A feature of conservative thought that I’ve never entirely understood is its persistent anti-technology theme. If the roots of left-wing anti-technology views are probably with Rousseau, where can we find the roots of similar right-wing views? In this essay, Russell Hittinger locates a surprising source: the writings of Christopher Dawson. He argues that this is the dominant theme in all of Dawson’s work: “From his first published work Progress and Religion (1929), to the lectures given during the twilight of his career in America, he was emphatic in the judgment that the chief enemy of culture is not liberalism or the other secular religions of progress, but technology.”
Hittinger offers a mild criticism of Dawson’s view but he remains largely sympathetic. Of course we are given the usual claims that technology dehumanizes us, distracts us, and makes us dependent–criticisms that seem to offer more flourish than substance. It is not until you reach the end that you find the core reason for the worry about technology. “The core of a culture is found once we locate the thing that the culture would never relinquish, or even imagine itself relinquishing. I submit that in our case it is not individual liberty, or sex, and certainly not religion. It is not even the machine. Rather, it is the machine insofar as it promises an activity superior to the human act.”
So it is because we are unwilling to give up our iPods, laptops, dishwashers, indoor heating, computers, refrigerators, anesthesia, electricity, airline trips, paypal–and we must add here inexpensive food, clothing, shelter, and books, since it is technology that has made them accessible to the masses–that means we are ruled and dominated and spiritually tormented by them. Why do they torment us? Because they attempt to go beyond what is merely human and realize a kind of progress on earth that a robust faith in God should prohibit.
What is the mistake here? Having puzzled over this problem for years, I think the Hittinger piece here brings it into sharp relief: the mistaken view that technology is a force imposed exogenously upon society rather than the fulfillment of the desire on the part of people to live better lives, that is to say, technology is the result of human action to better one’s material lot, and nothing more than that. It is not “unnatural” or “external” to human action; technological progress is merely the material expression of the inner drive to adjust one’s surroundings in a manner that achieves our ends. It is what results when rationality is permitted the freedom to innovate in the service of humanity. It is not foreign or external to the nature of man but integral. To say that we should be willing to give it up is saying nothing other than that we ought to act in ways that diminish our well being. There are times when doing so is heroic, to be sure. But can or should we expect this as a social propensity in normal times? Surely not.
Not having read Dawson in years, I’m guessing that his work might have benefited from greater economic understanding. The same could be said of most of the British Right, who decided a couple hundred years ago that the economists were apologists for the revolution they hated the most: the Industrial Revolution, that severed the relationship between state power and land ownership, and transfered cultural influence from the entrenched aristocratic elites to the new entrepreneurial class, and, moreover, empowered the common man with new tools to live well, speak out, and influence history. Some elements of the Right have never really adjusted to this reality.
It is particularly fascinating that this relentless bemoaning of the modern age is done in the name of Christianity. A feature of Jesus’s life that is particularly compelling is that he never reminisced of the glories of the days gone by. He didn’t express regret that he was born in 1A.D. instead of 300B.C.. He never drew attention to an economic advance of his time and said: this tool has corrupted us! No, he took it as a given that he was born in his time for a reason. His parables employed metaphors drawn from the technology of his time. And he never doubted that the job he had to do was for now and for the future.
{ 11 comments }
He may be an example of right-wing anti-technology views, but he’s British. Are there any American views from the right? The American right, and Protestantism more generally (constantly reinventing itself), tend to embrace much of the change that defines America. From what I encounter, at least, the right tends to hold an attitude that material things around you may change but morality and faith do not. Of course, with the advent of technologies like genetic engineering, there is far greater difficulty. C.S. Lewis’ The Abolition of Man is probably a good example of that problem.
I’ve always thought that opposition to technology goes back to monasticism and asceticism developed in the early centuries of Christianity. Christian writers who oppose technology tend to be leftist politically and quote from the old monastic writings a lot. Protestant leaders has tried to distance the movement from monasticism, but the attraction to asceticism seems to be innate.
And yet one of the marks of Christianity in the Church fathers is their defense of the merchant class and the idea of technological progress. Monasticism created not impoverishment but the first capitalist institutions of the middle ages. The late scholastics were notable for their defense of merchant-driven economic progress. All this was long before the Reformation, which later gave birth to Puritanism that disparaged wealth and passed laws against ostentatious technologies. So I see nothing innately Christian about an ideological resistance against technological advance.
Jeffrey,
Good points! Puritanism, an English form of Calvinism, was Protestantism’s form of asceticism.
The late great Lewis Mumford expounded at length on the many technological/industrial advances of the medieval monasteries.
But in any case, when Hittinger states that the issue is “the machine insofar as it promises an activity superior to the human act,” he strikes at the core of the coming debate — nay, iedological Armegeddon — in the run-up to the so-called “Technological “Singularity” — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity.
