An Open Letter on Technology and Mediation

7/27/2019 An Open Letter on Technology and Mediation

1/24

Various Authors

An Open Letter onTenology and Mediation

1999


2/24


3/24

1

Contents

Open Leer Ron Leighton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Response John Connor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Response John Filiss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Response Leif Fredrickson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Response Lawrence Jarach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Response Jason McQinn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Response John Moore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Response J.S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18


4/24

2


5/24

3

In March of 1999, I received an open leer from zine publisher RonLeighton regarding the common question of whether propagatingviews which question technology through technological means radio, television, the Internet involved some type of contradiction.

I liked the way he phrased the question, and I especially liked theidea of an open leer to get a variety of views on the topic.

* * *

Open Letter Ron Leighton

A number of anti-tech writers have expressed the idea, variouslystated, that supporting or using government in any way towardsanarchist/anti-authoritarian ends is contradictory and invariablyindicative ofauthoritarian/non-anarchist impulses and aitudes, de-spite any insistent claims to the contrary. Around the time of thepublication in mainstream papers of the Unabombers views, JohnZerzan went on radio to have a dialogue with callers about anar-

chism/anti-techism. He has said on at least two occasions that hewas willing to go on radio (a form of technology) but drew the line attelevision (another form of technology). Why? e decision seemsentirely arbitrary. However, even if it wasnt an arbitrary drawingof the line, does not going on the radio belie Zerzans anti-tech dec-larations? Maybe hes more conservative than he lets on? Or wouldthat be a unfair take on the maer? John Filiss on the other hand

uses a (rather interesting as well as aesthetically-pleasing) websiteto promote anti-tech views. Now, my point isnt that Zerzan or Filissor anyone else should refrain from propagating anti-tech views, northat I necessarily disagree with such views, but only that it seems likea belying contradiction that they would in any way use technologyto propagate anti-tech views. Aer all, they both, along with manyothers, bristle at the very notion of anarchists using, say, the stateto accomplish their goals in any way or to any degree. And if anar-

chists/anti-authoritarians happen to suggest using the governmentor some degree or form of government towards their goals, theyare dismissed as liberals or leists, or, if the name-caller is feeling


6/24

4

charitable, anarcho-liberals/leists. Meanwhile, the reality ofanti-techies using technology is rationalized away (I drew the line attelevision, or, on owning a television, I have to be narcotized too Zerzan both times). Or le unaddressed. Why the double-standard?

is, to me, is a serious question, and I dont ask it just to annoy,nit-pick or to take cheapshots.

Ron LeightonP.O. Box 25572Santa Ana CA [email protected]

Response John Connor

A Reply To Ron Leighton

Technologys a form of social organisation based on the divisionof labour, not its artefacts perse. Granting this, the State is a formof technology, a specialisation in administration, coercion, &c.. Bydefinition, all anarchists therefore oppose technology, at least in this

form. I cant think of any that oppose technology but not the State given the terms of this debate, it just doesnt work that way round.ose that dont oppose the State arent anarchists at all, of course,though Ill concede some opposed to the State who arent anarchistseither.

You deny saying that Zerzan or Filiss or anyone else should re-frain from propagating antitech views. However, by implying they

should only do so using means unmediated by technology, this iseffectively what you do say inasmuch as technology is all-pervasive,the substance of complex society. Extending this means and endsargument, youre also condemning them to death as all means ofsurvival in this society are also mediated by technology. It is forprecisely this reason that a critique of technology is so vitally needed,because it is so basic to our oppression, the impossibility of leadingtruly authentic, self-determining lives. Anarcho-primitivists have

gone a lot further in elucidating this sort ofcritique than anarcho-orthodoxy, even though its implicit in all anarchism. Its disappoint-ing that the orthodox try to preserve their partial critique by asking


