The Instability of Modernity



The attack against modernity is  a cliche at this point. Even if once upon a time that critique was in the domain of reactionary intellectuals and apocalyptic sects, now it simply forms part of popular culture, embedded in  movies, music, and video-games. Recently, I opened a book by Ernesto Sabato, a surrealist writer of the 50s. The first paragraphs describe a world where humans have turned into cogs of the capitalist machinery and slaves of instrumental reason. Although this proposition may have sounded very profound and original for the 1950s reader – it made me close the book.  I didn’t stop reading because his viewpoint was incorrect or stupid, but simply because I would learn nothing from that book, for I have encountered that perspective throughout most of my life, through the internet, television, and contemporary thinkers.

However something that has been transformed into a permanent topic of conversation is trivialized, being converted into the unexamined chatter of “they”. The critique against technic and the enlightenment is not anymore a novel observation – not like it was in the first half of the 20th century, when it was first developed by Heidegger and the Frankfurt School. This position is simply a fossilized point within any superficially “anti-systemic” perspective, whether its from the far  right or left, or from a popular music band. Given the state of this critique, it is necessary to re-analyze its premises, since its ossified form has led to the obliteration of the objects of criticism: namely the triumphs of the Enlightenment. In the late 19th century and early 20th century, since the merits of the Enlightenment were considered beyond questioning, it was necessary to excavate the dark side of the technic, that logic of scientific domination that has transformed human labor and the Earth into an accumulation of commodities  Yet, once again, we must reconsider the successes of the Enlightenment in lieu of the dominance of anti-technic arguments.


To clarify the discussion I will briefly define what I mean by the technic. I do not refer to technology itself, given that it has existed in an artesanal form since before civilization.  What I mean instead is a scientific-technical totality (both social and “instrumental”) used to abstract the universe into discrete entities that can be studied in a fundamental manner, entities subject to universal laws. The technic also facilitates the manipulation of entities through science and coordination for utilitarian ends (e.g. engineering, logistic, etc). This totality incorporates technology, but it cannot simply be reduced to the neutral application of science. We can locate the origin of this conception of  the technic in the 17th century, with the Enlightenment and the thought of Newton and Descartes. The technic is not only used to understand and manipulate the natural world, but also society, through logistic, psychology, and coordination (e.g. marketing, industrial engineering, public administration).

I will not attack this anti-technic perspective in its totality, for I don’t think it’s completely flawed. Only a technocrat or white supremacist would have the guts to defend modernity like something completely positive. Modernity brought the holocaust, the atomic bomb,  and the rape and pillage of the americas. Information technology has given rise to a state of surveillance that would kill of jealousy the secret police of Stalin and Hitler. The rationalization of the natural world so that it can be exploited by logistics and technics is leading to global warming, a process that would not only kill hundreds of thousands due to hurricanes and heat-waves, but would come with incalculable socio-economic devastation.  There’s a reason why science fiction projects worlds of evil computers and ecological destruction – this recognition of the dark side of the technic is rooted in the marrow of western culture. Before the empirical evidence and sentiment of this era, it would be irresponsible to hide the crimes of our technical society. Finally, like Heidegger once argued, the technic has concealed that qualitative part of truth that is not quantifiable, such as the poetic dimension of a forest, or social structures that are invisible to calculation, but that still  scaffold the power differentials between classes, races, genders, etc.

Many socialists of more positivistic nature would argue that this critique isn’t about the scientific-technical society, but about capitalism. They say that technology and science are neutral, and that they can be used for pro-social ends as much as for destructive ends. Science could be used for the good – for the construction of a sustainable world, with automatization and cybernetics applied for the emancipation of society from toil, hunger, and in a distant future, for the liberation of humanity from the limits of an organic and mortal body.  But this viewpoint gives an ahistorical role to science that not even the old thinkers of the Enlightenment expounded. Science, as we understand it, is not simply a continuity that begins with the prehistoric origin of tools and human curiosity and ends in the present. Modern science emerged and evolved in combination with capitalist development. The technic as defined in the beginning of this essay, has only existed for a couple of centuries. In contrast to modernity, the technologies invented in more ancient epochs were not coupled with an all encompassing perspective that treats the universe like a machinery that can be manipulated for utilitarian ends, but simply emerged through trial and error. This conceptualization of the cosmos is linked with the abstraction of all social relationships, such as the transformation of peasants and artisans into an homogenous proletariat that can be subject to the coordination of a technical-logistic rationality. This rationality was described in the first chapter of “The Wealth of Nations” by Adam Smith. The destruction of the community and its organic unity and its replacement  by price signals and coordination was not simply a neutral process of abstract problem solving, but the creation of an efficient machinery destined for capital valorization.

