5

The Journal of Studies 8 only serve to benefit societyasawhole. only tobenefit serve of injectingne ithasbroughtaboutnew but , methods upon theintroductionoftele ho impetus foridealchangeby itself,nomatter paintings, oras advanced ascontemporary tools thatallo media. arts, This role canbeassimplethe tic culturalproduction—literature, music,visual that technology plays ofidealis- isitsfacilitation role ciated withutopianthinking, one important us. Itistherealmofrevealing, i.e.,oftruth.” the essenceoftechnology willopenitselfupto give heedtothis,thenanotherwhole realmfor in Contempor “ f ued impro avenues forutopianproduction,andthecontin- Game, themassaudiencestunedintoInter genressuchas the facilitated Reality Alternate thankstonew technology-This isoccurring production tobewidespreadasnever before. aissance inthatitallo Nag simistically intheyears sinceHiroshimaand technology hascometobeviewed by somepes- within therock. argues thatalthough This article outfrom that is,thetoolbringscarving Heide Inthiswayhermeneutic. technology isas and scholarsusingtheBlochianutopian utopian ener avenue forutopianculturalproduction,whose Nevertheless, technology doesprovide an has beenviewed by somequitepessimistically. has technology lostitsutopianverve, italso but attacks onJapanin1945.Sincethen,notonly minds ofmany when itfosteredthenuclear ty, itsmeanstothatendwas exhausted inthe ally asameansofbringingaboututopiansocie- Abstract Alex Hall Technology Culture andUtopianisminContemporary “A Way ofRevealing”: A ilm andtele w embracedsuchaconceptmightha W asaki, itisnow experiencing autopian ren- Despite themany views oftechnology asso- Heidegger —Martin “Technology isaway ofrevealing. Ifwe Although technology was onceviewed liter- yo eeln” Technology andUtopianism ay ofRevealing”: gger describedit—“away ofrevealing,” v ement ofoldertechnolo gy mustoftenberescuedby readers ary Cultur vision. w w energy intoculture,which can ed prehistoricman tocreateca T echnolo ws forutopiancultural e gy cannotbethe g raph orthe gies suchas ve been net ve gy asameanstosocially utopianend. complicated, especially withregard totechnolo- nology’s relationshipwithutopianismisquite oftech- to bedesiredinothers.Still,thehistory area ofutopianpotential,despitewhat itleaves technologystretch togrant somecreditinthe gy inoneway oranother, thenithardly seemsa cultural productionisdependentupontechnolo- can befoundinany culturalproduct.Sincemost Blochisaccepted,Ernst thenutopianpotential employed by subscriberstothephilosophy of ). Ifthehermeneutic and film (e.g.,theInternet cultural productionplatforms tion outlets. b andtelevision) of oldertechnologies, (e.g.,film an production),andthecontinued improvement avenuesaudiences tunedintoInternet forutopi- genres (e.g., cultural studies,asnew technology-facilitated kind oftechnological utopianrenaissancewithin technolo utopian changeby itself.Inspiteofthis,new idea oftechnolo Heidegger’swhich Martin exemplifies (1977) duction tocommunicatemessagesofhope, gy remainsthatwhich allows forculturalpro- forthemtoberecognized.sary Today, technolo- ofaperfectworldan interpretation was neces- visions tobee tural production,w resulted insignif Marcuse.Nevertheless,Herbert technology the oppositeinmindsofmany, amongthem once beencreditedas,andinf entirel Cold Nagasaki, Japanin1945,andthroughoutthe wake ofthenuclearattacksonHiroshimaand object ofconsiderable debate,especially inthe flourished; however, technology remainedan ati world, they but alsorecognized itsinherentneg- one ofseveral meansof bringingaboutaperfect 12), b T ec uild ontechnolo ve possibilities. Technological utopianvisions hnolo Enlightenment think A lookatattitudes to War. At thispoint,technology allbut ut technolo y ceasedtobethemeansutopiaithad gy andUtopianism: gical inno Alter xplored, even ifanapplicationof gy as“aw icant gains intheareasofcul- gy cannotbethelocusfor gy’s arsenalofculturalproduc- nate RealityGames,mass v hich allowed forutopian ations mightbee ers saw technology as w ay ofrevealing” (p. A BriefHistory ard technolo act becamequite vidence ofa gy and The Journal of Technology Studies 59 gal al gnized g s . Se gy . (p. 61) gy gy in utopian y,” which includes which y,” Auguste Comte reco m of “industr olution of technolo tance of technolo v hom he also separated himself from hich amounts to technolo Condorcet, near the end of the eighteenth Condorcet, near the Following Condorcet, Henri de Saint-Simon Following and his student the impor thought. Saint-Simon, according to Se that the intellectual, social, (2005), argues and cultural unity that Europe once enjoyed has collapsed under assault by Protestantism, Deism, empiricism, national- unity must A new ism, and commercialism. and its basis must be ideological. be forged, this unity is that is to forge The and will replace the divisive , which currently presented by views world shaky religion. Science is to be applied in the practical for both manufacture and distribution and w his abandoned Although he eventually hich Condorcet credited “mankind’ during the triumphant rise of science to cultural of science rise the triumphant during eigh- early and the seventeenth in hegemony warn- already writers . . . were teenth centuries, spiritual) potential dangers (especially ing of the on scientificof an overreliance technologi- and solving” (p. of