7/24

5

the impossible ofanti-tech critics, demanding they personally livefree of technology when technological society exercises control overthem by denying them the means to do so. Most anti-tech criticsappreciate the diversionary nature of lifestylism and so argue for a

social revolution, much as orthodox anti-capitalists do rather thanexpecting its individual adherents to somehow eke out an existenceboycoing money and all forms of commodity relationships. Makingsocial revolution inevitably means being in society, making a con-certed aempt to articulate societys discontents to itself, somethingnot likely achievable by retreating to a hermit life in the middle ofthe wilderness (satisfying though that might be for the individual

concerned a retirement option, perhaps). I appreciate this is adangerous course, constantly leaving the way open to recuperationthrough compromise and reformism, but note this is less likely themore comprehensive the critique of society the revolutionary has.

Im sure the Johns can argue for themselves why the use the Inter-net or radio instead of TV, &c. Specifics aside, I agree these distinc-tions are largely arbitrary, though they do help to focus aentionon the perniciousness ofparticular technological artefacts and our

resistance to dependence on technology as a whole, perhaps in thesame way that food taboos help focus the aention of the religiouson their faith. It is a question of where to draw the line practicallyuntil technology can be done away with entirely by revolutionarymeans. I dont think this is particularity hard and fast, more a maerof doing and thinking what you can. rough a process of smallrefusals and developing critique, the possibilities of further refusals,

deepened critique and ultimately revolution maybe increased Imtalkingpraxishere, though restate my reservations about lifestylism.Im willing to accept that an anarchist may be so feeble, spineless orcompromised that practicallythey cant even refuse participation inthe State as well as the broader oppressive architecture of technology,but its understandable this haleartedness earns them the derisionof their fellows. Aer all, they all manage the lile that the object oftheir derision finds impossible. Granting their inability to accept or

act on more revolutionary critiques than their own, I cant really seewhy beyond, perhaps, the maer ofgood manners you object


8/24

6

to such individuals being called anarcho-liberals/leists and whyyou should argue so keenly for them and not the revolutionaries.

Response John Filiss

Dear Ron,is is a great question, and you bring it up in an intelligent and

friendly way. I think I can sum up my position briefly, though I feelthe issues you raise deserve much more than this.

My approach to ideas is not one of self-abnegation; that is, I am not

interested in following up on theories as a way to imprison myself insome new moralism that will in any way limit what I want and whatI want to achieve. I think everybodys approach to ideas should bein regards to what we can derive from them, not how we can servethem.

It doesnt bother me in the least to use technology to propagateviews which question technology. My perspective is that Im tryingto open up a dialogue regarding a way of life which might, hopefully,

be more fulfilling than what we have now. I dont in any way wantto lay a trip on anyone regarding how they should or should notinteract with technology. I wouldlike to be able to provide answerson how to make the lives of all human beings beer. Answers arethe thing which, sadly, we are quite deficient in, a plight we sharewith the whole of our culture. Much of what we (primitivists, neo-Luddites, etc.) have done so far is point to societies outside of our

civilization and presented evidence that their lives might be moresatisfying, in many respects, than life in our own society. To a per-haps lesser extent we have tried to draw inferences from our ownexperiences with nature and technology, and tried to show the con-nection between so much of what is undesirable in our society andvarying degrees of technology. Some prey significant theoreticalbackdrops have been developed (not always agreeing with one an-other) to further deepen our understanding ofsome of the issues.

We all probably have our own opinions regarding this debate, butI think it should be noted that the real, ultimate value of our ideaswill be in leading us to a beer way of life. Not what we think is a


9/24

7

beer way of life, or what we want to think is a beer way of life,but what people everywhere can embrace as an existence which ishappier, freer and simply more fulfilling.

I think it is really, really important to think in terms of solutions.

We see an existence, whether it be among the San or memories ofchildhood in the woods and rivers, in meadows and on the beach,that seems to offer so much more than what we have now. Now itis up to us to prove it and make it accessible both to ourselves andhumanity.

Sincerely,John Filiss

P.S. anks for the compliment on the site!