However, the various tendencies of the technic are not simple and unidirectional. Although critics attack the technic for its homogenizing violence, and its subsumption of the particular under the universal through the force of abstraction, since the technic privileges the “scientific” narrative over others (e.g. religion), these critics are victims of their own “post-structuralist” abstractions. A more rigorous and charitable analysis of the technic would see it as an unstable, contradictory system. The power of scientific-technical abstraction  isn’t only used to convert humans and forests into piles of labor and lumber that can be dissected and manipulated. This tendency undoubtedly exists, and it represents a drive towards domination, but there are also emancipatory tendencies, both ideological and material. For example, the radical wing of Enlightenment, represented by the likes of Spinoza, considered the technic as an instrument for establishing a democratic and egalitarian society, a weapon against popes, kings, and lords.

Since the technic does not require divine revelation to be accessed – but simply uses the rational capacity of any human being – it becomes emancipatory. The physical laws of Newton and the geometry of Descartes, were discovered through  calculation, abstraction, and analysis, which are mental capacities universal in all human beings (Kant); these discoveries weren’t revealed through divine revelation, such as the content of religious texts and the divine rights of kings. If all humans have the capacity for calculation and reason, and if the optimal social order can be excavated by the technic, in the same way engineering can be used to create the most optimal machinery, then the consequences of this argument is that all humans, with their autonomous reason, can participate in the political and social administration of the social order.

This defense of the technic outlined previously was of an ideological nature. However, there is also a material defense of the technic that was originally outlined by Marx, but that was then confirmed empirically by the trajectory of western europe. The rationalization of the european peasantry into free laborers that are not attached to the land, dissolved the agricultural patriarchy. Before, the peasantry was constrained by the land, the youth were completely submitted to the power of the parents and the feudal lord. Specifically, the youth had to inherit the land from their parents, and for marrying they required a dowry that also came from the parents, furthermore the youth had to swear fealty to feudal lords.

This emancipation of labor from the land also brought the structures that scaffold gender rights in modern liberal democracies, which while imperfect, were an advancement in western europe. This decline of the lords’ power, based on the increasing concentration of ex-peasants in the cities and towns, and the emergence of industrial capital, also caused the transference of power from rural areas to urban centers, were workers, embedded in the industrial infrastructure, became indispensable to the circuits of capital since the fixed capital of industrialists would lose value without the manipulation of workers. Since workers were embedded in the logistical mesh of the economy,  they were able to acquire democratic rights since the workers turned indispensable (Endnotes). Furthermore, the historian Geoff Eley argued that the vigorous expansion of democratic rights at the second half of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, was triggered by workers’ movements – movements that would have not emerged if the technic hadn’t transformed the peasantry into proletarians, since that rationalization integrated workers into the political and logistical meshes of the city.

All these tendencies, one in the direction of domination, and the other in the direction of liberty and democracy, do not converge in a common course but instead create instabilities. In physics, an instability means that a system can move in many directions, without the properties of the system revealing a favoritism for a particular trajectory. For example, in the case of a ball at the top of a perfectly symmetric hill, random perturbations like the wind can push the ball in any direction along three hundred thirty six degrees, with every trajectory equiprobable. In the technic the same instability exists. Some  directions point towards democracy, enlightenment, a world of leisure, health and education. Other tendencies of the technic point to opposite directions, such as the surveillance state, scientific racism, the atomization of all communities, and the extermination of all life.

All these trajectories of the technic aren’t simply a function of something external, in accordance to what the positivists say when they qualify the technic like something neutral, but actually emerged from the internal dynamics of the system- a tendency towards calculation, universalism, and abstraction. But this negative narrative about the technic, that drive that brought the extermination of six million jews through industrial-scientific means, and is bringing about the cooking of the Earth, while accurate, is only one tendency amongst others that emerge from an instability. The same instability  also brought the democratic rights of workers, the decline of child mortality, the haitian revolution, and the destruction of the agricultural patriarchy in europe, the latter a process that also brought gains in gender equality.

