Luddism

From Robo Culture Wiki

Revision as of 12:51, 28 January 2008 (edit) Dbradley (Talk | contribs) (New page: claimed by Matt) ← Previous diff		Revision as of 11:32, 10 February 2008 (edit) (undo) Mvp (Talk | contribs) Next diff →
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	claimed by Matt	+	== '''Luddism''' ==
		+
		+
		+	Broadly defined, 'Luddism' refers to the resistance of the English working class to the introduction of 'labour-saving' machinery in the textile industry. Besides invoking food riots and writing threatening letters to magistrates and other government officials, Luddism as a movement was also associated with the attacks on and destruction of the cropping frames and powerlooms that were being installed in English textile factories (Navickas, 281).
		+	More specifically, Luddism came as a response to the changing conditions of industrial capitalism in the second decade of the 19th Century where new technologies facilitated a redefinition of the role of the worker and a shift from skilled or 'craft' labour to unskilled work.
		+	During the height of the movement, several laws were passed that resulted in the deportation, jailing and execution of those associated with rioting and destruciton of property or those simply labeled as Luddites (Slack and Wise, 69).
		+
		+
		+	'''Origins'''
		+
		+	The Luddite movement can be seen as having an almost purely mythological origin and not surprisingly, details as to the beginnings of Luddism are sparse at best.
		+	Frobish asserts that any 'Ludd' element of Luddism is based on the rebellious antics of Edward Ludlum, a legendary English figure who, as the story is told, ended a heated encounter with his framework knitter father by destroying his knitting needles with a hammer.
		+	Ludlum, in its mythlological form, was eventually shortened to 'Ludd' and calls of 'King Ludd' and 'General Ludd' were often heard as Luddite rallying cries at riots and protests.
		+	From this, the expression "I have the mind to Ned Ludd it" was coined, simply meaning "I have the mind to break it" (Frobish, 207).
		+
		+	Navickas proposes a different, although somewhat related, origin to the Luddite movement, purporting that 'Ned Ludd' is a Leicestershire idoim for 'machine-breaker' named after an individual named Ned Ludd who had allegedly destroyed stocking frames in Leicester in 1779 (Navickas, 285).
		+	Regardless of the accuracy of these theories of Luddite cosmogony, the mythological foundations of Luddism were vital to the persistance and efficacy of the movement.
		+	Without a clear organization or governing body, Luddites were dependent on the images and symbols contained in these and other myths in order to maintain a semblance of shared community and identity across large and often remote geographic locales (283).
		+
		+
		+	'''Connotations'''
		+
		+	Luddism is often associated with an abid ignorance of the wonders of modern technology and can go so far as to be framed as 'technophobic'.
		+	This alleged anti-technology stance also involves a desire to "reverse the flow of progress" and an association with violence and mindless destruction that seems to warrant the label 'machine-hater'.
		+	The perceptions of Luddites as anti-progress and anti-technology persist despite the absence of comprehensive accounts written by the members of the movement that could affirm such notions (Slack and Wise, 68).
		+
		+	Despite pledging philosophical allegience to the original Luddites, Neo-Luddites attempt to distance themselves from the connotations associated with their predacessors by using non-traditional media such as the internet to promote an ecologically friendly agenda of non-violence and social reform (Frobish, 209, 213).
		+	Furthermore, the Neo-Luddites embody a movement that is broadly based, whereas the Luddites of the 19th Century possessed particular goals specific to a relevant cause of that historical time period (Slack and Wise, 72).
		+
		+
		+	'''The Luddites in 5V33'''
		+
		+	Contrary to the common parlance regarding Luddism, the Luddites were not anti-technology, but rather thoughtfully chose the machines and finished goods that were to be destroyed. The movement did not involve a hatred or fear of all technology, but a rational concern as to how industrial growth should be balanced with the ethical concerns of the working classes (Slack and Wise, 71).
		+
		+	Luddites opposed the mechanization of textile labour on moral and social, as well as economic grounds and believed that the factory system of machine labour made the 'family work unit' obsolete and would eliminate the social benefits of domestic work (Randall, 11).
		+	For most Luddites, the factory, besides being a symbol of future unemployment and ecnomic distress, was also a place of immorality, vice and corruption (12).
		+	Luddism encompasses a view of progress that stood as contrary to that of the dominant laissez-faire capitalists, where work was not only involved in matters of economics and efficiency, but also in the stability of traditional social relationships (3).
		+
		+	Luddism, in its various forms, offers an alternative to the 'received view' of technology and culture as outlined by Slack and Wise. The movement stands as emblematic of a point of view from which technology is not seen as a neutral tool, but as a political and cultural force (Slack and Wise, 72).
		+	As Slack and Wise state, the Luddites recognized the political nature of technology and the need to critique the continuous integration of technology into everyday life (73).

