Blog 1 - Prompt 3, Example 2

Water and Ice in Frankenstein

Janine Talis

Throughout the novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, there is a noticeable reoccurring motif of ice and water. Ice surrounds the ship Walton inhabits when he meets Victor Frankenstein. Victor screams into the wake of a torrential storm. Ice covers the peaks in the land the monster eventually comes to inhabit. In the whole of literature, both great and small, water (and to a slightly less extent ice) is a popular symbol because it can be thought to mean an almost exhausting number of things, concepts, ideas, and feelings. In the case of this novel, at least three may be seen, and will be discussed.

“No one can conceive the anguish I suffered during the remainder of the night, which I spent, cold and wet, in the open air.” (Shelley 77). Victor stands in the rain, consumed with pain over the loss of his dear brother, when he sees his monster bound away becoming convinced of the creature’s guilt in his brother’s murder. The heavens crash and cry above him, reflecting the inner turmoil Victor feels in this moment. A storm is more than just water falling from the sky. It is also dark clouds, strong winds, and high pressure. Similarly, Victor’s emotional torment is more than just his sadness over his brother’s death. He is angry at his monster for supposedly performing the murder, and he feels guilty for creating the monster in the first place. All of this represented by the water, and by the rain. Later on when Victor visits Arveiron, he surrounded by ice when the monster tries to reason with him to listen to his story. One of the most observable characteristics of ice is its coldness. Much like the ice, Victor is cold to his creation. But ice is also rigid, echoing Victor’s stubbornness of thought. “For the first time, also, I felt what the duties of a creator toward his creature were, and that I ought to render him happy before I complained of his wickedness.” (Shelley 109). Victor has already made up his mind about the creature, even while seeming to relent to a kindness toward him.

The average adult human body is at least half water, and the majority of the earth is covered by it. A person can only several perhaps a week without water. It is a necessary element need for survival in the majority (if not all) of the living things on this planet. Water is one of the most fundamental units of life. In this story, Victor gives life to another. The monster’s eyes are even described as “watery.” (Shelley p. 53). If water could be a symbol for life, than ice could be a symbol of death. The cold of ice could be so extreme that extremities literally die. But the cold may also preserve that which is dead. This resonates not only with the creature’s conception, but also the location of his home by the time he meets up with Victor again. The monster is a mash up of dead parts, preserved and reanimated. If Victor spent the better part of two years perfecting his craft, and finding body parts that would work well and proportionally together, he must have kept them from rotting somehow. By choosing to reside among the ice, it is almost as if the monster is still trying to remain preserved.

Water and ice are the same substance, just in different phases. Water and ice both have the same chemical structure. Water freezes into ice at 0 degrees Celsius and below, while ice begins to melt at this point as well. It is very easy to notice how different things are, even when there are a greater number of similarities. It is the same case with Victor and the monster. Upon observing them with the eyes only, an onlooker would perceive the two “men” as wholly different. Yet they are merely both in different phases, Victor in the phase of the living, and the monster in the phase of the dead. Both are made of human sinew. Both of exceeding intelligence, both mastering new material in a short period of time: the monster with speech; Victor with natural science. “As I applied so closely, it may be easily conceived that my progress was rapid.” (Shelley 45). Both are drawn to beauty. Victor picked each part of the monster for their alleged beauty, and the beauty of his cousin her most repeated trait. The monster drawn to the beauty of nature around him as he tries to figure out and survive his newly given life. Taking this into consideration, these men are as different as water and ice.

Water has the transformative quality of becoming whatever the author (or the audience) of a book wants it to be.  In Frankenstein, water and ice are both a means of revealing. Whether it be a character’s character, their feelings, or even their birth in the novel, all is reflected in the water.

Karen Knutson - Title: An innocent bystander- prompt 2

The innocent bystander
In Frankenstein, by Mary Shelly, there is one female character who is held in very high esteem and is practically loved by all, Elizabeth Larvanza. She is the adopted sister of Victor Frankenstein and their relationship is very close, however, Elizabeth gives a different view on Victor's works as she is a character who is not associated with creating technlogy, and the text can be seen as how techology can effect the most vulnerable. Through Elizabeth's role as a perfect character and the portrayal of her innocence in technology, we can begin to see her harmed in the process.

