💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › SPUNK › sp000059.txt captured on 2022-03-01 at 16:04:53.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[This originally appeared in *The Gentle Anarchist*, a zine published in
Lawrence, Kansas in the mid 1980s]
Notes toward a statement of principles
TECHNOLOGY
by boog highberger
To be human is to use tools. To be antitechnology is thus at some
level to be antihuman. Although sometimes I too, wonder if civilization is
a good idea, this is mostly just tongue-in cheek, pseudo-intellectual
cynicism. As long as we're living and working in the material world we need
to accept the fact of human civilization with all its faults and come to
grips with technology.
Technology is not value-free. Although it would be too broad an
assertion to say that
technology determines social relations, the use of any technology is
compatible with only a limited range of social relations. In a given
society, the development of a more powerful technology than that currently
existing does not inevitably lead to the adoption of the new technology and
the displacement of the old. However once social conditions are favorable,
the new technology will be adopted and it will alter its social environment
to favor its own further development.
The level of technological determinism is affected by the
prevailing social and economic relations. In a traditional society with
strong social cohesion there is a relatively low level of technological
determinism. In a marketoriented society with a money economy there is a
high level of technological determinism. Thus the Greeks understood the
principles of the steam engine, but treated it as a curiosity and used it
only to create magical effects in their temples. Watt's "invention" of the
steam engine had a somewhat different effect on 18th century England.
The development of the internal combustion engine has had an even
greater impact. Mechanization of agriculture has all but eliminated the
self-sufficient farm. The automobile has destroyed the city and the small
community, replacing them with endless acres of suburbs filled with
strangers alienated from their work, their environment. and each other.
Television has effectively destroyed regional cultures. Modern
communication and transportation systems are obviously incompatible with
community. Like Wes Jackson says, "high energy destroys information".
The response of Amish and Mennonite groups 20th century technology
illustrates this point. The Amish and Mennonites are Christian sects
characterized by strong communities and simple living. Most accept modern
technologies but only up to seemingly arbitrary limits. Some groups, for
instance, allow gasoline engines for powering stationary devices such as
washing machines but not for vehicles. Some allow tractors but not cars.
Some allow electricity in the barn but not in the house. These
restrictions are reminiscent of religious taboos in some cultures, and seem
to perform similar functions. These restrictions represent a refusal by
these groups to submit to technological determination of their social
relations. Amish and Mennonite community relations are far less mediated
by money and commodities than those in the surrounding culture. They
therefore retain enough community social control to set limits on their
technology, and they have, for the most part, been able to maintain
thriving communities while community has been eradicated all around them.
Technology that is complex beyond the understanding of the people
dependent on it is a threat to freedom. Such technology disenfranchises
people by taking away from them the power to make the decisions that affect
their lives and placing it in the hands of "experts". Autonomy and
self-management demand a technology that is subservient to its users. If
you depend on something, you need to know how to fix it.
Technology that demands centralization and vast concentrations of
capital similarly are incompatible with autonomy. Consensus and democratic
decision-making work only in small groups. Mass organizations such as the
modern factory demand hierarchy, coercion, and authority for their
functioning. Many existing production technologies are capable of being
organized in much smaller units than they are normally found today--from
the beginning, centralized factory production was instituted not for
economies of scale but to facilitate control of labor. However, some
technologies. such as automobile production and nuclear power, by their
nature demand big capital and centralized production and are thus
inherently authoritarian.
Environmentally destructive technologies are the social equivalent
of spending one's capital. If you live only on interest you can do it
forever, but if you use up your capital it's gone and there isn't any more.
Dependence on such technology means sacrificing the well being of the
planet and of future generations of humans for our own immediate material
interests.
Thus an anarchist society must be based on technology that is
simple, decentralized, and environmentally sound. In practice, this means
that we must change the way we live our lives to end our dependence on
coercive & destructive technologies, and we must also organize resistance
to such abusive technologies.
Examples of such practical anarchy include:
o buying more locally grown foods &
organizing marketing co-ops for local organic producers
oriding your bike instead of driving your car & fighting the new
highway project
o chopping your own firewood & fighting
nuclear power plants
oblowing up your TV and doing street theater
The Luddites were right!