The Space Shuttle Misdirection
Wang Huning
January 1, 1991
航天飞机的误导
Introduction
Note: The following translation is taken from Politburo Standing Committee member Wang Huning’s 1991 book, America Against America. It is one of several excerpts of this book translated by the Center for Strategic Translation. A general introduction to the book, as well as links to the other excerpts, can be found here.
Thus far we have seen Wang Huning marvel at the wonders of American science and ponder the sources of America’s technological might. In the sections of America Against America translated below, Wang Huning turns that last question on its head. Instead of asking what aspects of American society push Americans to build the technologies of tomorrow, Wang instead asks how technological progress has changed the nature of American society. He treats this question in two sections of America Against America. The first is found in a chapter devoted to the American national character, the second in a chapter that describes the various techniques of social control Wang observed while traveling through the United States.1 Both of these passages are translated below. They reach a similar conclusion: Americans’ most abiding faith is in science and technology. There is no authority that Americans trust more. To every social, ethical, or even spiritual problem the American first seeks a technical or scientific solution.
Wang is skeptical of this impulse. He asks his readers to consider the situation faced by Americans with physical disabilities. There is no shortage of American engineers and inventors ready to craft new machinery to ease their difficulties. Thus the infirm may purchase motorized wheel chairs; the blind may buy computers that respond to voice commands. These devices improve the wellbeing of those who use them—within limits. However, no machine can protect them from the prejudice of their countrymen. No device can defend the dignity of the downtrodden. These problems defy technological solutions.
Wang argues that the American love affair with gadgetry can be understood as a convenient diversion from this class of thorny moral and political problems. Thus the space shuttle Discovery, celebrated in other parts of America Against America as the physical embodiment of the American spirit of ingenuity,2 is here described as an expensive boondoggle whose true mission has less to do with new scientific frontiers than with saving the political fortunes of a government agency threatened by potential budget cuts. Science promises to reveal basic truths about physical reality; the aura of science, on the other hand, obscures as much as it unveils.
Most obscured of all is the relationship Americans have with technology itself. Wang describes modern Americans as “more obedient to the technological than… the political.” Wang finds this disquieting. Science and technology were created to empower human action. However, modern technology is such a powerful force that individual human action seems to shrink in its shadow. Thus “with great techno-scientific development comes an illusion: it seems that the agent ultimately solving a difficult problem is not human. Rather, science and technology become the ultimate power while man becomes their slave.” In a developed economy men do not direct machines so much as accept direction from them.
Technology’s power to “govern man” is partially a function of ideology: science has intellectual authority that other institutions and bodies of knowledge lack. But material realities also play their part. In an advanced economy production is broken up into innumerable stages. Each stage is the product of specialized machinery and expertise. In this mode of production workers are the functional equivalent of specialized equipment; even if they have advanced degrees or decades of professional experience, the scale of technological systems and the importance of specialized technical knowledge ensures that the activities of the vast majority of workers are contained within a narrow ambit. “Techno-scientific development,” Wang concludes, “fragments society into small, interconnected nodes, with each person occupying their own node [in the chain].” Life as an atomized node has predictable psychological consequences: modern man thinks of himself as the servant, not the master, of the technological systems he operates.