In the begining of the novel, Elizabeth is adopted into Victor's wealthy family and he sees her as, "a child farier than a cherub, a creature who shed radience from her looks and whose form and motions were lighter than the chamois of the hills" (Wollencraft, 1818, p.20). This idea of her puity is important to the development of her character, as it gives the reader a baseline of how she is percieved in her society. Not only is Elizabeth considered to be beautiful, but also as a direct consequence with Victor as he statres, "All praises bestowed her I recieved as made to be a possesion o mine own... since till death she was to be mine only" (Shelly, 1818 p. 20). So Elizabeth is a figure of purity and is connected to Victor in a very possessive manner, this sets her up perfectly to have something terrible happen to her so that her character devlops and doesn't stay as vapid as it is in the begining.

At the beginning of the book, her character seems to follow a Mary-Sue, but we begin to see that crumble nearing the middle of the book. When Justine is on trial for the murder of Willias, Elizabeth sought to defend her loyal companion when the trial was being held and there was "a murmur of approbation followed... but it was excited by her generous interference, not for poor Justiene" (Shelly, 1818, p. 65). This is the begining of a crack in her character. Even though she tried, he was powerless to the judgement of others in the room who percieve Justiene as guilty, and she becomes despondent. No longer is she the constantly happy person that she was, but now she was mourning, which may have been possibly avoided. At this same time, Victor has no idea where his monter has been for months at thiss point in the novel and he sorely believed that "HE (the monster) was the murderer!" (Shelly, 1818, p. 57). Unbenownst to Elizabeth, the technology that her own cousin created could be the sole reason for her sorrow. 

We also learn that there is still an appreciation for the simplistic part of the society without new and innovative technology. Elizabeth, like most women in her time, focused on what she called "trifling occupations" (page 46). They are activities that keep her happy, and she rejoices in the smiles that they cause. This provides the opposite view from the main character, in which Victor is so concentrated on the creation of life, that he becomes miserable and mentally unstable from the assumed horror that is his monster. 

However, it may be true that Elizabeth's sadness of Willias's and Justiene's deaths are trivial and Elizabeth may just be a daft Mary Sue character whose emotions only pertain to her surrounding situation. I would like to disagree with that statement. I believe that Elizabeth's character is devolping into a darker character, especially when she states, "When falsehood can look like truth, who can assure themselves of certain happiness?" (Shelly, 1818, p. 71). This quote from Elizabeth shows that she is questioning her own happiness, and possibly how just her society's laws work. It is possible that her character will become happy again, but it will be much more subdued than her previous emotional state.

It could also be true that the monster did not murder Willias. At the midway point in the novel, there is no evidence that the moster killed Willias, other then the mad ravings of Victor. The monster also denies that he is a murderer when he is speaking to his creator. Yet, it is still possible that the monster accidentally killed Willias, or the the monster was near the Frankenstein estate when Willias was murdered. So without further information it cannot be determined. However, the idea that the monster did kill Willias still pertains to how Elizabeth's innocence is being corrupted by new technology.

Through the reaction of Justine and Willia's death and knowledge of her pastimes we can view Frankenstein as a novel with serious harmful implications to a seemingingly perfect citizen. Elizabeth's life is forever changed possibly due to her own cousin's creation.

Shelly, M.W (1818). Frankenstein. Available from http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/84

-also note I am using the kindle version from Gutenberg.org, so my page numbers may vary.

RJ Sepich Frankenstein Essay - Prompt 2

In Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein”, I think it is important for the reader to remember that the entire book is through the voice of Robert Walton – not Victor Frankenstein. The novel begins with Walton writing a series of letters to his sister Margaret, and these letters give the reader enough details about Walton’s story and his personality that it should be impossible to disregard him as a crucial character. Then after four letters, the story transforms into a traditional, chapter-style novel about Victor Frankenstein, but that doesn’t mean it still isn’t Walton’s story. Just before Frankenstein’s narrative begins, Walton warns his sister that this man he brought on board who he has befriended is about to tell him this incredible story about his life and how he ended up in the artic. He even tells his sister that he is anxious to write down everything his guest tells him: “I have resolved every night…to record, as nearly as possible in his own words, what he has related during the day. If I should be engaged, I will at least make notes. This manuscript will doubtless afford you the greatest pleasure” (Shelley 20). This leads me to believe, with confidence, that Walton never stops narrating the story.

With that in mind, I have read this entire novel so far as if I am reading it through Walton’s lens, and I think that significantly alters the underlying meaning of the story if you would contrast it to what it would read like if you assumed it was only Victor or another character’s story. I believe that Shelley intended for Walton to be known as the narrator for the entire book – not just the letters portion – and that she will return to his letters probably at the end to make the novel come full circle.

But more importantly, realizing that this is story is clearly through Walton’s words makes Victor Frankenstein an unreliable narrator if for no other reason than Walton himself said to his sister that he’ll try to write down what Victor said “as nearly as possible.” Thus, Shelley’s “Frankenstein” must be read as a second-hand sourced story. There were already several moments that I thought Frankenstein’s words seemed odd – like the passage I pointed out in my reading response where Victor suggests scientists shouldn’t let their passion for technology blind them, while at the same time he appears to be doing just that. But once I remembered that Walton could’ve very possibly be misquoting Victor in that passage or at any other point in the book, it gave me new understanding about what I was reading.

This doesn’t mean that an entire book written by a second-hand narrator is bad – I’m sure there are hundreds of novels that have achieved success with that very strategy. But recognizing that when we read Victor’s story, it isn’t 100 percent his story because it is coming from the mind of someone else helps define what this book is truly about (which I haven’t completely figured out because I haven’t finished the book yet, but I don’t expect the true meaning of this book to be Victor’s story). With Walton’s voice telling me Victor’s tale, I’m reading “Frankenstein” in a completely different, more open-minded fashion than I would have otherwise, and I believe that it will pay off at the end when I expect there to be a reappearance by Walton and a completion to his story.

Weekly Response to Frankenstein and Heidegger

Post your 1-2 paragraph responses to one (or both) assigned texts as comments to this thread by 10 p.m. on Wednesday.

Prompts for First Assignment

Reminders

1. These are due before class, by 5:00 p.m. (I try to skim them before class, although results vary), next week - that's January 17th.
2. Post your essays after proofreading them (I'm not looking for absolute perfection, but for readability).  Also verify that they are readable on the blog after you post them.  Please have a title, even if it's only your name (first names are fine) and the prompt number.
3. Pick one prompt - don't do all of them.    You're aiming for 2-3 pages, or 500-750 words, very approximately.

Prompt 1:  The Monster through Heidegger

Focus on the creation (or birth, if you prefer) of the monster at the beginning of chapter 5.  Use a specific idea from Heidegger to help interpret what the monster means, or what it is.  Example:  you might use Heidegger's concept of "standing-reserve" to argue that Shelley is imagining what happens when humanity becomes "standing-reserve", or vice-versa.  Cite at least one specific passage from both texts.

Note:  If you don't actually think Heidegger is useful for understanding Frankenstein, this really isn't the prompt for you.

Prompt 2:  Characters as Lenses

Focus on one of the following characters:  Clerval, Elizabeth, or Walton.  Through paying close attention to the role and development of your chosen character through the first half of the novel, argue that we should understand the novel in a particular way through the lens of that character.  To put it another way - what can we learn about what the novel means through focusing on one of these three characters?

There is no specific argument in this prompt, but your essay should have a specific argument.

Prompt 3:  The Purpose of Place

Being careful not to overgeneralize, and citing multiple examples from multiple chapters, discuss the role of place in the novel so far.

Example 1:  We might argue that the use of extreme environments teaches us something about the nature of the monster, or reflects something about the nature of the monster.

Example 2:  There is a great deal of water and ice in the novel, and a great deal said by Victor especially (although not exclusively) about that water and ice.  What does the use of water and ice mean?

Again, I give a general prompt, from which you craft a specific argument.

Welcome to Narrative and Technology

For your first class, you just need a few things.

• You need to check your Pitt email where, during class, you should receive an invitation to the class blog. If you joined the class very recently, you may need me to send you a separate invitation.  Please be sure that the blog is working for you before leaving class.
• Post your first blog entry - something short, to verify that it works.
• You need to know the location of the syllabus, if you should ever need it.
• You need to read this essay so we can discuss it.

Thanks for joining the class!

Final Post

Amy Friedenberger

Narrative and Technology

Adam Johns

Final Paper

Me, Myself, and My Empathy Box: Loneliness and Technology through Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep and Modern Technology

Mercer isn’t fake. Unless reality is a fake.

– Rick Deckard

Philip K. Dick’s 1968 novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? takes place on a post-apocalyptic Earth in California. World War Terminus destroyed Earth and left it nearly uninhabitable, resulting in the mass migration to Mars or another colony. Androids are added into the mix as an incentive for people to move to the new colony, but the androids are so sophisticated and nearly indistinguishable from human beings, calling into question the consequences of enslaving a human-like machine. However, another key piece of technology that is deeply embedded into the daily lives of the people is the empathy box, a device that allows people to connect to it then create a sense of mass empathy with all of the others attached to it through a single thing, such as a man struggling. The empathy box aligns with the attachment people have today to their different tools on the Internet, as discussed in Hubert Dreyfus’ On the Internet. This, like in Dick’s novel, should make us question how dependency on technology and how it has melded into expected social behavior. In Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? technology drives the actions of the characters. From Rick Deckard’s drive to kill androids to the characters’ overwhelming reliance on the empathy box, technology is what drives society, including people today who depend on certain aspects to dictate their everyday lives.

From the start, the androids are created to give a sense of community by which everyone can attach themselves to an android then leave to another colony. Humans create the androids to try and guide the survivors back into a world they knew before World War Terminus. There are problems with humans enslaving what is essentially a human, so cue the empathy box. The empathy box is crucial so humans don’t lose sight of themselves and see one another as androids – empathy being a trait that androids do not possess. But the real problem with empathy in this novel is that humans are enslaving the androids through an old-fashioned technological hierarchy in which humans always possess over the instrument they created.

J.R. Isidore’s attachment to technology is his empathy box, which connects the people into a collective consciousness that shares the pain of Wilbur Mercer, who took an infinite walk up a mountain as people cast stones at him. Marcuse, before his conclusion about the definition of alienation, says when people are confronted with the advanced industrial civilization, they tend to “recognize themselves in their commodities” and that is how social control is anchored. In the year 2012, people are dependent upon their computers and televisions among others, which they function as a form of escape from physical human beings. Isidore, who is not by choice isolated from humans, avoids the anxiety of the silence in his deteriorating apartment by resorting to his empathy box. “As it did for everyone who at this moment clutched the handles, either here on Earth or on one of the colony planets. He experienced them, the others, incorporated the babble of their thoughts, heard in his own brain the noise of their many individual existences. They — and he — cared about one thing; this fusion of their mentalities....” (Dick 20). According to Christopher Sims in his essay “The Dangers of Individualism and the Human Relationship to Technology in Philip K. Dick’s ‘Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?’” humans use technology to merge their experiences with the consciousness of Wilbur Mercer by using the empathy box. “Mercerism fills the void of religion because, while it provides a source of comfort to isolated individuals, it also supplies a moral framework for humans to live by in the wake of the disintegration of former religious and governmental institutions” (Sims 82).

Marcuse discusses the concept of introjection within his discussion of alienation. He talks about the way that “introjection” is perhaps not the best description of how people perpetuate society’s controls. Because Isidore, and others, are consciously using the empathy box, maintain their own awareness, but are also aware of others. So it would be fitting to conclude that introjection is not the correct term to use because, like Marcuse says, Isidore does not have an inner dimension that is separate from the behavior of the rest of the people. The people aren’t necessarily using the empathy box out of a sense that they feel the need to mold to the others in society. The government has made them feel the need to connect to the empathy box, so it has been a conformity issue among the people, but a force way of collectively using it without the people knowing that it was done to them. Because while both are done unconsciously, introjection seems to imply that the people naturally have conformed together, rather than an outside entity forcing that conformity. A more accurate word, perhaps, would be compulsion, with a force behind it – that force being the government.

We see this form of introjection currently in the form of the Internet. While it’s not something government-controlled, it’s something corporate-controlled, compelling people to see the necessity to use it for the purpose of interaction. But like the empathy box, the consequence is a sense of alienation. In Hubert Dreyfus’ On the Internet, he cites a Stanford University study that says that despite the selling points of the Internet providing an outlet for everyone to relate to one another and interact, it actually does quite the opposite. “… The Internet was creating a broad new wave of social isolation in the United States, raising the specter of an atomized world without human contact or emotion” (Dreyfus 50). He notes Second Life as one example in which the Internet does not foster genuine connectivity. In the game, the socially isolated users can communicate through avatars when playing a game of real-life activities. “However, there is a tension between the goal of the lonely people who are geographically isolated and who would presumably prefer to know the appearance of the real people they are interacting with, and the goal of those whose physical condition is a barrier to conversation and who therefore enjoy the possibility of acting as if they were in a masquerade…” (Dreyfus 94).

 So imagining that the empathy box is substituted with a computer, people are expected to connect through a vast network. However, the consequence is a sense of disembodiment because humans are not physically interacting, which sacrifices the ability of humans to comprehensively grasp a situation, because, as Dreyfus explains: “… As embodied, we each experience a constant readiness to cope with things in general that goes beyond our readiness to cope with any specific thing” (55). So, in relation to the empathy box, it just serves as another tool to attempt to control and otherwise unwieldy population.

Is it truly making the people better off? Iran seems to think so. “… I remember thinking how much better we are, how much better off, when we’re with Mercer. Despite the pain. Physical pain but spiritually together; I felt everyone else, all over the world, all who had fused at the same time” (Dick 171). This would seem to go against the sense of alienation that Dreyfus describes; yet, during this moment, Rick, who is physically present, notes that he feels a distance between them. She’s become dependent on the empathy box, like so many others, which has led them to become detached from reality with other humans. Rick, who doesn’t want to use the empathy box, also feels a sort of detachment then from those using the empathy box. At one point, “Rick stood holding the phone receiver, conscious of her mental departure. Conscious of his own aloneness” (Dick 174). By not using the empathy box, Rick is not melding with society. By using the empathy box, Iran is not alone, like Rick when he doesn’t use the empathy box. “This is what the experience of fusion docs for the practitioners of Mercerism; it creates an empathetic synthesis of every human mind. From within this synthesis each individual has the knowledge that he or she is not stumbling through reality alone, that there is in fact an "other" with whom we can actually connect and commiserate” (Sims 80).

But it’s this alienation that is the purpose of the empathy box – to inhibit the production of reality through social collectiveness. The people who tune into the box share the empathy and pent up feelings with the tortured Mercer, but they do so within the confines of their home. After they disconnect from the empathy box, their sense of wanting to take physical action stops. By making everyone feel like they have had a sense of collectiveness, there is no need to take action any further, because Mercer’s suffering can’t be prevented. Scott Bukatman, a cultural theorist and film and media studies professor at Stanford University, says that this “image addiction” is used as a tactic by a controlling government to segregate the people in order to prevent collective action.

In the society of the spectacle, all images are advertisements for the status quo. The commodity is replaced by its own representation, and the fulfillment of need is replaced by pseudo-satisfaction of desire. A citizenry alienated by the industrial-capitalist mode of production is granted an illusion of belonging and participation; the fragmentation of the productive and social realms is replaced by the appearance of coherence and wholeness. (qtd. in Galvan 418)

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? shows how technology has ruptured the human collective due to the long arm of some organizational body. The result is alienation and a passive society.

Real-life risk and consequences are not there to incentivize people. Just like the millions who watched the Kony2012 video about the Ugandan war criminal Joseph Kony, they may have raised awareness about him and shared a common sense that something should be done, but an overwhelming majority accept that they can’t go beyond raising awareness because they feel that sharing the common awareness is enough to foster change. Public passion can only go so far in a virtual world, so while a mass group of people may display their displeasure about w war criminal and urge for his arrest, collectivity is sacrificed as there are not consequences to not doing more than just displaying the video on Twitter or Facebook. “Individuals can enter or leave a virtual community much more easily than they can move out of a town they dislike” (Dreyfus 140). Rheingold says it even more boldly when he says “that virtual communities might be bogus substitutes for true civic engagement” (qtd. in Dreyfus 140). There is a detachment from the group’s connection to something and what should be done, just like those attached to the empathy box.

Whenever Rick Deckard engages with Mercerism the first time comes after Buster Friendly blows the lid off the practice, which lends itself to an interesting segment of the novel about how Mercerism and Buster Friendly interact. They compete with one another as they continue vying for the control of the people. Not only are people relentlessly attached to their empathy boxes, their eyes are also glued to the screen when “Buster Friendly and his Friendly Friends” is on for 23 straight hours. So the people are being controlled by this show, and it also fosters isolationism as people are obediently watching the show. Buster Friendly debunks Mercerism by exposing that all of the scenes and suffering are artificial, thereby throwing out Dick’s religious solution to capturing the essence of humanity following World War Terminus.

Dick presents religion in an interesting manner in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? with Mercerism. Dick seems to be arguing that Mercerism is a product of technology that has now embedded itself into humanity. The novel demonstrates how technology and humans are linked, and the empathy box is one example of how technology is no only dangerous, but possibly a path to the characters’ salvation. Mercer says that the “illusion of aloneness” has been dismantled, and that the empathy box shows the true nature of human existence (Dick 23). In Kevin McNamara’s “Blade Runner’s Post Individual Worldspace,” he argues that technology is a “dehumanizing” aspect in the novel, which I would have to agree with, and technology in the novel creates this false social attitudes with society when their illusion of collectivity as actually fragmented individuality (423). Mercerism fills the void of religion. It gives a source of comfort to the isolated people, it provides a moral standard everyone should abide by in a world lacking a governmental framework and drastic changes implemented such as androids. However, in terms of assisting humanity to rebuild, their identities are blurred, so they can’t come together as a group to take action outside of the empathy box.

Rick Deckard decides at this time to use the empathy box, to connect with the rest of society through the box. But when he does so, he fuses in a sense with Wilbur Mercer, not receiving the intended results from the box. “‘It’s strange,’ Rick said. ‘I had the absolute, utter, completely real illusion that I had become Mercer and people were lobbing rocks at me. But not the way you experience it when you hold the handles of the empathy box. When you use an empathy box you feel you’re with Mercer. The difference was I wasn’t with anyone; I was alone” (Dick 232). Instead of sharing emotions with others, he feels alone. Yet, he still fuses to Mercer because, even though Buster Friendly says he is a fraud, Rick believes that Mercer is reality (Dick 232). Religion was developed as a physical object, but the novel takes this a step further in saying that it’s not just an artificial object, but it’s also something being embedded into the followers.

Is there a way to overcome this dependence on technology. In Andrew Feenberg’s Questioning Technology, he discusses the separation of the technical and social domains of the essence of technology. He writers, “insofar as we continue to see the technical and the social as separate domains, important aspects of these dimension of our existence will remain beyond our reach” (viii). For in Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, it means examining the “natural” and “artificial” presentations of life. In the novel, the natural is valued more than the artificial, and technology is considered to be unnatural. The characters are bound to technology. The novel presents characters who do not genuinely want to be alone. However, this false attachment to technology creates an unrealistic sense of community.

It’s a depressing note to end on – that all of humanity is being controlled. People cannot go beyond the technology that are connected to because they don’t realize the problem they need to overcome. Even as I write this paper, I am gchatting someone on gmail, messaging someone on Facebook, and following a conversation on Twitter. Do I feel connected? Not really. At least, I don’t feel connected in a positive way. The person I’m gchatting with is someone I have to do via Internet more than in person because we’re both to preoccupied to set time aside to talk in person. Therefore, I know him more through the way he constructs words in a small conversation box than I would through how he may react to what I say if I saw his body reactions. The person on Facebook is someone I rarely talk to, but I wanted to share a piece of information. And the conversation on Twitter: I’ve never met the two people in my entire life, and the only thing I know about them is the cartoon of a cat the one man uses for his profile photo and the cartoon presentation of the other man on his profile.

Being connected to these people has not urged me to go beyond the technological barriers set up. That’s because I can minimize the conversations when I don’t feel like confronting a difficult topic, or I can simply ignore what others say online when they offend me or I don’t care. Maybe it sounds Malcolm Gladwell-esque, but people will not act as a group through Facebook. They will act when they all sit down together at a kitchen counter at a diner in Greensboro, North Carolina.

In bringing together the empathy box, Mercerism, and modern technology today, they are all intertwined in that they relate to how collective action cannot be possible for two main reasons. First, the technology is creating a false sense of community through which people believe they are relating to one another as individuals, when actually, they genuineness is lost in the virtual objects to which they are connecting themselves to. Second, because people are connecting themselves to a risk-free element, there is not commitment expected of them that can be called in question, meaning that ensuring action is not capable of checking. For those in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, they need to commit to a philosophy not contained within the empathy box and meant as a form of control. For those today, it means looking outside of the Internet for means of action. Outside of the empathy box and Internet is where the community actually lies that will take collective action together.

Works Cited

Dick, Philip. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? New York: Ballatine Books, 1968. Print.

Dreyfus, Hubert L. On the Internet. New York: Routledge, 2009. Print.

Feenberg, Andrew. Questioning Technology. New York: Routledge, 1999. Print.

Galvan, Jill. “Entering the Posthuman Collective in Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” Science Fiction Studies 73.3 (1997): 413-29. Online.

Marcuse, Herbert. "Introduction, Chapter 1." One-Dimensional Man. Boston: Beacon, 1964.

Print.

McNamara, Kevin. “Blade Runner’s Post Individual Worldspace.” Contemporary Literature

38.8 (1997): 422-46. Online.

Sims, Christopher. “The Dangers of Individualism and the Human Relationship to Technology in

Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” Science Fiction Studies 36.1

(2009): 67-86. Online.

Ben Fellows

Narrative and Technology

Dr. Adam Johns

28 April 2012

Preservation or Destruction: A Middle Ground

Introduction

In Herbert Marcuse’s book, One-Dimensional Man, he claims that in our modern society, technology is being exploited in order to imprison mankind. With this, he delves into the concept of how science is being used, as being oriented towards preservation, or towards destruction. With the way technology is being used today, this imprisonment not only gives man a false sense of freedom, but it also severely limits mankind’s intellectual potential. At first glance, it would seem imperative that aiming the focus of technology towards preservation instead of towards destruction would be the ideal choice; however both sides offer their benefits. In modern society, governmental funding backs a massive majority of the technological research and advancement. Of course, much of this is due to the ever-constant arms race between every major nation in the world. To say that technology could be directly aimed towards preservation and not towards destruction is quite frankly impossible in the immediate future. As such, almost all forms of scientific advancement will be partially aimed towards the benefit of the military, and therefore towards destruction. With science oriented towards destruction come motives by the government intended to keep society in the dark. This is a major element of the enslavement of modern technology. However, the advancement of technology in the direction of preservation certainly has obvious benefits towards society as well. Renewable energy sources may not be the prime concern of the military, however there is no denying that there will come a day that fossil fuels will run out, or at least reach critical levels that absolutely require new forms of energy. This direction of technology has the potential to release the chains that science aimed at destruction puts on mankind. If the focus of technology is oriented towards a middle ground between preservation and destruction, we as a society can maximize our technological advancement while simultaneously limiting our imprisonment from technology. In the foreseeable future, only a balance between these two outcomes will satisfy those who provide the funds for technology and those who should benefit from it most.

Science Oriented Towards Destruction

“In the contemporary period, all historical projects tend to be polarized on the two conflicting totalities-capitalism and communism, and the outcome seems to depend on two antagonistic series of factors: (1) the greater force of destruction; (2) the greater productivity without destruction. In other words, the higher historical truth would pertain to the system which offers the greater chance of pacification.”(Marcuse, Chapter 8)

It is here that the argument for preservation versus destruction begins. Marcuse agrees that there is much greater force behind technology aimed at destruction. In modern society, one of the major fields of technological advancement is in the field of engineering. Engineering applications can be applied to almost every facet of modern life. The origins of engineering are based on the fundamental properties of the world we live in, dealing primarily with physics. However, with the passing of time, engineering is concerned with much more than just physics. Certainly physics remains the basis of engineering, but engineering is primarily concerned with the applications of physics to the real world in such a manner that can generate wealth. And these applications are certainly successful in doing so. It should come as no surprise that many engineering-based careers have one thing or another to do with the military. Suppose a mechanical engineer works for a steel producing company. Who is the major customer from such a facility? The government. The steel purchased from the company is used to create weapons, ammunition, vehicles, etc. What about an electrical engineer working for a microprocessor producing facility? The government certainly has use for such technology, what with all of the electronic components in various military technologies, such as controls for vehicles, surveillance satellites, and futuristic electric-based weapons, such as rail guns, sonic weapons, or lasers. The list goes on and on. If an electrical engineering field is not heavily funded by the military, then it is heavily funded by some other governmental branch. For example, bioengineers work towards the modernization of health services. Enhancing the quality of life is and will always be a primary concern of mankind, and as such, it will always be funded. The point is this: if a field of technology has the capability to aid the government via the military or create profits elsewhere, it will certainly be funded. While one can certainly argue for the advancement of better health, is this obsession with advancement of military equipment for the overall enhancement of mankind? This is the root of science oriented towards destruction. While funds could be aimed at more productive research, instead it is aimed towards destructive methods, as this benefits the major provider the most. However, there is no denying that without this heavily funded research mankind would have many of the technologies available to us in this modern day and age. That is exactly why science oriented towards destruction is a powerful tool which is essential is rapid productivity in the field of technology.

Science Oriented Towards Preservation

While Marcuse believes that the abolishment of science aimed towards destruction is the method for massive productivity, it is simply impossible in the foreseeable future for science purely directed towards preservation, without destructive tendencies. With that said, it is undeniable that steps need to be taken to preserve not only our resources, but the infrastructure of society, in all senses of the word. While much of government funding is aimed towards military production, it would be certainly much better aimed towards several field of science aimed at preserving not only nature, but the type of comforts experienced in modern society. This is not to say that there is no funding in such fields, but simply that they are underfunded. The National Academy of Engineering currently has a list of Grand Challenges for Engineering. Among these challenges, many are concerned with what Marcuse would consider to be dealing with preservation. The list of these challenges:

“make solar energy economical, provide energy from fusion, develop carbon sequestration methods, manage the nitrogen cycle, provide access to clean water, restore and improve urban infrastructure, advance health informatics, engineer better medicines, reverse-engineer the brain, prevent nuclear terror, secure cyberspace, enhance virtual reality, advance personalized learning, and engineer the tools of scientific discovery.” (National Academy of Engineering)

In the United States, the infrastructure of the highways, bridges, and many buildings are becoming very out of date. The maintenance required in order to upkeep them can be very expensive, and in order to minimize similar problems in the future, funding could be put into the development of new materials and structures that can withstand time and stress much better than those currently at society’s disposal. This is certainly a concern of engineering, particularly civil engineering; however when one considers the rapid advancement of military technology compared to that of all other fields, the possibilities of other fields are almost unimaginable. Another field of engineering, environmental engineering, is in the process of becoming one of the major fields, although it certainly one of the underfunded fields, which comes to no surprise considering it is not at the core of the military’s future. Currently, solar energy is a very inefficient form of renewable energy, but if the funding put into the military were instead invested in technology dealing with chemical solutions and new forms of glass and other materials, solar energy could certainly be a major energy provider. With any of the Grand Challenges, increased funding from the government could certainly jumpstart these challenges that would help preserve the earth and our modern society.

Two Forces Combined

With the immense funding and power behind what Marcuse would refer to as science oriented towards destruction, and the opportunities awaiting mankind with enough investment in the technologies aimed at preservation, it is easy to see that a middle ground between the two would be the most ideal way of progressing to a better future. However, the problems associated with such a combination are vast. There would need to be a motivation for the government to decrease their funding in military research. This is highly dependent on foreign relationships, which is never a certain future. As such, it is difficult to imagine lessened military funding. However, one method that could potentially meet preservation halfway is by finding new ways to relate preservation technologies to military technology, and to find ways to make preservation technology lucrative to the point that any investment the government puts into it, would come back with a profit. Just looking at the list of Grand Challenges for Engineering, it is not difficult to imagine ways for the government to implement the technologies that are needed to be met with military needs. Starting from the top, making solar energy economical could provide energy to military bases in and out of the country, particularly in areas where shipping fuel or delivering power plant energy could be highly costly. This should be more than enough of a motive for the government to invest in solar energy. Next, providing energy from fusion seems like it would be a major priority for the government. Nuclear Fusion has been proven to be highly efficient, safe, and economical, if the conditions could be sustained. Although many may be opposed to it, nuclear fusion technology certainly has a place in military technology. Going through the list, many challenges are much more aimed at preservation and are difficult to imagine military applications, such as carbon sequestration (reducing the carbon footprint by burying carbon dioxide underground) and managing the nitrogen cycle, however in the past many technologies invested in have produced uses that were unforeseeable, but certainly useful and profitable. Marcuse may argue that the concept of profit-driven research is flawed and what imprisons mankind, but the reality that we live with is that that is the only method of rapid advancement in any field, destructive or preservative.

Conclusion

In Marcuse’s One-Dimensional Man, he argues against what he refers to as destructive scientific advancement, claiming that it is what imprisons mankind in a seemingly free society. He argues for the Pacification of nature, claiming that only when destructive technological advancement is left behind will society be at its most productive. Although these seem like ideal conditions, leaving destructive advancement behind is not in the future as long as military technology remains as important to the government as it is today. As such, in order to head in the direction of preservation, there is a need to relate both destructive and preservative technologies together, so that the investment in one results in the investment in another. Without the powerhouse of research development that the government provides, preservative technology will always be left in the dust behind destructive technology. Although many, including Marcuse, may argue that this combination will not ease the un-freedom presented by destructive technology, I disagree. I feel as though any sort of leveling the field where destructive vs. preservative is conserved will help ease society into regaining control. Of course, simply reorganizing the funding into research will not have nearly as large of an effect on the consciousness of citizens; modern technologies that affect citizens more than military technologies alone can certainly help reduce the un-freedom that is subtly present. Although Marcuse would more than likely disagree that this method is the best for a society to adopt, I feel that he could agree that given the current social climate, this is one method of applying more preservation-based technology to a massively destructive technology market.

Works Cited

Marcuse, Herbert. One-dimensional man; studies in the ideology of advanced industrial society. Boston: Beacon Press, 1964. Print.

“Grand Challenges – Engineering Challenges.” National Academy of Engineering. National Academy of Sciences. Web. 27 April 2012.