Ehsan Arzrumchiler's essay “What Is Technology Doing to Us?”

According to the prevailing discourse, people tend to view technology as a “tool” at “human disposal.” From this perspective, the title of this essay may seem somewhat strange. The correct question, apparently, should be: “What do we do with technology?” or “What does technology do for us?” In this short essay, I will try to show why I have chosen such a title. Along the way, in order to avoid any difficulties, I will not enter into specialized discussions and will merely try, after a brief introduction, to point to the hidden dimensions of technology through two simple, everyday examples.

Thinkers’ approach to technology has passed through three distinct periods. (In the first period) before the twentieth century, few thinkers believed there was an aspect of technology about which philosophers could theorize. In fact, it seemed that this subject was solely a matter of discussion for engineers and nothing more. At most, and specifically after the proliferation of technological wars, the Nazi eugenics program, and especially the use of the atomic bomb, the issue of the risk and danger of technology, and generally, the ethical problems surrounding it, were raised. From this period onward, thinkers no longer imagined that technology was completely unrelated to philosophy. Rather, the formulation of the problem became that technology is solely a matter of discussion for engineers, except when it enters a wrong path (the second period). Let us call this view the instrumentalist[1] view of technology. Discussions such as risk assessments[2] were the product of such a view of technology. But over time (in the third period), thinkers such as Heidegger, Jaspers, and Ernst Kapp[3], by raising new discussions around technology, showed that philosophical questions about technology are not raised only when “technology enters a wrong path,” but that technology in and of itself, and inherently, has serious and far-reaching consequences that can (and indeed should) be the subject of philosophical discussion.

Today, few still believe that technology remains confined solely within the framework of the initial goals for which engineers designed it. Rather, in practice, technology oversteps these bounds and enters realms that were unforeseen. The aspect that has attracted the attention of most philosophers of technology in recent decades is its “unforeseen and unintended” results and consequences. Below, I will try, by presenting two examples, to show how even simple and mundane artifacts like vacuum cleaners and bank cards—and not complex artifacts like human enhancement projects[4] and artificial intelligence—unconsciously influence our behaviors, beliefs, and experiences.

1- The Vacuum Cleaner: In some Scandinavian countries, several vacuum cleaner manufacturing companies decided to make the handles of vacuum cleaners somewhat shorter so that women would experience less fatigue while working with them[5]. This type of vacuum cleaner was met with great reception, as it made house cleaning easier. After some time had passed, a simple yet unforeseen event occurred. Men no longer participated in house cleaning; because, due to the shortness of the vacuum cleaner handle, men would suffer back pain if they used it. What happened, in its simplicity, yielded profound results. A simple change in the design of vacuum cleaner handles caused all the efforts that women’s rights activists and various institutions had made over many years to convince society that “house cleaning is not exclusive to women” to be undone. It seems that a change in the design of an artifact had more pervasive and intense practical effects than the enlightenment and efforts of many individuals and institutions over many decades. Consequently, one could expect that if vacuum cleaner handles were made longer than before, it would be women who would no longer participate in house cleaning.

2- Bank Cards: Today, few of us still use cash when making purchases. Bank cards have become so widespread that in many stores around the world, and even in banks, essentially no cash is available or permitted anymore. Governments encourage citizens to conduct all transactions via bank cards for reasons such as convenience, traceability, prevention of misuse, and similar advantages. However, contrary to what may initially appear, the consequences of using bank cards are not confined solely to the purposes for which they were created, and they bring about other profound and possibly unpleasant effects. For instance, empirical findings show that using bank cards (compared to cash) leads to spending more, wasting money, and ultimately consumerism. Those who use bank cards when shopping spend more money than those who use cash. Using bank cards even affects the content of the shopping cart[6]. According to studies conducted, those who use bank cards when shopping purchase, on the whole, unhealthier and less beneficial goods compared to those who use cash. These effects on buyers' behavior were, of course, not included in the predictions of the early promoters of bank cards or governments, and were, in a sense, among the unforeseen implications and outcomes of the proliferation of bank cards. This example is another confirmation that technology is not "neutral[7]." It seems one of the reasons for such behavioral change when shopping with bank cards is that bank cards, unlike cash, are "transparent[8]." The transparency of an artifact means that it does not draw human attention to itself, but rather directs attention elsewhere. For example, consider the glasses I am currently wearing. My glasses do not draw my attention to themselves, because they are transparent. In fact, I look "through" the glasses at the laptop screen and have essentially forgotten I am wearing glasses. Therefore, the laptop screen, and not the glasses themselves, is the focus of my attention. But suppose a drop of water suddenly falls on my glasses. In this state, the glasses draw my attention no longer to the laptop screen, but to themselves. In this sense, at this moment, the glasses lose their transparency. Bank cards, unlike cash, are transparent. Cash in the form of banknotes or coins, for various reasons—including the numbers and figures inscribed on them, or the fact that the weight and number of banknotes decrease when paying money, and other reasons—draws our attention to itself. This leads us to the world behind the banknotes—such as the amount of monthly salary, the debts and installments that must be paid with that money, difficult working conditions, and so on. Hence, we become less inclined to spend our money. Whereas bank cards do not have such a characteristic and, due to their transparency, divert our attention away from themselves and direct it solely toward the purchased goods.

What I intended to convey with the help of these two simple examples was to draw attention to the point that the artifacts around us are not neutral and silent. They are constantly engaged in waylaying[9]; from beliefs and behaviors to our norms and ethics, everything changes with the presence of technology. This process continues perpetually in a cyclical manner. In the next phase, our mentality, which has been altered by technology, proceeds to design and use newer technologies, and again, those new technologies waylay our lives in different ways.

In light of such a picture, one might now perhaps guess to what extent the artifacts with which we spend our days and nights, from the most complex to the simplest, such as social networks and messaging applications, can leave unconscious and imperceptible effects on us. Before concluding the discussion, I would like to recall a point. In this writing and within the two examples provided, only the negative unconscious effects of technology were mentioned. Naturally, this does not mean that the hidden and unforeseen impacts of technology are always negative. Rather, many of them may also be positive and valuable. Therefore, perhaps instead of presenting a priori wholly positive or negative views on technology—which is called essentialism[10] regarding technology—it is better to study artifacts in an empirical and concrete manner so as to better grasp their various dimensions. We need more responsible approaches toward technology—both in the design and production phase and in the phase of its use.

.

---

.

[1] Instrumentalism

[2] Risk Assessment

[3] Ernst Kapp

[4] Human Enhancement

[5] Waelbers, Katinka. 2011. Doing Good with Technologies: Taking Responsibility for the Social Role of Emerging Technologies. New York: Springer.

[6] Manoj Thomas, Kalpesh Kaushik Desai, Satheeshkumar Seenivasan, 2011, How Credit Card Payments Increase Unhealthy Food Purchases: Visceral Regulation of Vices, Journal of Consumer Research, Volume 38, Issue 1 , Pages 126–139

[7] Neutral

[8] Transparent

[9] Mediation

[10] Substantivism

.

---

.

What Is Technology Doing to Us?

Ehsan Arzrumchiler (PhD student in Philosophy, Czech Republic)

.

---

.