Heidegger & Habermas
Introduction
In the introduction of his 1999 book Questioning Technology, Andrew Feenberg presented a two-by-two matrix. This matrix organizes theories of technology by separating (1) the neutral from the value-laden and (2) the autonomous from the humanly controlled.
In this essay, I do not pretend to see each quadrant as equal, but I do avoid making any direct normative claims. Instead, I will discuss each quadrant and its consequences and then briefly touch on trends in public sentiment that align with each position. Finally, I will identify perceived obstacles to the subjectivist solution and attempt to show that apprehension is unwarranted. As I see it, a society's position on this matrix alters its destiny. If the reader, like myself, would prefer some fates to others, then we should consider which view of technology will bring us to our preferred camp.
To begin, I will quickly discuss the neutral vs. value-laden opposition before limiting my observations to the value-laden camp. I find the neutral vs. value-laden distinction significantly less compelling than the other and will allocate my time accordingly. This move will free me up to spend the majority of the essay navigating between the bottom two quadrants: autonomous and humanly controlled.
After establishing the autonomous vs. humanly-controlled distinction, I will then describe how each conception of the technological phenomenon lends itself to its own course of action. If technique is beyond human control, the solution must appeal to a "power greater than ourselves," as members of Alcoholics Anonymous would quickly assert. If not, then an amalgamation of humanity's collective will be enough to bend technology to pursue human ends. Sacred or mundane, a path will be chosen. How will this decision be made?
Collectively, of course. Like all democratic political decisions, societal circumstances create a semi-conscious consensus in one of the four quadrants. It is from the prevalent political sentiment that decisions manifest in cities and nation-states and the world at large. Importantly, this observation allows us to observe how, why, and when this consensus shifts. I will make the case that we have recently experienced a shift in the public view of technology that has brought us from one quadrant to another and that this shift presents an opportunity to pursue the subjectivist solution of spiritual transformation. Finally, I will present my understanding of the mysterious “spiritual transformation” in plain language. By doing so, I hope to show that modern apprehension toward spirituality is unnecessary and easily overcome.
All in all: The stakes are high. The consensus interpretation of technology will dictate the use of nuclear weapons and artificial intelligence, among other technologies. A misunderstanding of the problem will lead to an ineffective solution. An inadequate course of action, in this instance, is likely fatal.
Feenberg's Matrix
Neutral vs. Value-laden
Within Feenberg’s Matrix: Those who have yet to consider the philosophy of technology will likely find themselves in the neutral and humanly-controlled corner. This common-sense view depicts technology as only a means to an end. The end, then, is entirely determined by the user. For example, a car is a means of transportation, and the driver can select the end of this means—whether it be Whole Foods, the gym, or a road trip.
But some would object. They would say, "Don't you see that introducing the car into society reshapes our day-to-day experience? The introduction of the car forces us to rebuild our society around it. We then set our homes, places of work, and social gatherings a great distance from each other. As our needs are placed further from each other, we must spend time in the car. It is longer optional, and very quickly, the means begin to shape our lives." Compare the car-based society to the walkability of a college campus. Universities are situated so that students have everything they need within walking distance. And because students rarely, if ever, need to use a car, their lives have a different shape, feel, and substance.
The subjectivist claim is that technologies presuppose the acceptance of a particular set of values. They are, therefore, value-laden rather than neutral. One can apply this framework to modern life ad infinitum. For instance, Zoom has reshaped our lives by allowing for remote work. The mass acceptance of this technology has presupposed the devaluing of the office and interpersonal connections among colleagues in favor of greater personal freedom and asynchronous work. Social media has created electronically mediated relationships with those far away. But, as people spend more time in cyberspace, electronic connections have often eaten away at other aspects of their lives.
In short, Feenberg's matrix separates theorists who claim that technology is only a means to an end from those who argue that the tools we use change us and reshape our lives. Reality may be closer to a spectrum, with particular tools fitting nicely on one side or another. But for the sake of this essay, I will recognize that societies cannot integrate most technologies without accepting their underlying value system. Upon granting the value-laden theorists their claim, one can then approach Feenberg's second distinction: autonomous vs. humanly-controlled.
Autonomous vs. Humanly-controlled
The second distinction can be more simply put: Is humanity, in any real way, in control of its development and use of technology? The humanly-controlled theorists say yes, and the autonomous theorists say no.
There is a soft consensus that our behavior around technology prioritizes efficiency over human experience. It is "soft" because some would argue, wrongly, that maximum efficiency is best for the human experience. But I'd like to put that claim aside for the sake of this essay. Instead, I'd like to ask: Given this soft consensus, can we reevaluate these priorities in any meaningful way? Is it within our power to reorganize the use of technology so that it can serve humanity instead of efficiency? The humanly-controlled theorists say yes, and the autonomous theorists say no.
