|
|
|
|
Neo-luddism
|
| |
|
| |
The term Luddite is a political/historical term relating to a political movement during the Industrial Revolution; it is primarily used to describe those perceived as being uncompromisingly or unnecessarily opposed to technological or scientific innovations.
Neo-Luddism is a modern movement of opposition to specific or general technological development. Few people describe themselves as neo-Luddites (though it is common, certainly in the UK, for people to self-deprecatingly describe themselves as Luddites if they dislike or have difficulty using modern technology); the term "neo-Luddite" is most often deployed by advocates of technology to describe persons or organizations that resist technological advances.
ke anarcho-primitivists, someone labeled a neo-Luddite might not consider technology itself to be evil, though they may believe that many technologies influence human nature in a way that "degrades the overall quality of human existence".
Reasoning
People described as "neo-Luddite" come from a variety of political backgrounds, anarchist and conservative, and the arguments used to obtain anti-technology conclusions similarly run across the political spectrum.
Accusations of "neo-Luddism" on the left are usually directed at those who oppose technology on the grounds that may contribute to any or all of the following: loss of personal privacy, environmental degradation (including human extinction), consumerism, authoritarianism, cruelty to animals, social decay, the collapse of tribal and nature-based ways of life, or the separation of the worker from the means of production.
Those on the right who are qualified by others as "neo-Luddites" generally oppose technology on the grounds that it may contribute to any or all of the following: decay of social mores, dehumanization, a snowball effect towards a "Brave New World", the collapse of traditional ways of life, consumerism, or the decay of religion and atheistic nihilism.
Whether the arguments come from the right or the left may not affect the general conclusions reached by those who are likely to be labeled as neo-Luddites.
Discussion
Ask a question about 'Neo-luddism' Start a new discussion about 'Neo-luddism' Answer questions from other users |
Encyclopedia
The term Luddite is a political/historical term relating to a political movement during the Industrial Revolution; it is primarily used to describe those perceived as being uncompromisingly or unnecessarily opposed to technological or scientific innovations.
Neo-Luddism is a modern movement of opposition to specific or general technological development. Few people describe themselves as neo-Luddites (though it is common, certainly in the UK, for people to self-deprecatingly describe themselves as Luddites if they dislike or have difficulty using modern technology); the term "neo-Luddite" is most often deployed by advocates of technology to describe persons or organizations that resist technological advances.
Views
Unlike anarcho-primitivists, someone labeled a neo-Luddite might not consider technology itself to be evil, though they may believe that many technologies influence human nature in a way that "degrades the overall quality of human existence".
Reasoning
People described as "neo-Luddite" come from a variety of political backgrounds, anarchist and conservative, and the arguments used to obtain anti-technology conclusions similarly run across the political spectrum.
Accusations of "neo-Luddism" on the left are usually directed at those who oppose technology on the grounds that may contribute to any or all of the following: loss of personal privacy, environmental degradation (including human extinction), consumerism, authoritarianism, cruelty to animals, social decay, the collapse of tribal and nature-based ways of life, or the separation of the worker from the means of production.
Those on the right who are qualified by others as "neo-Luddites" generally oppose technology on the grounds that it may contribute to any or all of the following: decay of social mores, dehumanization, a snowball effect towards a "Brave New World", the collapse of traditional ways of life, consumerism, or the decay of religion and atheistic nihilism.
Whether the arguments come from the right or the left may not affect the general conclusions reached by those who are likely to be labeled as neo-Luddites. These conclusions may include claims that some or all of the following are needed: increased governmental control over technological development; increased consumer responsibility; increased corporate responsibility; and ethical inquiries into the ramifications that certain technologies have and will have on society and/or the environment.
Some of those who do not fit neatly into either group, or who fit into both to some degree, oppose technology on essentially anarchist grounds. In their view, the unhindered growth of technology in liberal societies tends to increase governmental and corporate control over individual lives.
Labels
Those labeled "neo-Luddites" may also be labeled anarcho-primitivist. Like "neo-Luddite" itself, these various labels are usually applied by their detractors. However, Kalle Lasn is a self-described neo-Luddite social activist.
Some "neo-Luddites", mostly of the anarcho-primitivist or green anarchist persuasion, do not consider "Luddite" to be pejorative and advance explicitly anti-technology arguments, viewing technology as a fundamental form of oppression and alienation. Notable thinkers and writers in this vein include John Zerzan, Derrick Jensen, Jacques Ellul, and Chellis Glendinning. The actions and words of Theodore Kaczynski and groups like the Earth Liberation Front may also be seen as a militant articulation of Luddism. The historical Luddite movement of the early 19th century is often referenced positively in this milieu, in spite of its violence.
"Neo-Luddites" and politics
Most neo-Luddites in popular culture (see 'popular culture' section for examples), have not publicly supported or condoned violent beliefs or practices, however some people do use the philosophy as a justification for violence.
Stem cell research
On August 9, 2001, a few months after taking office, U.S. President George W. Bush enacted a ban on the expenditure of public funds on Embryonic stem cell research other than those from cell lines developed prior to the date of his declaration. This policy was proposed by Leon Kass and Francis Fukuyama in their work on The President's Council on Bioethics as a compromise between pro-life advocates (because of the Principle of double effect) and embryonic stem cell researchers (because it allowed some research), though neither side was happy about it. At the time the prohibition was viewed as an example of neo-Luddism affecting politics.
Marketing to "Neo-Luddites"
A 'machine made' shirt from a big box store would not appeal to a "Neo-Luddite" as much as a 'tailor-made' shirt. Of course, the difference is in the terminology because both are made by a human using a sewing machine.
Opposition
Opposition to neo-Luddites consists of those who believe that technology is beneficial or, at worst, neutral. Take for example a very basic fact as life expectancy. Nobody can deny that life expectancy has increased dramatically in last century because of technology.
Further reading
- Postman, Neil (1992) Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology Knopf, New York,
ISBN 0-394-58272-1
- Quigley, Peter (1998) Coyote in the Maze: Tracking Edward Abbey in a World of Words University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, ISBN 0-87480-563-5
- Roszak, Theodore (1994) The Cult of Information: A Neo-Luddite Treatise on High-Tech, Artificial Intelligence, and the True Art of Thinking (2nd ed.) University of California Press, Berkeley, California, ISBN 0-520-08584-1
- Szymanski, Al (1978) "Braverman as a Neo-Luddite?" Critical Sociology 8(1): pp. 45-50
- Tenner, Edward (1996) Why Things Bite Back: Technology and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences Knopf, New York, ISBN 0-679-42563-2
See also
External links
-
-
-
- Stan Iverson Memorial Archives (articles, links & timeline)
-
|
| |
|
|
