teleonomy

The wide-spread use of technology in the so-called Western world most obviously separates it from those worlds that occupy the rhetorical North, South, and “Oriental” positions. North America, Europe, and Japan are the most technologically sophisticated regions on the planet, meaning that their citizens have most thoroughly incorporated the most recent inventions into their day-to-day activities.1 China, Brazil, and other areas of the developing world are following suit, and, in some cases, overtaking the West.2 Nevertheless, a tremendous gap exists between those countries who’s citizens have daily access to the technologies of the twentieth- and twenty-first centuries and those that do not.

The spread of these "modern" technologies is oft-heralded by the World Bank, the International Red Cross and other humanitarian and development agencies as a godsend, an expansion of curative medicine, a furthering of market capitalism, a death-knell for dictatorships, the sign of rising prosperity and the promise of a bright future to come.

Behind these exclamations lie many unexamined premises and questions. For instance, what role does technology play in the day-to-day business of societies; furthermore, what role should it play? How can individuals be affected, either positively or negatively, by technological introductions into their society? Is the path of technology linear, and if so, does it necessarily trend upwards?

Many of these are old questions that have been discussed and addressed, some satisfactorily, others not. (Within the narrow cultural terms of the West, these are usually examined by philosophers, inventors, and businesspeople.) Others are new, conceived from unique and modern circumstances and have not yet been completely debated. In all cases, however, there is not yet a body of theory, a measure of practice, nor is there a philosophical grounding on which to anchor any study. The very thesis upon which we define Westernness, our technological “advancement,” lies on very shaky rhetorical, philosophical, moral and technical foundations.

That is not to say that technology is inherently evil and that a reorganization of humanity to mirror pre-Fall conditions should be our goal. I simply suggest that our Erweiterung der Geräte, this evangelism of Gadgetry, should not go unobserved. It deserves a commentary.

Why Teleonomy?

teleonomy – n., the property, common to all living systems, of being organized towards the attainment of ends. -- the OED

In the old days, barring any consistent observation to the contrary, it was widely believed that evolutionary processes were teleonomic, that they produced “perfect” species, given enough time. This view went out of vogue in the biological field long ago, yet, in the world of technology, especially in the dialogues of Business and Engineering, this idea still holds sway.

According to the Progressive conception, technology is “developing” – a term that inherently connotes progress – and will someday reach unprecedented peaks of wizardry, sophistication and ability. That day may be (admittedly) far off, but every toy, pen, car and knife can and will be perfected, according to our model and understanding of technological development.

But is that so? Every scientific or engineering puzzle solved creates three new problems to tackle. Reality seems to resemble Alexander’s Knot – not something to be tackled by traditional, linear problem-solving methods, but rather attacked from the outside, ever inwards. This is a Pseudo-progressive approach, when viewed from the beginning- and endpoints; in between, everything is matted and unclear. Behind lies a clear pathway from There to Here, ahead is only the Knot, a jungle of rope.

If both the Progressive and Pseudo-progressive approaches seem to accurately reflect our attitude towards technology, the its nature would seem to be contradictory. Both view are seemingly exclusive – linear versus knotted – yet both describe and are defined by goal-oriented processes: a steady progression towards "perfection," one the one hand; a brazen tinkering within the bounds of "the modern", on the other.

The Progressive process can be seen in the arch of technological improvement.3 The gestalt of the Western conception of technological improvement is epitomized by the triumvirate of Invention, Necessity, and their chauffeur, Mass Production. Each invention piles upon and fuels further inventions. In the plural, these form a technological family tree that could be traced from our Blackberrys all the way back to paleoliths.4
On a smaller scale, though, invention looks a bit more like Alexander, hacking away at the knot. Each filed patent is a small solution for a small problem within a greater context. Invention can be a clumsy process, whose means often look much like strokes of Alexander’s blade; in the end, besides an untangled knot, frayed rope -- cut to bits -- litters the Temple floor.

So, which approach correctly describes how technology really progresses? Is it one giant teleonomic process whose end goals might mirror (or be) perfection?5 Or is it a series of teleonomic actions on a small scale with limited ends, whose sum adds up to less than its constituent parts? (The question of whether technological change is even human-directed is another thing altogether – on par with whether human existence itself is somehow teleonomic and directed towards other purposes.)