One implication of technology that seems to be a reoccurring theme in many of the blog posts this week is the creation of an emotionless robotic society completely consumed by technology and cyberspace. In many ways I feel like this concept is flawed. The main issue is that we are all looking at this point from the wrong perspective. This book does not describe the general population, which in our minds would typically compose “society,” but instead focuses on a tiny, isolated sector of society. That is the criminal underworld.
In today’s world, the criminal underworld is comparable or even worse than what is described in Neuromancer. There is no question that many present day criminals could resemble some of the characters described in the book in their seemingly robotic nature. Does that mean that an increase in technology in the last 20 or so years is the cause of such nature? The answer is most definitely no. It is the nature of criminal activity. As I see it, it would be difficult to be a visibly emotional person and at the same time be an active criminal. You are constantly facing life and death situations, seeing people you know disappear in the blink of an eye and even having to kill people yourself, depending on the crime. Thus the same could be said about the life Molly and Case are living. They are criminals, involving themselves in criminal activity and risking their lives and the lives of others every day. There is no time to visibly show emotion.
An additional point brought up was the addiction of society, in Neuromancer, to technology, and cyberspace in particular. First off, it seems as if an elite and very select group of people are actually able to use cyberspace. This group mainly consists of the military, and criminals. Secondly, they are using it to break into major company headquarters. This is not the general population logging on to cyberspace. In our world, many technological inventions first start out in the military and then spread to the general population, one example being the internet. Another example from today could be the CIA’s use of a memory stick containing a virus to shut down Iran’s nuclear facilities. This seems very similar to what they are doing in Neuromancer. Yet us, the general population, knew very little about this. The same is probably true of the general population in Neuromancer; they most likely know little of what Case is doing. Hence, maybe instead of attempting to set a limit on the expansion of technology, Gibson is trying to show that technological change moves in cycles, starting with the government (most funding), then the criminal underworld and finally the general public. Once an advancement reaches the general public, a new advancement is already underway. As a result technological progression never ends.
Lastly, there seems to be somewhat of a debate as to whether technology has “betrayed mankind” (Leo). As Professor Croxall stated, humans are inherently a technological species. If you look at evolution, our whole goal has been to constantly improve ourselves, and make everyday tasks easier. Isn’t that similar to what technology has done? Humans and technology in a way seem to be intertwined, so there is no need to place the blame for flaws in society on technology. We have as humans and will always be intertwined with technology.
Josh, I completely agree with you on this topic. It seems that many people narrow down the whole Neuromancer society to be all criminals, which is not the case. The book focuses on that “tiny, isolated sector of society”, but in reality, the reader is left only with Case’s story. There seems to be a fundamental flaw that high school has taught us, which is to read deeper into things, when in reality they are what they are. Gibson may just want an interesting plot and good story line, because describing an average citizen in a very technological world would be a boring novel. Though I concede that I may be wrong, I still insist that we don’t read too much into what Gibson may be implying about the world we live in right now. Many books such as Animal Farm are obviously symbolic and we should read into each detail carefully, but Neuromancer is not known to be a novel of societal critique.
Sam, Gibson has said that sci-fi is always about the moment in which it is written, rather than about the moment in which it is set. As such, it is de facto a mode of social critique. Just because it’s more interesting than a classic novel doesn’t mean we shouldn’t understand the scope of the author’s vision. (But then again, a cigar can just be a cigar.)
Josh, I appreciate your perspective on how technology filters through illegal purposes before reaching a mass audience. Gibson might agree, since in a short story called “Burning Chrome” he famously wrote, “the street finds its own uses for things.”