Bridging Aesthetics, Morality, and Technology
The work of Bakhtin and his circle, especially The Philosophy of the Act, has profoundly impacted my scholarly journey. The warnings of certain professors against engaging with this text only heightened my curiosity, propelling me to tackle its challenging ideas. A pivotal moment occurred when a distinguished Brazilian expert in Bakhtin and education, following a lecture on “architectonics,” advised me in a private conversation: “Explaining the concept of [architectonics] through The Philosophy of the Act only leads to confusion; this text remained in the drawer for a reason.”
After years of immersion in Bakhtin’s oeuvre, I partially concur with this professor: The Philosophy of the Act is not the ideal entry point into Bakhtinian concepts such as “architectonics” and “chronotope.”
To begin with, Toward a Philosophy of the Act is an unfinished work by Bakhtin; we encounter it mid-development.
Below, you can read its first paragraph:
“… Even aesthetic activity cannot connect with this characteristic of existence—its contingency and its open-ended eventfulness; the product of aesthetic activity, in its proper sense, is not being in its effective becoming, and, concerning its existence, it integrates into being through the historical act of active aesthetic perception. Aesthetic perception also cannot grasp the uniqueness of a singular event because the images it configures are objectified, withdrawn in their content from effective and singular becoming, and do not participate in it (participating only as a moment in the living consciousness of the observer).”
Furthermore, the text, unfinished and relegated to a drawer by Bakhtin, contains many incomplete and damaged sections. This fragmented nature adds difficulty that can dissuade scholars from making it their first point of engagement with Bakhtin’s philosophy. Nevertheless, this work contains an array of philosophical gems that, once unearthed, have the potential to significantly enhance our understanding of ethics, aesthetics, and the interrelations between thought, action, and culture.
As Bakhtin himself noted, it was his practice to revisit and create “variations” on central themes, allowing us to encounter the concepts of “architectonics” and “chronotope” in more accessible and applicable forms in his other writings. These variations demonstrate Bakhtin’s iterative and dialogic process and offer a pathway for contemporary scholars to engage deeply with these ideas through multiple lenses. Why, then, focus on this particular text, especially one that has been left incomplete and, in parts, damaged?
My choice to delve into The Philosophy of the Act is not a rebellious gesture or a personal endeavor. Still, it stems from a conviction that in this manuscript, Bakhtin offers ideas that significantly enrich contemporary discussions on ethics and artificial intelligence, mainly through the lens of the philosophy of technology—especially in light of the empirical and post-phenomenological turns in the field. This work offers a foundational layer of Bakhtin’s thinking, which can be used to bridge the gap between classical ethical concerns and the evolving questions surrounding technological development.
Ethics and Technology: Answerability and Responsibility
The notion of ethics presented in The Philosophy of the Act is profoundly tied to Bakhtin’s insistence on the individual’s responsibility for their actions. This ethical framework resonates strongly when considering the ethical dilemmas of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and algorithmic governance. Contemporary discourse often highlights the opacity and complexity of AI systems, which lack a clear accountability framework. Here, Bakhtin’s concept of answerability becomes crucial. To what extent can developers, users, and society be held answerable for the impacts of autonomous systems? How do we integrate a sense of moral responsibility into technologies often perceived as neutral tools? By examining these questions through Bakhtin’s lens, we gain a richer, more nuanced approach to ethical considerations in technology.
Inspired by the approach of another scholar, I intend to appropriate specific discussions from The Philosophy of the Act, such as “эстетическая деятельность” (aesthetic activity) and поступка (act or deed), while expanding these concepts where necessary by drawing on other works, such as Art and Answerability. For instance, aesthetic activity extends beyond art and technological creation and innovation. Viewing technology as an aesthetic process allows us to highlight the role of creativity, interpretation, and ethical orientation in technological design. This perspective enables us to think about technology as a product of engineering and a cultural artifact shaped by values, intentions, and ethical considerations. Ultimately, I aim to illustrate the practical application of these ideas within an educational context, focusing on how educators might cultivate an ethical awareness that aligns technological literacy with moral responsibility.
Exteriority and the Critical Perspective
The Russian term “вненаходимость” (transliterated as vnenaсhodimost’) can be translated as “exteriority” or “exotopia.” This concept is central to Bakhtin’s work, referring to the capacity or position of an individual to be outside or beyond a specific context, thereby gaining a unique perspective or an external viewpoint on that context. The notion of exteriority is crucial for understanding Bakhtin’s ideas on dialogism, interaction, and the constitutively relational nature of the self and the other. In technological contexts, exteriority can be applied to emphasize the importance of having a critical distance from the systems we create and use. This exteriority allows for a perspective not subsumed within the technological system but instead observes and critiques it from an external vantage point.
Empirical Turn in the Philosophy of Technology
The philosophy of technology has undergone significant shifts, most notably the “empirical turn.” Traditional approaches often depicted technology as a monolithic entity, generalizing its role and implications. However, with the rise of Science and Technology Studies (STS) in the 1980s, a move emerged toward understanding technology more empirically. This shift involved debates over whether technology is merely a passive tool or an active force in shaping society, resulting in two primary perspectives: instrumentalism and substantivism. Instrumentalism posits that technology is a mere tool for achieving human objectives, devoid of autonomous intent. In contrast, substantivism fundamentally challenges this neutral view, emphasizing technology’s profound societal impact, often extending beyond the intentions of its creators.
