A’ight, so, I’m starting revisions on my MRP, and while
writing my analysis on Gaslight Dogs, I was struck by how relevant Heideggar’s
logic on technology is (which I read in Steve Garlic’s “What Is A Man?”
available on JSTOR). The idea is this: technology is a manifestation of our
relationship to nature. How we view nature, how we treat it... we will build
and make shit to reflect this. His thesis runs like this: in Europe before the
18th century, we largely saw our relationship to nature as one where
we adapted to nature, because nature is its own entity, which we’re a part of.
There came a shift in how we viewed nature: rather than seeing it as it is,
something to adapt to, we started seeing it as a resource, and considering ways
to make it adapt to us. This was right before the Industrial Revolution. So
modern technology, what we think of as technology, is a reflection of a
philosophy in which we see nature as something to be conquered, something to be
overcome, something to use. If we don’t like something? We blast it to hell and
build what we want on it.
Let me tell you how I came to thinking really seriously
about this: Gaslight Dogs. Among the many comments my fabulous supervisor made
on my first draft is her comment on something I said: that Sjenn and Keeley are
the true steampunks of the GLD world, because they reject modernity.... yet the
modernity they reject is a modernity we are familiar with, a modernity which is
informed by warfare, technology, and more importantly, how we view the use of
technology. Sjenn’s relationship to nature is thus: she’s in it. She’s a part
of it. She doesn’t really see herself as separate from nature, just in a
different form of it.
And that’s why Jarrett doesn’t get her. Jarrett by the very
nature of his work has to see the world in binary forms: The People You Do
Shoot Protect and the People You Shoot At Fight. There’s a scene
where she tries to explain to him, “what does it matter what form I’m in? The
birds, the cats, the dogs.... it’s all different forms of the same thing.” And
he doesn’t grok this, because he needs to see his enemy as Not Like Him. (You
can’t really justify, with any sense of decency, otherwise when you are
shooting down people. Kids, too.) Jarrett’s world is the world in which nature
is being reshaped and reformed at the hands of the settlers. This is a world in
which people come in, and change the landscape, without the permission of the
people who were already there. Then you’ve got General Fawle.
Unlike Jarrett, General Fawle gets Sjenn. He can see she has
a relationship to nature that allows her to harness a certain kind of
knowledge, a certain kind of strength, a certain kind of power. Sjenn doesn’t
see her Dog as power. Her Dog is her ancestor, a source of wisdom, a way of
knowing and mediating the world with. Her Dog, essentially, is the
technofantasy of the GLD world. General Fawle’s understanding of technology,
however, is our understanding of technology: it is a way to harness nature for
our uses. And him being a military man, he is going to harness it as a form of
power (not as a way to understand the world) so he can beat people with it.
Consider the fact that so much of our modern technology came out of military
uses, how the concept of modernity itself, civilization itself, was a justification
for colonization and imperialism. There is a certain way you must be, and if
you refuse it, you will be overcome, or erased. And this is the choice Sjenn
faces, and the choice she rejects.
So, what is the place of technology is steampunk? What is it
we do with tech in steampunk? Often, this is what we do: we take a piece of
modern technology, or rather, a more recent understanding of technology (and
keep in mind, technology is our manifestation of our relationship to nature),
and we plonk this in the midst of some other time period where this
understanding didn’t exist, just to see what happens. And what happens? All
sorts of cool things, of course: we get to ask questions like, what becomes the
function of this technology in this society? Who does it belong to? How does
the configuration of society change with the introduction of this form of
technology, of this kind of relationship with nature? Think about Marx’s thing
about commodity fetishism, where workers are now completely detached from the
stuff they made, because they’re not making it for themselves, they’re
producing it for the consumption of others. We no longer know what it is we’re
producing, even as there is a huge pressure to be productive in our society.
And how does it affect our social relationships? How does this affect how we
see each other, and how we see ourselves? Steve Garlic pointed out that because
of the change in how we view nature, suddenly, we saw things as, well, things,
with a specific function. Different things, for different functions. And now,
different people, for different functions. What used to be flexible, adaptable,
now became fixed in form and function, and this extended to how we see gender
relations. But that’s another issue entirely.
