Investigation of the instrumental stance1 is necessary to understand the contemporary world. Various terms may be used to describe this phenomenon, such as (yet not limited to) means/end rationalism, instrumental reason or rationality, utilitarianism,2 or utility. I will simply refer to it as the instrumental stance, as it describes a specific “stance” or approach to the world.
An instrumental stance is a specific form of rationality, one that is rarely articulated yet embodied on a grand and ever-expanding scale. It exists in nearly all areas of human life, from the basic motives of human action, to modern economic and social activity, to philosophical inquiry.3 It is a concept that is closely bound up with Jacques Ellul’s concept of technique.4 They are similar in that both are expressions of means-dominated thinking or rationality, but technique differs in that it continuously strives for absolute efficiency.5 I do wish to emphasize that this essay serves only as an introduction to the concept, as it is very broad and multifaceted, and will no doubt be explored further in the future.
What is the instrumental stance? It is the paradigm that perceives things–whether they be ideas, people, material possessions, processes, or something else–as instruments or means of achieving some further end or goal. It is the tendency to see the world through the lens of utilitarian calculation–where things are valued on the basis of how useful they are deemed to be. It is a view of the world that cannot see a place for that which is not useful in some way. The characteristic quality of the useful–or that of an instrument, the instrumental–is that it serves a purpose beyond itself. It is “used-for” that which is “other-than” itself. Thus, what is good becomes what is useful; the useful is prior, and becomes the criterion upon which goods are evaluated. This way of thinking should indeed be familiar, as much of our thinking today is bound up with the idea of usefulness.
Above I said that the instrumental stance is “embodied on a grand and ever-expanding scale,” and in A General Overview I spoke of a “growing hegemony of utilitarian or instrumental rationality” as being characteristic of the modern contemporary situation in the West. A large portion of this hegemony involves the Economic sphere,6 as economic activity is instrumental by definition. As such, it provides perhaps the best initial example of the instrumental stance in action. Consider again the use of money. Money is always used, it’s value points to things other than itself. The physical paper of a dollar bill, or the electronic code comprising the balance of a bank account, hold no intrinsic value.7 Rather, it is what may be done with the paper or the digital balance that matters; what it may be used for. It is a means which may be characterized as entirely separate from the end (or ends) for which it is used. As an employee, one’s time and effort in a given range of predetermined activities are exchanged for money. In other words, one’s time and effort play an instrumental role in the acquisition of money. Money, in turn, plays an instrumental role in acquiring food, shelter, the paying of bills, saving, investing, and so on. The choosing of a profession is itself an object of instrumental consideration: What is it that I really want to do? How many jobs are available? How much does it pay? Where will I live? What is the cost of living? What degree is necessary? Where will I go to school? How much will it cost? What is the most effective way to accomplish this? And so on. These are economic considerations, and it is indeed the case that economic concerns occupy a great deal, if not the majority, of our attention.
Let us add another layer to the concept by discussing an area of overlap between the Economic sphere and the Social sphere.8 The impetus behind networking events (in business or other things) is to potentially connect with other people in order to further each other’s interests by forming a relationship based on mutual benefit. That is, a relationship in which the participants are characterized by a certain amount of usefulness or instrumental-value. Some people go so far as to treat nearly every social event they attend as an opportunity for such networking.9 Indeed, the idea of social capital is an example of an instrumental stance being applied to social relationships. Just as many friendships are rooted in some form of mutual benefit.10
In the arena of romantic relationships, the cliché of a playboy or philanderer provides a good example of the instrumental stance. Here we have a man who views and uses women as a means or instrument of sexual pleasure. To the extent a given woman is able to satisfy his sexual needs, he keeps her around. If and when she does not, he must seek another. The same role is essentially played today by pornography, which has become omnipresent in the world. The rise of hookup culture, and apps such as Tinder, also presuppose an instrumental stance toward romance and love.11
Consider also certain ideas occupying the Religious sphere. There are those who see religious belief as a means to earthly wealth and success, espousing various forms of what may be termed prosperity theology or the gospel of success.12 Much of early self-help literature–and I am here thinking of books published in the mid-20th century–was written by Christian preachers.13 The common theme here is that religion can serve as an instrument to attain things of this world. There is also the tendency among some religious to view the main purpose of prayer as a means of getting something, or have some turn of events transpire. This view turns God into a kind of “magician in the sky”, since prayer is here used as an instrument to petition God to grant something, that is, to “make it happen”. In his book The City of God, St. Augustine heavily criticizes the Romans for the quid pro quo aspects of the pagan religion, which was more concerned with purported temporal benefits than with worshiping God as an end in itself.14
These are just some of the ways the instrumental stance is embodied today. The propensity of homo sapiens to instrumentalize the world is indeed a necessary thing. Without this view of the world, we could never have survived even as primitive hunter-gatherers, but even more so, the building of civilization and culture would have equally been impossible. However, I do think there is a danger in the expansion of this way of thinking about the world and ourselves. In the future, I will contrast this stance with what I call the “non-instrumental stance”, which is concerned with things as ends-in-themselves rather than mere means.
Notes:
1. I am indebted to Charles Taylor for the term “instrumental stance”, which he discusses in some of his more prominent works, such as Sources of the Self, The Malaise of Modernity, and A Secular Age.
2. By “utilitarianism” I do not refer to the formal philosophy, such as that articulated by Jeremy Bentham or John Stuart Mill or Henry Sidgwick. “The greatest happiness of the greatest number” is not what I have in mind here. Rather, I refer to the “ism”–if I can call it an ism–to evaluate things on the basis of how useful they are, that is, on the basis of their utility, or utility-value.
3. Within the subject of philosophy we may include such diversity as pragmatism, utilitarianism, value-theory, philosophy of science (e.g., Instrumentalism), and others.
4. See Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society.
5. Though efficiency calculations are not necessarily excluded by the instrumental, they go a step further than mere instrumentality requires.
6. The Economic sphere is briefly discussed in Three Spheres of Influence.
7. It may be thought that precious metals, such as gold or silver, offer a counter-example to this. But the use of precious metals as mediums of exchange (money) does not invalidate the example of money as a purely instrumental social construct, and that gold or silver are perceived as valuable is no less a socially constructed aspect of our world. It makes no difference if someone buys gold or silver and stores it in their own vault. They are still doing so because they ultimately expect to use it as a medium of exchange, albeit at some future time. The collecting of rare coins may offer a better counter-example. In this case the collector values the coins not for what he may exchange them for, but for their own sake. But, if the impetus behind his collection is the idea that they are a good investment, he is still thinking of them in instrumental terms.
8. The Social sphere has not at this point been formally introduced. For now, consider any activity between people to fall within this sphere.
9. I am here thinking particularly of those involved in network marketing or multi-level marketing enterprises. Perhaps the best argument against such businesses is that they have the tendency to reduce one’s social relationships to potential instruments of business partnership. That is, people–including and especially friends and family–are reduced to objects of utility.
10. Aristotle discusses this as one, albeit inferior, example of friendship. See Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics.
11. The using of a person as merely a means has been heavily criticized. Most famously by Immanuel Kant (see Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals). Pope John Paul II makes a substantial argument against this as well, drawing on Kant for much of his thought (see Karol Wojtyla, Love & Responsibility).
12. Early forms of this thinking can be found in Calvinism and Puritan theologies. Max Weber, again, proves an invaluable resource.
13. Norman Vincent Peale may be the best example of this. See Norman Vincent Peale, The Power of Positive Thinking.
14. See St. Augustine, The City of God.