The empirical turn has also led to a more nuanced understanding of technology’s embeddedness in social contexts. Technologies are not neutral artifacts but are co-constructed by social, political, and cultural dynamics. This turn is crucial for understanding how technological systems can reproduce existing power structures, biases, and inequalities. For instance, machine learning algorithms trained on biased datasets can perpetuate and amplify systemic disparities. Here, Bakhtin’s concept of answerability can be extended to critique the ethical responsibilities of those involved in designing and deploying these technologies. Answerability implies that technological creators must be attuned to the socio-ethical ramifications of their creations, taking an active role in ensuring that technologies promote justice rather than reinforce inequities.
Dialogism and Technology as Mediation
Prominent figures such as Peter-Paul Verbeek have discussed the influence of these perspectives on the philosophy of technology, emphasizing the need to recognize technology as an integral aspect of culture rather than something antagonistic to it. Verbeek, in particular, argues for a post-phenomenological approach that sees technology as actively mediating human experiences and perceptions. This perspective resonates deeply with Bakhtin’s dialogic philosophy, which posits that all human activity is inherently relational and mediated through interactions with others. By recognizing the mediating role of technology, we can better appreciate how it shapes human subjectivity and ethical agency.
In engaging with these discussions, Bakhtin’s works offer a fresh perspective that resonates with current debates in technological discourse. Drawing from Bakhtin’s treatises, this article introduces Bakhtin’s philosophy into ongoing conversations within the philosophy of technology and the “empirical turn.” Bakhtin has left an indelible mark on understanding the interplay between aesthetics, morality, and existence. His works, particularly The Aesthetics of Verbal Creation (1979) and Author and Hero in Aesthetic Activity, provide profound insights into these domains. By applying these insights to contemporary issues in technology, we can move toward a more ethically informed and aesthetically aware understanding of technological development.
Answerability in Technological Innovation
Bakhtin’s exploration of aesthetics transcends a superficial examination of art. Instead, he delves into the profound moral dimensions of art and literature, asserting that every artistic expression embodies the creator’s ethical stance—a testament to their “answerability” to the world and its inhabitants. This concept becomes particularly poignant when applied to technology, which, like art, is a creation that reflects the values, intentions, and ethical positions of its creators. In a sense, technologies are aesthetic objects that embody the worldviews and ethical commitments of those who design them. Thus, understanding technology through Bakhtin’s aesthetics provides a framework for critiquing the functionality of technological systems and their ethical and cultural implications.
The concept of “answerability” posits that every individual bears accountability to the broader community and the world through their actions and creations. The notion of a “non-alibi in Being” further accentuates this idea. Bakhtin contends that no individual can escape their unique position in existence. Through their actions and words, each person contributes to the fabric of life and, therefore, cannot claim an “alibi” or an excuse for their existence. This philosophy underscores every individual’s inherent responsibility and accountability within the larger existential framework. In the context of technology, this idea implies that developers, designers, and users all share the responsibility for the outcomes of technological innovations. There is no alibi for ignoring the consequences of one’s technological creations; each individual involved in the technological process must acknowledge their role in shaping its impact on society.
Unity of Thought and Action
Bakhtin’s critique of his era’s “fatal theoreticism” is pertinent to contemporary technological discussions. He observed an overemphasis on theoretical knowledge, often at the expense of practical application and real-world ramifications. This disjunction between theory and practice is analogous to the current discourse on technology, where rapid advancements frequently outpace our comprehension of their broader societal impact. Bakhtin’s emphasis on the unity of thought and action serves as a reminder that technology should not be developed in isolation. Instead, its creation and implementation should be grounded in a comprehensive understanding of its potential societal impact. Just as Bakhtin advocated for integrating art and life, we must ensure that technology and its ethical considerations remain intrinsically linked.
Bakhtin argues that when judgment is divorced from the real-life act of its realization and confined within a theoretical mechanical framework, it becomes detached from the concrete, unique events of existence. This detachment fosters a dualism between cognition and real-life events, rendering attempts to reconcile the two within theoretical constructs futile. Bakhtin elucidates this idea through an analogy with technology. He suggests that technology, driven by its inherent laws, advances without our understanding of its cultural ramifications. Initially conceived as a means of rational defense, technology can evolve into a destructive force when operating solely according to its internal logic, detached from the holistic unity of life. When technology is severed from the broader context of life, it can unpredictably disrupt existence with its unchecked power—a parallel can be drawn with cognition when it is estranged from its real-life enactment.
A Dialogic Path Forward
In both instances, the critical issue lies in the detachment from the broader life context, leading to potentially detrimental outcomes. Bakhtin’s philosophical foundations, emphasizing aesthetics, morality, and the interconnectedness of art and life, provide a rich framework for understanding technological advancements’ ethical considerations and societal implications. His insistence on integrating cognition with lived experience offers a powerful critique of technological development that prioritizes efficiency and progress over human well-being and ethical responsibility.
Ultimately, Bakhtin’s philosophy calls for a dialogic, dynamic engagement integrating ethics and responsibility into technological development. By bridging Bakhtin’s aesthetics and morality with the philosophy of technology, we find a pathway to critically assess the ethical ramifications of emerging technologies, ensuring they serve human flourishing rather than isolated technological imperatives. This approach encourages a reimagining of technology as not merely an instrument but as an integral part of our cultural and ethical fabric—one that requires continuous reflection, critique, and engagement. By fostering a dialogic relationship with technology, we can better navigate its complexities and ensure that it remains a force for good within the broader context of human existence.
Deixe um comentário