thought and problem cal methods Marquis pointed to the (2005) so, Segal 6). Even of “scientific anticipation and de Condorcet’s surpassing advances those imag- technological of the evolu- 59) as evidence Bacon” (p. ined by with utopi- relationship tion of technology’s anism. (2005), “evinces and according to Segal century, about the prospects an unprecedented optimism its realization, [Condorcet] for realizing : he grants at hand . . . and is virtually believes, an unprecedented role in establishing technology hope for Condorcet’s utopia” (p. 60). However, ability to reach utopia is not entirely humanity’s based in the e intellectually near this time, on what Segal near this time, on what intellectually (2005) termed need for science and tech- “the as technical major social as well to solve nology (p. 61). problems” absolute technological position, he agreed with absolute technological Comte, w advances,” and that “the technological advances technological and that “the advances,” are [delineated] and lovingly he so carefully is moving indications of the way only for a specific not blueprints generally, society” (p. 60). (2005) pointed out that “increasing seculariza- the variables tion, education, and equality” were to w , as 1 hereas is a part. “one of the s (1982) y’ y wle t Burton’s “prag- t Burton’s , “most things there- appeared in the six- “ ‘natural science’ “ ‘natural ved that the practical that ved as that which “prepared as that which New Atlantis New New Atlantis New w Rober illiam Ra Utopia W y belie , sa Utopia ml New Atlantis New ir , among other literar e on human society” (p. 5), w ho f ut pointed out that “their authors v gical ” (p. 59), which is consis- (p. 59), which gical progress” wth of scientific as an histor- knowledge fected,” and the literary scientific utopia fected,” , b ro ” calling him “the prime example of a ” calling him “the prime example Atlantis Howard P. Segal (2005) agreed Segal that these P. Howard Though More’s Though More’s th, w tent with Booker’s (1994) observation that “even (1994) observation tent with Booker’s “witty fictions, but mere chimeras” (p. 101). Still, according to introduction to (p. 418). to effect” power in are within men’s as a means to a utopi- position technology works an end remain sufficiently of mankind to propose wary and so “envi- limits within utopia,” establishing without further unchanging society sion a fixed, technolo Ne the stage for the entrance of the new scientificthe stage for the entrance of the new if Burton (1948) saw utopia” (pp. 91-92)—even rather utopia as something “to be wished for, than ef Anatomy of Melancholy Anatomy Science in Utopia in matic approach to a better state” as presented The the “Preface of Democritus Junior” in Booker (1994) called Booker projections of the most optimistic imaginative beneficial impacts that science and technology might ha utopian w science and technology application of the new of mankind” (pp. 61-62). It meant the progress Eurich (1967), in her noting that Nell is worth ical moment, a collective, incremental enter- ical moment, a collective, control man would in which prise, a revolution nature, reform his fundamental conception of on things, and bring about peace and plenty ear among the pursuits that bring moral and cultural pursuits that bring among the of his ideal society,” to the citizens improvement to utopi- has been linked and noted that “science of modern veryan thinking since the beginnings century”If sci- (p. 5). science in the seventeenth as are “interdependent,” ence and technology out, then (1975, p. 61) pointed L. Fogg Walter holds true observation for the relation- Booker’s and utopianism as well. technology ship between who (1975) considered Bacon a “thinker Fogg potentialities of modern the science” and saw “the g teenth century, it defined a literaryteenth century, genre, of Bacon’s Francis which utopianism from Thomas More to the More to Thomas from utopianism the shows beyond) indeed, (and, Enlightenment in his- the two correlationcomplicated between credited More (1994) Booker M. Keith tory. in with including 6

The Journal of Technology Studies 0 adv “superior” societyfueledby technological only withconsumercapitalism,ratherthana through saiddomination,leaving theworkers was theexploiters thatthwarted Marx’s vision enslaved theworkers” (Ellul,1967,p.54-55).It liberated tieth century didhelptocreatenewtieth century anddifferent threedecades ofthetwen-revolution ofthefirst According toBook bolstered, by infact, consumer capitalism. its f But onepositive aspectoftechnology remained: achievement oftheconsumercapitalistsystem. ty ofever reachingutopia,which was akey pessimistic, asdidattitudestoward thepossibili- tudes toward technology became increasingly toward theperfectworld. Many people’s atti- w oppressed ratherthanliberated, technology lost sumer capitalismexisted inculturalproduction. cal utopianpotentialthatremainedundercon- be achie at leastthenotionthatastable happinesscould upon thele industrialcapitalism,whichteenth-century drew tall f capitalist systemwas notlikely tobeable to of commoditiesproducedb the American soul,anemptinessthattheflood changes necessarily emptinessin leftacertain w technique canbeliberating,” andso“themasses fruition. This isbecause“[Marx]preachedthat effect engulfedany hopeofhisvisioncomingto quite