Response Leif Fredrison

Dear Ron,It is important to be quite clear about what goals we are talking

about. Anarchists have goals ranging from the singular to the to-

talistic, and the spectrum is not always clear cut. But there are afew distinctions to be made that your question does not seem todistinguish between, for example: the use of the state/technologyin ones personal life, in the promotion of ones views, and in thebroader goal of actually changing society. Obviously, these are in-terconnected and there is a large amount of gray area. Changingones personal life, everyday life, is ultimately the motivation for

changing society, and changing society is ultimately the goal ofpro-paganda. And ones personal life and aempts at changing societycan serve as propaganda themselves propaganda of the deed. Withthis in mind, Ill turn to some specific examples.

You bring up a few examples of primitivists using technology:John Filiss using the internet and John Zerzan using talking on ra-dio and watching television. ese you place in comparison to un-specified, or hypothetical, uses of the state by anarchists who are

subsequentally dubbed leists or liberals. But the comparison isimperfect. Filiss and Zerzan use technology to spread propagandaabout primitivism. A comparative use of the state would be using


10/24

8

the postal system. No one, to my knowledge, has been called a leistfor their using the state in this way or in any other way to spreadinformation. (Incidentally, Zerzans decision to use radio and notTV is not arbitrary: see Anary#43, Zerzan and the Media.)

In the everyday sense, there is no geing around mediating onesactions through the state or technology. at, indeed, is the problem.On the other hand, there are opportunities to avoid using the stateor technology. When these opportunities are ignored, I dont thinkit is unreasonable to question the motive. John Zerzan has to eattechnologically produced food, but he doesnt have to watch TV.Bob Black has to obey the legal system, but he doesnt have to use

it against his enemies. Does this make them hypocrites? I dontthink Blacks use of the state is evidence that he is defactoin favorof the state. Just as one can use the post or public library withoutimplicitly condoning the state, one can manipulate the legal systemto their own ends. Personally I would find it suspect to use the stateagainst another anarchist, but that was certainly not the case with

Jim Hogshire. Zerzan watches TV, and I am sure he is not aloneamong primitivists that use technology for their leisure. Like you, I

find this slightly puzzling. I myself am not a primitivist, but I do notown a television and watch very lile TV. (I find it palliative when Imseverely hungover is that what Zerzan means by being narcotized?)I do not, however, discount Zerzan or his writing because of this.Again, I cannot think of an example where an anarchist has beencalled a liberal or leist for using the state in their personal life. BobBlack, of course, was denounced as a statist bymany anarcho-leists.

Finally, there is the question of using technology and the state toactually change society. is is in contrast to using it for personalpurposes or for the dissemination of ideas about the possibility ordesirability of changing society. Again, one needs to be specificabout what we are talking about. In my opinion, I cannot imaginehow the state can be used to accomplish the goal of anarchy. isdoes not at all mean that I am indifferent to state policy. I am, forexample, generally in favor of laws protecting the environment and

against those for gun control. But the passage or prohibition of theselaws doesnt brings us closer to anarchy one way or another. Whenyousay goals I presume that one of the things you are talking about


11/24


12/24

10

tech mean that the anti-techist will never use a plastic toothbrush?Must s/he rely on a chewing stick for dental hygiene? But geingand preparing the stick requires technology, so I guess the chewingstick is out, just like the plastic toothbrush. is is transparently

absurd. I have a critique of automobiles, which includes a critique ofthe petrochemical industry as well as that needed for the construc-tion and maintenance of roads/highways. I dislike the impact thesetechnologies have on the natural world in terms of toxic waste, airpollution, and all the other things that are involved in maintainingthe infrastructure of automobile technology. Does this mean that Iam no longer allowed to drive a car or ride in a bus? Must I only use

bicycles? Bicycles require the same roads that cars do, and the samemetal and rubber that are used in the manufacture ofautomobiles,so bikes are out too. What about riding horses? Must I rely only onmy feet for transportation? Can you see how stupid this argumentcan get? And what does any of this have to do with anarchist theoryand practice? eres nothing inherently anarchist in being anti-tech: you dont have to be one to be the other.

