Resistance and Revolt from Yesterday to Today

If you were to take someone from the early nineteenth century and drop them into our present Western society, the most dramatic shock for them would likely be to see the incredible advancements in technology surrounding us. With our ubiquitous examples of automation and intelligent machines, such a person would have little from their time to compare it to. But beyond the efficiencies and mechanical aids to humans, he or she would also most certainly be struck by something else: the role of humans in this world, i.e. what we spend our time doing (or not doing) and working toward.

This relationship between changes in our technology and changes in our roles is what I seek to explore, especially regarding what, if any, control we may have over those changes. There have been groups of people at various times since the industrial revolution who have questioned, protested, or even fought these changes, though they have generally remained in the minority and their efforts have been for the most part unsuccessful (Sale 204). Now, however, in our age of hyper-connected yet hyper-individualist technological society, there are indications that we are reaching new limits and that questions about our relationships with technology are spreading amongst the greater population.

For examples of this, I will look both at those people in recent modern times who criticize technology broadly for its negative impacts on society, and new examples of people who express interest in reducing their interactions with specific technologies at certain times. With these we can begin to see the arc of reasons individuals have for wishing to control the technologies in their lives (economic, social, environmental, health, etc.), as well as the levels of control they indeed have.

Neo-Luddism (and Luddism)

The word “luddite” has long referred to a specific group of people in history, but sometime after the end of World War II, the word came to acquire a secondary meaning. As Kirkpatrick Sale describes in his book Rebels Against the Future, in addition to its previous use regarding the well-known early nineteenth century English mill workers who violently destroyed the machines that had replaced their skills, the term began to be used as a label for anyone opposed to new technology. This timing aligns with what historian David Noble has called the “second industrial revolution” – the period of post-war decades in which the race for technological innovation, automation, and new consumable products exploded. During this time, the “luddite” term became useful as a “symbolic opponent… who could be dismissed as both unsuccessful and somehow irrational, a role the Luddites were very neatly pressed into serving” (Sale 206).

This negative connotation toward resistance to technology has remained dominant among the population as the second industrial revolution has continued to transform our lives, our economies, and our environments[1]. Those who are seen to voice criticisms of technological progress today are easily dismissed by the majority of society as being frightened of change. Leo Marx of MIT’s Science, Technology, and Society program described this as pastoralism, which he claimed characteristically flourishes in times of accelerating social change (Florman 9). It is assumed that older generations, nostalgic for the past, are disdainful of the erosion of the world they once knew and resentful for being left behind and unappreciated as their knowledge and skills cease to be relevant. To denounce technology’s value is seen as a defensive reaction from those who can’t use or afford it and are being left behind. Those who criticize the game, it appears, must be doing so because they are losing. But this is futile, our society says; technology is progress. To criticize progress is to be selfish, backward, and against the betterment of humanity. The population as a whole still celebrates and welcomes the assistance and amenities technology offers. Evgeny Morozov describes this in his book on technological solutionism, To Save Everything, Click Here:

“Who today is mad enough to challenge the virtues of eliminating hypocrisy from politics? Or of providing more information—the direct result of self-tracking—to facilitate decision making? Or of finding new incentives to get people interested in saving humanity, fighting climate change, or participating in politics? Or of decreasing crime? To question the appropriateness of such interventions, it seems, is to question the Enlightenment itself.”