---

Revision as of 11:32, 10 February 2008

Luddism

Broadly defined, 'Luddism' refers to the resistance of the English working class to the introduction of 'labour-saving' machinery in the textile industry. Besides invoking food riots and writing threatening letters to magistrates and other government officials, Luddism as a movement was also associated with the attacks on and destruction of the cropping frames and powerlooms that were being installed in English textile factories (Navickas, 281). More specifically, Luddism came as a response to the changing conditions of industrial capitalism in the second decade of the 19th Century where new technologies facilitated a redefinition of the role of the worker and a shift from skilled or 'craft' labour to unskilled work. During the height of the movement, several laws were passed that resulted in the deportation, jailing and execution of those associated with rioting and destruciton of property or those simply labeled as Luddites (Slack and Wise, 69).

Origins

The Luddite movement can be seen as having an almost purely mythological origin and not surprisingly, details as to the beginnings of Luddism are sparse at best. Frobish asserts that any 'Ludd' element of Luddism is based on the rebellious antics of Edward Ludlum, a legendary English figure who, as the story is told, ended a heated encounter with his framework knitter father by destroying his knitting needles with a hammer. Ludlum, in its mythlological form, was eventually shortened to 'Ludd' and calls of 'King Ludd' and 'General Ludd' were often heard as Luddite rallying cries at riots and protests. From this, the expression "I have the mind to Ned Ludd it" was coined, simply meaning "I have the mind to break it" (Frobish, 207).

Navickas proposes a different, although somewhat related, origin to the Luddite movement, purporting that 'Ned Ludd' is a Leicestershire idoim for 'machine-breaker' named after an individual named Ned Ludd who had allegedly destroyed stocking frames in Leicester in 1779 (Navickas, 285). Regardless of the accuracy of these theories of Luddite cosmogony, the mythological foundations of Luddism were vital to the persistance and efficacy of the movement. Without a clear organization or governing body, Luddites were dependent on the images and symbols contained in these and other myths in order to maintain a semblance of shared community and identity across large and often remote geographic locales (283).

Connotations

Luddism is often associated with an abid ignorance of the wonders of modern technology and can go so far as to be framed as 'technophobic'. This alleged anti-technology stance also involves a desire to "reverse the flow of progress" and an association with violence and mindless destruction that seems to warrant the label 'machine-hater'. The perceptions of Luddites as anti-progress and anti-technology persist despite the absence of comprehensive accounts written by the members of the movement that could affirm such notions (Slack and Wise, 68).

Despite pledging philosophical allegience to the original Luddites, Neo-Luddites attempt to distance themselves from the connotations associated with their predacessors by using non-traditional media such as the internet to promote an ecologically friendly agenda of non-violence and social reform (Frobish, 209, 213). Furthermore, the Neo-Luddites embody a movement that is broadly based, whereas the Luddites of the 19th Century possessed particular goals specific to a relevant cause of that historical time period (Slack and Wise, 72).

The Luddites in 5V33

Contrary to the common parlance regarding Luddism, the Luddites were not anti-technology, but rather thoughtfully chose the machines and finished goods that were to be destroyed. The movement did not involve a hatred or fear of all technology, but a rational concern as to how industrial growth should be balanced with the ethical concerns of the working classes (Slack and Wise, 71).

Luddites opposed the mechanization of textile labour on moral and social, as well as economic grounds and believed that the factory system of machine labour made the 'family work unit' obsolete and would eliminate the social benefits of domestic work (Randall, 11). For most Luddites, the factory, besides being a symbol of future unemployment and ecnomic distress, was also a place of immorality, vice and corruption (12). Luddism encompasses a view of progress that stood as contrary to that of the dominant laissez-faire capitalists, where work was not only involved in matters of economics and efficiency, but also in the stability of traditional social relationships (3).

Luddism, in its various forms, offers an alternative to the 'received view' of technology and culture as outlined by Slack and Wise. The movement stands as emblematic of a point of view from which technology is not seen as a neutral tool, but as a political and cultural force (Slack and Wise, 72). As Slack and Wise state, the Luddites recognized the political nature of technology and the need to critique the continuous integration of technology into everyday life (73).