Pointing out the contradictions inherent in the life of a person

who has a discourse critical of technology is facile; we live in atechnological and technologically advanced society, and everytime we use the phone or flush the toilet we are using technology,thereby reinforcing the need for that technology. Most anti-techpeople know this already. is statement is faulty: . . .it seems likea belying contradiction that they would in any way use technologyto propagate anti-tech views that is by their logic. is is your

logic at work, not theirs.I have had a regular correspondence with Zerzan for a number ofyears, and when the media started geing interested in him in rela-tion to the Unabomber spectacle, he and I shared many thoughtson the use of the media to get an anarchist/anti-civilization messageacross. He had invitations for interviews in papers, TV, and radio.Since any medium whose owners are anti-anarchist will try to por-tray us in the most unfavorable light possible, my suggestion was

that radio talk-shows would probably be the best choice because ofthem being live that way the editor/owner cant as easily distortyour position and make you look like an idiot. e only way they


13/24

11

can make you stop talking is to cut you off, proving that they arenot the bastions of free speech that they pretend to be. I think thisactually happened to John once. Radio also provides the possibilityof dialog, which is impossible on TV. When Free Radio Berkeley ex-

isted, I hosted two shows. Much of the time there were no callers tothe station who wanted their comments or questions discussed, butoccasionally there was the chance to have a real exchange of ideason the air. is was one of the best parts for me. Your insistence onTV and radio being equivalent technologies, the distinction betweenthem being entirely arbitrary, is simplistic and ignores their distinctenvironmental and physiological impacts.

A distinction between tools and technology needs to be recognizedin any discourse about technology. Much of the time technophiles(those who see technology as inherently progressive or neutral)deliberately confuse the distinction between tools and technologyin order to undermine the impact of the critique of technology. Veryfew (if any) of the anti-tech crowd advocate a return to the StoneAge, yet technophiles from Bookchin to LaRouche constantlyportray primitivists as wanting exactly that.

A few working definitions:A tool is any object that can be utilized for a specific function.Tenology is the ideological framework that creates the need for

the tool; the mode(s) ofproduction needed to manufacture the tool,and the justifications for using that tool as opposed to a differentone.

Lets return to the plastic toothbrush. e northern California In-

dians (as well as many others no doubt) used oak twigs. e tanninsin the bark of oaks are astringent, tightening the gums around theteeth. (Having a diet free of processed sugars and overcooked food isalso helpful for maintaining dental health.) Modern Euro-Americanshave an obsession with physical beauty that centers on the teeth the whiter the beer. e astringent tannins in oak twigs alsostain the teeth. So there are now toothpastes that have bleachingagents and varying degrees of abrasiveness. We use toothbrushes to

scour out teeth, oen removing the outer protective layer. Dentiststell us that this is a good thing, and they get lots of samples fromcompanies that manufacture dental hygiene products. Plus these


14/24


15/24

13

complex technologies doesnt mean that they arent anarchists any-more just that they are commied to an outdated and discreditedworldview.

I hope that this rant has been helpful.

All the best,Lawrence Jarach

Response Jason McQinn

Whose contradictions?

Off-hand, I would consider this type of search for such supposedcontradictions as a rather silly and illogical aempt to impugncriticisms of technology without having to deal with any of theiractual content.

However, I have begun to realize that this type of confusion ismuch more widespread than I had initially thought especiallyaer similar questions and aacks have come up repeatedly from awide variety of sources, some sincere, many not. So Ill take a few

minutes to explicitly point out what would at first seem to me to bethe obvious problems with such contradiction accusations.

To begin we need to recognize that there are huge differencesbetween the three basic types of arguments oen being made: moral,logical and practical.

