A Little Debate About Technology
3
seems inappropriate: an innocent child dies as a consequence of a parent's sin. So it is with Watergate and its conse quences. Those proven guilty will pay the fines and serve the jail sentences. But there are innocent people caught in this vortex — jobs lost, reputations ruined, political structures damaged, and enor mous pain to the families of those in volved. It is a sad day for the Republican party, and a lot of Democrats are gleeful. They had better listen to John Wesley's dictum: "There but for the grace of God go I." And if Sen. Goldwater is right, fu ture disclosures might well reveal similar chicanery among the Democrats. If so, let judgment fall and justice be vindi cated! Is there any word of hope in this mess? SIR: When I heard that a technolo gist, a computer specialist, had attacked my book The Technological Society, I was quite pleased, for it is always a good idea to pay attention to criticism; it may lead one to revise his positions and sharpen his analyses. At the same time, I was surprised too, because generally — at least in France — it is the philosophers who object to my work and the scientists who agree with it. But when I read Thomas G. Don nelly's article ("In Defense of Tech nology ,'* Jan. 17 ) I wa s deep ly disap pointed and taken aback. Disappointed, because there is a great deal of anger in it, a great deal of fulmination arid anathematizing, but no evidence at all, no serious analysis, no fact (despite Donnelly's claim to the contrary). If I were to adopt his attitude, I would mere ly say that his article is superficial, a tissue of false accusations; that it reveals complete ignorance of sociology and complete incomprehension of my writ ings; and, finally, that it utterly distorts my thought. But let me try to do better than that. I shall not take it upon myself to answer those of Donnelly's strictures that are not directed at me. He charges, for example, that certain people insist that automation will result in massive unemployment. Well, I've never said anything of the sort anywhere. But I want to point out that on this question sociologists and economists are very much divided. There are two opposing views of it, both supported by equally strong evidence. Yet Donnelly, totally Of course. The biblical understanding of judgme nt is not punish ment alone, but also redemption. There is joy in judg ment. There is joy in the coming of the Lord. The re is jo y when the thief re pents and paradise is immediately opened to him. After David came Solo mon, and a large part of Solomon's wis dom came about because David had been unwise. We have been shown that a free press is not to be feared (e.g., for instant in terpretations of political speeches) — far from it; the press merits honor and pro tection for its devotion to truth during a time when a lot of us w ere swallowing the lies that were being fed to us as the truth. We have seen for ourselves that a balance of power between the executive ignoring the complexity of the case, set tles it by asse rting withou t proof that automation will not result in massive unemployment. I But as to what concerns me: Donnelly invariably distorts my statements. For example — for J adduce evidence — he says (p. 66) that in my book on the sub ject I define technology very broadly but deal only with industrial technology and do not consider such techniques as "political double-talk -. . . public rela tions trick ery . . . Machiavellian de ceit." In fact, however, that book of mine has a chapter on political tech niques and one on the technique of the humanistic sciences in which these ques tions are treated. Either Donnelly hasn't read the book or else he delib erately distorts it. Moreover, as the natural sequel to my Technological So- ciety, I wrote a book on propaganda, where he could have found a detailed dis cussion of these matters. He would have done better to read it before talking. Another example (p. 67): he accuses me of writing that "the machine" cannot be "checked or guided." I defy him to find such a statement anywhere in my writings. What I wrote is that the growth of technology as a system cannot be "checked or guided." (But perhaps Donnelly doesn't know that there is a system in sociology also.) On page 68 he says that I caricature those parts of the technological reality of which he has firsthand knowledge — "computers, mathematics, stochastics," etc. Well, I say and the legislative branches of govern ment is needed to provide a safeguard against irresponsible power, and that it is time for Congress to clean its own house, strengthen its own moral and intellectual fiber, and then t o r eassume its rightful place in this balancing of interests. And we have learned that power can be used either for good or for evil; but if those on the side of good lack vigilance, then evil will masquerade as good, and the destruction of high values, truth and genuine goodness is upon us. Let us, therefore — Republicans and Democrats alike — comfort one another in love, and perhaps there shall arise among us new political Solomons who will do what is right in the sight of the Lord. J. CLAUDE EVANS. practically nothing