theoppositeofwhat Marxhintedat,andin seems toquestionwhy technology hadachieved overwhelm society(p.44). This viewpoint achieve thisliberationand, instead, threatenedto (1967) laterquestionedwhy technology to failed (pp. 69-70).Despitethisview, JacquesEllul for other, activities” morevaried andfulfilling also from theirlong-standingalienatedlaborbut The proletariatwould beliberatednotsimply as aprincipalmeansoffreeingtheproletariat. especiallylize modern, automated, technology to theexisting capitalistone,which would uti- repeatedly hintedatasocietyradically superior According toSegal (2005),“[MarxandEngels] the potentialoftechnology forsocialliberation. tion, KarlMarxandFriedrich Engelstoosaw technology ofutopianrealiza- part asanintegral ill,” and“thesystemwas, fundamen- inshort, ent o hate y anti-utopian,andeven moresothannine- ance. acilitation ofculturalproduction, which was Ha Following theintellectualtrendofviewing v v er tangib ving beeninstitutedasthatw er tothesideoftechnique;societywas ved” (p.22). oftechnologi-A large part , ” b According toBook gacy oftheEnlightenmenttoproduce ut “thosew le v er (2002),theconsumerist alue itoncehadasameans ho e y thisne xploited [technique] er (2002),“such w consumer hich w whichholds true, istosay thattechnology isa about technology as“away ofrevealing” (p.12) tosayit isfair thatHeidegger’s (1977)assertion technology isthatwhich culture,then facilitates in/through culture. is w inject utopianenergy intoculture.Sinceculture technology isthatwhich madeitpossible to w sense ofadventure while living intheworkaday that itwas stillpossible toexperience some tine ofeveryday capitalism,assuring Americans rou- offered escapesfromthehumdrum “fantasy ashavingauthors suchasEdgar RiceBurroughs inpopularculture,”ture but citingthework of of thisperiodwere tobefoundnotinhighcul- strongest utopianenergies in American Culture afford books,couldalsoreadthem.(p.23) eracy ratesensuredthatthemasses,now able to books tobesoldatlow prices;rapidly risinglit- made itfeasible toproducelarge numbersof was Increasesinprinttechnologyindustry born. ofpopularculture. and distribution The film to triggeranexplosive growth intheproduction technologies),commercially helped viable film logical advances (suchasthedevelopment of techno- sumerist ethos,combinedwithcertain kinds ofculture.Inparticular, thenew con- of thechalicethat thesilv the chaliceis causamaterialis,thefor model ofcausality—thesilver usedtocraft analo Heidegger (1977)usedasilver chaliceasan ered acause”(p.6). To illustratethispoint, isalsoconsid- means tobeusedisdetermined “the endink to Heidegger (1977),makes itacause,because mentality involved inmakingthisso,according tioning technolo as bothahumanactivity andanend, while posi- It ma polo andanthro- is whatthe“instrumental hetermed means toanend”and“ahumanactivity”—this about technolo pointsthatHeidegger (1977)made the first which reveals utopianenergy inculture.One of in away thinkingaboutitasthat thatserves ideaoftechnology, thevery structed anddidso Concer Heidegger and Technology as “A Way ofRevealing” orld” (p.23). a y ofrevealing utopianlonging/potential here muchutopianpotentialislocated gical definition oftechnology” (pp.4-5). gical definition Booker (2002)alsostatedthat“the Heidegger’s discussionin“TheQuestion y beusefulatthispointtothinkofculture gy, and placeditwithinthephilosophic ning Technology” fundamentally decon- eeping withw gy isthatitatthesametime“a What isclearfromallthisthat gy asthemeans,b er tak hich thekindof es isthecausa ut theinstr m , and u - The Journal of Technology Studies 61 y” ers v y gy that inall meneutic y ener xplained that “in gger (1977) defined w that that f y of idealism) unco ed pessimism toward v inal stra hich Heide , w as a f as not an entirely new departure as new as not an entirely le demand that it suppl . Leo Marx (1994) e gin with, and the utopian her gy The revealing that rules in modernThe revealing tech- . poi_sis Heidegger’s interpretation technolo- of what Heidegger’s asaki w can be extracted and stored as such” (p. 14). The and stored as such” (p. 14). can be extracted is a challenging (1977) gives Heidegger example poi_sis puts to nature the is a challenging, which nology unreasonab as “a bringing-forth” or “artistic and poetical bringing into appearance and concrete imager he called “modern of what (p. 10), but his view and this is where is quite different, technology” implications that he touched upon the negative that He wrote that “the revealing of technology. does modern throughout technology holds sway not unfold into a bringing-forth in the sense of tease it out. Utopian energy is manifested in sev- in is manifested energy it out. Utopian tease dystopian the and given however, eral ways, and late capital- life under consumer nature of critics and by recognized is often ism, what prod- in the cultural utopian energy scholars as is a utopian under these systems ucts produced utopia and ideas regarding longing. Jameson’s Ernst informed by were cultural production “sees according to Jameson (1976) Bloch, who, in-forming at presence [the Utopian principle’s] in all the objects of culture as everywhere, work val- and individual social activities as in all well phenomena” psychological ues or more properly (1977), the According to Heidegger (p. 56). with “bringing-forth” (p. 12) that is involved “the arts with of the is also involved technology mind and the fine it is in this “realm” and arts,” place” and unconcealment take that “revealing (p. 13). In this sense, it is through technology of utopian potential can take that a revealing facilitates the cultural prod- place—technology uct to be (i.e. the method or theor its utopian potential. did not discount the negative gy is, however, According to Booker implications of technology. and (2002), “the atomic bombing of Hiroshima Nag much as it w American national narra- the back of the broke beneath its own leading it to collapse tive, also served This turn of events (p. 12). weight” to bring about a percei technolo the aftermath of World War II . . . what had been II . . . what War World the aftermath of disenchantment with this a dissident minority’s spread to large [technology] hero overreaching in The way of the population” (p. 22). segments deconstruction of technology Heidegger’s which treated cultural production has its root in the Greek - y - - ventual- This “bring ws for the locat ytical tool for ut it is the theor gger (1977) e y)—b rent system and antici fer an anal ws critics and scholars to meneutic allo le” for the product along with its y Heidegger’s (1977) logic, the result of (1977) logic, y Heidegger’s th” (p. 11) as Heide meneutics “of , b A utopian her Within the philosophical model of causality, the philosophical model Within gy that reveals this utopian content in cul- gy that reveals ealing is important to a utopian hermeneutic. ves unexplained earlier in his discussion. This earlier in his discussion. unexplained ves v ing of utopian potential in any cultural product. ing of utopian potential in any Jameson (1976), utopi- Fredric As articulated by an her detecting the presence of some Utopian content within the most degraded and degrading even type of commercial product” (p. 58). It is tech- nolo from tural production—as if making it tangible the ether (upper air or sk Technology’s Role in a Utopian Hermeneutic Technology’s of idealism that allo ly termed it, is equivalent to “revealing” (p. 11), to “revealing” termed it, is equivalent ly has the him with the question “what leaving to to do with revealing?” essence of technology (p. 12). “everything” he answered which that Heidegger then, is the “what” Revealing, lea re “aspect” (p. 7) of utopianness—that is, it does “aspect” (p. 7) of utopianness—that is, an anti-utopian or other contradictorynot take equal not causae combine to These two form. the purpose cultural product, but of the utopian rather it—resistance to the cur formalis, purpose the is the causa the chalice of finalis, chal- brings the that silversmith and the causa ore is the within the silver ice out from efficiensby (1977) continued (p. 6). Heidegger repre- is, when technology “what that offering trace we itself when a means, discloses sented as instrumentality causality” (p. back to fourfold meant by was what reveal 6), but he did not yet to look Still, it is useful at this point that “what.” production through the at (utopian) cultural causality.” scope of this “fourfold it can be inferredof that the causa materialis is the cultural tech- utopian cultural production dimension or formnique itself, its utopian the causa formalis, or resistance its message of hope nature of consumer capitalism to the oppressive the causa finalis, for and the person responsible the product—an author or filmmaker, for material The raw instance—the causa efficiens. of the utopian cultural product is the cultural according technique used to produce it, which, it “co- makes (1977) logic, to Heidegger’s responsib The author “gathers pation of a better one. and of being responsible these “ways together” cultural indebted” (p. 8) to “bring” the utopian product “into appearance” (p. 9). ing-for 6

The Journal of Technology Studies 2 he e “the e toitwhen hecharacterizeditas (1977) referred thisispreciselyfact, how Gendron Bernard considered adystopianview oftechnology. In T lowed thesecond World War. onset ofthetechnological pessimismthatfol- both capitalanddestructive power, fosteredthe technology’s natureinto abilitytotransform which, coupledwithHeidegger’s delineationof peaceful implicationstherehadbeenforit, mentation ofatomicenergy superseded whatever tion” (p.36). This negative resultoftheimple- radia- Geiger countersofhistoricalbackground the 1950swere heardasmereclicksonthe Nuclear power industry, theatomicdreamsof well astheeconomicmeltdown oftheU.S. dents at Three MileIslandandChernobyl as Winner (2004)pointedoutthat“following acci- atomicenergy,sibility ofharnessing Langdon Heidegger doesleave roomforthepeacefulpos- tion orforpeacefuluse”(p.15). Although energy, which canbereleasedeitherfordestruc- example; uraniumissetupontoyieldatomic toyieldore,oreuranium,for the earth of nature:“Air isnow setupontoyieldnitrogen, industrial society,” ultimately but foundthat to be“agoalwithinthecapabilitiesofadvanced or “the‘end’ Marcuse (1964),whothatontheexteri- granted anti-utopian vie utopian vie Gendron callsthedystopianview astheanti- views, itmightbemoreusefultothinkofwhat division between theutopiananddystopian anticipate theinevitable criticismofthisbinary reduces oreliminates”(Gendron,1977,p.3). many moresocialevils thanit ates orintensifies that technological growthgener- inthelongrun the