Technology and Politics: Intertwined for Human Advancement - Essay Sample

Introduction

Technology has been viewed as a vital determiner of a broad spectrum of human life in modern days. The technological advancements realized, especially in the 20th and 21st centuries, have had an enormous influence on the nature of life and dictated to a wide expend the way of living and doing things. The technology involves the use of scientific knowledge to develop equipment and machinery for practical purposes of advancing human life. Politics consists of the governance of people with a defined area. Technology has been portrayed as a means to making human life better, giving them more control and freedom in their lives, with no means of advancing manipulative desires from other people over them; that is, it is neutral. However, the use of technology to manage and control human beings has proved that assertion to the contrary. The impacts of the use of technology differ from one group to another in the society, where it may favor a particular group while at the same time, dehumanize and disfavor another group, both of the same community. While some believe that technology is neutral and that weapons such as guns in themselves are unbiased and cannot harm anyone unless when wrongly used, technology mirrors the intentions of its creators and will ultimately fulfill the purpose to which it was created, whether political or neutral.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Technology as a Tool to Acquire Power

The concept of superpower countries is based on the dimensions of the economy and the ability to exercise control over other nations. Technological progressiveness seems to be directly aligned to the size of economies and the ability to use power over other countries. During the colonization era, the nations that had advanced their organization were able to take control of less developed regions forcefully. First, the exploration to discover new lands was made possible by the availability of transport means that could travel far and wide. To conquer and rule the new territories, the colonizers had to subdue the inhabitants of the regions, which was mainly through conquest in war. Therefore, right from the development of simple technologies, where simple warfare and governance tools were discovered, technology was set on a path to help countries amass more power and hence the ability to control others (Mumford 2010).

`Although the industrial revolution was necessitated by human beings' demand to provide the growing populations and the advancing of human life by making it easier and more comfortable, the outcome was used as a determinant of power. More industrialized countries were able to expand their territories quickly, and therefore, countries retreated to the development of advanced technologies as the means to amass more power, more than they needed triumph in warfare. The First and Second World Wars were won not based on the number of troops available, but the warfare tools provided. The conflict came to a sudden halt when the United States dropped atomic bombs in Japan, causing extensive destruction. The case proved that technology was the way to go to win the war, more than training many troops. Mumford (2010) describes war as a byproduct of technology in the form of guns, nuclear weapons, among other sophisticated weapons. Were it not because of the mechanization of life, Mumford (2010) argues that both World War 1 and World War 2 could not have escalated to such heights. The struggle has come to the modern-day nuclear weapon technologies, countries trying to beat each other in how advanced and much of the weaponry they can get.

Technologies and power are not only tied in the aspect of war, as there are many ways for one dominant party to have a manipulative advantage over the other less powerful parties, especially in growing the economy. The more the advanced technology a country uses, the more it can utilize its resources for higher and better productions, with the surplus being taken to less developed countries. Technology gives a distinct advantage for nations to rise above others, as those with the ability to produce more and sophisticated equipment control more substantial portions of the global market. They are, therefore, able to dictate the terms and conditions of the international markets, a power which they can use to promote or punish others. Growing a countries economy past those of others is, therefore, a power acquiring strategy, and technology is the crucial determinant.

Control of Interests

Technology as a political tool is not only applicable to the scramble for international markets or superpower status but also in the manipulating of individuals in a nation (Agger 2011). Although the idea of advancing technology is aimed at improving the welfare of the people, technically, it also exposes them to significant aspects of manipulation. In the new era of mobile phones and smartphones, politicians and those in powerful positions have often used such devices to manipulate the masses. According to Agger (2011), smartphones such as iPhones alters people's lives significantly. Most people spend a lot of their time on their phones, and thus, it is relatively easy for them to be manipulated through the various platforms available in smartphones.

The iTime technology, for instance, which is a product of the iPhone can track and monitor employees' live locations and therefore breaches the privacy (Agger 2011). Primarily, the iTime was created for the company owners and business owners in the aim of increasing the productivity and profitability of their companies through close tracking of the workers' day-to-day activities in and out of the company's premises. Technologies such as iTimes, which are embedded in smartphones, are often used by those in positions of influence to micromanage their employees for their own personal interests and not for the protection of their employees. The manipulative and enslaving ability of smartphone technology makes smartphones biased and, therefore, political.