Despite these sentiments, however, a number of individuals and small groups have indeed expressed discontent or acted in protest of one or more forms of technology during this time. But interestingly, in contrast to the popular image of the original luddites, these new critics haven’t only been speaking up for personal economic reasons, e.g. loss of their jobs. In addition to economic issues both local and global, they are voicing concerns that are environmental, political, and social. In particular, the new recognition through the 1960s and ‘70s of the public hazards of things like DDT, cigarettes, lead, asbestos, and radiation leaks caused new concerns of industrial technology to rise. Early challenges to the technocratic mainstream from people like Lewis Mumford preceded developments in science fiction novels and films that offered descriptions of dystopian technological futures. Academics, ecologists, and activists started springing up around a variety of issues with further waves of criticisms. In 1990, psychologist Chellis Glendinning, drawing on work she had done with people she called “technology survivors” who had suffered illness or injury after exposure to various toxic technologies, published “Notes toward a Neo-Luddite manifesto,” in which she argued that “the technologies created and disseminated by modern Western societies are out of control and desecrating the fragile fabric of life on Earth” (Sale 237). Some writers and critics joined Glendinning in adopting the term “Neo-Luddite”, while others both before and after her shared related sentiments with a less titled but nevertheless active approach, such as Langdon Winner, Nicholas Carr, Andrew Keen, and Slavoj Žižek. Campaigns against things like toxic wastes, biotechnology, pesticides, clear-cut logging, animal testing, and industrial chemicals each stood up in protest of a single issue. Many of their stated goals, however, indeed could fit neatly in with the “Neo-Luddite” term.

Although Neo-Luddism in a way seems to differ from the Luddism seen 180 years earlier for being not merely about economic loss of jobs, in fact the original Luddite protests of 1811 and 1812 were similarly multifaceted, and more complex than most now remember. The common story today paints an image of a few unhappy laborers who broke in to their former workplaces to smash the machines that had replaced them. But as David Noble described in his book, Progress Without People, the movement was much more significant:

“Central to their effort was a strategy of highly organized direct action, the machine-breaking for which they are still remembered today. Between 1811 and 1812, for example, manufac­turing workers marching under the banner of the mythical Ned Ludd destroyed over one thousand mills in the Nottingham area. A decade later the machine-breaking spread across the midlands…”

Importantly, this group did not only consist of the wool-cloth finishers that had been put out of work by machines, but by weavers and combers and blacksmiths as well who understood not only that their own jobs could be next, but that the entire traditional cottage culture that they knew was being eroded. They were fighting not just for their continued income but against an unwanted transition to the factory system with its long hours and huge multistory buildings that transformed their villages. They stood to lose not only their employment, but next their lifestyle and their communities. In this way, the Luddites represented not just a resistance to mechanization, but a fight against industrial progress itself.

Thus the Neo-Luddites have another thing in common with their namesakes, in that beyond being against the economic disruption that technology presents, they are also concerned about the broader impacts of how technology can change our environments and our roles within them. Also like the Luddites before them, the Neo-Luddites are looking at their society’s current trajectory and, seeing a future they don’t want, are responding in the hopes of avoiding it. They see undesirable consequences ahead for their society and feel compelled to protest. What’s more, they believe that it is not enough to abstain as an individual – to make a difference they need to address others’ choices that are impacting their shared world.

Disconnection Apps

In spite of and in contrast to the opinions of the Neo-Luddites, another segment of the population today finds itself at the opposite end of the spectrum with a majority of their lives centered around the use of technology. By now, a generation of youth have grown up never knowing a world without Google or Wikipedia, seeing their smartphones and social media as extensions of themselves. Many young people today “couldn’t picture not having” their cell phones (Turkle, Alone Together 248). This hyper-connected group might seem the least likely to show an affinity to the Neo-Luddite point of view.

Yet a new set of software products is now targeting these tech power users in a way that appears to be remarkably anti-technological. The software, in the form of smartphone apps and internet browser extensions, offers them something surprising: less technology. In a variety of ways, these programs change their users’ interactions with online services, other apps, or the devices themselves so as to make them harder to access.

Among products that serve their users with reminders to take breaks from their devices for health reasons or prompt them to stay on task for productivity, there is also software available now that will act to discourage, limit, or block your access to select internet sites or your smartphone. To be clear, these are not programs designed to be used to limit others’ use of a device, such as parental controls. These are limits that a user sets for themselves. Essentially, the user is using one technology to reduce his or her own use of another technology.