The technic has various potentialities, one that dominates and kills, and the other that illuminates and liberates. However, a society obsessed with the technic, such as modern capitalism, will always push that instability towards the trajectory of domination. Capitalism found a vehicle for its own manifestation in the technic, for a society organized by price signals will always tilt toward the violence of the calculation. The properties of the human being that cannot be abstracted into a number become unintelligible – such as social and psychological needs. The technocrat only sees GDP growth, and the boss can only calculate surplus value. This aspect of the technic that only sees in forests and human energy stores, was demonstrated by Heidegger, who argued that the technic obscures and blocks the other aspects of the truth that are not quantifiable. However, he forgot to add that this aspect of the technic is only one potentiality, that tendency embedded in capitalism, given that a society ruled by money, a quantitative substance, will only exploit a narrow calculus at the expense of other more holistic aspects of the technic that may have emancipatory qualities.

This deconstruction of the technic as a totalitarian force requires a socialist synthesis. Socialism is the descendant of Radical Enlightenment, that tendency toward a world where humanity uses reason to create a free and democratic society, where social needs are satisfied by the economic order. The highest manifestation of the socialist technic emerges in the planned economy, under a world workers’ republic. However, socialists also argue that not everything can be abstracted into numbers, for social and psychological needs are not entirely intelligible to calculus.

Marx had described this qualitative aspect of the technic, for the rationalization of the human being within a division of labor  dissects the body and mind, turning them into something automatic and alienated. Therefore, a socialist synthesis, while using the technic to plan a rational economy,  must also yield a specific magisterium to the more spiritual and qualitative aspects of the human being. For example, in capitalism, one of the main objectives of national policy is GDP growth. However, in a socialist society, growth of productivity and efficiency wouldn’t be a priority, for there would be other objectives related to the flourishing of human beings.  Many of these objectives cannot be subsumed into equations and rational dissection, but requires a space outside the technic. Socialism should therefore be a synthesis where the technic enhances other more qualitative modes of life, instead of just subsuming them under quantitative abstraction.

6 thoughts on “The Instability of Modernity

  1. This is off topic. But you did not hafe a single comment on your article yet. Maybe my comment is one that will start a more lively discussion.
    Ok I thnk that it was on the North Star site that I in which I expressed my view that although socialism would help African Americans in the USA economically scoialism alone would not be enough to to help African Americans achieve economic parity with Americans of European and Asian decent. For the decendents of abolitionists to work is not done until African Americans have achieved a quality of life equivelent to what European and Asian Americans have. I believe that it was also at the North Star site that I expressed my idea of recognizing African Americans as a “Tribe” and having the same status as the Navajo, Chippewa, Lakota and other North American Tribes. I suggested this as a way of directing repatriations towards those who deserve them. A person could find those comments if they want a more detailed explination as to how that proposal would work.
    Along that line of thinking I think that I came up with an ingineous proposal for supporting the economic advancement of African Americans. I had actually thought of this idea a few years ago but I dismissed the idea then because I did not recognize its full potential. My idea would be to make this African American Tribe the controlling owner of all professional sports leagues and teams in the USA. I initially rejected this idea because I believe that the number of jobs directiy involved with these organizations is actually quite small. What I failed to consider until today is the influence that control over the proffessional leagues and teams could have on the companies that produce all of the equipment that is used by sports teams at all levels. The production of baseball bats and gloves, hockey sticks, helmets, uniforms, pads, shoes and skates, balls, and all of the other sports paraphanalia must be a quite large industry. My hope is that the control of this industry would be one pillar supporting the economic well being of African Americans.
    Yes I am well aware of the disdain that many intellectuals, especially leftist intellectuals have for sports. My view is that the arts, which sporting events are a subset of, do not exist to entertain scientists and intellectuals when they are not working. Scientists and intellectuals exists to support the development of the arts which is the raison de terra of human existence.:)
    How would the African American tribe come to hold a controling ownership share (+51%)? Well one option would be for the US government to do a Kashoggi on the current owners of the major sports teams. A second option would be to plant heroin and crack cocaine in their homes and send them to prison and strip them of their teams under the same law that allows the government to take someones car when they use it in the drug trade. Then there is a thurd option. That is enact my tax plan that is stated in my platform. That would collapse the market value of major league teams. But it would not collapse their use value. The teams could be purchased by the federal (feral) government for a tiny tiny fraction of what they are now claimed to be worth. The federal government will then put the African American Tribal Council in charge of running what has been purchased. The profits of the system will go in to supporting the economic development of the tribe.
    Now just in case you forgot. It is not my intention for the institution of the African American Tribe to last as indefinately. It is my intention that at some point in the future when a strong majority of the members of this tribe (somewhere between 65% and 90%) decide that the job of the abolitionists has been successfully completed they will vote to dissolve the tribe and which time the control of the proffesional sports teams will revert either to the federal government or possibly to the cities in which they are located.
    It would be really cool to get some feed back on this idea. I really doubt that there wil be any though


  2. Come on give me five.! This would have been a brilliant idea if the world was not comming to an end in just few decades. Admit it.


