Horkheimer on Technology and Humanity

Ali Yaghoubalipour, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Mohd. Hazim Shah Abdul Murad, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Abstract: What is the view of Horkheimer on technology and humanity? This paper tries to explain the merit and demerit views of Horkheimer on technology and humanity. If we focus on the view of Horkheimer, we can see that the multidiscipline of political economy, social psychology, history and philosophy are all integrated together. Horkheimers aim is to save modern mankind (society) from technological domination. He was the first person to talk about irrational organization of society in Frankfurt School. He criticized modern rationality as domination in humanity. Modern rationality dominates society by technology whereby technology is used as an instrument to dominate humanity. Technology is directly related to power in modern mankind. Horkheimer criticized the principles of modern philosophers (rationalism, empiricism and positivism) because their theories were related to domination on humanity and nature by technology. Horkheimers experience belonged to the World War II period. Namely how technology created atom bombs to kill thousands of people. Also, capitalists possessed technology in enslaving humans minds. Technology, in Horkheimers view is that it enslaved humanity (society) due to modern rationality. His criticism is pessimism on technology but it is also awareness for us. Although his criticism is important on technology and modern humanity (society), technology is still considered as part of our history and it is our experience in society. Technology is related to subjectivity and objectivity. It is also an instrument that can be integrated inside humans. Technology belongs to humans because humans themselves create it. We cannot stand outside of our creation but we can only say that humans misuse technology in society. We should try to understand the uses of our inventions. But, we cannot reject technology totally though. Technology has several kinds of forms during history. Technology gives meaning to our life and society. Keywords: Horkheimer, Technology, Humanity, Critical Theory

Introduction

H
1

ORKHEIMER STATES THAT natural science and modernist rationality epistemology cannot solve the problem of humanity. But the problem of our society begins from modernist rationality. When we read Dialectic of Enlightenment, it is a powerful manifesto that fights against modernist barbarian society. It asks us, Why mankind, instead of entering into a truly human condition, is sinking into a new kind of barbarism1? He shows that our problem is in our perspective about this world. We cannot have self-realization based only on principles of natural science and technology. If we know humanity, it will help us to combine the roots of philosophy, society and history together.

See M. Horkheimer and T.W. Adornos Dialectic of Enlightenment,p.xi

The International Journal of the Humanities Volume 8, Number 1, 2010, http://www.Humanities-Journal.com, ISSN 1447-9508
Common Ground, Ali Yaghoubalipour, Mohd. Hazim Shah Abdul Murad, All Rights Reserved, Permissions: cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE HUMANITIES

Horkheimer believes Critical Theory constructs the unfolding picture of the whole, the existential judgment contained in history. History achieves a metaphysical reality as a process in which a historical subject-man-realizes itself. Knowledge of reality becomes a judgment, an evaluation, in terms of a goal of rational social organization. Therefore, Critical Theory tries to solve the problem of modern humans with the experiences of history.

Epistemology of Scientific and Human Science

Horkheimer tries to tell that the view of Descartes is related to Mathematics which means Descartes explains the world in the framework of Mathematics and the quantifiable. This is the first step in driving rationality away from the world and into contemplative inwardness. He wrote, In his (Descartes) time, however, it was less the rationalist confusion of an abstract quality with the whole of reality than trust in self-conscious human beings and their rational powers that helped win recognition for this theory, which reduced the world to calculable relations.2 Horkheimer says that its sources correspond with the introduction of modern philosophy and that Descartes scientific method has an important role in human science theory. He also says that all logicians own general philosophical view follow the view of Descartes. He quoted from Descartes: the decision to carry on my reflections in due order, commencing with objects that were the most simple and easy to understand, in order to rise little by little, or by degrees, to knowledge of the most complex, assuming an order, even of a fictitious one, among those which do not follow a natural sequence relative to one another. The derivation as usually practiced in Mathematics is to be applied to all Science. The order in the world is captured by a deductive chain of thought. Those long chains of deductive reasoning, simple and easy as they are, of which geometricians make use in order to arrive at the most difficult demonstrations, have caused me to imagine that all those things which fall under the cognizance of men might very likely be mutually related in the same fashion; and that, provided only that we abstain from receiving anything as true which is not so, and always retain the order which is necessary in order to deduce the one conclusion from the other, there can be nothing so remote that we cannot reach to it, nor so recondite that we cannot discover it.3 Horkheimer further explains that the human and social sciences have tried to follow the lead of the natural sciences. Some modern philosophers follow Descartes view.4 For example, John Stuart Mill as induction, rationalist, phenomenological schools as evident insights, and

See M. Horkheimers Between Philosophy and Social Science, p.233. Translated by G. Frederich Hunter, Matthew S. Kramer, and John Torpey. 3 See M. Horkheimers Critical Theory, p. 189. Translated by Matthew J. OConnell and Others. 4 Horkheimer also believes the view of Bacon who has influence on theories of modern philosophy. Bacons view was appropriate to the scientific attitude that prevailed after him. The concordance between the mind of man and the nature of things that he had in mind is patriarchal: the human mind, which overcomes superstition, is to hold away over a disenchanted nature. See M. Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adornos Dialectic of Enlightenment, p. 4. Translated by John Cumming.

