Luddism
From Robo Culture Wiki
| Revision as of 00:42, 11 February 2008 (edit) Mvp (Talk | contribs) (→The Luddites in 5V33) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 00:42, 11 February 2008 (edit) (undo) Mvp (Talk | contribs) (→The Luddites in 5V33) Next diff → |
||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
| 1790-1809". ''Technology and Culture'', 27(1), pg. 11</ref> | 1790-1809". ''Technology and Culture'', 27(1), pg. 11</ref> | ||
| - | For most Luddites, the factory, besides being a symbol of future unemployment and economic distress, was also a place of immorality, vice and corruption <ref> pg. 12 </ref> | + | For most Luddites, the factory, besides being a symbol of future unemployment and economic distress, was also a place of immorality, vice and corruption. <ref> pg. 12 </ref> |
| 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. <ref>pg. 3 </ref> | 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. <ref>pg. 3 </ref> | ||
Revision as of 00:42, 11 February 2008
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. [1]
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 destruction of property or those simply labelled as Luddites. [2]
Contents |
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. The name Ludlum, in its mythlological form, was eventually shortened to 'Ludd' and calls of 'King Ludd' and 'General Ludd' were often heard as rallying cries at Luddite riots and protests. From this nominal modification, the expression "I have the mind to Ned Ludd it" was coined, simply meaning "I have the mind to break it" [3]
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 [4] 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 [5].
Societal Connotations of Luddism
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 [6].
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 [7]. Furthermore, the Neo-Luddites embody a movement that is broadly based, whereas the Luddites of the 19th Century possessed particular goals specific to the foremost cause of that historical time period [8].
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 [9].
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. [10]
For most Luddites, the factory, besides being a symbol of future unemployment and economic distress, was also a place of immorality, vice and corruption. [11] 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. [12]
Luddism, in its various forms, offers an alternative to the 'received view' of technology and culture as defined 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. [13] 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. [14]
Kris Brockelbank Luddism Response
Luddism may also be seen as the “will to avoid” moving towards progression. Luddites may not be anti-technology, but rather skeptical due to rich cultural traditions. Luddites come from a variety of backgrounds, most prominently European. Users from this cultural construct generally avoid technology, but they still use instruments which can be considered a form of technology. Horses, and plows acknowledge that no-one individual can move away from technology. So it is important to distinguish that technology alters over time and certain forms are favored over others.
Luddites I ague, also receive no training of new updated forms of technology. Perhaps a reason for their modern technology withdrawal stems from the unknown. Luddites invoke the academic argument of whether certain classes have access to technology or if state intervention is available to these groups. Proper training furthers their success with the application of technology. Luddites using technology in a confident manner may displace these mythological roots.
Luddites participating in the modern education system promote their use of technology. Globalization occurs at a vast rate as new technologies begin to surface in various locations which had no access before. Children are not forced to join the technological revolution, but through cultural awareness they essential use technology in school environments. Anti-luddite establishments may attempt to subdue technology utilization, but when technology is framed in a discourse with positive elements, they may not follow through with their avocation.
Luddism like technology alters as time passes. Neo-luddism establishes the argument that some luddites use technology for production needs. Either way, no human being can survive without using some form of technology, past or present.
References
- ↑ Navickas, Katrina (2005). 'The search for 'General Ludd': the mythology of Luddism', Social History, 30(3), pg. 281.
- ↑ Slack, Jennifer Daryl and J. McGregor Wise (2005, 2007). Culture and Technology: A Primer. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc., pg. 69
- ↑ Frobish, Todd (2002). 'Neo-Luddites and Their Rhetorical Paradox'. Peace Review, 14(2), pg. 207
- ↑ Navickas, pg. 285
- ↑ pg. 283
- ↑ Slack and Wise, pg. 68
- ↑ Frobish, pg. 209, 213
- ↑ Slack and Wise, pg. 72
- ↑ Slack and Wise, pg. 71
- ↑ Randall, Adrian (1986). "The Philosophy of Luddism: The Case of the West of England Woolen Workers, ca. 1790-1809". Technology and Culture, 27(1), pg. 11
- ↑ pg. 12
- ↑ pg. 3
- ↑ Slack and Wise, pg. 72
- ↑ pg. 73
Please consider the environment before
printing this page.