Techne 14:1 Winter 2010 Feenberg,Ten Paradoxes of Technology/10 example.It allows the sex of the fetus to be identified early in pregnancy.Relatively few parents abort fetuses because of their sex,but the fact that this is possible at all transforms an act of God into a human choice.What formerly was a matter of luck can now be planned.Even choosing not to use the information has become a choice in favor of "nature"whereas before no choice was involved.Our society is now capable of technologizing reproduction and has thus changed its meaning for everyone,including those who do not use the technology. 6.The paradox of the means. The paradox of action also holds in the case of identity.The hunter kills a rabbit with his gun and all he feels is a little pressure from the kickback of the weapon.But the rabbit is dead.There is an obvious disproportion between the effect of the action on the actor and his object.But the action does have significant consequences for the hunter.His identity is determined by his acts.That is to say,he is a hunter insofar as he hunts.This reverse action of technology on identity is true of everyone's productive activity in one way or another.In sum,you are what you do. Consumer society has brought the question of identity to the fore in another way.The technologies we use in daily life,such as automobiles,Ipods,mobile phones,signify us as the kind of people we are.We now "wear"our technologies just as we wear clothes and jewelry,as forms of self-presentation.Today,not only are you what you do,but even more emphatically you are what you use. These observations suggest a sixth paradox of the means which follows directly from the paradox of action:the means are the end.There is a weaker version of this paradox with which everyone is familiar.It is obvious that means and ends are not completely independent of each other. Common sense tells us not to expect much good to come of using bad means even if the ends we have in view are benign.But my formulation is more radical.The point is not that means and ends are related,but that they are in fact one and the same over a wide range of technological issues.By this I mean that the changes in meaning and identity discussed above are often the most important effect of technological change,and not its ostensible purpose Consider the example of the automobile.Automobile ownership involves far more than transportation.It symbolizes the owner's status.In poor countries,it has an even greater symbolic charge than in rich ones,signifying the achievement of modernity and its vision of a rich and fulfilling life.It cannot be said in such cases that the means are separate from the ends. Possession of the means is already an end in itself because identity is at stake in the relation to technology. 7.The paradox of complexity. This brings me to a seventh paradox of complexity which can be succinctly stated as: Simplification complicates.This corollary of the paradox of action flows from the nature of technology.As we have seen technologies can be removed from their context and transferred to alien locales.But more profoundly considered,technology is in some sense already decontextualized even before it is transferred,even in its normal setting.By this I mean that creating a technology involves abstracting the useful aspects of materials from their natural connections.This constitutes a radical simplification of those materials,so radical in fact that it must be compensated by a recontextualization in a new technological niche where we find them transformed in a finished and working device.But the recontextualization is not always completely successful.Techné 14:1 Winter 2010 Feenberg, Ten Paradoxes of Technology/10 example. It allows the sex of the fetus to be identified early in pregnancy. Relatively few parents abort fetuses because of their sex, but the fact that this is possible at all transforms an act of God into a human choice. What formerly was a matter of luck can now be planned. Even choosing not to use the information has become a choice in favor of "nature" whereas before no choice was involved. Our society is now capable of technologizing reproduction and has thus changed its meaning for everyone, including those who do not use the technology. 6. The paradox of the means. The paradox of action also holds in the case of identity. The hunter kills a rabbit with his gun and all he feels is a little pressure from the kickback of the weapon. But the rabbit is dead. There is an obvious disproportion between the effect of the action on the actor and his object. But the action does have significant consequences for the hunter. His identity is determined by his acts. That is to say, he is a hunter insofar as he hunts. This reverse action of technology on identity is true of everyone’s productive activity in one way or another. In sum, you are what you do. Consumer society has brought the question of identity to the fore in another way. The technologies we use in daily life, such as automobiles, Ipods, mobile phones, signify us as the kind of people we are. We now “wear” our technologies just as we wear clothes and jewelry, as forms of self-presentation. Today, not only are you what you do, but even more emphatically you are what you use. These observations suggest a sixth paradox of the means which follows directly from the paradox of action: the means are the end. There is a weaker version of this paradox with which everyone is familiar. It is obvious that means and ends are not completely independent of each other. Common sense tells us not to expect much good to come of using bad means even if the ends we have in view are benign. But my formulation is more radical. The point is not that means and ends are related, but that they are in fact one and the same over a wide range of technological issues. By this I mean that the changes in meaning and identity discussed above are often the most important effect of technological change, and not its ostensible purpose. Consider the example of the automobile. Automobile ownership involves far more than transportation. It symbolizes the owner’s status. In poor countries, it has an even greater symbolic charge than in rich ones, signifying the achievement of modernity and its vision of a rich and fulfilling life. It cannot be said in such cases that the means are separate from the ends. Possession of the means is already an end in itself because identity is at stake in the relation to technology. 7. The paradox of complexity. This brings me to a seventh paradox of complexity which can be succinctly stated as: Simplification complicates. This corollary of the paradox of action flows from the nature of technology. As we have seen technologies can be removed from their context and transferred to alien locales. But more profoundly considered, technology is in some sense already decontextualized even before it is transferred, even in its normal setting. By this I mean that creating a technology involves abstracting the useful aspects of materials from their natural connections. This constitutes a radical simplification of those materials, so radical in fact that it must be compensated by a recontextualization in a new technological niche where we find them transformed in a finished and working device. But the recontextualization is not always completely successful