A Look at Mechanization

By: Stephen K. Ainsah-Mensah

A man is unable to use his solid competence in art and craft. His society has, so far, given very little credence to what he has trained himself in. Gone in the very distant past were art and craft held in high regard by those who had more than enough money to part with on such hand-crafted products. Even in all conceivable corners of the society, art and craft used to be esteemed. Exhibitions were rife, and so many people patronized them with a vigour that was more than usual. What must have gone wrong that this enthusiasm ebbed and turned out later to reduce art and craft to the level of comparative negligence? Now is the reign of money, many people may say. The aesthetic qualities in hand-made art and craft are esteemed, yet they do not command the requisite attention at this time. Their preeminence has been dislodged by the products from, especially, mechanization.

The lust for money, which is triggered by the principle of profit, has come to govern the conscience of those who now know that in, say, mechanization and its ownership rests the accumulation of profit. And profit has seized the conscience of many a business owner so much that other issues pertaining to human decorum and ecological stability are belittled. But our man in question has begun to curse himself in the society he lives in - a society he has judged to be out of touch with the natural course of things. He used to admire the gradual pace of mechanization, for he thought, then, that it was refining the crudities of life, adding flavour to it, in the form of easing the length of time physical labour was expended on doing things. Technological products, for him then, were affording special comfort to life。Here we were now with all sorts of appliances, gadgets, electronic products, automobiles, computers, TVs, camcorders, and so on that facilitated output and personal comfort. So, where is the fuss? What is the problem of our man?

Our man saw for himself, in a repeated fashion, how people’s lives were being debased and dented by daily routines at workplaces. Workers, he said, were going through repetitive tasks that had little or nothing to do with the creative powers of the mind; he pushed his thoughts about life to a fixed level of pessimism. For him, mechanization and its workers are one and the same: strict conformity to procedures and tasks and little or no exploits regarding the workings of the mind.

It is not that easy to claim that this man is right or wrong with his thoughts. But one thing that is known for sure is that he detests a society that has neglected his skills in art and craft; so, he now lives with a raging consciousness that confronts mechanization and its admirers or followers with disgust. As if this downright confrontation is not enough, he sees anybody who is “trapped” into working for his/her living in the mechanization system as an embodiment of bondage.

The true meaning of life has, perhaps, been oversimplified by our man. Where - one may ask - does art and craft fit in the overall scheme of development, especially in the area that requires producing as much as possible to cater to the rising consumption needs of a growing population? Art and craft are great showpieces that point at striking creativity; but they are outpaced, for the most part, in importance when populations grow to squeeze usable spaces and, in addition, crave for more consumable products? Maybe, on account of the fact that mechanization has come to overwhelm art and craft, people’s creative inclinations have been stifled by the alternative of having to work in the mechanization system. Besides, it is not just art and craft. One’s talent may dwell in fashion and design, the complex usages of science and technology, acting, singing, dancing, etc. But if one is unable to explore such talents to aid in personal and social advancement, then the system in place is faulted, criticized by those who see a whole range of other people trapped into doing monotonous jobs that mechanization requires in accordance with routine procedures. This is where our man scores points!

Mechanization, thus, generates a paradox that lacks a clear solution. To simplify work procedures and make the most of production for human consumption, mechanization offers the best alternative. But, then, mechanization is posing serious threats to human exploits, suppressing talents instead of unearthing them. Yet, it is to mechanization that we need to give credit for the high production that has been able to satisfy ever-growing consumption needs. But once mechanization is left unchecked, it brings the sin of wastes to bear on the environment.

This issue of environmental wastes has been well grasped by Johnny. He likes to ponder over his impaired health, which he is fond of associating with the eroding quality of the environment. Quite often, he occupies himself in a soliloquy about mechanization vis-à-vis the environment and concludes that the worst is yet to come. For every question he asks himself, he is able to proffer an answer - correct, partially correct or incorrect. What can be seen is that every one of his answers hints at pessimism and not a trace of optimism.

It is common to see Johnny sitting on a canvas armchair in front of the main entrance of his decaying house when his soliloquy mood is apparent. He will raise his head up and wear a facial expression that will evidently show that he is talking to himself though in silence. But how can Johnny, a man who loves nature so much and admire, as well, mechanization, accommodate these two in his overall judgement about how we, as humans, are faring in relation to our environment? He is ready to claim that it is not mechanization, technology, that is the problem but the misuse. And since misuse is the problem, the environment ought to recede in quality. It is true to say that automobiles, for example, have eased the way we travel from one place to another. There is even a progressive advancement in their utility, which is something Johnny compliments so much; but a contradiction in his thoughts become clear when he begins to question the quality of the environment in relation to automobiles in particular.

Johnny is prepared to say: “Gone are the days when we had so many trees lined up in this neighbourhood and on the streets. Green grass was ubiquitous, and the freshness of the air could be felt everywhere. Frequent rains added to the health of the environment. Environmentally friendly animals and birds welcomed this kind of environment; but now all those trees have been cut to give way to paved roads for automobiles. Grass has suffered too much as manufacturing plants are being built all the time. Gasoline fumes are tormenting the environment with scary pollution and diminishing the ozone layer, and the heat of the sun is striking the earth with a hitherto unknown kind of intensity. And how many people’s health get eaten away due to environmental hazards brought about by gasoline fumes? Consider the number of lands that are appropriated for use by manufacturing plants or the mechanization system, lands that could otherwise have been used for human habitation.”

But this kind of lamentation is not the end of the matter. One may go on to ask the question as to what happens should Johnny’s expectations be fully met. Will not a whole lot of employees go without jobs? Just think of the numerous manufacturing plants spread around the globe that produce automobiles all the time and the employees who earn their living by working at such plants. What alternative jobs are available for such employees should the plants close down? Suppose these other jobs were available, how much will the employees be paid? Will the payoffs be as good as those offered at manufacturing plants? So we face a dilemma in the sense that in the long run we have to answer the question regarding how a large number of employees could earn reasonable wages from alternative sources granted where they presently work – at manufacturing plants, at mechanization centres – are closed down with the alleged hope of saving the natural environment from untoward ruin. We, as humans, are facing real threats about the way we are massively producing, which does not go well for the environment. The risks are high if we go on a consumption spree, which in turn requires or entails a production spree; or is it the other way round? It is, perhaps, not mechanization or the manufacturing plants that are the problem. One might say that if we have chosen to be “technological” beings, then we have to fit our needs within the framework of the natural environment. We need to constantly be addressing the question: “what kind of production and products are best suited to or fitting for an ecological balance?” This question ought to precede questions about our consumption style(s).