Fears like these have a long history in the Marxist tradition. In the history of technology Marx and Engels saw a dialectic process: each new mode of production further freed the human race from the tyranny of blind natural forces—but at the cost of further subordinating human freedom to blind artificial forces. Modern modes of production are “like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells.”3 If, as Engels maintains, capitalism is a system where “the product enslaves first the producer and then the appropriator,” then the purpose of socialist revolution is to “transform [these] master demons into willing servants.”4 Classical Marxist theory thus promises a world where conscious, rational actors—in the form of state planners—wrest control of the blind forces unleashed by the scientific revolution, returning human agency to human history.5
Wang came of age in socialist China. The socialist reality he grew up with did not measure up to these Marxist ideals. Wang understood the limits of state planning—and is accordingly fascinated with the decentralized systems that order American society without central direction. He devotes many pages of America Against America to describing how these systems function.6 But beneath his enthusiasm is an undercurrent of anxiety. He worries that modern men are too easily dominated by their own creations. These fears are hardly Wang’s alone: worries that perverse financial instruments, manipulative algorithms, and addicting digital playgrounds hijack Chinese minds for their own “irrational” agenda are widespread in China, and lay behind the 2021 crackdown on Chinese video game companies, online fandoms, and tech sector monopolies.7
Given these fears, why do Chinese leaders not embrace luddism outright? Once again, Wang Huning may provide an answer. “If the Americans are to be overtaken,” he writes, “one thing must be done: surpass them in science and technology.” American power, prestige, and prosperity are all downstream their advances in science and technology. China must do its best to follow suit. “There is no society that can do without technology,” Wang concludes. “Therefore, as science and technology develop the questions we must consider are not that simple…. The key question is how to make choices under certain historical conditions, and how we bring about the harmonization of society once these choices are made.”
—THE EDITORS
1. Wang Huning 王沪宁, Meiguo Fandui Meiguo 美国反对美国 [America Against America] (Shanghai: Shanghai Wenyi Chuban She 上海文艺出版社 [Shanghai Humanities Publishing Co.], 1991), ch. 3, section 5, p. 88-91; ch. 4, section 6, p. 146-150.
2. Wang, America Against America, ch. 3, section 2, p. 47.
3. Karl Marx, “Manifesto of the Communist Party,” Marx-Engels Internet Archive, 2000.
4. Frederick Engels, “Historical Materialism,” In Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Marx-Engels Internet Archive, 2003.
5. For a history of Marxist theory that traces this concept from Marx through glasnost, see Andrzej Walicki, Marxism and the Leap to the Kingdom of Freedom: The Rise and Fall of the Communist Utopia (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995).
6. Wang, America Against America, ch. 1, section 4; ch. 4 entire, ch. 8 entire.
7. Or at least, these worries were often expressed by Chinese commentators who attempted to explain the logic of the crackdowns (and the related regulations over algorithms, data privacy, and so forth). For the “irrational” comment, see Jun Mai, “‘Irrational Expansion of Capital’ behind China’s Fan Culture and Tech Monopolies,” South China Morning Post, August 31, 2021.
For other prominent examples, see Li Guangman 李光满, “Mei ge ren dou neng gan shou dao, yi chang shen ke de bian ge zheng zai jin xing! 每个人都能感受到,一场深刻的变革正在进行! [Every Person Can Feel It, a Profound Transformation is Taking Place!], Zhongqin Zaixian 中青在线 [Chinese Youth Online], 29 August 2021. Meiri Jinji Xinwen 每日经济新闻 [Daily Economic News], “Gao bu liang “fan quan” de liangle! Guojia chushou, 4000 duo ge zhanghao bei chuzhi, 800 duo ge huati bei jiesan. 搞不良“饭圈”的凉了!国家出手,4000多个账号被处置,800多个话题被解散 [The improper “fan circles” are in trouble! The country has taken action, more than 4,000 accounts have been dealt with, and more than 800 topics have been dissolved],” Xinlang Xinwen 新浪新闻 [Sina News], 4 August 2021. Tu Zhuxi 兔主席 [Chairman Rabbit], “Ong zhengdu jiao pei chanye kan zhong guo zhili yu hangye da zhengzhi. 从整顿教培产业看中国治理与行业大政治 [Looking at China’s Governance and Industry Politics Through the Rectification of the Education Industry],” Chairman Rabbit Wechat Account, 24 July 2021.
- Originally Written By
- Wang Huning
- Translated By
- Aaron Hebenstreit; Ethan Franz
- Publisher
- America Against America
The Space Shuttle Misdirection
航天飞机的误导
The space shuttle Discovery launches successfully, speeding like Pegasus into the blue expanse.1 Live footage of the event was broadcast by all of the television networks. For Americans the successful launch was extraordinary because, for more than two years after January 1986, the country did not launch any space shuttles at all. That year, the explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger and the tragic deaths of astronauts on board shook the world.2 One could say that the launch of the Discovery two years later helped realize the dreams of many people.