Technology can be used to initialize conditions that set the process of developing specific policies to buy the support of a countries citizens. Technology impacts the employment of people, their health, their markets, incomes, and generally their welfare. It can, therefore, be used to technically create demand conditions, persuading people to align themselves towards a set trap that helps those in power to exercise more control on them. Technology can be used to replace many jobs and thus create mass unemployment, which may call for policy review the increase in technology, giving those in power items to manipulate the support of the people.

According to Mumford (2010), the paleotechnic phase, which he describes as the second face of technology development, was characterized by significant technological innovations that were aimed at favoring some few people in the society while dehumanizing the majority of the citizens. While the technological innovations of coal and steam factories between 1700 and 1900 was beneficial to business people and those in the positions of power, it significantly worsened the lives and livelihood of most of the many workers who worked in the factories (Mumford 2010). The majority of the workers worked for long work shifts and were often subjected to hard labor in deplorable conditions but were paid poorly and only afforded to live in slums.

Mumford (2010) points out that while the factory owners and those in powerful positions lived lavish lives and has a surplus of food and essential needs supply, their workers died of starvation and struggled to meet their basic daily needs. As such, during the paleotechnic phase of technology development, technology was primarily used by people in positions of power to control their interests. The technology was used to affirm positions of power to those who had authority, while those who were not in positions of power continued to suffer under the hands of the powerful ones. The findings of Mumford (2010) on how technology is used by a few who are in positions of power is relevant even in today's world. In recent times, there have been major robust and advanced technology innovations that have been adopted by capitalists to enable them to make more profits without necessarily taking into account the welfare of their employees. As such, the gap between the rich and the poor has significantly widened following the mechanization of the industries and business sectors.

Technology in the field of communication has, for a long time, been viewed as neutral, with some arguing that technology in communication is used by a majority of people to express their ideologies and thoughts relating to politics as well as to increase the political participation of people in countries or organizations. To those who believe that technology is neutral, communication devices such as televisions and computers are unbiased and impartial and do not by themselves perpetrate capitalism or communism; instead, the users of such devices are to be blamed for any political ideologies presented by the use of such devices. Moreover, those who believe in the neutrality of technology in the film and music industry argue that technology has considerably affirmed the freedom and creativity of artists who can freely express their thoughts in music and films.

While there have been various arguments to support the neutrality of technology in communication, the arguments fail to put into consideration that politics can indeed necessitate and facilitate the innovation of communication devices. The Cold War, for instance, necessitated the innovation and creation of the first peer-to-peer computer network to allow the United States of America to quickly and efficiently acquire relevant information from its enemies (Abbinnett 2015). Just like the first peer-to-peer computing network, most of the communication technologies are invented for political reasons, where one party intends to use the technology to acquire more power and authority over the other party. As discussed by Adorno (2001) in the book on the culture industry, technology in communication has a tendency to create an illusion of freedom to the consumers, which to the contrary, technology inhibits the very same freedom it claims to facilitate.

In the music industry, for instance, while a majority of people have been made to believe that music is an expression of freedom, it is indeed an expression of the views of those in positions of power and the political class. Often, prominent and respected music artists and producers who significantly shape the music industry are facilitated by specific individuals in positions of power through financial aid and music technologies that would ensure that they earn more profits from their music, only to pass a certain specific message to the consumers. Because of the massive support and influence that such music producers and artists have in the society, consciously or subconsciously influence other music artists to produce music that aligns to the same subject and content. Adorno (2001) explains that in the current world of technological advancements, people in various fields in the society are used as objects to enable a few members of their society to achieve their goals and objectives (Adorno 2001). Ultimately, similar to the consumers of the music who do not have control of what they consume, the producers of the same music also have no control over what they produce. Instead, the political class in positions of power have the sovereign authority of the whole chain of production and consumption of music content.

The culture industry often encourages and demands a certain level of uniformity in the production and consumption of contents (Adorno 2001). Just like in the music industry where producers and artists are forced to conform to certain unifo...