about computers in my Technological Society, because it was written between 1948 and 1950, and Donnelly must know that at that time the sociological problem of computers did not exist. About mathematical tech niques I say not a word in that book. And* its passages on stochastics (applica tion of the calculus of probabilities to economic phenomena) I submitted for revision to Prof. Rouquet, the outstand ing French economist who does stochas tics. But this too was in 1950. Now, these are virtually the only factual elements Donnelly advances, and they are all in exact. I hope that in his own field he is a litt le more e xact in the observation o f facts. I could do without another element in Donnelly's critique. He undertakes a psychological analysis, and declares sev eral times that in face of technology "philosophers and humanists" react with fear, hatred and a feeling of impotence. It is these emotions, he says, that account for their antitechnological stance. This is rather amusing (and, by the way, I am not a philosopher; I aim to be a sociolo gist). But here too .Don nell y simpl y makes assertions; he does not adduce a single fact in evidence. In return I could assert that he is so passionately devoted to technology, and so disconcerted over his inability to come up with a scientific rebuttal of sociological criticism of tech nology, that he gives way to anger and blindly piles up accusations. That's an argument as good as his. Elsewhere in his piece he says -» again without proof — that I am "conservative and reactionary." The truth is, I have always said that it's not a question either of returning to the Middle Ages or of doing without the benefits we might gain from-technology. I said as much in the preface of the very book Donnelly at tacks. Maybe he hasn't read it? Finally, Donnelly thinks he is doing a subtle bit of analysis when he suggests Reader's Response A Li tt le Debate About Tec hnolo gy Replying to Tho mas G . Donne lly 70 6 the christian CENTURY
Transcript of A Little Debate About Technology
7/28/2019 A Little Debate About Technology
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-little-debate-about-technology 1/3
seems inappropriate: an innocent childdies as a consequence of a parent's sin.So it is with Watergate and its consequences. Those proven guilty will pay thefines and serve the jail sentences. Butthere are innocent people caught in thisvortex — jobs lost, reputations ruined,political structures damaged, and enormous pain to the families of those involved. It is a sad day for the Republicanparty, and a lot of Democrats are gleeful.They had better listen to John Wesley'sdictum: "There but for the grace of Godgo I." And if Sen. Goldwater is right, future disclosures might well reveal similarchicanery among the Democrats. If so,let judgment fall and justice be vindicated!
Is there any word of hope in this mess?
SIR: When I heard that a technologist, a computer specialist, had attackedmy book The Technological Society, Iwas quite pleased, for it is always a goodidea to pay attention to criticism; it maylead one to revise his positions andsharpen his analyses. At the same time, Iwas surprised too, because generally— atleast in France— it is the philosopherswho object to my work and the scientists
who agree with it.But when I read Thomas G. Donnelly's article ("In Defense of Technology,'* Jan. 17) I was deeply disappointed and taken aback. Disappointed,because there is a great deal of anger init, a great deal of fulmination aridanathematizing, but no evidence at all,no serious analysis, no fact (despiteDonnelly's claim to the contrary). If Iwere to adopt his attitude, I would merely say that his article is superficial, atissue of false accusations; that it revealscomplete ignorance of sociology andcomplete incomprehension of my writ
ings; and, finally, that it utterly distortsmy thought. But let me try to do betterthan that.
I shall not take it upon myself toanswer those of Donnelly's stricturesthat are not directed at me. He charges,for example, that certain people insistthat automation will result in massiveunemployment. Well, I've never saidanything of the sort anywhere. But Iwant to point out that on this questionsociologists and economists are verymuch divided. There are two opposingviews of it, both supported by equallystrong evidence. Yet Donnelly, totally
Of course. The biblical understanding of judgment is not punishment alone, butalso redemption. There is joy in judgment. There is joy in the coming of theLord. There is joy when the thief repents and paradise is immediatelyopened to him. After David came Solomon, and a large part of Solomon's wisdom came about because David had beenunwise.
We have been shown that a free pressis not to be feared (e.g., for instant interpretations of political speeches)
—far
from it; the press merits honor and protection for its devotion to truth during atime when a lot of us were swallowingthe lies that were being fed to us as thetruth. We have seen for ourselves that abalance of power between the executive
ignoring the complexity of the case, settles it by asserting without proof thatautomation will not result in massiveunemployment.