“发现号”航天飞机发射成功,飞黄腾达,直奔蓝天。各电视网都播发了现场镜头。这次发射成功,对美国人来说非同凡响。1986 年 1 月以后的两年多时间,美国没有发射过航天飞机。那一年,“挑战者号”爆炸,宇航员不幸遇难,曾震动世界。两年半之后,“发现号”发射成功,不能不说实现了许多人的梦想。
The space shuttle program best exemplifies the American spirit as it was described by Henry Steele Commager: “the American came to believe that nothing was beyond his power, and to be impatient with any success that was less than triumph.”3 The exploration of space embodies precisely that belief. The process of manufacturing, launching, and controlling the space shuttle is extraordinarily complex. One need only see the dizzying array of hundreds of computers in the control center to imagine the technological capabilities required. The United States space administration [NASA] has spent the two and a half years since the Challenger accident improving the space shuttle program, making more than 400 technological improvements in total.
航天飞机的计划最好地体现了美国人的一种精神,也就是康马杰所云:美国人的信念是没有什么事是办不到的,除非得到全胜就绝不罢休。对太空的探索恰恰体现了这种信念。航天飞机的制造、发射和控制过程异常复杂。只要看一下控制中心令人眼花缭乱的成百台电脑,就可以想象这里面需要的科技能力。自从“挑战者号”出事之后,美国航天部门,花了两年半的时间来改进计划,共作了四百多项技术改进。
The convictions of Americans are just like [the incident] described above. They are confident that there is always a way, unremitting in their perseverance. That spirit has led them to pursue a great number of extremely bold and daring ideas, such as the Star Wars program and the space shuttle.4 It also prompted them to embrace many smaller, less eye-catching inventions, such as a machine for opening envelopes, a machine for opening cans, an electric pencil sharpener, and so on. It should be noted that such a belief is a very important force for advancing social development.
美国人的信念是如上所说,所以他们坚信能找到办法,坚持不懈。这种精神促使他们进行许多极为大胆的想象,如星球大战计划、航天飞机等,也促使他们接受许多不起眼的小发明,如开信封的机器,开罐头的机器,电动削铅笔刀等。应当说,这种信念是推动社会发展的非常重要的一股力量。
However, this belief can also have an alienating effect.5 These beliefs have led Americans to come up with numerous ways to resolve the problems they face, the result being a high degree of scientific and technological development. However, with great scientific and technological development also comes an illusion: it seems that the agent ultimately solving a difficult problem is not human; rather, science and technology become the ultimate power while man becomes their slave.
不过,这种信念也会异化。这种信念促使美国人想出各种办法来解决面临的问题,结果是科学技术的高度发达,但科学技术高度发达之后,人们又往往产生错觉,似乎最终解决难题的不是人,而是科学技术成为最终的力量,人成了它的奴仆。
A professor and I were discussing this and we felt the same way. This illusion dominates a large part of [American] society. Faced with various complicated socio-cultural problems, Americans often think about them as if they were scientific or technological problems. Alternatively, they become a problem of money—a result of commercialism—rather than a problem of human beings and their subjective [experience]. The same is true in the political arena. Their approach to dealing with the growing capabilities of the Soviet Union was the desperate attempt to develop equipment that would be superior to Soviet weapon systems, including, eventually, the Star Wars program. Their method for dealing with terrorism is to strike the opponent with advanced firepower. Their solution to handling threats to international waters is a powerful and well-equipped fleet. The way to deal with regimes they do not like is to supply the opposition with vast numbers of advanced weapons. [Other] typical examples of this [attitude] are the devices provided to the disabled, such as the automatically guided wheelchair, the bedside service device that obeys commands, and eyeglasses that can provide orientation. With these aids, persons with disabilities can move freely, but as human beings, their problems are not solved. The same holds true in politics and international relations.
一位教授和我讨论这个问题,也有同感。这种错觉主导着很大一部分社会。在一些错综复杂的社会文化问题面前,美国人往往会认为是科学技术问题。或者是钱的问题(这是商业主义精神的结果),而不是人的问题,主观性的问题。在政治领域也是如此。对待苏联实力增长的态度是拼命发展优于苏联武器系统的装备,包括最终提出的星球大战计划。对待恐怖主义的方法,就是用先进的攻击力量打击对方。对待国际海域的威胁,就是强大的设备精良的舰队。对待不喜欢的政权,就是向反对派提供大量先进的武器。最典型的说明就是残疾人得到的装备,自动导向的轮掎,可以听从命令的床边服务设备,可以导向的眼镜。残疾人可以自由行动。但作为人,他们的问题没有解决。在政治和国际关系领域中,也如此。
On one hand, [the American] people put excessive faith in technology, and on the other hand, technology is also becoming a part of politics. After the successful launch of the Discovery, Forrest McCartney, director of the Kennedy Space Center, said: “Certainly, every American must be proud today.”6 President Reagan watched the television broadcast in Washington and delivered a speech in which he said “America is back in space.”7 In fact,the space program has been a measure of the geopolitical balance since its inception. In the 1960s, the Soviet Union successfully landed on the moon, sending the Americans into a fury. President Kennedy ordered an all-out effort to develop the space program, and the subsequent landing of a man on the moon with the Apollo missions overtook the Soviet Union. Behind technological competition lies political competition; the political necessitates the technological, which, in turn, supports more political competition.
一方面人们过分信仰技术,另一方面技术也成为政治。“发现号”发射成功后,肯尼迪航天中心主任佛莱斯特·麦克卡尼(Forrest McCartney)说:“今天每个美国人都肯定扬眉吐气。”总统里根在华盛顿看了电视,并发表演说:“美国重新回到了空间。”其实,航天计划从一开始就是政治砝码。六十年代,苏联登月成功,美国人大为恼怒,肯尼迪总统下令全力发展航天计划,后阿波罗登月,压倒苏联一筹。技术竞争背后存在着政治竞争,政治竞争需要技术竞争、技术竞争支持政治竞争。
In the twentieth century, an important trend for humanity is the high degree to which [our] politics and technology are now integrated. Politics without technology cannot become strong politics. Of course, no technology without politic[al support] can become a powerful technology, either.
二十世纪人类的一个重要走向,就是政治与技术的高度一体化,没有技术的政治无法成为强大的政治,当然,没有政治的技术也成不了强大的技术。
As a result of the combination of technology and politics, technology itself is alienated. The phenomenon is on particularly stark display in the United States. Sometimes it is not man that masters technology, but technology that masters man.
由于技术与政治的这种结合,技术本身异化了。这一现象在美国尤为鲜明。有时候,不是人掌握技术,而是技术掌握人。
If the Americans are to be overtaken, one thing must be done: surpass them in science and technology. However, [the situation] many nations find themselves in is not the same [as in the United States]. It is not sufficient for them to simply possess technology; [they also must reach specific] cultural, psychological, and sociological conditions.
如果要压倒美国人,必须做一件事情:在科学技术上超越他们。对很多民族却不一样,有技术不行,还必须有文化的、心理的和社会学的条件。
The Americans have long been in a position of superiority, having come into their dominant status shortly after World War I. In the 70 years since, several generations have been born in the United States. Those born after World War II are now already in their forties. That generation of Americans is even more steeped in the atmosphere of “America is Number One” This has shaped a certain mentality. The United States is a nation of people who cannot bear the thought of losing. Their sense of technological superiority has gradually developed into a feeling of national superiority. [To them, the idea] that any nation might surpass them is unimaginable.
