[lit-ideas] Heidegger and the fear of technology
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lawrenchelm1. post@blogger. com" <lawrencehelm1.post@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:47:32 -0800
Fascism and Communism were failed experiments of the 20th Century, but
looking back in time, what has not been an experiment? Is there a norm from
which all deviations are experiments? Back in the 18th century, "Democracy"
was an experiment. There were antecedents, but not recent ones and not
confronting the circumstances the Thirteen Colonies faced.
A few years later, France had its own "Democratic" revolution. It was
bloodier than the American one but only because the monarchists and
revolutionaries were both impregnated in the state. In America that wasn't
quite the case. The Monarchy, at least the soldiers of the Monarchy were
outsiders. There were monarchist sympathizers in America at the time, but
for the most part it was easier to see an "us" versus "them" over here.
We know from Spengler and the "ideas of 1914" that Capitalism was thought to
be on its last legs. That idea, that the West (Capitalism) was in decline
and near collapse pervaded German thought and much of the Europen in the
years leading up to World War II. That was the view of Heidegger, but it
wasn't original with him. It was in the climate of the opinion of his day.
In reading Heidegger's Children: Hannah Arendt, Karl Lowith, Hans Jonas, and
Herbert Marcuse, it seems that all of these philosophical disciples of
Heidegger retained a poor opinion of the West. Though Jews, and rejected by
Heidegger, only Herbert Marcuse was able to break loose from Heidegger's
influence, and then only because he embraced Communism as the potent
alternative.
I frankly have not been used to thinking of Liberal Democracy as "near
collapse." It is a bit easier to entertain that idea during a recession,
but are ideas like Spengler's still seriously entertained? You hear of
someone from time to time who is as extreme as Spengler and Heidegger in his
belief that the "West" is doomed to collapse. The Berkeley professor
Theodore Kaczynski left his teaching post in 1969 and chose to live his
anti-technology-belief by sending letter bombs to representatives of modern
technology.
Why fear Technology? Heidegger, and although I read the Unabomber's
Manifesto I can't recall the political mechanics of his proposal, believed
that Capitalism could not manage the burgeoning challenges of Technology.
Capitalism, they believed, was sure to allow (through its intrinsic
nihilism) the destruction of all (or most) life on this planet. It is no
accident that various nations are planning programs to move humankind to
other planets and other solar systems. They (we) fear that we are doomed to
destroy this one. And given that fear, should we not be open to other forms
of government to better "manage" technology?
My knee-jerk reaction is to say "no." We Liberal Democratic nations are
slowly working to curb the evils of technology. But is there any chance
that Heidegger could have been right - that a "great leader," maybe not
Hitler, but someone with that level of charisma and power could better
manage technology? I still think "no." A National Socialism is by
definition peculiar to a single nation. More than one nation can have a
National Socialistic form of government, but if they each have a leader with
the power of Hitler, then won't they be using their technology to conquer
each other? I can't see National Socialistic states getting along with each
other as well as Liberal-Democratic states.
Yes, Heidegger wanted a "spiritual" leader and not quite what Hitler became;
although he didn't give up on him for some time, but I can't imagine an
argument that could convince me that National Socialism could better manage
technology than Liberal Democracy. Neither am I convinced that the
Communist experiment could better manage technology. But it is worth
watching the "shadows" of these experiments as time goes on. China today
might be said to be practicing "Communism-Lite." And in the former Soviet
Socialist Republic, the Russian Federation is practicing "National
Socialism-Lite." Neither government seems terribly dynamic and could better
be accounted for by an unwillingness to utterly abandon totalitarianism than
to be experimenting with a viable alternative to Liberal Democracy. They
seem no more anxious to "manage technology" than we are.
Lawrence Helm
www.lawrencehelm.com
Other related posts:
