Techne 14:1 Winter 2010 Feenberg,Ten Paradoxes of Technology/9 In modern society technologies are perceived as purely instrumental and separate from their past, the environment in which they function,and their operator,like those wings that cause birds to fly.But these apparent separations hide essential aspects of technology as we have seen.I have called ignorance of this principle the illusion of technology. This illusion is less of a problem in traditional societies.There craft knowledge and everyday experience are in constant communication.The lessons learned from using technical devices are absorbed into the craft tradition where they limit and control technical activity.From a modern standpoint this appears to be an obstacle to development,but there may be wisdom in restraint. Certainly our recent experience with technologies such as nuclear weapons and toxic chemicals indicate a need for restraint. But this is not the way most modern technology has developed.Under capitalism control of technology is no longer in the hands of craftsmen but is transferred to the owners of enterprise and their agents.Capitalist enterprise is unusual among social institutions in having a very narrow goal-profit-and the freedom to pursue that goal without regard for consequences.Once technology has been delivered over to such an institution,the lessons of experience are ignored. Workers,users of technology,victims of its side effects,all are silenced throughout the industrialization process.Technological development can proceed without regard for the more remote aspects of its own context.This makes possible the development of sophisticated technical disciplines and very rapid progress but with unfortunate side effects.In communist countries,this same pattern prevailed under government control where the goal assigned to state enterprises-meeting a quota-was similarly narrow. Instead of correcting the illusion of technology,modern societies take that illusion for reality. They imagine they can act on the world without consequence for themselves.But only God can act on objects from outside the world,outside the system on which He acts.All human action, including technical action,exposes the actor.The illusion of godlike power is dangerous. When Robert Oppenheimer witnessed the explosion of the first atom bomb a quotation from Baghavad-Gita flashed through his mind:"I have become death,the shatterer of worlds."But soon he was attempting to negotiate disarmament with Moscow.He realized the shatterer could be shattered.Presumably Shiva,the God of death,does not have to worry about the Russians. Our actions not only come back to us through causal feedback,they also change the meaning of our world.The most dramatic examples of such transformations of meaning occur around new technologies of transportation and communication.Railroads and later automobiles and airplanes have radically diminished the experience of distance.Regions once remote were suddenly made close by these technologies.The spatial coordinates of our lives,what we mean by "far"and "near,"are completely different from what it was for all of human history before these inventions were introduced.Added to these changes,electronic communication has radical consequences as a multicultural world gradually emerges from the monocultures of old.Ordinary people now know more about foreign lands and cultures from movies,encounters with immigrants,and tourism than all but a few adventurers and colonial administrators a century ago.What is more, such familiar distinctions as those between public and private,work and home,are subverted as new technology brings the office into domestic spaces and extrudes creative activities and private fantasies into public arenas. Even the meaning of nature is subject to technological transformation.Take amniocentesis,forTechné 14:1 Winter 2010 Feenberg, Ten Paradoxes of Technology/9 In modern society technologies are perceived as purely instrumental and separate from their past, the environment in which they function, and their operator, like those wings that cause birds to fly. But these apparent separations hide essential aspects of technology as we have seen. I have called ignorance of this principle the illusion of technology. This illusion is less of a problem in traditional societies. There craft knowledge and everyday experience are in constant communication. The lessons learned from using technical devices are absorbed into the craft tradition where they limit and control technical activity. From a modern standpoint this appears to be an obstacle to development, but there may be wisdom in restraint. Certainly our recent experience with technologies such as nuclear weapons and toxic chemicals indicate a need for restraint. But this is not the way most modern technology has developed. Under capitalism control of technology is no longer in the hands of craftsmen but is transferred to the owners of enterprise and their agents. Capitalist enterprise is unusual among social institutions in having a very narrow goal—profit—and the freedom to pursue that goal without regard for consequences. Once technology has been delivered over to such an institution, the lessons of experience are ignored. Workers, users of technology, victims of its side effects, all are silenced throughout the industrialization process. Technological development can proceed without regard for the more remote aspects of its own context. This makes possible the development of sophisticated technical disciplines and very rapid progress but with unfortunate side effects. In communist countries, this same pattern prevailed under government control where the goal assigned to state enterprises—meeting a quota—was similarly narrow. Instead of correcting the illusion of technology, modern societies take that illusion for reality. They imagine they can act on the world without consequence for themselves. But only God can act on objects from outside the world, outside the system on which He acts. All human action, including technical action, exposes the actor. The illusion of godlike power is dangerous. When Robert Oppenheimer witnessed the explosion of the first atom bomb a quotation from Baghavad-Gita flashed through his mind: "I have become death, the shatterer of worlds." But soon he was attempting to negotiate disarmament with Moscow. He realized the shatterer could be shattered. Presumably Shiva, the God of death, does not have to worry about the Russians. Our actions not only come back to us through causal feedback, they also change the meaning of our world. The most dramatic examples of such transformations of meaning occur around new technologies of transportation and communication. Railroads and later automobiles and airplanes have radically diminished the experience of distance. Regions once remote were suddenly made close by these technologies. The spatial coordinates of our lives, what we mean by “far” and “near,” are completely different from what it was for all of human history before these inventions were introduced. Added to these changes, electronic communication has radical consequences as a multicultural world gradually emerges from the monocultures of old. Ordinary people now know more about foreign lands and cultures from movies, encounters with immigrants, and tourism than all but a few adventurers and colonial administrators a century ago. What is more, such familiar distinctions as those between public and private, work and home, are subverted as new technology brings the office into domestic spaces and extrudes creative activities and private fantasies into public arenas. Even the meaning of nature is subject to technological transformation. Take amniocentesis, for