美国人长期处在优越的地位,差不多从一次世界大战之后,它的优越地位就形成了。七十年时间里,美国有过几代人,二次大战之后出生的人目前也已是四十多岁。这一代美国人更是处在“美国第一”的氛围之中,心理上形成一种定势。因而,美国也是输不起的民族。技术优越感已渐渐发展成民族优越感,他们不能想象有什么民族可以超越他们。
The rapid rise of Japan during the post-war decades has been characterized by exceptionally fast development in high-tech fields, and it has already surpassed the United States in certain areas, such as electronics and automobiles. Japanese products have poured into the U.S. market, accompanied by a flood of Japanese money into the country. It has been said that a good amount of real estate in Hawaii has fallen into Japanese hands, and as they bought houses in droves it caused land prices to skyrocket. Americans are indignant about it and tend to be dismissive of the Japanese, and often disdainful in the way they talk about them. For a long time, Americans were reluctant to recognize Japan’s success. Harvard professor Ezra Vogel went to great lengths to make Americans understand this success, and his work Japan as Number One: Lessons for America was a real awakening for them.8 I believe Americans will encounter a similar situation again [in the future].
日本在战后几十年中迅速崛起,在高科技领域中发展异常快速,在有些方面已超越美国,如电子产品、汽车等。日本产品大量涌入美国市场,日本资金也大量涌入美国。有人说夏威夷的地产不少落入日本人手中,由于日本人纷纷来买房子,弄得地价飞涨。美国人对此是不服气的,对日本人往往不屑一顾,谈起来总带有轻蔑的神态。美国人在很长时间里不愿承认日本的成功。哈佛大学教授傅高义为使美国人明白这一点,花了不少气力。他的《日本名列第一》令美国人如梦初醒。类似的状况,我想美国人还会遇到。
The space shuttle is also related to this intriguing intersection of politics and technology; in fact, this type of advanced technology epitomizes the relationship. Some scholars have come to that realization and have started critiquing “alienation.” As a physics professor by the name of Allen argued, after the Challenger disaster, NASA prioritized successful launches for the purpose of saving face and for political reasons.9
政治和技术的这种奇妙的交合,也涉及航天飞机。而且这种高科技更是这种关系的集中反映。一些学者已经意识到这一点,开始批评这种“异化”。有一位叫阿伦(Allen)的物理学教授就认为,在“挑战者号”发射失败之后,为了挽回面子和出于政治上的动机,宇航局把发射成功放在首位。
When I say misdirection of the space shuttle, it is really just a metaphor. In fact, I am referring to the misdirection of science and technology, and I believe it may take generations for Americans to recognize this misdirection.
我说航天飞机的误导,只是个比喻,实际上指科学技术的误导。美国人可能需要花几代人的时间才能认识到这种“误导”。
Technology Governs Man
科技治人
America is a country where everyone reveres individualism. Individualism reigns supreme and there is no power that has the authority to interfere with it. This is the impression one has when asking most people. [However,] those anxious about the excesses of individualism are also numerous. When they interact with Americans those coming from different cultural backgrounds will notice that American individualism is always evident even though not all aspects [of it are always obvious]. At times it is hard to accept.
美国是一个人人崇尚个人主义的国家,个人主义至高无上,没有任何力量有权干预个人主义。问大部分人,都会得到这样的印象。担心个人主义太盛的人也大有人在。来自其他文化氛围的人,与美国人相处久了,可以发现他们的个人主义(不是全部)是明显而且有时难以接受的。
Given their stance that individual freedom and the sanctity of the private sphere cannot be encroached upon, what force organizes more than two hundred million people, causing them to participate in every part of this great societal machine, allowing it to operate normally? In this lies a paradox: the normal operations of societies, especially large-scale ones, require their members to properly cooperate and act in concert, yet the people [in these societies] pursue values where the individual and the private sphere are paramount.
鉴于这种主张个人自由和私域神圣不可侵犯的状况,是什么力量把这两亿多人组织起来,使他们加入社会这个大机器的每个环节,使这个社会能正常运转呢?这里面有个悖论:社会尤其是大型社会的正常运转需要社会成员的良好协作和共同行动,而人们追求的价值又是个人至上和私域至上。
Political institutions harmonize. Laws harmonize. Gains, losses, and the relationship between them harmonize. Currencies harmonize. Other similar [forces] also harmonize. In all of these kinds of harmonization there is a power that cannot be overlooked: science and technology. The development of science and technology works in two respects.
