5
In retrospect, Frankenstein created his Monster within the social and cultural paradigms of the day. The Monster was self-aware and within himself, sought fulfillment of purpose by expressing behavior that although socially unacceptable, was not out of the realm of behaviors exhibited by others. It is worth noting The Monster’s displays of anti-social behavior were really a result of rejection and misunderstanding by his creator. The Monster was not the incarnation of evil in the beginning as many believe. Dr. Frankenstein failed to consider why he created The Monster to begin. This failure mushroomed into a lack of understanding of The Monster’s purpose. The reaction of educators today is similar with regard to technology. There is a lack of understanding of purpose which leads to a misuse of technology which can lead to a corruption of purpose and the ultimate rejection of the technology altogether.
As for the application of cybernetic technology in the classroom today, we see the emergence of biotechnology more and more. Steve Mizrach, writing at Florida International University, states, “For the first time, through electronic technology, human biology is no longer destiny. Through bionic prostheses, bio-implants, and bio-chips, electronic technology can be integrated into the human organism.” (Mizrach 2004). Mizrach goes on to explain mechanical prosthetics have been made available to humans ever since the American Civil War. It is only within the last few years that these previously mechanical devices can now interface with a human’s neural network.
Mizrach further explains that with the advancement of biotechnology, basic assumptions of what it means to be human are now coming into question. He stated, “Most people assume that they have attributes machines do not (free will, emotions, a soul) but will these beliefs hold up as electronic technology becomes ‘hardwired’ into human organisms?” I believe this question will be the primary issue in the further development of biotechnology.
And for our schools, the present focus is on the use of external technological tools to enhance the learning process. Students have available to them a host of technology allowing access to all the information available to anyone on the planet. Will biotechnology start working its way into our schools? Will students one day have the opportunity to the receive neural implants that eliminate the need for something that is hand-held?
Mizrach uses the argument of Owen Paepke whereby Paepke states, “. . . the human race may have reached the saturation point for economic growth, but this is fortunate since it has arrived in time for it to work on ‘human growth,’ i.e. the re-engineering of the human species.” (Paepke 1993). Mizrach goes on the make an interesting statement that “We [humans] can ‘graduate’ from being victims of natural selection to masters of self-selection.”
What is interesting is that the film 2001: A Space Odyssey begins with pre-humans discovering they can break away from a total dependence upon nature and become self-directed. This was accomplished through the discovery and use of tools for food gathering and protection. As Victor Frankenstein sought to break out of the old traditions established and held in place by the Church and ancient intellectuals, educational innovators are now seeking to break away from old paradigms of teaching and embrace new technologies for themselves and students alike.
In regard to how technology is used practically, Verbeek (2013) and Foucault (1997a) state humans should take a “limited position” when assessing technology (Foucault 1997). This position focuses not on the ethics of having technology but rather on how the technology is constructed and applied. Verbeek (2013) says that we as humans should be “involved in the design and implementation of the technologies that govern, or steer, our lives”. An “outside” stance toward technology therefore, could be interpreted as opposing technology rather than a “limited attitude” where technology is observed in it application from the edges of that technology but still within its sphere of influence.
Braidotti (2013) quotes Verbeek by stating, ” . . . technologies contribute actively to how humans do ethics” (Verbeek 2011). This statement seems to support the theories of Foucault and Verbeek that humans should be active participants in the gathering, analyzing, and application of data from the technologies we use.
“While we cannot conceive of ourselves as autonomous beings anymore, because of the fundamentally mediated character of our lives, we can still develop a free relation to these mediations. Without being able to undo or ignore all of them, we can critically and creatively take up with them. Being a citizen in a technological society requires a form of ‘technological literacy’. Not in the sense that every citizen needs to understand all technical details of the devices around them, but in the sense that we develop a critical awareness of what technologies do in society” (Verbeek 2013).
ACTIVITY:
Prompt: What are three inherent dangers of accepting the premise that technology is here and we must work within it in order to control it? How does such a premise impact ethics in education?