StayFocusd, an extension that can be installed for the Chrome web browser, “increases your productivity by limiting the amount of time that you can spend on time-wasting websites” (Chrome Store). Users can set time limits or temporary blocks to their computer’s access to internet sites, pages, or content. The developer boasts that it is “highly configurable”, allowing users to set certain hours or days of the week when they want to set limits. If a user tries to access a site that they have blocked themselves out of, StayFocusd will prompt the user with humorous messages or even typing challenges before allowing access.

Another product, Forest, is available as an app for smartphone devices and an extension for multiple web browsers. Taking a different approach, Forest acts as a type of game that aims to incentivize users to voluntarily restrain from using their devices. When activated, users see a cartoon of a small seedling plant, which over time if the user does not leave the program (and use their device in other ways) will slowly grow over into a tree. Conversely, if the user leaves the app, the tree dies (ForestApp).

Both of these pieces of software have been successful in gaining audiences. StayFocusd, available free to download through the Chrome Web Store (with a $10 donation requested from those who enjoy it) is listed as having nearly 735,000 users. From over 4800 reviews it averages a user-rating of 4.5 out of 5 stars (Chrome Store). Forest, which can be purchased from Apple’s App Store for $1.99, has consistently ranked among the top “Productivity” downloads since it’s launch in 2014 (AppAnnie). It boasts over a million downloads, and likewise holds a 4.5 star average rating. Both products have been featured in multiple articles online and touted as a welcome solution for many people.

Why are people drawn to such apps, and what can this tell us? After all, aren’t these products simply giving people something they already have – the ability to not use technology? Certainly they do this, but more importantly they offer an interruption of a person’s connection to technology. We can see then how this is not so much about adoption as addiction. What the users are benefiting from, it appears, is a break in their cycle of returning to technology as a negative habit.

Details hidden in the user reviews for these products tell us more:

StayFocusd user Cat London writes:

“This extension has actually fundamentally improved my life and the life of my family. I have a lot more time in my day now and my husband is home for dinner more often. I feel ridiculous admitting that wasting time online has had that much of a negative impact on my family, but it’s true. THANK YOU.”

StayFocusd user Kevin Ellerton writes:

“I don’t usually post reviews. About anything. THIS EXTENSION IS THE ONLY THING THAT HAS EVER TRULY HELPED WITH MY SOCIAL-MEDIA ADDICTION. When I mindlessly type “facebook” into the browser and hit enter, suddenly I see the little red eye watching me, counting down to armageddon, and I wake up and say, WAIT, NO! I close the tab, and go back to work. It’s actually changing my habits now. Thank you developers!!!”

Forest user Annesthetique writes:

“Really gets me productive! I fear of being too dependent on technology, so I use this to keep me focused and undistracted from gadgets. It just makes me guilty to kill a tree, which overrides my compulsion to check social media.”

These comments start to paint a picture of motivations. If the people for whom this software is being created believe that (at least some of) modern technology poses negative impacts on their lives, how similar are these sentiments to those of the Neo-Luddites? After all, wouldn’t the problems these users face also be solved by simply adopting the Neo-Luddite approach of not using the technology at all?

One of the keywords we see in the user comments is “productivity”. This is important because it implies that the technology which users wish to block is preventing them from doing something else; i.e. work. In this way the apps are not helping them remove technology so much as control it better. In response to the internet and social media companies’ use of design to minimize friction and encourage perpetual use of their products, these users appear to understand at some level the value of resistance in order to avoid un-productive behavior. Whether or not they feel these companies are to be blamed for any negative impacts they might pose is not revealed.

We do, however, get a sense that some of these users believe that others would benefit from using these apps as well. Like the Neo-Luddites, the users of these apps exhibit a preference for limits to technology. Both groups clearly hold a motivation to avoid using technology “too much”, even if no quantitative amount has actually been defined. Limits of some kind are seen to be beneficial.

