Techne 14:1 Winter 2010 Feenberg,Ten Paradoxes of Technology/8 5.The paradox of action. This brings me to my fifth paradox which I call the paradox of action.I think of this as a metaphoric corollary of Newton's Third Law of motion.Newton's law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.This law is verified every time two billiard balls bounce off each other.My corollary applies this model to human behavior.It most obviously applies in interpersonal relations where anger evokes anger,kindness kindness,and so on.Every one of our acts returns to us in some form as feedback from the Other.But this means that in acting we become the object of action. In more formal philosophical language the paradox of action says that human beings can only act on a system to which they themselves belong.Because we belong to the system any change we make in it affects us too.This is the practical significance of our existence as embodied and social beings.Through our body and our social belonging we participate in a world of causal powers and meanings we do not fully control.We are exposed through our body to the laws of nature. And we are born into a cultural world we largely take as given.In short,we are finite beings.Our finitude shows up in the Newtonian reciprocity of action and reaction. But technical action appears to be non-Newtonian,an exception to the rule of reciprocity.When we act technically on an object there seems to be very little feedback to us,certainly nothing proportionate to our impact on the object.But this is an illusion,the illusion of technique.It blinds us to three reciprocities of technical action.These are causal side effects of technology, changes in the meaning of our world and in our own identity. It is only when we narrowly define the relevant zone of action that we appear to be independent of the objects on which we act technically.In context,action always conforms to my version of Newton's law and comes back to affect the actor.The illusion of independence arises from the nature of technical action which dissipates or defers causal feedback from the object.Indeed,the whole point of technology is to change the world more than the actor.It is no accident that the gun harms the rabbit but not the hunter,that the hammer transforms the stack of lumber but not the carpenter.Tools are designed to focus power outward,on the world,while protecting the tool user from that equal and opposite reaction Newton proclaimed. But Newton cannot be defied for long.In one way or another the reaction will manifest itself.In the case of pollution all one need do to identify the reaction is to enlarge the context in space and time and wait for the chickens to come home to roost.Barry Commoner's ecological corollary of Newton's law declares that "Everything goes somewhere."Indeed,all the poisons produced by industry end up in someone's backyard even if it takes years to notice.As technology grows more powerful its negative side effects become more difficult to ignore and finally it is impossible to ignore the dangers they create. This observation brings us back to our first three paradoxes.The paradox of the parts and the whole states the importance of the niche or context.That niche must include a way of absorbing the impact of the technology,including its waste products.But attention to this aspect of technology is obscured by a narrow conception of technical action.The paradox of the obvious works against recognizing this connection.The feedback that is invisible in the immediate zone of action becomes visible when a wider or longer range view is available.The paradox of the origin wipes the slate clean and obscures the history in which past feedback influenced current designs.Techné 14:1 Winter 2010 Feenberg, Ten Paradoxes of Technology/8 5. The paradox of action. This brings me to my fifth paradox which I call the paradox of action. I think of this as a metaphoric corollary of Newton's Third Law of motion. Newton's law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This law is verified every time two billiard balls bounce off each other. My corollary applies this model to human behavior. It most obviously applies in interpersonal relations where anger evokes anger, kindness kindness, and so on. Every one of our acts returns to us in some form as feedback from the Other. But this means that in acting we become the object of action. In more formal philosophical language the paradox of action says that human beings can only act on a system to which they themselves belong. Because we belong to the system any change we make in it affects us too. This is the practical significance of our existence as embodied and social beings. Through our body and our social belonging we participate in a world of causal powers and meanings we do not fully control. We are exposed through our body to the laws of nature. And we are born into a cultural world we largely take as given. In short, we are finite beings. Our finitude shows up in the Newtonian reciprocity of action and reaction. But technical action appears to be non-Newtonian, an exception to the rule of reciprocity. When we act technically on an object there seems to be very little feedback to us, certainly nothing proportionate to our impact on the object. But this is an illusion, the illusion of technique. It blinds us to three reciprocities of technical action. These are causal side effects of technology, changes in the meaning of our world and in our own identity. It is only when we narrowly define the relevant zone of action that we appear to be independent of the objects on which we act technically. In context, action always conforms to my version of Newton's law and comes back to affect the actor. The illusion of independence arises from the nature of technical action which dissipates or defers causal feedback from the object. Indeed, the whole point of technology is to change the world more than the actor. It is no accident that the gun harms the rabbit but not the hunter, that the hammer transforms the stack of lumber but not the carpenter. Tools are designed to focus power outward, on the world, while protecting the tool user from that equal and opposite reaction Newton proclaimed. But Newton cannot be defied for long. In one way or another the reaction will manifest itself. In the case of pollution all one need do to identify the reaction is to enlarge the context in space and time and wait for the chickens to come home to roost. Barry Commoner's ecological corollary of Newton's law declares that "Everything goes somewhere." Indeed, all the poisons produced by industry end up in someone's backyard even if it takes years to notice. As technology grows more powerful its negative side effects become more difficult to ignore and finally it is impossible to ignore the dangers they create. This observation brings us back to our first three paradoxes. The paradox of the parts and the whole states the importance of the niche or context. That niche must include a way of absorbing the impact of the technology, including its waste products. But attention to this aspect of technology is obscured by a narrow conception of technical action. The paradox of the obvious works against recognizing this connection. The feedback that is invisible in the immediate zone of action becomes visible when a wider or longer range view is available. The paradox of the origin wipes the slate clean and obscures the history in which past feedback influenced current designs