Feenberg refers to the value-laden & autonomous corner as the subjectivists. I will adopt his terminology here. Subjectivism traditionally refers to the position that our own mental activity is the only unquestionable fact of our experience. I consider this position subjectivist extremism in that it opposes unquestionable finality in anything shared or communal by claiming that there is no external or objective truth. The subjective extremist, therefore, opposes the underlying axioms of science as he claims we cannot confirm an external condition through the scientific method. But, within the context of technology, the positions taken by Heidegger and Ellul do not require such an extreme claim. They only necessitate that we put importance on our subjective experience rather than external measures such as efficiency or GDP.
In the modern west, there is often immediate resistance to the position that technology could be beyond human control, but the metaphor of addiction is helpful. Many understand addiction as a behavioral pattern that is beyond the control of the addict. Likewise, the subjectivists ask us to examine our behaviors surrounding technology through the same lens.
The addict appears more rational once it is understood he uses his behavior to avoid feelings and alter his moods. It is not an outer state he wishes to control but an inner state. He would rather drink or smoke than feel the discomfort of an awkward interaction with a coworker, the boredom of his meaningless job, or the pain of his failed marriage. The addictive behavior acts as a numbing mechanism. If the reader can’t relate to this, then I urge him or her to try avoiding ibuprofen next time a strong headache arises.
Heidegger asks us to consider what our behaviors reveal about ourselves. For both the addict and the modern technologist: It is a need for control. In this way, the addictive pattern is “beyond human control” in the way that it is beyond a person’s ability to endure a certain amount of pain before accepting an out. Some people can tolerate more discomfort than others, but few have no limits.
Still, many are unwilling to make such a concession. Surely, they would argue, we could collectively realize a path for technology that is in line with humanity’s prosperity rather than its destruction. We find this sentiment in the value-laden and humanly controlled corner, which Feenberg refers to as Social Constructivism. Feenberg tells the following story of social constructivism: Humanity is in constant and society-wide negotiation during the creation of new technology. Investors determine the distribution of funds, politicians decide to tighten or loosen regulations, and scientists, researchers, and innovators develop the product within the legal and monetary restrictions given to them. It is then up to the market to determine the use of the product. All these interactions point us toward the humanly controlled corner on the x-axis of the matrix. On the y-axis, constructionists take a value-laden view of technology as a given.
Solutions and Entry Points
If the social constructivist story is accurate, then the best course of action is to construct a society that uses technology to serve humanity. Enter the critical theorists of technology, who attempt to define the logical framework that does precisely that. Through critical theory, academia has redeemed its normative claims. Habermas aimed to create an entirely rational theory of ethics and, by implication, an entirely rational theory of politics. At the base of his rational theory of politics, he famously argued that certain forms of coercion could be legitimized rationally, given that they serve general interests. The term "general interests," for Habermas, is used in contrast to private interests. More simply: coercion is illegitimate if it benefits a part at the expense of a whole.
Solutions that emerge from critical theorists require an expansion in our scope of analysis from one system to many. For example, a low voter turnout may not reflect disinterest in politics but rather a mass inability to get off work. The solution to a problem initially perceived as political would require a response from the economic system. Alternatively, one may initially perceive a sizeable homeless population as a symptom of a dysfunctional financial system. But, it could also signify a functional financial system paired with a dysfunctional education system. The economy may be functioning well, but the homeless have failed (or been failed by) the system meant to train them to participate. It is through these interactions of systems that society operates, and—to return to the subject of this essay—that humanity creates and integrates new technology.
Most importantly, critical theory aims to create rational theories of ethics and politics without metaphysics. This feature makes the critical theory a product of its time—a 20th century that had little patience for anything like Plato’s world of forms or Augustine’s Christian theology.
Habermasian critical theory examines societies through legitimation crises, which deem a system functional if it lacks a significant rejection from a population segment. For example, the massive loss of faith in the US media systems and police force are crises threatening United States' legitimacy. Critical theory functions through these impact points; they are its points of entry.
The subjectivists, alternatively, enter through the subjective experience of the individual. This point of entry allows them to evaluate humanity's internal experience rather than its outward appearance. This distinction is crucial because it provides access to the blind spots of critical theorists. For example, one can easily observe that a society with a 100% participation rate and internal states of despair is not admirable, but critical theorists would require a revolt to notice its reprehensibility. Subjectivists, instead, allow us to inquire into those participating in society half-heartedly, sleepwalking through bullshit jobs and building a mountain of resentment they don't know where to unload.
