Study On The Critical Theory Of Modern Technology In Historical Materialism

This dissertation reflects on modern technology, employing the critical theory inhistorical materialism. Reflections and diagnoses based on the theory are still astute inunderstanding the problems or dilemma of modern technology, although they are overa hundred years apart from Marx’s time. Not only is the theory not outdated, but it hasbeen an inescapable landmark. The critical theory of modern technology is, to a largeextent, the contemporary effect in historical materialism. This contemporary effect notonly provides a broad horizon for us to understand the problems in modern technology,but also expands the dimension of reinterpretation of historical materialism.Modern thinkers all reflect on the future of humanity in the age of moderntechnology. An anthropological approach not only provides a clear-cut study route, butalso highlights the eternal theme of human’s pursuit of freedom and happiness. Thestructure of this dissertation is as follows:Chapter1introduces the most popular view on understanding technology, namely,the tool-anthropological approach, Jaspers being the major representative. Through theanalysis of tools, technology boils down to an item in human nature. He proposes thatregulation of human ideas could help avoid adverse consequences brought about byhuman actions and tools. This view exemplifies the limitation catalogued in Marx’scritique of the18th century natural technology. By putting technology into capitalistsocial systems, Marx clearly distinguishes technical artifacts and capital. Marx’s viewof historical technology reevaluates the relationship between technology, people andnature. It provides a new perspective for the dialectical understanding of issues intechnology.Chapter2states that a non-anthropological approach to understand technology is favored by many thinkers, since the anthropological approach itself is Plato’shumanism. Heidegger is the major representative of the former approach. He points outthat the essence of modern technology lies in the modern metaphysics of subject. SinceMarx’s theory involves the essential dimension of history, Heidegger believes that it isthe superior history. He sees Marx as the concluding piece of metaphysics. His critiqueof Marx is an attempt at opening new ways different from the western traditionalthoughts. However, his complete denial of human as the subject and of productivepractice leads his theory into a waiting state shrouded in pessimism. Thus he wasunable to understand the historical mode of existence.Chapter3illustrates the negative-anthropological approach, Gunther Andersbeing the main representative. He identifies with Heidegger’s view of productioncontaining the risk of self-destruction, but opposes to his denial of human’s active role,and thus in this aspect closer to Marx. Anders affirms man’s creative nature, but hisconcern is the aspect of plasticity. He partially absorbs Marx’s Alienation Theory andpoints out that modern technology has become the absolute command to human beings.He calls on people not only to change the world, but to pay more attention to theunderstanding and interpretation of changes in the world, because, the world may nolonger require human. Anders’s return to practice, to some extent, brings back thereality tension between changing the world and understanding the world. However, dueto lack of social historical vision, his version of practice lost the realistic foundation.So the result inevitably falls into pessimism of human destruction. What is therelationship between man and (changing) the world? It is necessary to return to Marx’soriginal context.