Negative/Positive Technology/ism
Burke's attitude towards technology seems to be a mix of negative and positive. On the negative side of things, Burke describes the human drive to perfection, or the drive to achieve an ideal end. Within this pursuit of perfection, Burke, though not explicitly, acknowledges the non-reflective action of humans in this pursuit. He writes, "We must not turn back the clock. We must continue in the ways that made us great." What made us great, or at least what we thought made us great, were the technological developments that humans created, that helped us produce more and at a faster rate. Unfortunately, as Burke points out, this leads to negative consequences such as waste and its attendant pollution. So, technology, used/applied unreflectively (not tracking down its implications?), is negative. However, after reading Burke throughout the semester, I have a hard time believing that he does not see some positive in technology. The positive of technology would be reflective uses (I'm being circular here in my reasoning, but I'm not sure how else to state it). If we are aware of technology and what it does to us, then we would be able to implement it better. I'm struggling with what I'm trying to say here, but it seems Burke is trying to get at a use of technology that promotes democratic ends. Now, I'm not suggesting democracy in terms of government, but rather, I'm saying that he wants technology that benefits all humans, not just those in positions of privilege. In the article, Burke references the "fortunate few" who can experience a technological release from the very distresses that technology burdens us with. A more reflective use of technology would help create conditions where such burdens wouldn't exist, and all humans would be able to achieve a technological release...I'm not being clear here, but is reflective action/use of technology what Burke is striving at?
Technology itself may not be
Technology itself may not be either negative or positive, but the attitude people have towards it--and the motives people have for using it. That at least makes sense to me in the light of his feelings about rhetoric, which is neither negative nor positive, either. Both seem to be tools.
I'm similarly confused. As
I'm similarly confused. As you say, in Hellhaven, Burke describes the "human drive to perfection, or the drive to achieve an ideal end" in a negative light. However, in SoM, entelechy is described as a positive attribute that assists man in producing forms and the joy of texts. Perhaps LKC is LKC is right, any positive might become a negative in different context (or seen through a different frame).
Balanced Attitude
I think you're right on the money, MAH, but I think your interpretation is more balanced than Burke's. He seemed too attached to the idea that all technological development was inevitably bad, but I agree with you that (like rhetoric?) it conceivably can be elaborated/developed with an eye for reflective, unwasteful, and humane uses. The problem is that in many (most?) cases, it's not, in part because it succumbs to bureaucratization of the imaginative and the unintended by-products take the place of ideals.