This means when we start plonking recent tech into the past,
we need to think on the ethical ramifications, and what it says about us that
there are certain kinds of stories we tell (or at least, value). Think about
Scott Westerfeld’s Leviathan. Darwinists have figured out DNA! They know how to
create whole ecologies, and figured out how to create whole ecologies in which
humans live alongside what we consider organic. The Darwinists consider this
natural; we would consider it organic biotechnology and, decidedly not natural.
But it’s cool anyway. The Clankers, however, don’t consider natural. Nature is
not for them to harness. Yet what are you doing when you mine the earth for
iron to make the steel for marching Stormwalkers? This is considering nature as
a resources, and what is more familiar to us. And then consider what the
Darwinists use their relationship with nature for: warfare.
What are the ethical implications of harnessing nature for
warfare? What does it say about how we relate to nature and how we relate to
other people, who are Not Like Us? Remember, Darwinists call their organic
creations beasties. Naming them is not cool. Because what happens when you name
a creature? When you create a pet out of a creature? You make it part of the human world. This is how we’ve
been taught to see animals: there are animals which are pets, part of the human
world, and then there are animals which are not pets, part of the wild, part of
nature. And the divide is huge, okay! Pets are cool! We love pets! We invest a
lot of emotional energy in our pets! Pets make our life better! Wild animals,
though, fuck them, they’re probably rabid and dirty and will thus make you
sick. And since they’re not domesticated at all they’ll probably bite you and
scratch you and give you an infection. Shoo them away!
Now, the Darwinists don’t take our extreme view towards
not-pet organic beings, of course. But the Darwinists’ world is still a world
in which humans and nature are separate. Bovril? You named the perspicacious loris
Bovril? You can’t do that, it’s a beastie! It’s not a pet! It’s a functional
animal, a thing that does stuff for you
so your life is, uh, easier, I guess, and therefore Not To Be Named And Become Attached
To.
What kind of society is this that does this to organic
beings? Why, ours of course. Do you know the people who constructed your
computer? Have you said hello to the janitor recently? Unless you’ve been
brought up to be extraordinarily nice, probably not! Even I have to make an
effort to say hello to my floor’s janitor, and people say I'm nice. Because we learn that different
people have different functions in society, and we learn very quickly to keep
the functions separate, which, in a world where we are defined by our work, we
translate to learning how to keep people separate.
So what are the ethical implications of the Darwinist
society which harnesses a relationship with nature for warfare? You know, that
thing where you fight people, and kill them? What is our relationship with
nature, a relationship in which we separate ourselves from nature? (Thanks,
Bev, for this articulation.) What is this relationship in which we consider
ourselves superior to nature that we have the right to shape and mould it to
ourselves, without any adaptation on our part to return the favour? And what
does this separation mean, when it translates itself so easily, to separating
ourselves, from our fellow human beings?
What are the ethical implications of General Fawle’s
experimentation program, where he exploits the relationship between janna and
the Dog, for military purposes? In fact, what then does this say about the
concept of military warfare in the first place? What does this say about our
world, then, where we maintain soldiers and military institutions under the
guise of protecting ourselves? What
is our relationship to others, whether part of the wild, of nature, or just
other groups of human beings, that we need to keep this contingent of this kind
of power to change (by hurting) others, in order to keep ourselves safe?
.... OK I didn’t actually get to say other things I’m pretty
sure I wanted to say, re: the concept of science and who gets to decide what’s
modern science and who doesn’t, and what ramifications this has for us. But I
can talk about this another day.
But the point is! Technology is the manifestation of our relationship to nature. It is part of our articulation on how we see ourselves in relation to nature. What kind of tech we use says a great deal about how we relate to nature and to each other. It deserves analysis, both on a personal and a systemic level. It deserves analysis even as you're just creating props to mess around with. It tells us what kind of stories we value over others. There is a huge amount of tech, or some sort of gobbledygook that passes as tech, in steampunk, and we need to think about what kind of tech we're looking at, to see whether we're really talking about alternate history, or just recreating history on a fuckton more epic scale, and what the ramifications of that is.
:: Technology is the manifestation of our relationship to nature. ::
ReplyDeleteOoh. Thank you!
Great post! I enjoyed your discussion of technology and its connection to our relationship to nature thoroughly. It's definitely going to give me some things to think about when I get around to reading Gaslight Dogs. :)
ReplyDelete