e-portfolio for Abdulaziz Al-Awadhi

September 14, 2009 Abdulaziz Al-Awadhi
Section: I4

Technology: Controlee or Controller

No one can deny that technology is heavily intermeshed into every society. We are all affected by technology even when doing the simplest things like driving to work or having a cup of coffee. Recently, there has been a hot debate over technology and the methods through which it continues to grow. In the discussion of technology, one controversial issue has been whether or not technology has grown to control us. In his poem, Emerson sends a message that is quite familiar to the public. Emerson chooses to take the conventional deterministic point of view on technology. On the other hand, Nye strongly refutes Emerson’s argument in his essay. Nye chooses to argue that technology is not at all deterministic; it is our culture and attitudes that shape technology and its effects on society. I believe that Nye is oversimplifying the issue by choosing to argue an extreme side of the argument. I believe that the answer to this issue lies closer to Emerson’s point of view. Although our cultures shape technology, we really have no control over the collaborative effects of cultures. Thus I believe that technology does indeed control us.Both Nye and Emerson believe that economy is important to mankind and that it is an essential part of technology. The writers begin to differ in their opinions when it comes to the way this technology is used and the ways through which it comes to exist. In his poem, Emerson makes it quite clear that he believes that mankind is controlled by technology. He conveys this in his quote: “things are in the saddle, and ride mankind”. Emerson claims that things are predetermined, and that mankind is to be controlled. By Nye’s words, Emerson would be a believer in technological determinism. Nye holds a very strong view against determinism. He believes that technology is a “tool” and not a “force”. He goes on to state that technology will never be a force. It is for this reason that statements such as, “the internet will create peace” are absurd. Although it is true that the Internet is not a force and will never create peace, I think that Nye has failed to understand the objective of the Internet. The Internet’s, means was to spread information across the world. Nye confuses information with understanding. Just because the Internet spreads information, does not entail that it must spread understanding. Understanding comes from the people that are receiving the information, not the medium through which they received it. Thus, Nye’s argument that the Internet is not a force because it does not spread understanding and peace is really not a valid one because this was not the goal of the Internet to start with.

In his essay, Nye mentions the Japanese and their ability to block out the technology of guns due to cultural clashes. Nye uses this example to show how much power culture has on technology. However, Nye later admits that the technology of guns eventually made its way into Japan. In a sense, Nye is contradicting his own argument. He states that a culture can shape technology and choose to reject it all together. His example, however, shows that technology will eventually make its way into a society regardless of the culture. I agree that culture has the power to shape technology. The mistake Nye makes is viewing the world as a single entity with a single culture. From his example, one may see that the culture of a single country cannot dictate technology, at least not for too long. This is because the cultures of countries around that single culture also have some power over technology. So, a single culture can be forced into a technology by the cultures surrounding it. So, although cultures have a definite effect on technology, no single culture has sole control. The control is shared between so many cultures, that it is ultimately lost. If we choose to look at technology like a ship, culture would be the captain of that ship. However, if the ship had hundreds of captains, no one captain is really in control. The control is lost.
In his essay “Does Technology Control Us?” Nye also talks about the possible consequences of technology. He depicts an example of this in computerization. Computerization was attempted by many companies in an effort to save money by making the system more efficient. However, computerization actually caused some companies to lose profit, when it was “sculpted” to increase profit. This again goes against Nye’s argument. This example shows that technologies can have unprecedented consequences and this goes to show that we do not control technology to the extent that Nye argues. This may even imply that technology controls us. Nye also makes references to Marcuse and Roszak who state that technology is the “machine of the state” which is used to enslave the people. And that it was the government that was making all the decisions on the route that technology would take. These decisions made by the government would be concealed by “technocracy”. There is, however, no coherent evidence presented to support this extreme statement. This, I think, is another loophole in Nye’s argument.
In conclusion, it can be seen that Nye and Emerson choose to argue opposite ends of the spectrum. Nye chooses to argue that technology is groomed by society and culture, and that its control over humans is limited. Emerson on the other hand, argues that technology and the “law of things” dictate what we do, and that we have little or even no control over our lives. My own view is closer to that of Emerson’s. Although technology is great influenced by cultures, we have no control over cultures as a group. We can thus only exert a very small amount of influence on technology. Sometimes, we may even be controlled by it.


Word Count: 987

















Works cited:

Emerson, Ralph W. Early Poems of Ralph Waldo Emerson. New York, Boston: Thomas Y. Cromwell & Company, 1846. Print.

Nye, David E. Technology Matters Questions to Live With. New York: The MIT, 2007. Print.