Why I am a Luddite
By David W. Riemer
Last year—or was it the year before?—I opined in these very pages (vented is more like it) on the downside of cell phones. I still loathe them. But it has occurred to me that cell phones, for all of their faults and obnoxiousness, are merely one component in a technological plague of biblical proportions. Who needs locusts when you have BlackBerries (used to be food), PDA’s, iPods, MP3 players, TiVo, web-access on those pernicious cell phones (not to mention video on cell phones, iPods, etc.), satellite dish TV, HDTV, satellite radio, you-name-it tech gizmos? As the coordinator of the school’s Multimedia Communications Magnet, this may sound heretical, but I think we are drowning in a sea of irrelevant, unconnected, mostly trivial information, and drowning is not a good thing. (This piece originally ran in La Yuca, the student newspaper at Verdugo Hills High School, where I teach.)
Instant information is not necessarily a good thing. All of these devices extend the reach and speed of information. But there is such a thing as too much information, and there exists a fundamental and crucial need to be able to distinguish good information from bad information or disinformation. And being able to get information quickly is not as important as getting information correctly. The dangers of instantaneous information are well-illustrated in the case of the recent West Virginia coal mine disaster, where a misunderstood radio communication was quickly spread by cell phone, raising the hopes of family and friends that the miners had been found alive. As we now know, those calls were based on incorrect information and the hopes raised were cruelly dashed by the truth, which took time and careful inquiry to establish.
Also, these devices are classic swords of Damocles: they cut two ways. On one hand, they connect people to information and other people. On the other hand, they isolate individuals from those around them and intrude on common courtesy and consideration for others, coarsening our already crass social mores. Curmudgeon that I am, I believe the negatives far outweigh the positives in this case. The iPod is the perfect example of the isolating quality of technology. Having taught high school for 18 years, I am painfully aware of the fact that many teenagers are isolated and alienated. (And I am sympathetic. Heck, seeing all these people walking around having a party in their own head, listening to gosh-knows-what on their iPods makes me feel isolated and alienated.) But do we really need an entertainment device that cuts the user off from any meaningful interaction with the rest of the world?
In this technological brave new world, our sense of public and private are consistently being undermined and denied. People privatize what used to be a public experience, listening to music, and in the process they completely isolate themselves from others. Similarly, the cell phone—sorry, I can’t help myself—makes public a previously private activity. Remember phone booths, those quaint devices that kept your private drivel neatly separated from my sensitive sensibilities? If you don’t remember phone booths…oh, forget it. This fogey gives up.
And honestly, when people tell me, “TiVo has changed my life!” or just as bad, “I couldn’t live without TiVo!” I worry. Not for them. They are lost causes. Oh, no, my scope is grander than that. I worry for society itself. Which is to say I worry for myself, because I have to live with these nuts. Really, television is not important enough for me to have to be able to watch everything I possibly could watch at my convenience. In fact, I believe that every television program I miss is a good thing. No doubt I was doing something more important and useful.
Do you know the origins of the word, “saboteur”? A saboteur is one who engages in sabotage, the intentional destruction of property—most typically machinery. The word comes from the wooden shoes worn by Dutch peasants—“sabots.” The act of sabotage was coined when the Dutch peasants destroyed mill machinery by throwing their wooden shoes into the gears, stopping the machinery. Have you heard of the Luddites? Here is a description of their origins and practices from Wikipedia. I know, I know. An online encyclopedia? You’ve given up, Riemer! But I know the information to be correct from my considerable, book-based research, and I believe in citing sources:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (For more about the Luddites, click on this link): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddites
The Luddites were a social movement of English workers in the early 1800s who protested – often by destroying textile machines – against the changes produced by the Industrial Revolution that they felt threatened their jobs. The movement – which began in 1811 – was named after a probably mythical leader, Ned Ludd. For a short time the movement was so strong that it clashed in battles with the British Army. Measures taken by the government included a mass trial at York in 1813 that resulted in many death penalties and transportations.
The English historical movement has to be seen in its context of the harsh economic climate due to the Napoleonic Wars; but since then, the term Luddite has been used to describe anyone opposed to technological progress and technological change. For the modern movement of opposition to technology, see neo-luddism.
I hereby declare myself a neo-luddite. And regret to note the Luddites lost.
Some Luddite Links:
Thomas Pynchon’s excellent 1984 musings: “Is It OK to be a Luddite?”
http://www.themodernword.com/pynchon/pynchon_essays_luddite.html
