Ideological Luddites
I’ve written often here about ethical consumption and the need to be aware of what we are supporting with our shopping habits. Too often we don’t care that women were abused in the factory that made our shirt or that children were kept in slavery to produce our chocolate. I have a real problem with treating people as objects to be manipulated, used, and destroyed – especially when there are things that could be easily done to make things better. But sometimes even I question the ideology behind some of these discussions.
For example, I am not a fan of hating technology because it is technology. I don’t think that scientific development is necessarily evil and that all technology should be feared (and shunned). Sure it changes the way the world functions, but I’m not the type that sees change as inherently evil. I’m not a fan of rampant advertising from companies that oppress their workers and try to convince people that the acquisition of more and more stuff is the goal of life, but I don’t boycott all TV, Internet, magazines, and billboards in order to avoid any exposure to such things.
Same with things like Facebook and blogging. Sure I am putting my personal information “out there” for any ad exec (or the US government) to access and target me with, but that doesn’t stop me from enjoying the benefits of those mediums (for more on the uber-capitalistic big brother nature of Facebook check out this article (HT – Will Samson)). I’m not a fan of all aspects of the system, but I still participate it in (similar to how I engage with church or politics).
I have a hard time accepting the luddite tendency these days to condemn all forms of technology and media because they have the potential to be used by corrupt and controlling forces. I’ve more of a mind to embrace that which I enjoy, ignore that which is stupid, and oppose that which I see as wrong. I’m not a fan of the constant culture of advertisements we see, but I would rather be critically aware of the system instead of rejecting the entire system. I don’t mind the way something like Facebook works because I expected no less from them. If I tell the world that I like XY and Z products/bands/movies I am under no delusion that that won’t be used by someone somewhere. But I do have the choice to not allow advertisements on my own blog if I don’t want them there. I choose what I want to participate in. (although I do find Gmail ploy to scan my emails so they can target me with “Pastor Ringtones” and “Girlpower Marketing” creepy and annoying).
So to bring some sort of conclusion to my ramblings today (which I hope make sense outside my head although I am beginning to doubt that), I would just say that ideology must be coupled with critical thinking. To me there are differences between committing actual evil, encouraging the support of evil, and the potential to commit evil. And for all I prefer to help redeem the system instead of reject it altogether.
Tags:
julieclawson(at)gmail(dot)com 
Hi Julie,
Hey….You are giving Luddites a bad name
I don’t know if you have done much study on the Luddite Rebellion but I have done a fair bit…..
The Luddites were not necessarily anti-technology. After all, they were weavers. They used tools to do their work.
They opposed technology that took away from them their ability to earn a living.
I gladly call myself a Luddite, even tho I sit in a room of technology.
The Luddite asks of any technology:
1.Why?
2.To what end?
3. What are the unintended consequences?
Based on what you wrote above about your personal habits and thought process, I would venture you are being a good Luddite
I’ll quit with a practical story………I shaved my face for years with a one blade razor. Then 2 blades came along. OK. better. Now we are up to five bladed razors. I ask Why? There is no need. I ask to what end? Consumers Reports says you don’t get a better shave. Of course there are consequences. More landfill usage. More natural resource use. Much more expensive. SO, I reject the 5 bladed razor.
I 100% agree we need to think about the things we consume. Where did they come from? Who made them? What did it cost them? Cost their country? Cost the environment? We can no longer play the hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil ignorance game.
Just a little rambling here in Ohio.
Bruce
Good post, Bruce. Julie, you seem from here to be going after a straw man. Or at least a very poor representative of the anti-technology crowd. Most writers I have read that would fit into the camp you seem to be describing, don’t hate technology simply because it is technology, nor do they hate all technology, and they actually make sophisticated, nuanced arguments in support of their position.
A writer like Wendell Berry, for example, has seen large portions of his home state torn apart and figuratively raped for coal, to feed the ever-increasing demand for cheap energy. To him the act of flipping a light switch or using a computer is related directly to the once-beautiful mountain that had its top blown off just down the road from him, and the pollutant runoff in his stream from the strip mine in the next county. Just like wearing a shirt produced in a sweatshop is, for you, directly related to an abused woman in that sweatshop. He would argue that his choice to not own a PC and to use as little electricity as he can, is just as principaled (and based upon a similar principal) as your choice not to buy shirts made in overseas sweatshops. You may draw the line in a different place than folks like Berry – I know I do. But at least you can do justice to their arguments.
Other writers look at TV as a medium and ask questions about the amount of time the average American spends watching TV; what activities this amount of TV watching is replacing and whether that’s a good tradeoff; what is communally gained and lost thereby; what happens inside the brain when watching tv as opposed to what happens inside the brain when reading a book, interacting with friends or family, listening to music or taking a walk outside. Similar quesitons can be asked about for spending lots of time on the internet. All of that is far different than disliking a given technology b/c someone might use it to peddle a bad message. Writers like Berry, Kirkpatrick Sale, etc. are the ones to grapple with when critiquing modern day luddites just like McLaren is a figure to grapple with when critiquing emergent.
Or maybe you aren’t talking about writers like Berry or Sale, but some really simplistic anti-technology people you have run across. But that still seems a bit like slamming Emergent because of some bad individual examples of emerging church folks rather than reading McLaren, for example, and grappling with the ideas behind the movement as set forth by their strongest and most thoughtful proponents. I agree with Bruce, that you sound like a “good luddite” when describing many of your life choices. So its strange to see a rant against straw-man luddites on your blog.
