It would be impossible to imagine our lives without the comforts of technology.
Our physically inferior species would have died without our penchant for using tools. It separated us not only from the animals but also from nature.
Our ability to adapt allowed our species to progress, and because we progressed, our species survived. However, our mere survival is no longer man’s primary concern, yet we are driven to “push the human race forward.” The word “progress” implies a goal, an intended destination. It is the distance between Points A and B and has no real value outside those parameters. This notion begs the obvious question: Where does humanity intend to go?
The purpose of technology has always remained the same. Whether a crudely sharpened stone or the latest iPad, tools simplify our tasks so we can pursue more meaningful experiences. However, the value we now place on technology has changed. We have come to believe that better machines lead to better lives. Technology has become the end in and of itself and the salvation we wholeheartedly embrace. This belief has altered the moral landscape by redefining our concept of the “good life.” Although man is inherently innovative, our definition of progress must be ethical. Fortunately, the dawn of the Information Age is changing the social, economic, and political structure forged by the Industrial Revolution. Increasing demand for transparency from our corporate and administrative bodies has given the public unprecedented influence over those that shape our world. The emerging power of social media may be the key to redirecting the course of humanity.
The Narrative of Progress
In his book, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, Neil Postman describes the pre-industrialized civilization as “tool-using” societies because they saw tools as instruments to aid them and not something that defined their culture. The “tools [were] not intruders. They [were] integrated into the culture in ways that [did] not pose significant contradictions to [their] world-view.” (Postman, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, p. 23). It was their beliefs and ideals that shaped their society. Postman appreciated how they did not allow their primitive “technology” to set their course. Because tools are not overvalued, the principles that founded this civilization model remained centred around its citizens’ well-being. This idea is the opposite of the industrialist culture of the West.
Our current society is built upon the structure set up by the Industrial Revolution. Initially taking root in Europe and spreading to the New World, the Industrial Revolution transformed rural communities into urban civilization. Modernization took the production process out of our homes and into the factories. Here is where Postman believes technology came into prominence. Summarizing the observations of Alfred North Whitehead, Postman considered “invention” itself as the greatest invention of the 19th century:
And along with it, there developed a profound belief in all the principles through which invention succeeds: objectivity, efficiency, expertise, standardization, measurement, and progress. (Postman, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, p. 42)
Machines manufactured products faster and more efficiently, resulting in a merchandise surplus. The need to sell and make a profit made us into a culture of consumption. Postman states: “It also came to be believed that the engine of technological progress worked most efficiently when people were conceived of not as children of God or even as citizens but as consumers – that is to say, as markets.” (Postman, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, p. 42)
People became commodities valued for their usefulness – if not as consumers, then as workers. As we became entrenched in this culture, we eventually assimilated into the production machinery. This cultural transformation yielded improvements like economic growth, increased life expectancy and higher literacy rates, but it chipped away at our social foundation. We define new inventions in terms of what they add rather than what they take away. In this instance, morality was no longer a factor in determining progress. A recent example of this can be observed in the controversy surrounding Apple Inc.
Running the Asylum
Foxconn, Apple’s leading supplier, was the subject of a New York Times exposé regarding the unfair labour practices in its Chinese factories. The January 26, 2012 article entitled: In China, Human Costs Are Built Into an iPad, shines a spotlight on the inhumane treatment of its employees. Back-to-back overtime, low wages, crowded living quarters, and unsafe working conditions have not only resulted in an overall miserable experience but have also led to fatalities. Poor ventilation caused a massive explosion in two factories. The “safety” nets around the compound’s dormitories confirm and deftly illustrate the gravity of the workers’ situation. This image contradicts the world Apple promised us in its famous “1984” Super Bowl ad (or company manifesto) as the consummate “David” to IBM, Microsoft, or any prevailing institution’s “Goliath.” Apple was supposed to champion the underdog. As one New York Times reader commented:
“It is ironic and disheartening that the company that set out to change the world could accomplish the task only by employing vendors who subject workers to slave-labor wages and an Orwellian work environment.” (The New York Times, 2012)
Apple’s consumers relish the fruits of innovation while the labourers choke on the spoils. The situation is unsettling, but it is hardly new or isolated.