Arguments from morality demand that when someone makes acommitment to a radical social position, the position becomes a

moral imperative. An example would be the moralistic take on paci-fism in which any resort to violence (whether in self-defense or not)is considered evil and pacifists are expected to allow themselvesand their comrades to be killed rather than be condemned as self-contradictory. Similarly, anarchists who resort to governmental in-tervention on any level are condemned as violators ofa moral law,and those with critiques of technology as a system are similarly cen-sured. Of course, under this type of moral imperative those who

oppose capitalism are also expected to forego any immoral contactwith money! Obviously this type of argument from morality has


16/24

14

lile relevance to anarchy except as a device to sow a bit of con-ceptual confusion based upon guilt. And it has zero relevance forthose who explicitly criticize all forms of compulsory morality asimplicitly repressive and ideological in function.

Arguments against self-contradiction that are based on a simplisticview of logic fare lile beer. e biggest problem here is thatactually existing, complex social situations are not the same as simple,abstract concepts. us, to be anti-capitalist might seem to logicallyentail immediately and irrevocably refusing all commodity relationsand market mediations. However, in practice capitalism cant beseamlessly cut out of ones life when one is immersed in a social

system which reaches into every area of that life. Similarly, justbecause one declares oneselfan anarchist does not mean that thestate gets out of ones light and avoids interfering with ones life. Itsthere regardless and requires negotiation and compromise to avoidimprisonment or death. Avoiding a technological system whichpenetrates most aspects of everyday life is lile different in thisrespect.

Which leaves us with practical arguments that actions signifi-

cantly contradicting overall values or principles simply dont workbecause one isnt practicing here and now what one wants to ac-complish as an end. Here weve finally entered a terrain where wecan start gauging the relative importance ofdifferent types ofcon-tradictions, recognizing that in social life most contradictions arenot absolute, but partial. us, any one particular (yet inevitablycomplex) social activity may include aspects which are both con-

tradictory and non-contradictory with any given value, principleor theory. Once weve reached this point, we need to recognizethe relative strength ofcontradictions. Some will be stronger thanothers.

For an anarchist, a vanguard party forming a revolutionary stateto force anarchy on a substantially unwilling populace represents anoverwhelmingly strong contradiction. Forming an electoral politicalparty dedicated to promoting anarchy from within the state if elected

involves another prey strong contradiction. While encouragingpeople to vote for a party or candidate opposing a war that anotherparty credibly threatens is still a strong, though lesser, contradiction.


17/24

15

While personally voting in a referendum that if successful willrepeal a harsh anti-drug law brings us into a still murkier realm ofweaker contradiction. In other words there is inevitably a gradationof contradiction involved in any practical social activity. e less

contradiction involved in any given social action, the more likelymost people will expect that the outcome will be predictable andwelcome.

us most anarchists are correctly suspicious of Noam Chomskysexplicit defense of some state institutions as a counterbalance to in-creasing levels multinational corporate power, arguing that this typeof defense of state institutions, even in the service of a reasonable

goal, abandons some critically important anarchist principles of ac-tion in favor of a programmatically authoritarian response to theproblem. On the other hand, if an anarchist calls the local policedepartment to report that her car was stolen, less contradiction isinvolved, especially since she isnt programmatically calling for po-lice to exist now and forever to deal with stolen property and itsrepercussions.

Similarly, when it comes to opposing technology as an alienat-

ing, repressive system, we need to distinguish the actual levels ofpotential contradiction involved. Obviously, programmatic calls toembrace advanced technologies would be strongly contradictorywith anarchist positions critical of technology. Whereas aemptsto use particular technologies to oppose other forms of technology(or to oppose the current overall system of capital/state/technol-ogy) will be a murky, changing area always requiring evaluation.

While individual anarchists uses of particular technologies in anoverwhelmingly technological social world will be relatively unprob-lematic, with a much lower level of contradiction involved. (Drivingor flying, as opposed to walking, across the continent to protest theWTO, capital and state in Seale, for example.)

