Technology in the Aid of Revolution

Technologies, such as paper, eyeglasses, mechanical clocks, roadways, or any other extension of the human spirit, have forever changed the operational facilities of life. They have influenced the level of productivity that a society can achieve by creating extensions of our individually limited capacities. For example, eyeglasses enabled the workers of medieval times to extend their careers by several years, giving workers clarity of sight even in old age. Eyeglasses have also lead to the development of precision tools by focusing the eyes on mechanical detail.  Similarly, the Gutenberg press, and other printing innovations, have allowed for mass publication of news and ideas, while also raising the level of collective literacy.

Of course, with every new stride in technological development, there comes with it a certain level of consequence.  Certain technologies have both benefited human society as well as thrown in obstacles, limiting the scope of potential efficiency.  They have propelled our minds into a wealth of information, and they have sedated our minds with visions on the screen.  A long list of automated, prerecorded options on a company’s voicemail might save time and money for the company, but it also severely limits the level of communication and customer satisfaction.  One could even argue that the mechanical clock, although allowing us to organize our day, has lead to procrastination; since it is much easier to put something off till the last minute when one knows when the last minute is.

The question of whether or not technology as a whole has helped or hurt our human species could be equally supported on both sides.  Sometimes there is no concise answer to such inquiries.  What can be agreed upon is that technologies have influenced immense change and have completely revolutionized how we live as human animals.

David Landes says in his essay The Invention of Invention that, “Government rests on paper.”  Although it might be more accurate to say that government rests on language, – Hammurabi’s ancient Babylonian code of laws were printed on clay tablets – Landes does present an interesting point: without the proper means of organizing a standardized language of rules and regulations, it is very doubtful that a government could exert control over a large nation.

By mass producing printed law and constitutional rights, governments can distribute the same standardized information to a large populace and expect a consensus of understanding.  In this sense, the printed word has contributed to the rise of most governments’ ability to establish control.  One only need to look to the German propaganda of the 30s and 40s to realize the large influence the printed page has on our perceptions and actions, and the propensity toward indoctrination that these manufactured perceptions have.

When it comes to the printed word, on paper that is, ideas are easy to regulate.  Governments can easily burn and wipe clean the journals and papers of Wilhelm Reich, or they can distribute Mao Tse-tung’s Little Red Book to every citizen and enforce a mandatory reading.

On the other hand, digital print and media operate quite differently.  It opens publication to every individual, it’s hard to stop, and it has the ability to spread like wildfire.

The birth of new digital technologies, such as the internet and smart-phones, are inciting fear within the leaders of more authoritarian governments.  The regimes of China and Egypt are two contemporary examples of governments who have attempted to restrict citizens’ access to community-run websites and social networking.  They are terrified of the internet’s ability to share information and organize opposition.  What’s scarier for the rulers of oppressive nations than a populace that can organize and freely publish dissent?  The recent explosion of Wiki-Leaks is another great example of the impact that internet technology has on government; even in our own country.  The tides are turning, and governments no longer hold the restraints on media that they once had.

We are already seeing drastic changes in collective consciousness and public awareness due to technological developments that have raised the bar on global communication.  With ubiquitous and instantaneous spreading of information, cultural barriers are diminishing and new ideas are being pushed to the foreground of public discussion – such as the T.E.D. conferences which are now posted online. It is also worth mentioning that during the peak of Cairo’s revolution, anyone with internet access was able to go on Youtube.com and watch the rallies and protests that Cairo citizens were publishing from their smart-phones.

The famous chant “The whole world is watching” is brought under a different light and holds new meaning than it did for the antiwar protesters of Chicago in 1968.  The whole world really is watching, and it’s becoming more and more difficult for oppressive regimes to hide their citizens under their frayed cloak of ignorance.  Governments might rest on paper, but they’re reformed through binary.

Advertisements

About cognifeeder

My name is Josh. I like to think about things. I also like to write (albeit, “type” might be a more appropriate verb). Sometimes, I can muster these two likes into an enthralling synergy of self-expression. Sometimes not. Cognifeeder was a word I made up in this poem. To me, a “Cognifeeder” is any bit of learned information. A Cognifeeder is a piece of culture, something learned that contributes to one's map of reality. The world is littered with Cognifeeders. Take them lightly. When I’m not blogging, I run Sonata, a digital marketing and SEO agency based in Aledo, Texas.

Posted on June 24, 2012, in essay, philosophy and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 4 Comments.

  1. nicely written, just two remarks: technology is not an inactive extension, it has its own agency (see Bruno Latour), much like a text has its autonomy (hermeneutics, Schleiermacher). Michel Serres thus said that writing was the first “artificial intelligence”.
    The second thing to remark is that without language sth like a nation would not exist, neither factually nor conceptually. It is a coevolution. Hence it does not make much sense to muse about how to lead a nation without language.

    • Maybe this was not as well written as you suppose; especially if I’m miscommunicating what I set out to say. I do say that technology is an extension of human faculty (see Marshall McLuhan, “The Medium is the Message” pg. 26), but I make no reference to it being an “inactive” one. I would gladly support that technology has a certain level of independent autonomy as well, but I don’t think these two ideas are mutually exclusive. Secondly, I was not musing about government without language, nor leading a nation without language. Quite the contrary, I believe I said, “…it might be more accurate to say that government rests on language.”

      Maybe you weren’t commenting as a rebuttal but rather an agreement, and in that sense I apologize. After all, you do say that “it does not make much sense to muse about how to lead a nation without language,” which is quite close to what I say in the essay. I’m having trouble deciphering the motives behind your comment… would you like to expound your thoughts?

  2. You are right, it was more a remark, certainly not a fundamental critique, or attempting a rebuttal. As I said: nicely written, and basically I agree. Now as you bring in McLuhan, I all the more stick to this opinion. The remarks I made concern some quite advanced issues.

    Well, McLuhan yet undervalued the transforming activity of the medium, I think, despite his emphasis on mediality was indeed a great step forward. Again, yet, my feeling is though that he separated the entities a bit too much: mediality from the subjects, both from concepts and from virtuality. Ultimately, mediality turns out to be a transcendental category.

    I would like to cite here and consequently appear as a hypocrite, but the paragraph about Hammurabi brought me to my reading about the role of language. Maybe, here it is only an issue of putting the difficult issue into words.
    cheers

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: