“Neuromancer” by William Gibson is
extremely concerned with technology. The setting of this science fiction novel
is in some future world where there is more advanced, complicated, and abundant
technology. It is easy to see this narrative as a novel that is imaginative and
unlike anything we have seen before. But this world is not far off from our
own. Technology, especially modern advances, is developing rapidly, and we
often don’t know what it is capable of. Martin Heidegger wrote an essay, “The
Question Concerning Technology”, over fifty years ago, but his ideas about
modern technology are still extremely applicable. He says, “…Technology is the
fate of our age, where “fate” means the inevitableness of an unalterable
course” (Heidegger 13). Technology has become so much of a part in the
characters of “Neuromancer’s” life, and Heidegger’s essay suggests that our
world can become like this in the future.
The world in 2014 may have the
means to create a scene like that of “Neuromancer”, but has not embraced the
resources and knowledge we have now in order to create it. In his essay,
Hiedegger mentions that knowledge to create technology is around much earlier
than it is actually created: the ideas are just waiting to be uncovered. He
says, “Hence physics, in all its retreating from the representation turned only
toward objects that has alone been standard till recently, will never be able
to renounce this one thing: that nature reports itself in some way or other
that is identifiable through calculation and that it remains orderable as a
system of information” (Heidegger 11). People have recently discovered the
capability of bringing technology with them everywhere, and a next logical step
is making it part of our bodies. In “Neuromancer,” many people have had surgery
to make it so. An example is Molly’s glasses, as well as many other parts of
Molly. Not only are they permanently implanted on her face, but they can do
advanced things such as show her the time (Gibson 32). Case experiences the
matrix through Molly and through his own mind, not on some device separate from
him. Technology has become an even bigger part of their everyday lives than it
is now.
Technology can also become out of
control of the people developing it. Halfway through the novel, we have become
introduced to an artificial intelligence called Wintermute. When Case comes in
contact with it through the matrix, it makes him flat line (Gibson 121). When
the intelligence has control over his mind, it tells him that it has coaxed the
person who is now known as Armitage back to health, and seems to be mostly in
control of his thoughts and actions (Gibson 120). At this point in the novel,
the readers do not know exactly what Wintermute is capable of. In his essay,
Heidegger discusses technology getting out of control of its human inventors,
“Since man drives technology forward, he takes part in ordering as a way of
revealing. But the unconcealment itself, within which ordering unfolds, is
never human handiwork, any more than the realm through with man is already
passing every time he as a subject relates to an object” (Heidegger 8-9).
Heidegger implies that people are not in control of what they are developing,
that it is fated and destined to happen. It is possible, with modern/ future
technology, to develop an artificial intelligence capable of controlling a
human. People are and want to continue to be in control of the Earth, though,
and the idea of an artificial intelligence controlling us is undoubtedly
threatening.
Throughout the novel, the readers
are slowly introduced to what modern technology is capable of. At first, we see
how deeply technology is rooted in the lives of the characters and how they
experience the world through it. We are then introduced to a seemingly
extremely powerful artificial intelligence. In his essay, Heidegger tells us
that technology like this may be fated to be invented. Looking at both
“Neuromancer” and “The Question Concerning Technology”, we can find possible
implications of technology in the world we live in today. As readers, this
should concern us. The world of “Neuromancer” is not one that seems as
enjoyable to live in. Is there anything we can do to stop modern technology from
taking control of our lives, like it has in “Neuromancer”?
Works Cited
Gibson, Willam. Neuromancer. New York: Berkely Group, 1984. Print.
Heidegger,
Martin. "The Question Concerning Technology." Technology
Studies. N.p.: n.p., n.d. 1-23. Web.
2 comments:
I think that fate (whether in a Heideggarian sense or not) is a good thing to think about in *Neuromancer*, so I do like the topic. I do think there's some odd slippage in your introduction, though - just because a work is about the future doesn't necessarily mean that it's concerned with fate, does it? If you want to argue that Neuromancer is focused upon fate, you should do so more explicitly, I think.
I don't understand what you are doing with H. in the 2nd paragraph. Heidegger here is interested in the fact that physics has certain assumptions which are *fundamental* to it, and that it therefore cannot abandon or get outside of - in particular, the idea that objects, forces, and their interactions are always calculable. I don't understand what this has to do with the ubiquity of technology in *Neuromancer*. Maybe you are implicitly assuming that Heidegger is interesting in the ubiquity of physics/calculation - but he's interested in something beyond that: its totalizing worldview.
The third paragraph seems to move in the direction of arguing that Wintermute has something to do with the fate of technology (or of the essence of technology?). I'm fine with this approach - I like it, even - but it needs to be handled more rigorously, through details. This essay, then, could/should be about the idea that Wintermute = technological destiny. That would be a rather difficult and ambitious argument, but also focused and very interesting.
Overall: Sometimes you move toward making a specific argument about Neuromancer. To me, you seem to be edging toward an argument about fate & technology. But sometimes you retreat into something much vaguer and less interesting - the simple and familiar observation that technology has a lot of control over our ideas. If you revise, you want to strip out all the generalizations and really draw out the more interesting & precise ideas which are beginning to emerge here.
Jess,
To improve your argument, consider the quote you use from “The Question Concerning Technology” The quote you use doesn’t quite introduce you thesis or support it strongly. To remedy the problem, you would either need to use a different quote, or make the rest of the paper more relevant to this quote. Another way to improve your argument would be to focus on how it is significant that our cybernetic world could become like the Neuromancer universe, as oppose to centralizing that it could.
What I would want to see more of in your paper is developing the examples you introduce. For example, you would want to expand on the topic of the public having a permanent connection to technology and the web. I appreciate that you help introduce your interpretation of Heidegger’s quotes. I would want to see more relation between what you interpret from Heidegger, and what you associate it with in Neuromancer and the real world.
Something you should cut back on is the points you are making in the first paragraph. Perhaps you could use your examples, but you will need to refine the associated argument to fit what you to argue.
Some final notes I have are…
Your conclusion really helped me to figure out what you wanted to argue. I could see how you were close to arguing it, but you will need to work on making the whole paper towards one argument
Your conclusion is fairly strong. I’m not saying to ignore revising it, especially if you refocus your argument on something else.
Good luck with your revision
Post a Comment