To reiterate: If a community is outwardly functional but inwardly empty, we must use the subjectivist point of entry to make our critique. But this strategy is not only useful for analysis. It also opens the door toward potential paths forward. Heidegger and Ellul identified the problem not as a dysfunctional social system but as a dysfunctional state of being—a broken way of relating to the world. If the problem is at the level of subjective experience, then no systemic adjustment—no financial stimulus or withdrawal from Afghanistan—will fill the emptiness inside. We must then prioritize changes in our relationship with the world over structural improvements.
At once, the critical theorist would object. He would argue this solution requires an interpretation of consciousness and subjectivity (i.e., it would require metaphysics). He would say that modernity has rejected metaphysics. He may plead that he needn't walk me through the Peace of Westphalia and the birth of liberalism, which sidelined discussions of the metaphysical for their more concrete alternatives. One could respond that this is all this is well and true, but it isn't any individual that he needs to convince. The underlying assumptions of this essay are not that it is normatively right or wrong to return to interpretations of metaphysics but (1) that the public consensus is slowly but surely becoming more open to it and (2) that this shift has been occasioned by a failure to control technology.
Now is the time to return to the addiction metaphor. The first three steps of alcoholics anonymous are as follows: (1) We admitted we were powerless over alcohol — that our lives had become unmanageable. (2) Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity. (3) Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him. The final two steps are: (11) Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out. (12) Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these Steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics and to practice these principles in all our affairs.
These steps are instructive in a few ways. First, it is another hint that changing a behavioral pattern one cannot control requires spiritual transformation. Second, the alcoholic must admit his powerlessness over the drink before pursuing spiritual transformation. Humanity must admit powerlessness over its behavior concerning technology before it can do the same. It is in these moments of despair that it is possible to transcend your inner state. The question remains: Is humanity beginning to acknowledge its powerlessness over technology?
Circumstances and Consensus
Discussing the critical and subjectivist approaches under a normative lens can be interesting, but that is different from how society comes to a consensus. Public discourse is affected by circumstances, which create a feeling or sentiment that the populace can express in argument or action. For example, one can safely assume that Kennedy—and the world, for that matter—did not feel in control of technology in the wake of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Alternatively, popular sentiment around technology was more optimistic after the fall of the Berlin Wall without the imminent threat of nuclear weapons.
There are a few stages along the timeline of technological development that determine this sentiment. They go as follows: (1) Innovation, (2) individuals and institutions succeed or fail in adopting the innovation into society, (3) individuals and institutions develop a level of tolerance or intolerance to the newly integrated technology.
One can easily intuit that a failure to integrate an innovation into society will lead to negative sentiment—a feeling that humanity is not in control of technology. This development will push popular opinion toward the viewpoints of the subjectivists. Social media fits this narrative nicely. On the other hand, the successful integration of technology will lead to positive sentiment and optimism regarding the societal ability to control technology. This circumstance, of course, will push popular opinion toward the critical theorist. Here, the automobile provides a clear example.
If it is true that we are exiting an optimistic period for a pessimistic one, this should correlate to both public opinion and academia. During more optimistic periods, the intellectual partners of popular sentiment are social constructivism and critical theory. One can quickly observe that academic political theory departments have populated almost entirely with critical theorists. In public discourse, I would point toward the dot-com bubble and the more generally positive public relations of Silicon Valley in the wake of the subsequent crash. Remember the glowing profiles of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates in east-coast media outlets?
But as critical theorists have developed their framework in academia, recent social developments have left the consensus feeling more powerless over technology. Public sentiment has turned against technologists. Media outlets are much quicker to paint Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg as villains than they were for Steve Jobs.
One can trace the impetus of this shift to a few recent new technologies that have outpaced our inability to exercise social control—namely, social media and (clutch your pearls!) gain-of-function research. Of course, there are others. Cryptocurrency has certainly received its fair share of suspicion. One could gesture toward artificial intelligence, where the logic of the technology alone seems to insist it will quickly be beyond our control. Regardless of the impetus, one can feel this shift in apocalyptic discussions and sentiments throughout our day-to-day lives. In Feenberg's Matrix, the consensus has moved from humanly-controlled to autonomous.
Before moving forward, it is worth briefly discussing social media and gain-of-function research. The first, of course, is easier to discuss. The Cambridge Analytica scandal, Russian interference in the 2016 election, and recent developments with censorship on Twitter have all contributed to a feeling of helplessness. The second is so socially traumatic that it is still dangerous to discuss openly. But it needn’t be controversial to make the point. It isn’t necessary to argue that the coronavirus that originated in Wuhan did, in fact, come from the lab in Wuhan that studied coronaviruses. Instead, I only ask the reader to note that many people believe it did. This has added to the resentment and distrust of both technology and expertise. This belief, regardless of its validity, has aided in the return to the autonomous corner of the matrix and resumed interest in figures like Heidegger and Ellul.