Karl,
Wendell Berry is my favorite author. He has been key in my changing worldview. I even read his fiction…….and I don’t do fiction
Bruce
We (myself included) show a good deal of hypocrisy in sharply criticizing the very things we consume. I much admire people like the poet/essayist Wendell Berry who condemns consumer society AND operates a farm, shops locally, doesn’t own a computer, etc… There aren’t too many societal critics which such integrity.
Bruce, Berry is a favorite of mine also. And I go back and forth re. whether I like his fiction, his poetry or his nonfiction more. The novel Jayber Crow is probably my favorite of his fiction works; “Mad Farmer Liberation Front” my favorite of his poems; and “What are People For” probably remains my favorite collection of his essays, although that’s probably a sentimental choice b/c it was the first that I read. I like that in addition to pushing me to make some actual, real-world decisions about how I live and consume, he keeps my conscience a bit uneasy about the lenghts to which I am NOT willing to go, and the sacrifices I have NOT been willing to make. I want to explain away or justify my decisions in order to quell that uneasiness.
The history of Luddites is fascinating, thanks for sharing Bruce. It does seem that they were a more nuanced group than one would assume. However, I don’t think that’s the usual connotation of the term “Luddite” anymore. And in my experience there are plenty of unnuanced people out there these days who do throw the baby out with the bathwater. Berry may or may not be among them, it’s been too long since I’ve read his stuff to remember.
Good Wendell Berry article here:
“For the last four-plus decades, Berry, 72, has been asserting in various ways that we Americans live without much care for the world and our place in it. Berry points out that most of us consume and adopt new technologies without considering the hidden costs. Berry asks, how many of us think about environmental degradation when we start up our computers, which in cases depend on electricity from coal gouged out of the mountains of Appalachia?
Berry does not mean that no one should use a computer or technology. Indeed, at the 125-acre farm he calls home at Lane’s Landing, near Kentucky’s tiny Port Royal (population 116), Berry drives a truck, uses a chainsaw, and has a CD player—though there is no computer. He writes in a tree-house stand on his hillside farm.
“For some,” Berry writes, “their involvement in pollution, soil depletion, strip-mining, deforestation, industrial and commercial waste is simply a ‘practical’ compromise, a necessary ‘reality,’ the price of modern comfort and convenience. For others, this list of involvements is an agenda for thought and work that will produce remedies.”
http://www.ctlibrary.com/39301
Bruce – I am aware of the history of the Luddites and do find their story fascinating. Like Mike mentioned I was using the term in its current popular usage and not in its historical context.
Karl – I fully understand that there are various reason to question technology and that some people have well thought out ethical reason for why they choose not to engage. I’ve just had a number of conversations recently with people who reject forms of technology and condemn those of us that do mostly because technology is new and different. the don’t understand it, they have heard a bad story or two, and so they blanket condemn it. I find that there often doesn’t have to be an all or nothing approach to things like this. I see there being ethical approaches to most things if people would take the time to engage them. And I see presenting the ethical options to people as being much more likely to take hold and persuade than to preach complete rejection.
One criterion is whether our tools liberate us, or whether we become slaves to them. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
Does a washing machine allow me to use my time more productively by spending it on doing something better than just transferring dirt from one place to another. Ir is it something that will just get me into increasing debt, because there are things that i have to have?
A washing machine might save me time that I can put to other uses, like blogging. But is what I write in my blog worth it? Does anyone read it, and if they do read it, are they any better off for having read it?
I’m not necessarily advocating a kind of utilitarian outlook on this, but sometimes it can help. It’s not just technology, but techniques that are not material. Sometimes a method for doing something can become a fad and an end in itself, and we forget what it was introduced for.
I was one of the first on my block to get a PC, because I loved the idea of being able to put information in a machine and find it again.
I was one of the last to get a cell phone. I saw no need for one until I had to take a student to get passports and visas to go and study in Kenya, and report to the church office or get information from them — and having to drive home to phone or drive around looking for a public phone convinced me that a cell phone could be a useful thing. I still don’t see the point of downloading ring tones, though.
Same with Facebook — keeping in touch with people is a useful concept, but downloading applications to deal with vibrating virtual hamsters is not. When your time is frittered away with such things, perhaps technology has become an idol.
Steve – I think it does come down to what each person can “justify.” You have your justifications for your PC and cell phone, but condemn those who Facebook or download ringtones. But I bet there are those who do such things who could provide a logical reason for why they do them. What I think is most key is the ability to think about it and provide reason for doing what we do. Sure some justifications can be questioned (but I think most will come down to personal preference), but at least they will have been examined.
Hmmm, I don’t see that I condemned anyone for downloading ring tones. I just said that I don’t see much point to it.
I make coffee in a coffee pot. Does that make me an ideological Luddite? Someone once gave us one of those fancy machines, and it was nice to be able to wake up in the morning and there was a cup of hot coffee. But eventually it broke. My wife bought a new one about a year ago. Nice because it is supposed to keep the coffee warm in a jug after it’s made. But none of the coffee went in the jug, it just went all over the counter and the floor. So I still make it in a coffee pot, even though after the first cup I have to heat it up in the microwave oven.
But that doesn’t mean that I “condemn” those who use fancy coffee making machines. If they work for them, fine.
I’ll tell you what’s funny. There aren’t any true Luddites. Everyone uses technology. It’s only a question of where you draw the line. And since that is the only question, you might as well be thoughtful, as you’ve suggested, and draw it with lots of curves and wiggles. It doesn’t have to be a straight line with everything on one side and nothing on the other.