We’re talking mere decades here, at least if current trends continue (and they show no signs of abating), which is to say that the evolution debate is about to take on a whole new meeting, as humanity essentially takes control of the process — http://www.technologyreview.com/BioTech/14236
For those wondering about David White’s link to the Wikipedia article Technological Singularity, his link included the period at the end of the sentence. Remove the period and you’ll find the article he intended.
I was listening to the audio of Rothbard’s _For A New Liberty_ today, chapter 1. He details the “reactionary” verses “forward thinking” societal forces, specifically the forward push of the classical liberals and the regressive forces of the vested interests, bureaucracy, and would-be elites. This seems to feed into that as well.
I would also suggest the attachment to a metaphysical phantom, “god”, is a symptom of an unstable personality. Unable to deal emotionally with change or the arbitrary nature of life, the religious person latches onto illusionary straws, like “god” and “the good old days”, or the fantasy of trying to maintain social stasis, in order to quell their dread of what they cannot understand.
This fits with the rejection of the basic premise of Mises, that _people_ act. The unstable personality feels thrust by circumstances, and concludes that everyone merely reacts to external stimuli. In several discussions with people who disagree with the basic Misian premise, the nay-sayers have brought up game theory but at the same time rejected the fact that their theory cannot encapsulate the out-right rejection of playing the game at all. “Silly game. The only way to win, is not to play.”
I enjoy musing about L. Neil Smith’s theory that the reactionary’s arguments stem not from any reasoned position, but from their irrational and never admitted fear of fire.
I’m surprised that the influence of copyrights and patents hasn’t been mentioned here. These “incentives” have a way of distorting the market in a way that greatly rewards very unsociable behavior. Microsoft and many Pharmacuticals come to mind here. They force the market to center around controlling invention and content rather than invention and content related services. Being in high technology areas myself, I hate to say it, but the people who are cynical about technology are often justified. I can’t count how many times I’ve seen proprietary crap rammed down peoples throats with great enthusiasm, only to screw them over once they’re locked in. In a normal market, technology would be used as a very sociable way to enhance service – but in the present patent and copyright world, all to often they are just used as a tool to lock people in to a proprietary system.
A feature of conservative thought that I’ve never entirely understood is its persistent anti-technology theme.
I have never found it surprising. In fact, to me it seems to be almost definitional and therefore expected. After all, a “conservative” is one who adheres to tradition. What is conserved is tradition — tradition is the valued thing, even if not consciously understood (Hayek). Since new technology can certainly disrupt tradition by creating new ways of doing things and surviving, it is unsurprising that a conservative would be resistant to technology. If culture itself is considered a technology (and in essence it is), then any new ideas about culture are likely to be resisted by the conservative. Technology, in the “science” sense, can and does intermingle with, and change culture itself.
There are some definitions of “conservative” that are decidedly more narrow than that which I gave. Under some of those, it is perhaps not so obvious where anti-technology bias sources. For example, some define a (political) conservative in the US as one who simply wants the constitution to be followed, for whatever that exactly means. That is a conservation of sorts, but quite arbitrary since it snapshots a particular point in history as somehow the big bang zero time of politics and law. IOW, that particular definition is so narrow as to appear a bit silly and nearly useless in understanding the generalized ideology of tradition adherence. And since that definition is very narrow, the anti-tech bias is not so apparent.
“I do things such-and-such way because I have always have done them that way. My parents did it that way, and so did my grandparents. That’s the way we’ve always done ‘things.’” — Joe Conservative
A libertarian is a liberal in the true sense of liberal. A libertarian respects the freedom of him/her self and others to experiment with both technology and culture. This does not say that tradition is not respected by a libertarian (or anyone) for the real value that it certainly provides (behavior & technology tested, tried, and true through time), and treading on new ground is not done stupidly or unwarily. A libertarian does not resist change that is sourced of liberty itself and also is selected by the environment.
BTW, it is my opinion that most people are by-and-large conservative in most of their daily behavior, despite the day-to-day pop-politic silliness of defining people as politically liberal or conservative. The people who don’t by-and-large adhere to traditions of of culture and technology in their daily lives end up in prison, mental institutions, dead, or a least social pariahs. (Not reasonably “fitting in.” Not “normal.”)
A good way of presenting a libertarian view of tradition, Greg. But what’s important there is understanding of the tradition and its value. Tradition for its own sake becomes like a bad habit.
Technology is not here to degrade the human experience, but enhance it. We are compelled to the very bones to manipulate our surroundings, and to take the consequences of those actions, and adjust, adapt. Jesus himself, if he were real, was a carpenter. He used technology to craft things. So if God is willing to use it, he apparently doesn’t need anyone to demonize it. And you can’t dehumanize people. Anything you experience as human, no matter how degrading, is humanizing. Dehumanizing and unnatural are obsolete words. Discard them immediately.
Comments on this entry are closed.