协调这种关系的有各种力量,政治制度的协调、法律的协调、利害关系的协调、金钱的协调,如此等等。在各种协调中,有一种力量不能忽视,这就是科学技术,科学技术的发展在两个方向上产生作用:
In one respect, science and technology’s advanced development requires a more meticulous division of labor where every person has their own defined task. Thus science and technology guarantee the values of individualism. Automation and electronification cause every person to complete their designated work in their designated position with no need to depend on other humans, or to obey the commands of another human. They only need to depend on a machine; the only commands they obey are that of a machine. This is the aspect of human alienation analyzed by Herbert Marcuse.10 Applying science and technology–especially advanced technology–in a particular manufacturing process requires splitting this process into innumerable parts. Each and every part requires someone to take charge of it. Even if [any particular] part is minute, replacing the person [tasked with it] without training would be very difficult. The more advanced the technology, the more this is the case.
一方面,科学技术的高度发达要求更精细的分工,使每个人都有自己明确的任务,这从技术上保证了个人主义的价值观念。自动化、电子化,使每个人在自己特定的岗位上完成特定的工作,不需要依附别人,不需要服从人的命令。只依附机器,服从机器的命令。这也正是马尔库塞所分析的人的异化的一个方面。科学技术,尤其是高科技,要应用于具体生产过程,必得分解为数不胜数的环节,每个环节都需要有人专门负责。尽管是一个非常细小的环节,但没有经过训练的人很难取代他。越是高科技,越是如此。
A seventeenth century artisan crafted their products from beginning to end. Today, circumstances have completely changed. Generally speaking, the development of science and technology has improved the status of individuals, increased individual self-consciousness, and strengthened the sense of individual responsibility. It has caused every individual to find their determined position in the great societal machine. [In contrast], in societies where technology is not as developed, or where traditional methods are used to produce [goods], any given individual’s position in that society is not very explicit, roles are interchangeable, and the probability of chaotic and unstable social organization is greater. The primary reason [for this] is that roles are fungible. This not only has economic implications but also political ones. As long as a large part of the people within a society are unclear about their [respective] roles then that society may find itself in the midst of systemic chaos.
十七世纪时的工匠们一个人可以从头至尾制造一个产品,如今情形却已彻底改观。科学技术的这种发展,泛泛地说,提高了个人的地位,增长了个人的自我意识,强化了个人的责任感。使每个个人都找到在社会这个大机器中的确定的位置。而在科技不那么发达或用传统方式生产的社会中,个人在社会中的位置不很明确,角色可以互换,社会组织的混乱和不稳定的可能性较大,主要原因在于角色的可以互换性。这不仅有经济的含义,而且有政治的含义。在一个社会中,只要相当一大部分人对自己的角色不明确,这个社会就可能处在结构性的混乱之中。
In another respect, techno-scientific development demands exacting organization. On the one hand, science and technology need to be broken into small parts in order to operate. On the other hand, these parts ultimately must be linked together, becoming a complete entity. This is the strongest organizational force in [modern] society. While it lies outside the confines of politics and law, it is [nonetheless] very powerful. Science and technology use rational logic to persuade people to obey strict regulations, a process which curbs the supremacy of individualism. Imagine the space shuttle project and how many people are needed to work on it. Imagine how the company IBM organizes every individual to work for it. This type of command is not political but technological–what John Kenneth Galbraith calls “the imperatives of technology.”11
另一方面,科技发展也要求严密的组织。一方面是将科技化为各个细小的环节以便能够操作,另一方面是这些环节最终要能够联结起来,能够成为一个整体。这是一个社会最强大的组织力量。它在政治力量和法律力量之外,但强大有力。科技用理性的逻辑说服人们服从一个严格的规则。这个过程制约个人主义至上的观念。可以想象,象航天飞机这样的工程,需要多少人为之服务,需要多少人处在它的严密的组织体系之中。可以想象,IBM 公司怎样把每个个人组织起来,为之服务。这种命令不是政治的命令,而是技术的命令,如加尔布雷斯(John Kenneth Galbraith)所说,是 imperatives of Technology(工艺的命令)。
Contemporary human society is characterized by a peculiar phenomenon: it is immensely more difficult for people to obey political and legal commands than it is for them to obey techno-scientific imperatives. Before taking medicine everyone will cautiously study its “drug facts” label. But [when it comes to] putting an end to racial prejudice, [something that] requires obedience to a single [national] will, compliance with the exhortations of politicians is far less frequent.