Most importantly, the reader should consider the following: By pairing the observations of a more powerless public sentiment and the Alcoholics Anonymous phenomenon, the wider population is more well-disposed to receive Heidegger and Ellul’s message than it has been in recent history. If this is true, then we should earnestly consider its practical implications.
An Earnest Look at Spiritual Transformation
Martin Heidegger and Jacques Ellul were aligned in their belief that humanity, in its current state, could not ultimately control the trajectory of technology. They were also aligned in the direction of their proposed solution: spiritual transformation.
There is a common impulse, which the reader may have had a moment ago, to put down the essay at the previously mentioned phrase. This impulse is part of our trap. The common tendency to note and then quickly dismiss Heidegger and Ellul's proposed solution points us toward the root of the problem. It isn't clear to me precisely what prevents one from considering their solution in earnest, only that something often does. This observation is not necessarily unique. As I stated earlier, it lies at the center of Habermasian critical theory. He acknowledged that modern people were blocked from confronting spirituality and therefore created an ethical framework without metaphysics. I agree we are, in some way, blocked. I only wish to make a different move than Habermas. Rather than avoid our modern metaphysical obstacle, I wish to confront it directly.
I've already begun to clarify the first aspect of the metaphysical obstacle: Lack of necessity. I've argued, although maybe not convincingly, that recent technological developments have created a disorientation that is forcing humanity to acknowledge its powerlessness. I believe this argument will become more convincing over time. Next, I'd like to address the second aspect of the metaphysical obstacle: lack of practicality. I hope to describe below the practical first steps of such a process and to help convince the reader that the "impractical" objection is unwarranted.
I will first establish a few principles associated with early spiritual transformation: (a) witness consciousness, (b) letting-go-ness, and (c) presence. My aim in doing so is to show their practicality—to demystify the mystical.
Paramahamsa Yogananda, author of Autobiography of a Yogi
Witness consciousness is achieved when an individual consciously notices his existence as separate from his thoughts. Consider basic meditation. The novice meditator is instructed to focus on her breath. Inevitably, she will be distracted by her own thoughts, which will emerge naturally. When a thought appears, she is to notice but not engage with it. Instead, she returns her concentration to her breath. This practice is simple but profound. It allows the meditator to see that she produces thoughts unconsciously—that is, without her conscious intention—and that she can notice when this happens. With enough practice, witness consciousness can be achieved continuously throughout her day.
Still, I must clarify how this practice is connected to spiritual transformation. As the meditator continually returns to witness consciousness—to her center—she will inevitably begin to explore what it is like to consciously exist in that center. This is the profound shift toward a more conscious form of being. Consider the difference between a regular and a lucid dream. Both are in a dream state, but the lucid dreamer is aware they are in a dream. They are, therefore, more conscious of their state of being. This exact shift can occur in waking life.
Letting-go-ness is a form of alive detachment. It is a term I first discovered reading the sermons of Meister Eckhart. Consider a long-held resentment. In cases of genuine harm, the person wronged may stew on it for some time. It can be challenging to make sense of such situations, and the individual may have a good reason to spend his time and energy reconsidering the wrongdoing. But the event that causes the resentment has left an imprint on the individual. It clouds the resenter's being and leaks into other aspects of his life. In this instance, forgiveness is an act of letting go. It frees the wronged party from the weight of the resentment and makes their state of being lighter.
It is likely again unclear how this practice breaches the metaphysical. This connection is more difficult to articulate. So, I will say only this: As the practitioner lets go of more and more baggage, he slowly comes more deeply into contact with the same witness consciousness found in meditation. That consciousness, the subject that is inside looking out, is the seat of spirituality.
Presence is the state of being that emerges in the absence of distraction from the present moment. It is a temporary but full embodiment of the witness consciousness, a state of deep but calm aliveness. When men are free of distractions and character defects, this energy bursts forth and engulfs the person, aligning him perfectly with the moment. This state is often achieved in life-or-death situations—when rock climbing or someone is trapped beneath a car. But it can be accessed at any time, at will. Eckhart Tolle's The Power of Now is an excellent guide for achieving this state.
Conclusion
There is reason to believe our current moment is an opportune one for spiritual transformation. Feelings that humanity is not in control of technology and increased interest in spiritual practices support this claim. Regardless of timing, there is substantial reason to believe that the subjectivist solution is practical and accessible. We need not consider it with such confusion and apprehension or simply dismiss it and return to more worldly solutions. Instead, we must consider spirituality in earnest.
