Back to Intro

Back to New Media Communications Home Page

Back to Index for this Theology Paper

My initial Web Theology Page

Send Me Comments, Suggestions, Resources or links to resources for this study

Luddite

The "Luddites" refer to the opponents of the early Industrial Revolution days when technologically poor textile workers fought the introduction of new textile technologies and the resulting economic hardship due to loss of income from losing the market share they had once enjoyed.

There was been a resurgence in historical study of the "Luddites" in light of the latest cultural revolution: Computer-mediated Communication. A best seller, Silicon Snake Oil by Clifford Stoll , has become a rallying cry for those concerned with the effects of computer technology on the social fabric of our society. In Stoll's case, I think the arguments are pretty lame. He continually tries to make a case for how pre-computer ways of doing things are better. He claims that handwritten letters are more personal than email. Sure, it is obvious that they are a "touchable" momento and symbol of that person. What Stoll fails to recognize, however, is what kind of communication there would be if there were no email. Many instances of communication simply would not take place. Many people never take the time to write, stamp, and mail a letter. Myself included. Something is much much better than nothing.

Stoll also suggests that computer communication detracts from people going out and talking to each other across the fences or on front porches. A review I read asks a very good question about that: "Just how often does this happen anymore? Books such as "No Sense of Place" have been out long before the computer revolution. NO Sense of Place is a study of how "public places of discourse"" have been disapppearing from our lives. It is not the Computer revolution that adds to this. In fact, it actually addresses this vacuum by providing a forum for people to get together around common interests. It is one of the reasons why computer communication has gained such an enthusiastic following: because of the increasing difficulty of finding opportunities for interaction, computer commuication has people chatting again. Stoll misses the whole point because of what he is claiming is "more human, personal" approach to things.

There are some legitimate questions about what computer communications' effects are on our relating to each other. My critique of Stoll is not in his appeal to seek more natural, ecological, or personal, Face-to-face efforts. It is in his lame attempt to blame the computer communications revolution for forces that were already well in motion before computers.