今天的人类社会有一个奇特的现象:要人们服从政治命令和法律命令,比要人们服从科技命令,要困难百倍。每个人在服药前都会认真研究注意事项,小心翼翼。但在废止种族歧视,服从一种意志方面,听从政治家的劝告的人要少得多。
Societies with advanced techno-scientific development generally have higher degrees of social organization, whereas in areas without advanced science and technology the degree of social organization and rationalization will be lower. A large part of American social organization is performed by large companies and corporations implementing the logic of science and technology. In a society where the economy is not as developed, a strange phenomenon can often be seen. In areas [of that society] where advanced technology has developed, the degree of organization is much higher than the general societal standard.
在高科技发展的社会中,社会的组织程度一般均较高,而在高科技或科技不发达的地方,社会的组织程度往往要低一些,合理化的程度也要低一些。美国社会的组织,很大一部分功能由实现科技逻辑的大公司和企业承担着。在一些经济不那么发达的社会中,往往可以看到一些奇怪的现象,在某些实现高科技的领域和地方,组织化的程度要远远高于社会一般水平。
Scholars have also researched this problem. The famous economist [John Kenneth] Galbraith voices this viewpoint in his work The New Industrial State. He argues that the widespread implementation of technology will bring about six outcomes:
学者们对这个问题也有研究。著名经济学家加尔布雷斯在他的著作《新工业国》(The New Industrial State)中,谈了他的观点。他认为科技的广泛推行会导致六个结果:
First, the use of science and technology will split the beginning and ending phases [of production]. Second, capital used for production will increase. Third, time and financial resources expended in production will [become] more regular and be used for completing specific jobs. Fourth, technology will require specialized manpower. Fifth, science and technology [will] require a high degree of organization. Sixth, due to the use of time and financial resources, the need for large-scale organization, and the market conditions under high technology, society will require planning.
(1)科技运用将任何工作的开始与最后完成分开;(2)用于生产的资本将增加;(3)时间和财力将更加固定,用于完成特定的工作;(4)技术要求专门化的人力;(5)科技要求高度的组织化;(6)由于时间和财力的运用,由于需要大型组织,由于高科技下的市场条件,社会需要计划。
Therefore, Galbraith’s view is that the development and use of science and technology will necessarily lead to greater social organization. Various economic and techno-scientific systems will be decided by professional managers who administer the system in its entirety. Galbraith calls this the “technostructure.” The final result of this technological development is that a portion of the population assumes managerial functions automatically, [acting as] non-political administrators. This kind of management can alleviate the burden placed on political systems to a great degree. One of the functions of a political system is to harmonize human behavior. If one mechanism can keep this behavior within the scope of rational behavior, society will be easier to govern.
所以加布尔雷斯的观念是,科技的发展和运用必然导致社会更有组织。各个经济和科技系统,将由一些职业的经理决策,他们管理着整个系统。加尔布雷斯称之为“技术结构”(Technostructure)。科技发展的结局是:有一部分人自动承担起管理人的功能,他们是非政治的管理。但这种管理在很大程度上可以减轻政治系统的负担。政治系统的功能之一就是协调人的行为,如果一种机制可以将人的行为限制在合理化的幅度内,社会将便于治理。
Another contemporary author, John Naisbitt, described the same phenomenon in his book Megatrends: The New Directions Transforming Our Lives. [His analysis] is more human, more psychological, and more physiological. He uses [the terms] “High Tech” and “High Touch” to describe this process. He uses the phrase “Forced Technology” to describe the great power that comes when technology governs man.12 As advanced science and technology is used it binds man ever more firmly into the techno-scientific process, leading to alienation. This causes [people] to resist this kind of governing power. They resist both the technology for electronic transfers and the technology used in automatic inquiry. Naisbitt attributes this to [the fact] that the techno-scientific causes man to lose [human] contact and interaction, thereby producing a rebellious mentality.