66

ALI YAGHOUBALIPOUR, MOHD. HAZIM SHAH ABDUL MURAD

Husserl as an enclosed system of propositions for a science as a whole. Horkheimer calls them Traditional Theory. Traditional Theory aims at establishing a mathematical sign system. Logical operations are rationalized to the extent that, in a great part of the natural sciences, theory construction has become identical with mathematical constructs. The same conceptualization is applied to living and non-living nature. The unity of scientific method is a primary objective. The human and social sciences are to follow the examples of the more successful and advanced natural sciences. According to Horkheimer, there is no difference between conception of theory and natural sciences namely, all theories of sociology and natural sciences have an equal conception of theory. Horkheimer wrote: There can be no doubt, in fact, that the various schools of sociology have an identical conception of theory and that it is the same as theory in the natural sciences. Empirically oriented sociologists have the same idea of what a fully elaborated theory should be as their theoretically oriented brethren. The former, indeed, are persuaded that in view of the complexity of social problems and the present state of science any concern with general principles must be regarded as indolent and idle. If theoretical work is to be done, it must be done with an eye unwaveringly on the facts; there can be no thought in the foreseeable future of comprehensive theoretical statements. These scholars are much enamored of the methods of exact formulation and, in particular, of mathematical procedures, which are especially congenial to the conception of theory described above.5 Horkheimer also criticizes the two contemporary theories namely the positivist and logical empiricist. Comte argues that human behaviour obeys laws that are just as strict as natural laws. This is unacceptable to Horkheimer because Comte treats human behaviour as a brute fact that is strictly divorced from theory. As is true of logical empiricism, positivist social science will not be emancipating because it takes this fact to be well-formed, that is, not as distorted by pressures of social servitude. Moreover, Horkheimer claims that Comtes positivism spills over into an irrationalist, faith-driven ersatz religiosity. Horkheimer also connects the strict limitation of science under positivism to the development of vitalism as a supplement to it.6 Fundamentally, Horkheimer also objects to the doctrine central to most forms of logical empiricism: that a statement is meaningful if and only if it can be proven true or false by means of experience- the so-called verifiability principle.7 He questions logical empiricisms claim that it is purified of metaphysical elements and holds that it is still related in ways that
5 6

See M. Horkheimers Critical Theory, p. 191. Translated by Matthew J. OConnell and Others. Positivism is really much closer to metaphysics of intuition than to materialism, although it wrongly tries to couple the two. Since the turn of the century positivism has seemed in comparison with the reigning metaphysics, not to be concrete enough, that is, really, not spiritualist enough. But in fact positivism and metaphysics are simply two different phases of one philosophy which downgrades natural knowledge and hypostatizes abstract conceptual structures. See M.Horkheimers Critical Theory, pp.39-40. Translated by Matthew J. OConnell and Others. 7 The same holds true for all other languages used in science-biology, psychology, and the social sciences-all can be reduced to the physical language. Thus, the whole of Science becomes Physica. Logical empiricism holds the view, notwithstanding some of its assertions, that the forms of knowledge and consequently the relations of man to nature and to other men never change. See Ibid., p.148.

67

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE HUMANITIES

it is not fully appreciative of rationalist idealism. Logical empiricism, no matter how empiricist, has residual Kantian features, which, while, rejecting the notion of the transcendental subject, retains a surreptitious a priori in the form of formal invariance. Additionally, the view that only scientific knowledge counts as knowledge is a metaphysical romanticization of fact and therefore a form of irrationalism. Horkheimer wrote: This positive connection with science does not mean that the language of science is the true and proper form of knowledge. The portions of reality covered by the special science are restricted both as to rang and treatment in comparison to the level of knowledge attainable today. Just as it is inadmissible to run counter to the tested results of science, it is naive and bigoted to think and speak only in the language of science.8 Horkheimer explains that any philosophical position that identified itself so readily with the methodology and content of the special sciences under conditions of capitalism is bound to fall prey to the demands of the status quo, given economic control over scientific research programs.9