I
But as to what concerns me: Donnellyinvariably distorts my statements. Forexample — for J adduce evidence— hesays (p. 66) that in my book on the sub
ject I define technology very broadlybut deal only with industrial technologyand do not consider such techniques as"political double-talk -. . . public relations trickery . . . Machiavellian deceit." In fact, however, that book of mine has a chapter on political techniques and one on the technique of thehumanistic sciences in which these questions are treated. Either Donnellyhasn't read the book or else he deliberately distorts it. Moreover, as thenatural sequel to my Technological So-ciety, I wrote a book on propaganda,where he could have found a detailed dis
cussion of these matters. He would havedone better to read it before talking.
Another example (p. 67): he accusesme of writing that "the machine" cannotbe "checked or guided." I defy him tofind such a statement anywhere in mywritings. What I wrote is that the growthof technology as a system cannot be"checked or guided." (But perhapsDonnelly doesn't know that there is asystem in sociology also.) On page 68 hesays that I caricature those parts of thetechnological reality of which hehas firsthand knowledge — "computers,mathematics, stochastics," etc. Well, I say
and the legislative branches of government is needed to provide a safeguardagainst irresponsible power, and that it istime for Congress to clean its own house,strengthen its own moral and intellectualfiber, and then to reassume its rightfulplace in this balancing of interests.
And we have learned that power can beused either for good or for evil; but if those on the side of good lack vigilance,then evil will masquerade as good, andthe destruction of high values, truth andgenuine goodness is upon us. Let us,therefore— Republicans and Democratsalike— comfort one another in love, andperhaps there shall arise among us newpolitical Solomons who will do what isright in the sight of the Lord.
J. CLAUDE EVANS.
practically nothing about computers inmy Technological Society, because it waswritten between 1948 and 1950, and
Donnelly must know that at that timethe sociological problem of computersdid not exist. About mathematical techniques I say not a word in that book.And* its passages on stochastics (application of the calculus of probabilities toeconomic phenomena) I submitted forrevision to Prof. Rouquet, the outstanding French economist who does stochastics. But this too was in 1950. Now, theseare virtually the only factual elementsDonnelly advances, and they are all inexact. I hope that in his own field he is alitt le more exact in the observation of facts.
I could do without another element in
Donnelly's critique. He undertakes apsychological analysis, and declares several times that in face of technology"philosophers and humanists" react withfear, hatred and a feeling of impotence.It is these emotions, he says, that accountfor their antitechnological stance. This israther amusing (and, by the way, I amnot a philosopher; I aim to be a sociologist). But here too .Donnelly simplymakes assertions; he does not adduce asingle fact in evidence. In return I couldassert that he is so passionately devotedto technology, and so disconcerted overhis inability to come up with a scientific
rebuttal of sociological criticism of technology, that he gives way to anger andblindly piles up accusations. That's anargument as good as his.
Elsewhere in his piece he says -» againwithout proof — that I am "conservativeand reactionary." The truth is, I havealways said that it's not a question eitherof returning to the Middle Ages or of doing without the benefits we might gainfrom-technology. I said as much in thepreface of the very book Donnelly attacks. Maybe he hasn't read it?
Finally, Donnelly thinks he is doing asubtle bit of analysis when he suggests
Reader's Response
A Little Debate About TechnologyReplying to Thomas G. Donnelly
706 the christian CENTURY
7/28/2019 A Little Debate About Technology
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-little-debate-about-technology 2/3
(p. 67) that my view of technology ismerely a projection of a kind of arbitrarily constructed interior world of myown. I suppose then that the little problems of pollution and the destruction of natural resources, for example, are but aprojection of my personal imagination.If such were the case I would be veryhappy for humanity. Now I don't overestimate these problems and I don't usethem as an argument against technology,
because I believe that technology cansolve them (I disagree with the MITreport). But I discussed them in 1950,and it would have been well if, insteadof embracing technology so enthusiastically, people had listened to me at that time; then we would not have theproblems that beset us today.