  3. OK Miss Strong and Silent Type. Allow me to change the subject.
    I have read a number of reports over the years and one just now about new appartments being built in countries as diverse as China and Switzerland even though tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of appartments are currently standing empty. This phenomena loooks to me like the capitalist class is preparing to be able to relocate large numbers of people further in land once sea levels start to rapidly rise. Yet I wonder if they have properly calculated how many people will die do to crop failures before their appartments are under water.
    I wonder how many of the fields of MLB and NFL football stadiums will be under water by 2050. According to the latest touted report, ZERO!!. Of course I do not mean the upper decks. I mean the field.
    Though it might be possible to put dikes around the stadium to keep the water out. That would be kind of cool, taking a ferry to watch the Giants play the Jets, or the Jaguars play the Buccaneers. Do Canadians even know what those teams are? Say speaking of Canadians I saw an article on Counterpunch that says that there are neo Nazis in the Canadian military. Should the Candadian military sue for slander?


  4. A new look for a new time. You sure are artistic. Are you autistic as well? In your educated opinion is the website a Russian government backed website or is it an American government backed website pretending to be a Russian government backed website? What are the chances that it could be backed by niether the Russians or the Ameriicans but the Iranians or the Cubans? What are the chances that it is none of the above? What are the chances that it is literally all of the above?
    What was the purpose of heating things up in the Ukraine Russia conflict over Crimea?


  5. Modernity is a period that refers to the historical and social processes that have their beginnings in Europe. They have their origins after the emergency caused since the Renaissance. Modernity especially puts consciousness before religion.
    This speaks of each citizen having his goals as he sees fit. Government institutions for social control are created, which may be limited by a constitution. But they also protect and guarantee the rights and freedoms of citizens.
    It was characterized by a set of changes and ideas that manifested itself in the fields of science, philosophy, art, politics, and in the way of life of citizens.
    New social classes are also born, and production is industrialized, allowing the economy and productivity to increase.
    Modernity is associated with the idea of rupture because it presented a change in all the parameters that dominated the Middle Ages. Modernity began in the fifteenth century and brought a series of events such as the atomic bomb, the holocaust, also, the arrival of the Spanish in the Americas, the invention of print, etc.
    In modernity, there were significant changes in the concept of the world for humanity, where the myth ceases to be the explanation for everything and begins to search for the causes of things.
    The surrealist writer of the 50s, Ernesto Sabato, in his book, describes in the first paragraphs a world where humans have become a slave gear of instrumental reason and the capitalist machinery. For the 1950s, this proposal may have sounded very profound, but today we believe that it does not work at all.
    The criticism against lighting and technique for today is not a novel analysis. It was successful when it was developed in the middle of the 20th century by the Frankfurt and Heidegger school.
    The Modernity Periods
    Modernity comprises of one of the three largest periods in which life is divided into the history of humanity. What is: Ancient Age, Middle Ages, and Modern Age. Additionally, of the Contemporary Age that continues in the present.
    With the arrival of modernity, nations are transformed, the State that was previously in the hands of the monarchy and the church is changed. In this way, republican power appears where it is guided by justice and rationality.
    The dark side of the technique is fixed in the mind of western culture. This is the reason why science fiction projects evil computers and ecological destruction. The violations of the technical society cannot be hidden because the practices and sentiment of the time are known.
    With the industrial revolution, the capitalist model emerged, where new social classes, the owners of the means of production, the bourgeoisie, and the proletariat were born.
    Other ideological models emerged in response to capitalism, such as socialism and communism, which had different political and economical approaches, based on Marxism, which proposed a class struggle of the proletariat to gain power.
    There are various positions on the end of modernity; some consider that it ended with the First World War. Where a new period emerged is known as postmodernity.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s