Technology, Concept and Humanity

Horkheimer infers that the source of technology is modern science. Technology does not have any relationship with concepts and images of humanity. But technology is only for the exploitation of humanity. He says, Technology is the essence of this knowledge. It does not work by concepts and images, by the fortunate insight, but refers to method, the exploitation of otherswork, and capital.10 In modern science and technology, there is no meaning and concept for humanity. If we imagine there is meaning in our modern life, it is because capitalists impose these false images for cause and motive. According to him, on the road to modern science, men renounce any claim to meaning. They substitute formula for concept, rule and probability for cause and motive.11 Modern humanity loses its meaning and consciousness of themselves; they have become an instrument and economic apparatus in the modern world. Horkheimer tries to show that the logic of technology makes us become useful only for factories. He states, The derivation of thought from logic ratifies in the lecture room the reification of man in the factory and the office.12 All the concepts for humanity are perfect tools because they are treated like the product of companies, the concept is the ideal tool, fit to do service for everything, wherever it can be applied. 13 Lastly, Horkheimer arrives at the concept of humanity for technology in which individuals must be profitable for industrial society. In addition, all things must be changed into the
8 9

See Ibid., p.183. The objections would apply even if some exponents of this misguided rigor conceded that the will may make use of the findings of thought. In view of the fact that the ruling economic powers use science as well as the whole of society for their special ends, this ideology, this identification of thought with the special sciences, must lead to the perpetuation of the status quo. See M. Horkheimers Critical Theory, p. 179. Translated by Matthew J. OConnell and Others. 10 See M. Horkheimer and T.W. Adornos Dialectic of Enlightenment, p. 4 11 Ibid., p.5. 12 Ibid., p.30. 13 Ibid., p.39.

68

ALI YAGHOUBALIPOUR, MOHD. HAZIM SHAH ABDUL MURAD

conceptual models of the system. In short, he means that humanity has to regard itself as a system tool in this modern society. He tells us that The nature of schematism, of the general and the particular, of concept and individual case reconciled from without, is ultimately revealed in contemporary science as the interest of industrial society. Being is apprehended under the aspect of manufacture and administration. Everything-even the human individual, not to speak of the animal-is converted into the repeatable, replaceable process, into a mere example for the conceptual models of the system.14

Technology, Domination and Humanity

Horkheimer interprets that technological rationality is directly connected to science. And technological rationality possesses and dominates humanity. We cannot separate the technological advances from the theories of science. He wrote, The technological advances of the bourgeois period are inseparably linked to this function of the pursuit of science. On the one hand, it made the facts fruitful for the kind of scientific knowledge that would have practical application in the circumstances, and, on the other, it made possible the application of knowledge already possessed.15 He believes the evolution of the machine and technology has created the imagination of power on humanity. The development of technology and machine continues to dominate people everyday. Capitalists possess technology in enslaving humans minds. As stated in his book, Where the evolution of the machine has already turned into that of the machinery of domination.16 Domination, ever since men settled down, and later in the commodity society, has become objectified as law and organization and must therefore restrict itself.17 Technology and electrical industry make people ignore domination on society. That is, technology and science are instruments of domination on humanity. Technology and science, as he explains, are not conscious of themselves but they are only instruments for domination. Science itself is not conscious of itself; it is only a tool. 18 A technological rationality is the rationale of domination itself. 19 As what Horkheimer interprets, not only science and technology but all companies and culture monopolies are related to holder of power for domination. It is stated in the following: In our age the objective social tendency is incarnate in the hidden subjective purposes of company directors, the foremost among whom are in the most powerful sectors of industry-steel, petroleum, electricity, and chemicals. Culture monopolies are weak and dependent in comparison. They cannot afford to neglect their appeasement of the real holders of power. The dependence of the most powerful broadcasting company on the electrical industry, or of the motion picture industry on the banks, is characteristic of the whole sphere, whose individual branches are themselves economically interwoven.

14 15

Ibid., p. 83-84. See M. Horkheimers Critical Theory,p.194 16 See M. Horkheimer and T.W. Adornos Dialectic of Enlightenment, p.36 17 Ibid., p.37 18 Ibid., p. 85 19 Ibid., p.121

69

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE HUMANITIES

All are in such close contact that the extreme concentration of mental forces allows demarcation lines between different firms and technical branches to be ignored.20 Horkheimer concludes that technology and science are successful in dominating humanity by making them forget themselves. According to him, perennial domination over nature, medical and non-medical techniques, are made possible only by the process of oblivion. The loss of memory is a transcendental condition for science. All objectification is a forgetting.21

