The Actuality and Reality of Technology. Colonialism and Modern Japan

The Actuality and Reality of Technology
Mina Song
995254629
EAS374 Colonialism and Modern Japan
Professor Ken Kawashima
April 10th 2012
In recent generations, technology takes many forms. It has been said that technologies enjoy certain degrees of deification in cultural history and social theory. They are seen as obscure origins that have descended to impact human relations. Some have described technologies as primary agents of historical change. The way we view and interpret things have changed as a result of changes in technology. For example, the way we do businesses has changed after the introduction of telephones and telex, the way we listen to music has also transformed after the introduction of phonographs.  Karl Marx opined that the relation of man to nature is revealed in technology. Technology affects the direct process of man’s production and consequently has got an impact on production process of social relations that affect man’s life. To a larger extent, it has got a relation to the mental concepts that arise from the relation. Karl Marx tries to shed light the idea that technology constitutes production means and in particular labor means.  Different theories have been laid out to evaluate and examine the actuality or reality of technology. Many philosophers have argued that progress and development are mainly ideologies of technology. That technology in a capitalist commodity is and has never been about progress or development. The ideas about technology in capitalism are never real or even actual. Mechanical production has been proposed as the actuality of technology by Walter Benjamin. Taussig tried explaining the same by putting forward the idea that is organization of mimesis. Tosaka was of the idea that technical standards properly explained technology while Sterne held the idea of the resonant tomb. These are different views that the thesis will try look into in a bid to actually define the actuality or relation of technology to everyday life, colonialism and historical time. Tosaka’s Theory on Technology Tosaka criticizes the bourgeois philosophy for taking over the theories of technology. He argues that the philosophy has made the theories of technology to be related to economy and this has created obscurity since interrelations between techniques is unclear. Bourgeois’ thinking takes the form of technology and economy which have been embodied in technological and agricultural areas. Consequently, industrial and agricultural economies are the main areas of concern. However, one can easily find a connection between management and commercial techniques tied to these technologies. Tosaka is of the view that the term technique is misused in this context.  In a bid to correct the thinking around technology, Tosaka develops the ‘technological or technical standard’ so that mechanistic conception of technology can be avoided. He further gives the basic characteristic of technical standards as something which does not take a visible form and in comparison with means of labor, it lacks the materiality. However, as it tries to move away from materiality, it should be acknowledged that production forces in a society are material therefore it has to be material as well. Tosaka sees technological standard as a higher social abstract than production means or its organization. Hence it belongs to a more abstract idea of social institution. Through this, standard organization of means of labor and skills become one with labor power and they become connected practically and unified theoretically. This organization helps in measuring the technological standard as a social abstraction from the organization of means of labor.
In this proposition by Tosaka, expressions of expected results are deemed irrelevant. For instance, if one is of the opinion that a particular skill of labor power should work hand in hand to the organization of means of labor in a particular society, this is merely an expression of expected results. Continuous interactions between skills and organization of means of labor exist in actuality. Technological organization that concerns itself with technique is what Tosaka’s theory of technology is all about. The technical organization however can only take place –according to Tosaka- by good value of the available technological standard. Tosaka also tries to explain the meaning of the development of technology. He explains this by stating that from an objective standpoint it implies the rise of the technological standard of a society. He also explains that it is an ideology of the rise of the level of subjective skills of engineers. This explanation help Tosaka outweigh a mechanistic approach to technology. He says that subjectivity of intellectuals and the questions of intelligence of intelligentsia have been overlooked. Intelligentsia as a social stratum has attracted all the attention. He says that today’s intelligentsia lies in the question how intelligentsia will utilize their subjective intelligence. Additionally, the understanding of intelligentsia currently separates the quandary of intellectuals from the query of technology. This amounts to an anti-materialistic view of intellectuals. Human intelligence is derived from social life and nature, therefore to separate techniques from intelligence and purport that it can exist as an entity is asking to ignore the principle of materialism. Tosaka summarizes his theory by defining intelligence as one of the skills of labor power.  Walter Benjamin Mechanical Production Theory Men could imitate always man-made artifacts. For instance pupils made replicas or these arts while polishing and acquiring their skills. This mechanical production of art represented something new. Historically it advanced sporadically and at long intervals. Examples of mechanical production are evident in the Greeks who could only reproduce massively cottas, bronze and coins in quantity. Every other item however during this period was very unique and mechanical production was never possible. However over time scripts became reproducible, but before this, woodcut graphic art had existed. The writing process has been involved with a lot of mechanical production to date. During the middle ages engravings were made in the woodcut; however the 19th century lithography was introduced. This allowed books to be printed and circulated to the public in very large numbers. The same can be said of photos. During the middle ages, a painting was the only way to capture the visual emotion of a person or a particular scene, however, with time the development of pictorial production replaced the hand from its artistic function. All that was ever required was for the eye to peep through a lens. Since then pictorial production has accelerated at lightening speeds as the hand is slow to draw while the eye is very quick to or perceive. Technical production of sound additionally is an example of mechanical production.
By the 20th century, technical production of the different works of art had a reached a standard capable of reproducing all transmitted works of art. Photography and other forms of technical production of arts made it possible for the works of arts to be accessible to the masses. The art objects could now be easily transmitted and diffused into the masses and intensified political activities. Mechanization of arts made it possible and easy for politicians to sell there ideologies in an effort to outdo each other and gain popularity. Government communication became quicker, accurate and efficient because the information could be disseminated through mass media outlets and reach great masses.
 Benjamin tries to let us understand that humanity’s entire mode of existence changes human’s perception senses. Organization of human perception and its accomplishments is determined by nature and historical circumstances too. What these reproductions lack is the element of time and space. It lacks its own unique existence or a place where it belongs. The public usually changes their reaction towards mechanically reproduced art.
Taussig’s, “Mimetic Faculty” and the “Organization of Mimesis”
Mimesis is a philosophical term with a lot of importance and impact which essentially means to imitate. It also constitutes a mimicry, imitation and representation. Moreover, it is characterized by the resembling act, expression act and presentation of self. Amongst ancient Greeks, the idea governed art creation especially art that corresponded or that mimicked the physical world. In his work Mimesis and Alterity (1993), Taussig looks at the way a culture’s people adopt another’s nature and culture-which in itself is a process of mimesis-while still distancing themselves from it. The Cuna, have ended up adopting representations of various figures and white people’s reminiscent images they accounted in the past. The Cunas were impressed by the exotic technology of the Europeans that they mimicked it in some of their religious practices. In this context, the mimesis fundamentals compose of theories of language of people and of things concerning history, art in the generation of mechanical reproduction. It emanates from the confluence of primitivism and the resurgence of mimesis in relation to modernity. Therefore, mimesis is ...