so-calleddystopianview, however, “believe the growth oftechnology” (p.3).Subscribersto social progress isdueprimarily orexclusively to ec hnolo xplained cal coordination which operates through Technological pessimismmightwell be b politicalcoordination ofsociety,terroristic totalitarian. For “totalitarian” is notonly a contemporar it hasorganized itstechnological base, intellectual culture.Byvir time andfreetime,onthematerial and ments fordefenseandexpansion onlabor imposes itseconomicandpoliticalrequire- trendoperates:theapparatus the contrary ut alsoanon-ter xact oppositeoftheUtopianvie gy andPessimism w oftechnology. Oneexample ofan , holdsthat“allormostofour of technolo w mightbethatofHerber y industrialsocietytendstobe roristic economic-techni gical rationality”seems tue oftheway w ,” which, t To - cal perspecti The essays inthisissuevaried accordingtocriti- technology” &Stevenson, (Barton 1980,p.3). andahalf:fearof inthepastcentury current the futureandindeed.amajorintellectual “a fundamentalproblem inmuchthinkingabout that issueregarded technological pessimismas “Technology andPessimism.” to The preface embrace afuturemade order tomove beyond pessimisticattitudesand stripping pessimismaway fromtechnology the Sciences1993 Yearbook, Segal’s (1994)introductiontotheSociology of view oftechnology hascontinued. According to found intheSpring1980issueof this modeofthoughttoward technology canbe pessimism incriticaltheory. A culminationof 1964 areevidence oftheonsettechnological technologically in pessimisticattitudeputforth nology e.g.,Heidegger’s (1977)andMarcuse’s ogy. Early examples ofpessimismtoward tech- an (andthereforeapessimistic)view oftechnol- ling forceisaconcreteexample ofananti-utopi- pessimism has become an integral part ofthe part pessimism has becomeanintegral P modernism. the anti-utopianview oftechnology withinpost- would goontoidentifyacontinuingthreadof the twentieth century, bothSegal andMarx f (p. 69).Despitetheseutopianleaningsinthe residual thanemer as thosew of somepeopletomaintainapessimisticview culture,andsawAmerican literary thetendency nature oftechnology andpessimismin Marx (1980),who consideredtheprophetic on themoreutopiansideofdebatewas Leo Nonetheless, oneauthorw an a account fortheabilityoftechnology toprovide views oftechnology, however, stilldoesnot by pessimism. attitude to ho ty” [p.139].)Otheressays inthecollection, ability tosolve problems andtoimprove socie- evidence of“considerable intechnology’s faith gy. (Segal [1980]himselfsaw thisperspective as ace oftherisetechnolo essimism, and Postmodernism w v ever, thecontinuingpessimistic exemplified Marcuse’s view oftechnology asacontrol- interests. (p.3) the manipulationofneedsby vested Under postmoder enue forutopianculturalproduction. —a specialissueappropriately entitled w ho “arebetterable toidentifywith ard technolo v e, b 3 This binary divideThis binary between the ut oftenw gent elementsoftheculture” nism, thisanti-utopian better gy thatischaracterized hose w gical pessimismin ere interestedin Technology, through technolo , “technolo ork appeared Alternative gical 2 in - The Journal of Technology Studies 63 e v e gam- ame “as v e or recei y widespread y Katie Salen le game scholar Jane scholar le game xt—and designing a g ARGs might mak ness the increasingl ers of ARGs) as outlined b ilms, television shows, websites, shows, ilms, television y al (2003) points out, “immersi xistence of such a medium is inherent in xistence of such a medium is inherent act that, as notab The Alternate Reality Game (sometimes The y e er phone calls, send or receive packages via the phone calls, send or receive Service, findUnited States Postal hidden mes- sages (in f e- musical recordings, and more), and receive Through mails—all pertaining to the game. turns a fragmented narrative up these avenues, piece then set out to collectively that gamers participating on the game in by or solve together A utopian dimension of the message boards. v the f McGonig The Utopian Potential of Technology Exemplified: Technology of The Utopian Potential Alternate Reality Game The one of the firsting is actually applications poised to har tech- of network penetration and convergence This for social and political action.” nologies fallacy in the either-or engages however, logic, debate that the present of the technological is attempting to undermine. Better to analysis in general espouse the cultural impact of games (including to way is an effective a cultural environment cultural critique” (p. 28). mount a powerful remains the platform for the design Technology referred to as ubiquitous or immersive gaming) referred or immersive to as ubiquitous cultural product of an immersive is an example of that can be broadcast across multiple types media. Pla and Eric Zimmerman (2003) in their keynote address from the 2003 Digital Games Research put it, blurring the bound- Conference; as they “magic circle” (pp. 14-15)— aries of a game’s the frame or conte tion of culture hinted at this notion when he when this notion hinted at culture tion of reproduction technical 1900 that “around wrote . . permitted a standard that . had reached it to of art and thus all transmitted works reproduce in their most profound change to cause the This impact (p. 1168). the public” impact upon a mere enjoyment the change from seems to be of it, to critical