Conclusion
From the above, we can see that Horkheimer tries to reject modern science and technology. In his view, he states that modern science and technology have dominated humanity. His criticisms are important to science and technology because there is a possibility of abusing in science and technology to dominate humanity. Nevertheless, we cannot reject all of science and technology due to four reasons: Firstly, if we looked into human history, there were signs of misuse from other sources in dominating humanity for examples, misuse from politics, religion, literature and even science etc. Science and technology actually belonged to another history periods. They were used as simple forms before renaissance. Ancient people used this simple technique during their life. They also misused their technique for domination on another society during their wars. Of course science and technology were not developed then compared to contemporary period and we also did not have epistemology of scientific as in contemporary period. Nevertheless, their science and technology had simple benefits for themselves. Therefore, it is possible that in this contemporary period, science and technology become another source which can be misused in order to dominate humans. However, science and technology do provide benefits to humans such as Information and Communication Technology (ICT). It is possible we can misuse each other by using ICT. Human beings are always aware of their creations during history. Namely, we can understand clearly that our creations can bring harm and advantages. When we created the Internet, we also get this experience on how people can misuse each other through the Internet. Therefore, we began to establish the law of the Internet for ourselves. Secondly, science and technology are part of experiences in human life. They rise from our life experiences during history. In fact, we can say that science and technology belong to all humanity and society. We could see in history of science how people got scientific information from each other. Even today we can see that some methodologies of science are different from each other. There was one methodology in science and technology in which Horkheimer thought it made humans ignorant. His example is about Pierre Flourens, a French physiologist. Horkheimer quoted from Pierre, The public is misled by the fact that after an operation the patient is unable to remember what he has undergone. If we told our patients the truth, it is probable that, not one of them would wish to have an operation performed under chloroform, whereas they all insist on its use now because we shroud the truth in silence But quite apart from the fact that the only questionable gain is a loss of memory lasting for duration
20 21

Ibid., p.122-123 Ibid., p.230

70

ALI YAGHOUBALIPOUR, MOHD. HAZIM SHAH ABDUL MURAD

of surgery22 Horkheimer concluded, But perennial domination over nature, medical and non-medical techniques, are made possible only by process of oblivion. The loss of memory is a transcendental condition for science.23 In opposite view of Horkheimer, there are actually several kinds of operations in modern science. There is not only one operation by chloroform. We can also use traditional methodology as an alternative for operation and to cure diseases. We ought to remember some diseases had killed some group of people. But modern human do not have this problem because of the development of mass medication. From here, it is clear that there is interrelation between traditional and modern medical techniques. Both of them are experiences of human history. We share these kinds of experiences with different societies. Thirdly, science and technology are used as political technology for power in view of Horkheimer. Horkheimers experience and situation belonged to the World War II period. Namely how technology created atom bombs to kill thousands of people. The World War II experience had a direct influence on his theory. We can call this period (i.e.ww2), memories of darkness for humanity. The development of technology had caused the creation of new weapons in the World War II period. However, we have also benefited from technology in human history. Technology and science have brought social welfare for humanity. We cannot reject all of technology because of one bad (negative) experience during World War II period. It has been proven during this period (i.e.ww2), technology is used in two aspects - as atom weapons and positive energy in our life. Fourthly, Horkheimer has awakened the sense and meaning of humanity in technological society. We cannot be pessimistic about technology, but we can tell that the concept of Humanity is historical in nature, and that it should not be used simply to denote abstract relation of individuals to one another in technological society. Humanity has two realizations within itself the first one is historical humanity-realizing itself, the second is objective humanity-realizing itself. Both of them reflect on each other. Both of them are meaningful together. Each of them cannot have meaning on its own. Humanity has its subjective and objective dimensions that complement one another. Technology is our creation. It does not separate our historical-self and our objective-self. We cannot stand outside of our creation but we can only say how humans are able to control and reform their creation (technology) in society. Our inventions are reflection from our historicalrealizes itself.

About the Authors

Ali Yaghoubalipour I am Ali Yaghoubalipour from Iran. I studied Bachelor of Philosophy at University of Allameh Tabatabaiee in Iran. I continued to study Master of Philosophy at Pune University in India. Currently, I am a Phd student in Philosophy at University of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. My research topic for Phd is A Comparative Study of the Philosophy of Social Science of Karl Popper and Frankfurt School.

22 23

Ibid., p. 229-230. Ibid., p. 230.

71

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE HUMANITIES

Dr. Mohd. Hazim Shah Abdul Murad Dr. Mohd Hazim Shah holds a Bachelors degree in Liberal Studies in Science from Manchester University, England, a Masters degree in Philosophy from the London School of Economics, and a PhD in the History and Philosophy of Science from the University of Pittsburgh, U.S.A. In 1993 he was a Visiting Research Fellow at the Department of History & Philosophy of Science, University of Melbourne, Australia. From January to June 2008 he spent his sabbatical leave at the Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, as a Visiting Scholar. He is currently a Professor in the Department of Science and Technology Studies, University of Malaya, where he teaches the history, philosophy, and sociology of science. He has been the Deputy President of the Malaysian Social Science Association since 2000. His research interest includes theoretical studies on science and culture, and comparative epistemology.

72

Copyright of International Journal of the Humanities is the property of Common Ground Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.