With a lile common sense and concern for the actual weight ofthe different factors involved, most people will come up with similarevaluations of the level of contradiction in different possibilities of

radical social action. Where we end up with absurdities spoutedabout the contradictions in anarchists ever employing violence, oranti-capitalists ever using money, or anti-tech revolutionaries ever


18/24

16

doing just about anything conceivably connected with any formof technology, you can bet that there are also some fundamentaldisagreements over principles and values which are obscuring whatsreally at issue.

Currently, there is an extreme level of insincerity and hostility(and as a direct result, simple stupidity) involved in most of themore bizarre accusations that those critical of technology as a sys-tem are implicitly advocating genocide, mass starvation or worse.Accusations that anarchists who are critical of the interpenetrationof technology, capital and state are being contradictory if they watcha television would be completely laughable were they not so wide-

spread. I hope most people will agree that we can all do beer thanthis!

Response John Moore

On the Contrary

is is indeed a serious question and deserves serious considera-

tion.In a sense, however, the question of using or not using technol-

ogy to propagate anti-tech views is a false question. Like everyoneelse, anarchists are to some degree complicit with the system whichoppresses, coerces and exploits them. In part, this is why anarchistswant to abolish this system: in order to overcome this enforced com-plicity. Now, perhaps with the exception ofsome US libertarians, I

would guess that all anarchists are against money and the moneyeconomy. And yet all of them are forced to make use of money. In-deed, anarcho-bandits such as the Bonnot gang risked and lost theirlives trying to steal it! And while anarchists might bemoan the factthat they, like everyone else, are constrained to make use of money,even to further their ends, they do so. And that remains the case,regardless ofwhether they work for that money, steal it, or filch itfrom the State in the form of benefits.

Actually, a similar situation appertains with reference to the State.Its true that anarchists do not participate in electoral rituals or rely


19/24

17

on assistance from the State, for to do so would be to affirm, and af-firm over and against ones self, one of the major institutions whichmanages social oppression. On the contrary, due to the States coer-cive power, anarchists work for its abolition through revolutionary

insurgency. But in doing so, they make use of some of its resourcesand its apparatuses. And, mutatis mutandis, the same can be said forCapital. Lets face it, in the world that we currently inhabit, mostresources are owned, controlled and managed by State and Capital.Our lives are organised by these forces, whether we like it or not and we dont, which is one reason why were anarchists! But isthat any reason why we shouldnt make use of those resources? We

would be in an even worse situation ifwe didnt. So, for example,if you make use ofa library, youre using a resource created, main-tained and funded by the State (through local government, maybe)or Capital (through grants and foundations, for example). Does thismean that anarchists shouldnt use libraries? Or that anarchists arehypocrites because they advocate the abolition of State and Capitaland yet use the resources of State and Capital to aain that goal?I dont think so. Its just that in the current social situation, they

are to some extent forcedto make use of institutions ofwhich theydisapprove in order to further their projects. And in an integratedsystem such as post-industrial society, the web ofpower is cast verywide and deep, and thus all kind of complicities are unavoidable.

is brings me on to the question of technology. On the surface,there appears to be a contradiction in the anarchist use of technologyto propagate anti-tech views, and therefore an unacknowledged

hypocrisy. But is this any more of a contradiction than the anarchistuse of money or selective usage of State and Capital institutions?e questions that need to be asked of those who raise the questionof anti-tech perspectives and technological media are: Why areyouso obsessed with this particular instance ofenforced anarchistcomplicity with the system anarchists seek to abolish? Why do youfetishisise and prioritise just this one instance of complicity? eanswer to such questions might point to the apparent discrepancy

between means and ends: anti-tech anarchists propose a world freeof technological domination and alienation and thus one that willbe based on the immediacy of face-to-face communication, and yet


20/24

18

use technological media the very acme of pseudo-communication to disseminate their perspectives! My response to such a lineof argument would be to say: But isnt that just the point? In aworld of separation and non-communication, in the mass society of

alienation and division, isnt the use ofsuch technological media tocontact others and disseminate information appalling but inevitable at least at this stage in the struggle? e fact that anarchists haveto resort to these means resort in the sense of having to demeanthemselves to this level is in itself a profound indictment of themass society in which we live. And not, I stress, an indictment ofanarchists failure of imagination.

