For some time now, we
have seen images of monsters emerging from the sea, close to the Gulf
of Mexico. These teratological phenomena seem to be the bastard children of
Earth´s fluids, mass production, consumption & media, sociotechnical
systems, biology, and human guilt. What those images portray is monstrous, not
primarily because it is horrific, disgusting, outrageous or-much
less-extraordinary. It is monstrum in
the Latin sense of the term: it advises, warns, or indicates (monere). The
monsters in the images are living signs, signs that point in different
directions, beyond petroleum, toward us and the worlds we inhabit. As signs,
though, they need interpretation. Innumerous readings and lessons have been
proposed so far: humans destroy nature, companies need stronger regulation, our
energetic system has to be changed, we have to work on (safer) technologies,
etc. In the readings that I want to propose, the notion of departure is that of
economic externality, and the one of arrival that of ethical exteriority, a
concept articulated by philosopher E. Levinas that I freely misinterpret in what follows.
According to Wikipedia, “Externality is
a cost or benefit, not transmitted through prices, incurred by a party who did
not agree to the action causing the cost or benefit.” I want to bracket the
economic aspect and suggest a first sense of exteriority as the form of being
“of a party who did not agree to the action causing a certain effect.” I wish
also to propose two readings of exteriority. The first is ontological in
character, and refers to the constitution of reality, an orientation already
suggested by some commentators. Their lesson seems
to be-in my terms-that exteriority resides in the very core of any
technological system: the complexity of its elements and interactions represent
a source of uncontrollability for human agents and organizations–which they themselves
end up contributing to. Moreover-we may add-the elements within a system are
always more than their being-part-of the system, they are somehow exterior to
it, and therefore they can always disagree, or agree in different courses of
action than those ideally planned. Interestingly, the injunction of the
mentioned commentators is simply to internalize those exteriorities, improving
the management of human (f)actors, rather than only technological ones.
Differently, I believe that a first virtual lesson to be extracted from this
monstrous happening is the need of more humbleness and not just more industry.
For all we know there will never be enough control or “agreement” in systems’ action,
and we should be ready to accept, remember, and think through that condition.
The second reading of exteriority
has an ethical orientation, and takes those monstrous images as an ethical
call, as the sign of realities that remain always exterior to our systems and
societies, like “parties who did not agree to our actions.” Those exteriorities
stand before and beyond the omission, exclusion, or denial that our systems of
calculation make of them: they withstand and denounce the oil that denies them.
Even if a certain system were to take them into account, those animals and
landscapes of the images could not be fully internalized, nor their exteriority
reduced to the peace of a safe action and a clean consciousness. They can only be respected, and respect
implies here restricting certain ways of acting, and questioning certain ways
of thinking. Attempts at building better–more encompassing-or different systems
are also a legitimation for more action and more systems, which always goes
along different forms of overlooking exteriority. Even if we find that this is one
of the few walkable venues under the current status quo, we may want to
problematize assumptions supporting it. A possible start is to think in terms
of exteriorities and not only of externalities–or progressive internalization.
The possibility and strength of questioning is in this case a gift from those
exteriorities. They allow us to realize not just the inherent limitations of
our actions and systems, but also to illuminate their profile, the shape of our
ways of being in the world, as well as the richness of what is exterior to
them. Humbleness, restraint, enrichment, questioning, these are some leitmotivs
that may fill the space opened by those sea monsters. The oil, technologies,
and interpretations floating on the Gulf will be the basis for writing and
signing it.
I believe that the first two are partially addressed in my answer to Ned. Imposition of exteriorities can generate exteriorities, but only when we apply a different logics of action that the one were appealing to here. What underlies this type of ethical call is rather a logics of non-imposition. So, the matter turns out to be one of extending the range of application of the discourse, and linking it to new forms of negotiation. Legitimacy then implies to redefine the ways and actors that participate in the constitution of a certain system.
As to the illegitimacy toward the exterior, several notes: 1-it is true that there is a risk of turning every system building into illegitimate if we take this approach in an abstract and fixed form; nevertheless 2- recurring to a distinction suggested by Peter Sloterdijk, we can distinguish between alotechnics, which %u2013to say it simplistically or alotechnically- impose a certain, arbitrary logics and praxis upon things, and homeotechnics, which try to respect the ways of being of the realities under their action; 2- as I pointed above, we can build systems that %u2013covering the same function than those we have in place- affect less beings, and 3-we can simply try to build less or smaller systems. This could be understood as different ways to achieve a higher degree of legitimacy toward the exterior, although Im not sure that this is the right term.
As for the question of the ethical-legitimate reading of signs, I think those terms can be understood -at least- in two senses: as referring to the way we do the reading and relate to the signs %u2013for instance, a respectful, truthful or legitimate interpretation- or to the type of reading we propose %u2013a reading framed in terms of ethics rather than in terms of resource management or economics. One of the things I tried to do here was to displace the focus from the economic logics of externalities to the ethics of exteriorities, in that sense, mine is an ethical reading of those images. Im not sure if that is a more respectful or legitimate interpretation than any other in the first sense.
The issue of how to interpret signs concretely, what could be the criteria of legitimate readings %u2013if we need any- or how to articulate notions such as respect or exteriority is probably something that needs to be re-articulated attending to different situations, otherwise, respecting the exteriority that exceeds the system %u2013in this case, that of the totalizing ethical discourse.
yes, I agree that slowing down is a good way to articulate humility in many cases. In others we could almost avoid the issue altogether. Keeping the example of oil, we may say that a potential alternative such as solar energy displays a higher level of respect. Only the animals, people, landscapes, etc. that flourish in the immediate vicinity of the system are affected or put at risk -this is true even for the case of inland extraction vs sea extraction of oil. The advantage of solar increases when degraded land is used for deployment -an easier option when you do not depend on geologys capricious distribution of resources- or when we recur to our own roofs for deployment --usually with users agreement.
This later point connects with your second comment. Decentralization of energy generation and decision-making is another way to renegotiate the terms of exclusion-inclusion in ways that will probably increase respect. Obviously, people emerge in many cases as exteriorities, and the question of how to articulate those voices -human and non human, in many cases with contradictory calls- is where one of the obvious problems lie. This could be considered a form of interiorization rather than the usual, centralized forms of internalization -BPs insurances, cleaning checks, etc.
Nevertheless, as we just pointed in the case of oil vs solar, there are cases in which respect can be articulated without complexifying the system, without the need of internalization or even interiorization. We can simply build systems that -to the best of our renegotiable knowledge- affect less beings, and let them be as exterior.
I wonder if you'd agree that approaching sociotechnical activities with greater humility would often entail innovating more slowly -- allowing more time for reflection, and more time for those who care about the exteriorities to voice their concerns?
Thinking in terms of exteriorities might also delegitimize decision-making processes that lead to imposition of exteriorities without consent of those who will be affected. As you come close to saying, virtually all major technological endeavors presently proceed without such consent, and hence arguably are illegitimate in these terms?