analysis of a cultural product is that the energy is precisely again, which, a utopian interpretation to the needed to employ tease out its utopian poten- product, and thereby discussed how principally Though Benjamin tial. this is so for film, true it is certainly for the facilitation culture in general, of technological An the debate. media has entered that new now the media politicizes new of how example in next products is shown reception of cultural Alternate Reality Game (ARG) that is the for analysis. offered - y om T gy gy that gy in crit as making ward tech- ward The Hopes and y dystopian mode of gy that is akin to ul isions: V gy operates as a primar rounding technolo gical hnolo arding technolo ec g T y as yet unexplored consideration of unexplored y as yet The dystopian nature of the technolo gy can solve existing social problems existing gy can solve ys in veals a refusal to confront fully the deeper to confront fully a refusal veals technology’s facilitation of utopian cultural technology’s production. clear “that society’s capacity to project concerns clear “that society’s and desires on technolo tech- form of social denial; the belief that a new nolo re (p. 3, emphasis causes of those problems” added). Such a dystopian attitude to space for a in critical theory leaves nology seemingl tend to fall between debate—that perspectives the utopian and anti-utopian—necessitates a conception of culture as a production of technol- facilitates the pro- (insofar as technology ogy possesses duction of culture, not that technology of cultural production in general). the agency for the production of culture, allows Technology be found in and utopian potential can always culture—here lies a notion of technolo the utopian pole of the dystopian leans toward mode of thought sur (2001) Benjamin’s Walter In fact, ical theory. in the produc- ideas about the role of technology Fears that Shape New Technologies that Shape New Fears thought re emerging culture of postmodernism. Within that Within of postmodernism. culture emerging be may itself technology hierarchy, cultural dis- a growing a declining status amid assuming and with all with material success enchantment forms 3). engineering” (p. of social and political sug- (1994) contribution to this volume Marx’s with post- the pessimism associated gested that modernism is a “vision of a postmodern society quasi- overlapping, immense, dominated by systems” (p. 25). autonomous technological (1991) conception of post- Jameson’s Following modernism the present “as an attempt to think to how that has forgotten in an age historically the first in think historically place” (p. ix), then, in (1994) noted that “high tech is lacking Segal in the very historical consciousness that would most iron- turn temper its optimism and thereby, (p. of all, perhaps strengthen its appeal” ically At this point the binary opposition of the 211). of technology utopian and anti-utopian views poles of anti-utopia the two between converge and utopia to become a tr (2000) discussion of dystopian narra- Moylan’s between “enters the fray as that which tive This can be Anti-Utopia” (p. 139). Utopia and Marita editors understood via the description by Thomas (2004) of the and Douglas Sturken essa 6

The Journal of Technology Studies 4 change f through technological means such asacolor Man messageboards. track ofinadditiontoInternet ARG thatthey eventually setupawikitokeep additional websites, markingacomplexity ofthe gamersfrom thealbum, foundupwards ofthirty September 28,2007)itself.Usingsongtitles believe.com, personalcommunication, the “autoresponse”(w jugated, allowing thegovernment toperpetrate e with theideolo the originalwarnings inaway thatisconsistent the authorhasbeencompromised, asitdispels ingtobelieve.com), thereply but suggeststhat provided ontheweb page(http://www.iamtry- to contactthesite’s author viaane-mailaddress site address. The website showed w spell outthewords tobelieve,” “Iam trying tain lettershighlightedinthetourscheduleto and alossofse ha stop drinkingthewater noticethey nolonger some sideeffects which tothedrug, peoplewho “Parepin,”put thedrug, intothewater. There are Christian, totalitariango componentof of thealbum release inEuropebeforetheofficial formances tour concert T-shirt soldat itbecamemuchmoreinthe 2007), but ARG. A band’s ofthesametitle(releasedin album narrative influencedtheproductionofthis for which heproducesallofthematerial. The spectrographs ofsongsleaked onUSB flash w the authorof One suchattackissaidtohave taken place,but the immunesystemagainst biological attacks. supposedtostrengthen being exposed toadrug “y narrative tobesetinthenearfuture_2022,or band Reznor—a musicianwhose “industrial”rock tive conceived visionofhistory by Trent of thecriticaldystopia. its culturalcritiqueviathegenericconventions this analysis is An exemplary ARG viewed throughthescopeof technology reveals utopianpotentialinthe ARG. its culturalcritique,anditisinthisway that of thegame, which containsutopianpotentialin v as astagedattackthatallo hich f en suggestingthattheauthorhasbeenre-sub- v ear zero”_duringw e_these includeaninabilitytothinkclearly Year Zero’s y oftheseadditionalwebsites were revealed Nine Inch Nails ans soondisco inish tothe I Am Trying toBelieve gy ofthegovernment inpower, Year Zero x dri ARG isanextension ofanarra- v Y