What the Luddites can teach us about digital technology

If that device in your pocket is a dumb phone, you may wonder if carrying it makes you a “Luddite.” Being a Luddite is not a compliment, of course. It suggests you’re “behind the times.” Having a dumb phone myself, I used to be sensitive to the Luddite label. But then I learned who the Luddites were and what they stood for. Rather than run away from the word, I now seek to embrace it, or at least not turn defensive in the face of it. Despite living nearly 200 years ago, the Luddites can teach us some valuable lessons about how to handle digital technologies.

I harbored misconceptions about the Luddites for a long time, namely believing Luddites opposed virtually all forms of technology. In fact, the Luddites were very selective. In rising up against England’s textile manufacturers during the early 19th century, the Luddites typically targeted those machines that threatened their livelihoods and left other machines alone. As Brian Merchant explains in his new book, “Blood in the Machine: The Origins of the Rebellion against Big Tech,” the Luddites weren’t marauders but a tight-knit group of highly organized working-class folks focused on one thing: preserving their jobs and standard of living.

Obviously, the Luddites failed to stop the Industrial Revolution. But the movement generated more sympathy at the time than its critics have acknowledged. The Luddites, led by a fictitious Robin Hood-like figure named General Ned Ludd, were successful, in part, because their communities were loyal and wouldn’t help the authorities trying to identify and capture them. These communities viewed the Luddites as their last line of defense against the rapid rise of low-skilled factory jobs, often held by children working under horrific conditions. As tradesmen who spent years perfecting their craft, the Luddites were desperate to not only protect their jobs but to prevent their families from falling into poverty. Meanwhile, the English monarchy and parliament (with the famous exception of Lord Byron) refused to acknowledge petitions to enact regulations and labor reform. 

Only after factories beefed up security and parliament passed a new law making the destruction of textile machines punishable by death did the Luddites’ campaign begin to lose momentum.  

Different time, similar dilemma

Nearly two centuries later, we are facing a dilemma similar to the one the Luddites faced. Do we allow technology to upend our way of life, largely to the detriment of our well-being, or do we resist? And if we choose to resist, how so? 

Admittedly, comparing our situation today to the Luddites’ has limitations. The nature of the technology threatening us today isn’t smashable like the power loom. Rather, it comes in the form of computer code and mysterious algorithms dwelling in cyberspace. The nature of society has changed, too. Consumerism drives the United States’ economy today, not so much industrialization. For the most part, Brian Merchant’s book doesn’t speak to the effect of technologies on the consumer. He’s more interested in its effect on people’s livelihoods. Which is fine. 

But when it comes to deciding whether to use certain technologies in our day-to-day lives, that’s a consumer issue. It’s a personal choice centered on an interest in protecting our own mental and physical well-being. You might say I’m more concerned with the micro view than with Mr. Merchant’s macro view.

So, here are three lessons that we as consumers (and parents) can draw from the Luddite experience. 

01 Separate the harmful tech from the helpful tech

Far from rejecting all technology, the Luddites embraced certain technologies to advance their cause. As Mr. Merchant explains, the Luddites created a meme, General Ludd, to market themselves. They didn’t post to social media but posted letters on the doors of factories they attacked, which helped generate local media buzz. This buzz served as a warning to other factory owners, many of whom thought twice before investing in the types machines targeted by the Luddites. 

The lesson is that just because you might choose to reject certain technologies—a smartphone for the purposes of this post—doesn’t mean you eschew all technological gadgets. After all, my post here is being broadcast over the internet, a late-20th and 21st century technology. As consumers, we must be discriminating. We must be able to separate helpful tech from harmful tech, including for our children who don’t have the ability to make such distinctions (more on that later).  

02 Lean on interpersonal communication as much as possible

The Luddites became a powerful force because they operated through cells of trusted individuals within their communities. They were difficult to infiltrate because they could easily recognize an outsider. I believe a similar movement today would be near impossible because communities have become fractured and less trusting. We no longer rely on interpersonal communications but electronic communications, which foster weaker and breakable bonds.

Many people have turned to social media to communicate with others, while forgoing traditional interactions. The result is to create a void in people’s lives, an emptiness that’s difficult to describe in words but plagues our modern world. Social media is unsatisfying, and yet its users remain hooked because face-to-face interactions, even phone calls, are both less convenient and less stimulating. Social media companies have a financial incentive to maintain weak social bonds and keep their customers socially isolated. 

03 If nothing else, stand up for your kids

The Luddites’ campaign was as much about protecting their own livelihoods as it was their children’s. Before the Industrial Revolution, manufacturing textiles was considered a cottage industry. It was performed in the workers’ homes and was very much a family operation, passed down from generation to generation. When the Luddites lost their jobs to automation, this also destroyed their children’s prospects. Meanwhile, many factory workers were children themselves, often orphans forced to work in dangerous conditions.  

We as parents today should choose our technology carefully not just for ourselves but for our children. At this point in my life, it would be easy for me to switch to a smartphone. But I’ve made a choice to continue using a dumb phone, in large part, to demonstrate to our two children that it’s possible to live a good life without this tech. I don’t want to be responsible for giving them access to addictive apps. I want them to be old enough to be able to fully understand the power of these devices and freely decide whether and how to use them. (See my post: How to raise smartphone-free children)

Beyond the dangers of smartphones

Of course, smartphones aren’t the only form of technology that we should be wary of. Smart technologies have made leading a well-rounded, healthy lifestyle more difficult. To a significant extent, obesity and other medical ailments are the result of 21st century technologies, including those that have engineered physical movement out of our daily routines (such as online shopping versus walking the aisles of a grocery store).

As our lives become more convenient, they also become less meaningful. With the rise of artificial intelligence, thinking itself may come under threat. We may soon live in a world in which being constantly digitally simulated and entertained becomes the norm (see my interview with the author of the Nirvana Effect), though some readers might argue we are already there. 

The Luddite experience offers some hope. It means our future isn’t preordained. We can choose to embrace certain technologies or reject them. That the Luddites ultimately failed to stop mass industrialization doesn’t mean that they weren’t successful in some respects. We can be vigilant like the Luddites and flag obnoxious and destructive technologies, while seeking to protect our own self-interests.