The other central theme we see from these comments is that of “technological addiction”. Certainly there is a strong element of temptation that is involved in these users’ relationships with their devices, again something that internet and social media companies have worked hard to engineer. But the term “addiction” is loaded with connotations of helplessness and compounding damage that not everyone agrees these technologies represent. Sherry Turkle, an avid critic of technologies that interfere with human interaction, writes in her book Reclaiming Conversation:

“The analogy between screens and drugs breaks down… There is only one thing that you should do if you are on heroin: Get off the heroin. Your life is at stake. But laptops and smartphones are not things to remove. They are facts of life and part of our creative lives. The goal is to use them with greater intention.”

Similarly, despite the wishes of some Neo-Luddites that these users completely remove these devices from their lives altogether, most of the users themselves appear to not be looking for help in eliminating the use of their technologies, but rather for a better balance in how they use them. However, by treating them as something that requires intervention to be avoided, they are nonetheless agreeing that temptation plays a role, and that that temptation is not toward their own best interests.

Another difference between the users of these apps and the Neo-Luddites is one of scale. These apps are, as mentioned before, not designed to control others’ interactions with technology, but rather only that of the user themselves. These apps work at a very personal level, letting the user decide precisely when and what they would like to restrict. Neo-Luddites would perhaps wish to persuade others or see society as a whole change its techno-centric perspective, but the users of these apps are making no such indications by installing them quietly on their own devices.

But beyond questions of scale, there is a more striking difference between these two groups that offers us a compelling perspective. Although the Neo-Luddites as I described earlier stand readily opposed to adopting new technology that has become available to them, the users of these apps that respond to technological temptations are expressing opposition to technologies they have already adopted. These digital natives are not afraid of potential problems that technology could cause, they are responding to problems they are already experiencing. In terms of anti-technology sentiments, we are therefore now seeing not only movements of non-adoption, but also abandonment.

Conclusion

Looking into the various aspects of both the Neo-Luddite movement and the users of software that helps users disconnect from their devices or websites, the similarities and differences provide us with interesting and useful perspectives in understanding how today’s issues with technology in our lives is different from those of the past. Like the goals of Neo-Luddism, these apps seek to increase quality of life by reducing interactions with certain technologies. However, the scale of this reduction is less as the apps do not attempt to extend these limitations to other technologies or to other people.

Other differences, however, tell us something more important. The nature of these apps as commitment devices shows that people’s problems with technology are not completely within their control to address. Users are hitting new limits, and seeking new solutions. Furthermore, interest in these apps shows that people who were previously fans of technology are finding reasons to want less; again a difference between them and the Neo-Luddites.

So although we have seen how technological innovations at times cause disruptions that negatively impact people, up to this point in history those impacts have primarily been externalized. It was not the Luddite’s own choices that had changed their economic and social landscapes, but the choices of business owners that led them to protest. They were not protesting after their way of life had changed for the worse, but as they saw those changes coming. Similarly, environmental and social threats from the actions of industry caused the Neo-Luddites to protest technology, both by opting out themselves and by attacking others who were supporting the technologies they deemed harmful. Again, they were trying to sound an alarm and prevent society from moving in a dangerous direction.

Now, however, protests are beginning to happen from an entirely different direction, by people at the opposite end of the spectrum of technological use. People are recognizing negative impacts of computer technologies that they are already feeling. Their reasons for resistance are not on behalf of society, but personal. Furthermore, this is happening at the individual level, not through any ideological movement.

Generations before us have seen the technological developments of their times and occasionally felt a sense of opposition. Despite the exponentially increasing rate at which our scientific and technological advancements take place, those natural feelings of resistance are therefore not unusual. But the creation and popularity of apps like StayFocusd and Forest tell us that, in addition to that opposition, we are also seeing evidence that our society is also beginning to hit new limits, and that this period of history, in fact, is not just the same as all the others. If the Neo-Luddites believe not only that technological progress is problematic but also that those problems are increasing, the popularity of these programs designed to help smartphone and internet users deal with their unhealthy addictions to their technologies tells us that the Neo-Luddites may indeed be correct.

[1] Others have called this “post industrialism”, implying that the world economy is somehow no longer industrial (Sale 207).