e. Readersareencouraged hich time Americans are ear Zer is hiscreative outlet,and v ater@iamtr ered w v , an ARG thatmounts er Nine Inch Nails nment inpo Year Zero wed theconservative o as actuall compact discand Year Zero’s yingto assumes it had cer- y aw w - er to per- eb- that thedystopiacanbeo with aeutopia”(p.222).In authenticity in prevention. This manifestationofhistorical come thenarrative’s imaginedfuturethrough exists asthe“eutopian enclave” thatcanover- thinking comesintoplay inthatthepresent within narrative. Becausethereisutopianpotential ne he gamer. As aculturalproduct housedwithin oft about theutopianimagination onthepart includes atleastoneeutopianencla thatnormally societybut than contemporary ed acontemporaneousreadertoview asworse located intimeandspacethattheauthorintend- described inconsiderable detailandnormally the criticaldystopiaas“anon-existent society . Lyman Tower Sargent (2001)defines ciated withtheconventions ofthecritical encourages thekindofhistoricalthinkingasso- future world ofthegame inreality),which could leadtomuchofwhat iswrongwiththe explicit charge thattheUSAPATRIOT Act gamer’s empiricalworld (oneexample isan alternative realityarelinked toaspectsofthe clues were revealed. Many aspectsofthegame’s directing themtolocationswhere stillother given cellularphonesandsenttext messages characters inthegame. Somegamers were even aged in,andby meetingwithactorsportraying wason thebackofdigipakalbum pack- the ARG were discovered by callinganumber drives Othercomponentsof plantedatconcerts. T in thecriticaldystopiaexplained asfollows by inherent emergence oftheutopianimagination by technology, itdemonstrates how technology om Mo w media,itusestechnology its to putforth As acriticaldystopia, for utopian imaginationwithinthedystopias make roomforanothermanifestation ofthe tion ofthecriticalutopianmomentandthus textual asthey intervention negate thenega- 1980s and1990scar thecriticaldystopiasof imaginary), self reflexively thatpolitical articulated to bedoneb looked notonly atwhat was andwhat was dystopia andeutopiatoproducete dency throughadialectical combinationof writing (b 1970s re as thecriticalutopiasof1960sand Y m. (pp.194-195) ear Zer ylan: vived utopian andtransformed y negating theanti-utopianten- Y o ear Zer , andbecauseit isf ut alsoathow thetextual work o r is consistentwiththe v y outasimilarinter ercome andreplaced Year Zero Year Zero v acilitated e orholds brings , historical xts that - The Journal of Technology Studies 65 The (pp. ks gy and Year or Westport, hnolo (pp. 57-73). er” of culture, and w ournal of , gy to “expressly foster the gy to “expressly A selection of his w ving po The J Utopia/dystopia? es: Alex Hall is a Senior Educational . wing technolo The question concerning tec rancis Bacon: New York: St. Martin’s Press. St. Martin’s York: New can perhaps be viewed as what Heidegger as what can perhaps be viewed . Mr wth of the sa ro Cambridge: Harvard University Press. University Cambridge: Harvard y allo Consultant in the Faculty Professional Consultant in the Faculty State University, Center at Kent Development Ohio Zero (1977) called a “poetic revealing” (p. 35), there- (1977) called a “poetic revealing” b recognized the dangers of technology, which is which technology, dangers of the recognized the technolog- of strengthening of the exemplary Yet, II. War World paradigm after ical pessimism this pes- opposed framework a strong critical marking a to come, in years simistic attitude utopian and anti-utopian between polarization to a dystopian and leading of technology views in general. But the dystopian of technology view in its focus on is too narrow of technology view As Langdon will or will not do. technology what “perhaps it is time to (2004) suggested, Winner heard the false promises and affirm have that we it is time speculations too often, that hyperbolic cease” (p. 46). By to for this strange alchemy as a tool for cultural pro- accepting technology can be placed not on the duction, the emphasis itself, but of on the utopian potential technology the cultural production it facilitates.4 In this ARG such as dystopian a critically way, g (p. 35) our concep- and found anew” “awaken of technology. tion of the power (pp. 1166-1186). New York: Norton. York: (pp. 1166-1186). New Alternative Futur . London: Dent. arhaft (Ed.), F - y of W New York: Alfred A. Knopf. York: New . In S. xtent that tech W. (1980). Preface. W. ork of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. In V. B. Leitch (Ed.), B. V. ork of art age of mechanical reproduction. In in the gy in culture because . w atlantis Ne The dystopian impulse in modern literature: Fiction as social criticism. Fiction The dystopian impulse in modern literature: in the long 1950s. American culture The post-utopian imagination: The w Technology and the human condition. Technology The anatomy of melancholy The anatomy Science in utopia: A mighty design. Science in utopia: enson, D v The technological society. The technological (pp. 3-35) (W. Lovitt, Trans.). New York: Harper & Row. York: New Trans.). Lovitt, (pp. 3-35) (W. ood Press. . (2001). ts this claim to the e W eals utopian ener , M. (1977). The question concerning technology. The question concerning technology. , M. (1977). v rancis. (1982). gger : Greenw Scholars and philosophers have long recog- have Scholars and philosophers gy re ton, M. & Ste (2), 3-4. 