals (self-actualizers), which was refreshing in the history of psychology. However, psychology after Maslow still took abnormal psychology as mainstream. Focusing on abnormality itself is not wrong, but forgetting about normal people is not so good…



• Gu Chi

  2007-04-06 17:11:34

  “Nature—craftsmanship” was changed from the original “Nature—ecology.” Because there was nowhere to put the texts on philosophy of technology this semester, and then I thought that nature and craftsmanship happen to be a pair of concepts, so I put them here.



• Gu Chi

  2007-04-06 17:28:10

  Should it be the case that a person can only demand recognition from a certain group after first identifying with that group? This depends on how one understands the meaning of “recognition.” In general, there are many people who are highly cynical on the one hand and do not identify with others at all, but on the other hand still hope to be recognized by others and want to draw attention to themselves.
  If one traces this back, what people ultimately seek is probably self-recognition; seeking recognition from others is also for the sake of reinforcing one’s affirmation of oneself, and identifying with others is at the same time a way of establishing one’s own role. In the end, what counts as the realization of value still has to be judged according to the standard one identifies with oneself… Tracing many issues back inevitably leads to some kind of solipsism, but this consciousness of “I” itself cannot emerge apart from the group either. Whether one says that human beings are social animals or language animals, language is necessarily collective, and private language is impossible. The realization of human value cannot do without the self, and cannot do without the group either.
  As for Maslow’s “self-actualization,” I still quite admire it, though my own view of self-actualization may be different. I am also very interested in the self-actualization discussed in deep ecology. But at present I have too little understanding and too little thought, so I won’t express too many opinions for now.

Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.