II
I close with an observation. Donnellycontrasts the scientific method, whichconsists in "generalization," with humanism, which proceeds by abstraction (p.69). This seems a false juxtaposition to
me, because science also proceeds by ab-straction (surely the passage from thephysical phenomenon to mathematicalinterpretation of it is an abstraction).Moreover, Donnelly obviously doesn'tknow that the sociological work I dolikewise has its scientific methodology— a very rigorous methodology, thoughdifferent from that of physics. As to generalization, evidently the problem is:generalization of what} For in thesefields it is impossible to know all thefacts. In his admirable Technological Man, Victor Ferkiss generalizes on thebasis of facts different from mine, but his
work is not more scientific than mine. Itis only the future evolution of the technological society that can determinewhich of us is right. And I am not muchworried. The technological developments of,the past 20 years have accordedat all points with my predictions.
I say nothing about the political viewswhich underlie Donnelly's defense of technology and in part dictate it, forthese are matters of opinion. The rest of his article bespeaks the "offended technician" and illustrates exactly what Ihave written about the personality of thetechnician who has become a "believer"
and can't stand criticism. But what Donnelly fails to grasp is precisely that I havenever attacked technology. On the onehand, I have attempted to describe thewhole sociological problem of technology, with emphasis on my convictionthat the benefits accruing from technology are well worthwhile. On theother hand, I have attacked the ideologyof technology and idolatrous beliefsabout technology. And it is here thatDonnelly has felt himself wounded.
JACQUES ELLUL.
University of Bourdeaux, Bourdeaux, France.
June 27, 1973
CRITICISM: Books and the Arts
The Jungian ApproachBOUNDARIES OF THE SOUL. By June Singer.
Doubleday, $10.00.
• IT IS one thing to read the works of
Jung as either literature or philosophyand quite another to see how his psychology is put into practice. June Singer,an analyst who studied at the C. G. JungInstitute in Zurich, reveals the secrets of Jungian analysis through her use of theJungian approach with patients. Thesubtle distinctions between Freud's andJung's approaches are at some pointsclarified and at others somewhat blurred.For example, Dr. Singer states that "onedistinctive feature of the Jungian ap-proach is the analyst's openness abouthimself and his reactions." From my ownexperience, I do not regard Jungian
analysts as unique in this respect.The archetypal patterns, as they
emerge in the patient, are delineated insome detail in the book. The process of individuation is described — not as Dr.Singer has learned it or read about it,but as it unfolds through the drama of analysis. The chapter on "Psychological
Types: Key to Communications" is ex-tremely valuable. Jung was responsiblefor the terms extrovert and introvert,and to his credit he attached equal im-portance to the two types. There arefour functional types of "thinking, feel-
ing, intuition and sensation" existingboth at the conscious and at the uncon-scious level — 16 "types" in all. These areillustrated by means of case histories of patients.
The book is an excellent contributionto the understanding of Jung, especiallyas applied to analytic practice. Dr Singerhas written with candor and understand-ing.
PAUL G. DIMMITT
Reviewers
Paul G. Dimmit works for a publishingcompany in Highland Park, 111. DennisC. Benson edits Recycle and is a free-lance media consultant in PittsburghLycurgus M. Starkey, Jr., is senior pastorat Kirkwood United Methodist Church,St. Louis.
~s X ^ Not all Christian ministers begin as ministers. . .
They have begun as salesmen, bankers, nurses, tailors,soldiers, engineers, and teachers, to name a few of thestarting points. HERBER T BROWN began his career asamillworker He had also been a mechanic, TV repairman,and accountant He was a mill foreman when he decidedto answer the call to ministry His age and lack of collegetraining were ma|or concerns for him But through theunique "Bangor Plan" he enrolled in a two-year programin liberal arts and sciences A sophomore now, he willbegin studies in the theological department in SeptemberTwo years of college remain at a school of his choiceafter this five-year period of intensive study has been completed. He will then be eligible for the Seminary's Masterof Divinity degree
Herb's accounting and management skills are provingvaluable in his position as book store manageratBangor Recently, he was called as a student pastor to aUnited Church of Christ parish in Maine He moved hiswife and daughter to the community in which he servesThis rural church is providing first-hand experiences
in ministering
Like Herb, other men and women- many in their thirtiesand forties- are literally changing the direction of theirlives- beginning "late" a vocation in church relatedwork Write us today to find out how this 159-year-oldinterdenominational Seminary may make it possible foryou to answer God's call to ministry
BangorTheological Seminary
For further information writePresident Frederick W Whmaker300 Union Street, Bangor, Maine 04401
707
7/28/2019 A Little Debate About Technology
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-little-debate-about-technology 3/3
^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.