417-457). New York: MacMillan. (Original work published 1627). published work MacMillan. (Original York: 417-457). New Company. Cambridge, UK: Schenkman Publishing other essays Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Greenwood CT: Westport, 3 criticism of theory and literary norton anthology CT it acts as an outlet for culture. Still, Heidegger interpretation itself was technology á la Bloch, utopian quality to retain at least one able (1977) con- through this facilitation. Heidegger’s (p. of revealing” as “a way cept of technology 12) suppor nolo Conclusion an important role played nized that technology during the Enlightenment as in utopian thinking This is evi- of utopia. a means to the realization dent in the scientific of and in the works utopias that appeared during this time. utopian thinkers is that there was however, What is also evident, of the inherent dan- understanding a perceived This last became paradig- gers of technology. with the rise of especially matic as time passed, consumer consumer capitalism. Nevertheless, means of cultural capitalism did usher in new facilitated by were production, much of which Because utopian potential can technology. production through be located in cultural always theor the application of a utopian method or facilitates thus and production, cultural utopian it undermines the the binary between opposition in critical debate poles of the technology two to find tending instead utopian potential theory, cultural theory. within a more in technology Fogg, W. L. (1975). Technology and dystopia. In P. E. Richter (Ed.), E. Richter and dystopia. In P. Technology L. (1975). W. Fogg, Bar (1977). Gendron, B. Heide Booker, M. K. (1994). Booker, M. K. (2002). Booker, (1967). Ellul, J. (1967). Eurich, N. Benjamin, Burton, R. (1948). References Bacon, F 6

The Journal of Technology Studies 6 Marcuse, H.(1964). Segal, H.P. (2005). Salen, K.&Zimmer utopian potential. their works. Onceagain, technology theculturalproduct,which facilitates canbefoundtocontain assucha forum. Internet Additionally, novelists novelists andgraphic have for usedthisplatform Se McGonigal, J.game”: (2003).“Thisisnota Immersive aesthetics&collective play. In e InchNailsamongthem. on theInternet—Nine This allows ofrecord toavoid theartists thefilter Se Rawley, W. (1982). To thereader. InS. Warhaft (Ed.), Moylan, T.(2000). (1997). More, Thomas. Marx, L.(1994). The ideaof“technology” pessimism.In andpostmodern Y. Ezrahi J Notes W Sturken, M.& Thomas, D. (2004).Introduction: Technological visionsandtherhetoricofnew. In Sar Marx, L.(1980). view cultureandthefatalistic oftechnology.American literary Jameson, F. (1976).Introduction/prospectus: To reconsidertherelationshipof toutopian ameson, F. (1991). x ecuti P 175-216). Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers. Copier &J. Raessens(Eds.), 418). New York: MacMillan.(Originalwork published 1627). technolo Alternative Futures: ofUtopianStudies,3(2),139-152. The Journal Westview Press. 1516). The Journal ofUtopianStudies,3 (pp. 34-47).Philadelphia: Temple University Press. M. Sturken etal.(Eds.) (pp. 1-18).Philadelphia: Temple University Press. M. Sturk Press. parative perspective identities. InP. Spinozzi(Ed.), Netherlands: UtrechtUniversity Press. Culture 2003Conference Proceedings Technology, pessimism,andpostmodernism Boston: BeaconPress. thought. inner g g gent, L. ress. al, H.P al, H.P 4. Consider the recent trend of some artists in the music industry togive inthemusicindustry 4. Considertherecenttrendofsomeartists theirwork away forfree 3. JohnH.Broomfield’s “Technology andthe Tragic View” forinstance. 2. The essays by areexamples. MelvinKranzberg andSamuelC.Florman 1. Andreae’ v , L.(2004).Sow’s earsfrom silkpurses: The strangealchemy oftechnologicalvisionaries. In es interestedsolel gical optimism.In . (1994). The culturalcontradictionsofhightech:Orthemany ironiesofcontemporary . (1980). en etal.(Eds.) The MinnesotaReview, NS6 T . (2001).USeutopiasinthe1980sand1990s:Self-f s ChristianopolisandCampanella’ Scraps utopia,dystopia. oftheuntaintedsky:Sciencefiction, The Technological utopianismin American culture. P man, E.(2003).“Thisisnotag One-dimensional man:Studiesintheideology ofadvancedindustrialsociety. ostmodernism, or, thecultural logic oflatecapitalism. (pp. 221-232).Bologna: COTEPRA/University ofBologna. Utopia American Jeremiadoftechnological progress: Historicalperspectives. y inthepro Technological visions: The hopesandfears thatshapenew technologies T ec Y hnolo . (Dover thrifted.).Mineola,NY: Dover. (Originalwork published . Ezrahietal.(Eds.), Level Up:DigitalGames andResearch Conference 2003. Utopianism/literary utopiasandnationalcultural identities: A com- gical visions: The hopesandfears thatshapenew technologies (2), 45-70. v erbial bottomline. , 53-58. . Melbourne, . Melbourne, Australia. (pp. 11-28).Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers. s CityoftheSun,forinstance. T ame”: Pla ec Francis Bacon: A selectionofhisworks hnolo The visual arts haveThe visualarts alsolongembracedthe g y inculturalen y , pessimism,andpostmodernism ashioning inaw Syracuse: SyracuseUniversity D vironments. InM. urham: Duke University Alternative Futures: Boulder, CO: orld ofmultiple et al. Digital Arts & Digital Arts Utrecht, (Eds.), (p. (pp.