We live in a world of contradictions. ats the nature of a societybased on power and power relations. If were to come to grips withtransforming this world in a revolutionary anarchist fashion, thenwed beer get used, not to living with those contradictions, butto striving with and against them, and make sure that we makethe optimal use of our creative capacities to overcome them. eanarchist condition, in the world of power, is one of living out livesof creative contradiction. And, uncomfortable as it may feel, that

creative contradiction that tension remains the source for allour insurgency.

Response J.S.

Hi Ron,

Here is the slightly revised version ofmy response to your ques-tion. Please use this one, and feel free to post or publish it whereveryou wish.

J.S. replies,Ron L.s question is a common one. Judging by its main thrust

though, it seems Ron L. has a particular bone to pick with JohnZerzan, so I will not pretend to speak for him, nor for John Filiss. Iwill also accept that the question is motivated by a genuine desire

to understand what appears to be a double standard.Contrary to popular belief but not to popular experience

technology is not neutral. Ideological values and motivations are


21/24


22/24

20

one go or pure must one be to avoid being a hypocrite? In theory,I could become homeless (I have been), shed my clothing (likelymade in sweatshops anyway), and live ferally in the woods with nomoney. But since this misses the whole point, how effective could I

be struggling against authority? e point is not to run away fromtechnology and civilization but to destroy it.

Unfortunately, we do not live in a free world and therefore cannotsimply act or live-out our beliefs as if we did. Living in this nightmareinvolves compromises and contradictions, and there are some thingswe dont have much say over presently. We dont, for example,have much choice with regard to indoor heating, plumbing, and

electricity. To be at all participatory in resistance, one needs tobe alive and reasonably healthy nearly impossible when one iscold, hungry, and naked. e mere fact that anti-tech advocatesuse technology does not automatically signal hypocrisy or lack ofcredibility (though it can), but rather, should point to how completelyand uerly dependent we have all become, and how interwoven itis throughout society to the point where the choice to live withouttechnology has been all but deleted. e fight to have that choice

restored (indeed to have it flourish) is fraught with paradox andinconsistency, and most of us wrestle with these dilemmas everydayin our own minds for each technology we decide to use. On theother hand, we can choose not to use government to achieve ouraims fairly easily; however, by not voting, joining/forming politicalparties, or giving support to any government policy or agenda. Sincethere is no compelling reason to do so, one can suspect motivations

other than pragmatism on the part of so-called anarchists whodo. For what its worth, I dont own a car because thats a choice Ican make. I do sometimes use a computer because it offers ease ofcommunication with others (when its working). I dont harbor anyillusions about this, and just as with using money, I am aware of thecontradictions. But I would welcome the loss of my computer in aworld where all forms of authority have been vanquished and wherewe are no longer made to be (to use the prison slang) technologys

bitch.J.S. is a Senior Fellow and Teodore J. Kaczynski Lecturer at the

Paleo Resear Institute. He also holds a air in the Department of


23/24

21

SolipsistStudies at the Universityofhis own mind. His manypatents

and inventions include the moron detecting device, and the flatulence

romatograph spectrometer. An avid amateur gynecologist, he fre-

quently works as a volunteer with sexually abused farm animals. He

lives in an appliance carton in Vancouver, British Columbia.


24/24

The Anarchist Library

Anti-Copyright

March 11, 2011

Various AuthorsAn Open Leer on Technology and Mediation

1999

Retrieved on January 27, 2010http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/openletter.htm
http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/openletter.htmhttp://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/openletter.htm

An Open Letter on Technology and Mediation

Documents

Transcript of An Open Letter on Technology and Mediation