当代的另一位作家约翰·奈斯比特(John Naisbitt)在《大趋势:改变我扪生活的十个方向》(Megatrends: The New Directions Transforming Our Lives)一书中描绘了同样的的现象,但更加人性化,更加心理化,更加生理化。他用了 High Tech 和 High Touch(高科技,高感应)来描绘这个过程。他把科技治人的强大力量描给成 Forced Technology(强制的工艺),高科技的应用,把人越来越牢固地束缚在科技过程中,人异化了。于是产生了对这种治人力量的反抗:反抗电子转账技术,反对电子自动查询技术。奈斯比特将之归结为科技使人失去了人的接触和感应,所以人们要产生逆反心理。
In fact, another layer can be added [to this]: the giant strides in techno-scientific development have perfected the means for governing man, possibly breaking through ordinary technological management and penetrating the inner world of every person, infiltrating people’s private sphere. In present-day America, there is generally no power that can break through faith in individualism and the barriers [surrounding] the private sphere. [But] science and technology have this power. They guarantee material rewards, which is another condition [for their success].
实际上,还可以加上一层,就是科技发展的突飞猛进使其自身治人的手段高度完善,有可能突破一般的技术性管理,而走向每个人的内心世界,侵入人们的私域。在今日之美国,大概没有什么力量可以冲破个人主义的信念和私域的藩篱,科技却有这个力量。科技保证着物质报酬,这是另一项条件。
Man yearns for “high touch.” This is a sign of resistance against being governed [by technology] this way. [But this resistance itself] demonstrates the potency of governing men through technology.
人们向往高感应,是反抗治理的表现,正好说明科技治人的能量。
That technology governs man is an outcome which completely contradicts mankind’s [earlier] expectations. [It is much like the saying] “as flowers planted carefully fail to bloom, a branch stuck thoughtlessly in the mud grows into a willow.”13 Those that advocated using science and technology in times past did not have a clear understanding of how they would eventually become a method for managing men, yet the use of science and technology has now become one of society’s greatest methods for managing men. To a great degree, American society is managed by a technological order. Man is more obedient to the technological than he is to the political. Techno-scientific development fragments society into small, interconnected nodes, with each person occupying their own node [in the chain]. Entering a node requires specialized technical expertise. The educational system also fundamentally revolves around this aim. Hence, education is also incorporated into this governing process. Education ceaselessly gives rise to and develops the power and culture of technology governing man.
科技治人完全是出乎人的意料之外的结果,可谓有意栽花花不发,无心插柳柳成行。先前主张运用技术的人并没有明确意识到它们将成为管理人的一种手段,而今科技应用成为社会最强大的管理人的手段之一。在很大程度上,美国社会是由科技程序来管理的。人们服从科技甚于服从政治。科技发展把社会分解为相互联结的微小领域,每个人占据一个领域。要进入一个领域需要有特殊的技能,教育体制基本上也围绕这个目标活动。于是,教育又被纳入这个管理过程。教育不断衍生和发展科技治人的能量和科技治人的文化。
Radicals criticize this phenomenon as alienation. From a human perspective, this [position] is tenable. However, there is no society that can do without technology, and the logic of technology has no other conclusion. Clearly, assigning value to science and technology, venerating science and technology, or even using science and technology are in no ways simply questions of production, economics, or technology itself. Therefore, as science and technology develop the questions we must consider are not that simple. All things have their advantages and disadvantages. The key [question] is how to make choices under certain historical conditions, and how we bring about the harmonization [of society] once these choices are made.
激进派批评这一现象为异化,从人的角度来说,可以成立。但没有一个社会可以不要科技,而科技的逻辑必然如此。重视科技、崇仰科技、应用科技,显而易见这不仅仅是一个生产的,或经济的或纯技术的问题。因此,在发展科技的同时,要思考的问题恐怕不是那样简单。任何事物都有好和坏,关键是在什么历史条件下做选择,选择了之后如何协调。