The history of technical progress follows a two-tiered system where one group benefits at the other’s expense. According to the school of industrialization, exploitation is a necessary evil. In his September 2000 New York Times article: Two Cheers for Sweatshops, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Nicholas Kristof explains the inherent value of these places. Essentially reducing the West’s moral outrage to a difference of opinion, Kristof states that “sweatshops that seem brutal from the vantage point of an American sitting in his living room can appear tantalizing to a Thai labourer getting by on beetles.” (Kristof & WuDunn, 2000) Kristof was initially against the sweatshops but saw their valuable role: “For beneath their grime, sweatshops are a clear sign of the industrial revolution that is beginning to reshape Asia.” (Kristof & WuDunn, 2000). Fellow New York Times columnist and winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics, Paul Krugman, agrees with Kristof’s views:
“It is the indirect and unintended results of the actions of soulless multinationals and rapacious local entrepreneurs. It is not an edifying spectacle, but no matter how base the motives of those involved, the result has been to move hundreds of millions of people from abject poverty to something still awful, but nonetheless significantly better.” (This American Life, 2012)
I do not know what is more disturbing, justifying the blatant exploitation of foreign workers as economic growing pains or the resignation that we do not influence the course industrialization takes. The road to the “good” life may have been filled with sacrifices and mistakes, but it is not a fixed path. Contrary to the opinion of Krugman and Kristof, industrial progress is malleable, and our society’s protective labour laws are evidence of that. From the “dark Satanic mills” of the early Revolution to the Nike sweatshops of the 80s, history has provided Western civilization with many opportunities to perfect ethical corporate practices. When we participate in the modernization of another country, we must also export the knowledge and responsibilities we have learned through our own.
Sweatshops can only be seen as a “positive” if viewed through Marx’s model of capitalism. This does not suggest that he endorsed the exploitation of others, but it explains ours. According to Marx, the conflicts between the ruling bourgeois class and the working proletariats instigate social change. This means that corporations will implement ethical practices when they are pressured by the workers and agents acting on the workers’ behalf. Like Krugman and Kristof, we have faith that this change will occur because that is the nature of progress. Innovation and capitalism will lead to moral, social, and psychic enlightenment, the way suffering begets salvation. Technology takes the place of religion and reason in a world where progress has replaced God. In Building a Bridge to the 18th Century: How the Past Can Improve Our Future, Postman believes that we should take a page from Nietzsche – to essentially “make our future” and “bend history to our will.” (Postman, 2000, p. 42).
Viral Ethics
Shortly after the New York Times ran their articles on the Foxconn workers, Apple Inc. was forced to address the allegations because the story went viral. It became the subject of computer-oriented, political and mainstream blogs, websites, and traditional media outlets. As a sign of its commitment to improving the conditions of the factories in its supply chain, Apple released the names of its suppliers and partnered with the Fair Labour Association (Wingfield & Duhigg, 2012). On February 19, 2012, Foxconn announced that it would raise employee wages by up to 25% (Barboza & Duhigg, 2012).
Social media has become our way of exercising our responsibility and free will. Individual “sharing” through networks like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter has allowed the public to form a strong collective voice. Local incidents can now attain worldwide exposure when uploaded to the Internet. Community concerns can be brought to a global forum for little to no cost and without the aid of traditional media outlets. As a result, governments and multinationals have changed their policies and practices to appease public opinion. Social media redirects the course of industrial civilization by keeping the modern bourgeoisie accountable.
Going Forward
Change is required for progress to take place. Change, however, does not mean progress has been made. The notion of “progress” refers to revolutionary historical occurrences that have improved the human condition. Although these events generally stem from significant technological advancement, their influence reworks civilization’s economic, social, and political fabric. A definition of progress that pertains only to technological advancements would need to be completed. Man does more than exist; he also reflects. He not only reacts to his world; he is an active participant in shaping it. Therefore, actual human progress must lead to a virtuous life as well as a comfortable one.
Works Cited
Barboza, D., & Duhigg, C. (2012, February 19). Pressures Drive Change at China’s Electronics Giant Foxconn. Retrieved March 10, 2012, from New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/technology/pressures-drive-change-at-chinas-electronics-giant-foxconn.html?src-recg
Digital Revolution. (n.d.). Retrieved March 18, 2012, from Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Revolution&id=482471370
Kristof, N. D., & WuDunn, S. (2000, September 24). Two Cheers for Sweatshops. New York Times Magazine .
Postman , N. (2000). Building a Bridge to the Eighteenth Century. New York, NY, U.S.A: Alfred A. Knopf.
Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. New York, NY, U.S.A.: Vintage Books.
The New York Times. (2012, January 12). Apple in China – Has iOrwell Arived? Retrieved March 3, 2012, from NYTimes.com: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/opinion/apple-in-china-has iorwel-arived.html?ref=foxconntechnology
This American Life. (2012, January 06). Mr. Daisey and the Apple Factories. Retrieved from This American Life: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/454/transcripts
Wingfield, N., & Duhigg, C. (2012, January 13). Apple Lists Its Suppliers for 1st Time. Retrieved March 16, 2012, from New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/14/technology/apple-releases-list-of-its-suppliers-for-the-first-time.html