Here's a terrific, long, thoughtful new essay by Patrick Deneen in The New Atlantis, meditating on the connection between technology and culture, and how in our time technology has become anti-culture. The essay defies easy summation, but you get a sense of it below. Wendell Berry's critique is at the core of Deneen's own argument in this piece. Georgetown is so fortunate to have a young scholar like Deneen on its faculty. And we are all fortunate that he's such a pellucid writer, because he has a lot to teach us. Excerpt:
Lying deep at the heart of this division of use and care--the opposition to nature--are philosophies that reject the idea of the bounties and limits of nature, philosophies that regard nature chiefly as an obstacle to the fulfillment of our desires, that dismiss the lessons of culture to moderate our desires in light of the limits of local conditions, that elevate human comfort and wealth above other ends, and accordingly not only stress our opposition to nature, but to cultures that developed alongside local natural conditions. Francis Bacon called for a change in humanity's relationship with the natural world, to view nature as an enemy and to understand the human mind as a weapon. In describing the modern scientific project, he charged us to understand that "knowledge is power," and at points described nature as a kind of prisoner withholding precious secrets from us, justifying our extraction of those secrets even by torture, if necessary. Following Bacon, we have transformed technology from ways of using nature that nevertheless coexist with nature--that "care for what we use"--to ways of exerting human will and fulfilling human desire in spite of nature and therefore, ultimately, in spite of culture.It has been during this short period of industrialization that most of our longstanding cultural forms have attenuated, faded, or gone wholly out of existence. Writing as a farmer, Berry has repeatedly lamented the decline of the family farm as a locus of human community and the embodiment of numberless forms of cultural knowledge and practices. But everywhere we see around us the ruins of once vibrant culture. Most of us know little or nothing of how to produce food. More and more of us cannot build, cannot fix, cannot track, cannot tell time by looking at the sky, cannot locate the constellations, cannot hunt, cannot skin or butcher, cannot cook, cannot can, cannot make wine, cannot play instruments (and if we can, often do not know the songs of our culture by which to entertain a variety of generations), cannot dance (that is, actual dances), cannot remember long passages of poetry, don't know the Bible, cannot spin or knit, cannot sew or darn, cannot chop wood or forage for mushrooms, cannot make a rock wall, cannot tell the kinds of trees by leaves or the kinds of birds by shape of wing--on and on, in a growing catalogue of abandoned inheritance.
My grandmother could do most of the things on this list. And by many measures, our time would regard her as uneducated or look upon her as "simple" in spite of the variety and the complexity of things she knew how to do. But if the lights went out tomorrow, she would have been the smartest person we know; she (and not our college professors) would have seen us through. She's gone now, and much of that knowledge has been laid to rest with her because, by the time of my generation, we didn't need to know those things anymore.
Some people might respond to this list with perhaps a modicum of regret, wishing at least that we could track--that would be cool--but also recognizing that we don't have to. After all, we have handheld GPS gadgets for getting around, industrial agriculture for food production, cheap clothing from China so that we don't have to make or repair garments, cheap labor from Mexico so that we don't have to build or fix, and the Internet for everything else. But this is precisely the point: within roughly two generations we have lost a vast storehouse of cultural memory that was the accumulation of countless generations who saw it as their duty to posterity, grounded in gratitude to ancestors, to ensure safe passage of this knowledge to future generations. Culture itself has come to be viewed as disposable based on the illusion of independence from nature that our modern technologies have bequeathed us. Why spend time diligently learning at the side of your father how to repair a bucket or navigate by the stars or grow vegetables when every young person knows that a machine will do this work--or that cheap replacement products are readily available?
As Deneen points out, Berry teaches that culture not only tells us what we should do, but what we must not do if we are to live well within the limits set by Nature, and our natures. The hubris that modernity and technology inspires in us -- that we are bound by nothing except our own wills -- are culture-destroying. In other words, by leading us to think that we are free of the old limits, we come to think that we no longer need virtue. Philip Rieff, writing from a very different perspective, came to a similar conclusion: that culture is impossible without "interdicts" -- the "thou shalt nots" that define a people.
The answer is not and cannot be to renounce technology itself, but only to put technology in its proper place. One good way to start, suggested by Berry, and elsewhere by Neil Postman, is that before taking up a new technology, ask not only what it makes possible, but what it makes impossible.

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
Rod, thanks for this post ... and thanks to the many who have commented here. It is worth reading and re-reading.
Increasingly, more of us are leading a "virtuous" or "vicarious" life. Even communicating as we on this blog do is a fine advance ... but in the past we'd be spending the time talking to the neighbor. Do any of us spend time (I mean real time, not just a few pleasantries about the weather) with any of our neighbors?
To be fair, let's talk about what "we" know now that "they" didn't - knee surgery; neonatal intensive care; air conditioning; refrigeration; sewage treatment plants; a life expectancy twice that of the early 19th century. It slices both ways.
I agree that when systems fail, everybody suffers. You probably could say the same thing back 10,000 years ago, when the big game animals of Europe and the Middle East were disappearing, and a few people were trying some radical experiments with plant cultivation. The culture loss from the switch from hunter/gathering and pastoralism to farming was probably equally troublesome. Those of us who are left survived the transition, but if you believe geneticist Bryan Sykes, not everyone survived (especially the gluten-intolerant.)
Did our grandparents really live within Nature, capital-N? Check out the history of the family farm: "soil-mining," habitat destruction, deforestation, erosion, species wipeout, depletion of water tables, damming of river systems, monoculture and the crop diseases it encouraged, Indian wars and land grabs to keep feeding the system... I could go on.
As for the personal cost: My great-great grandfather started a farm in western Pennsylvania in 1860. His son William was born on it, inherited it, and worked it until age 72. William and his wife were married in 1882. Five of their fifteen children died in childhood. My grandmother, their third child, was the first to live to adulthood, and the child after her died young as well--can you imagine losing three of your first four children before any of them reached the age of 10? This is what you get when you combine outhouses, well water, food stored without refrigeration for months at a time, and long winters in a cramped drafty farmhouse with no other heat than a wood stove. Not surprisingly, none of the five sons who survived into adulthood chose to spend their lives working that or any other farm, though they surely possessed most of the skills on Deneen's list. They all moved to town, and "abandoned inheritance" seems to have suited them just fine.
It has been pointed out that in primitive cultures in other countries, the natives themselves jump at the chance to ditch their old traditions when electricity, modern machinery, etc. come to their village. This often disappoints sentimental westerners. People often idealize what it's like to live in primitive cultures, except for the people who actually have to live in it.
"But everywhere we see around us the ruins of once vibrant culture. Most of us know little or nothing of how to produce food. More and more of us cannot build, cannot fix, cannot track, cannot tell time by looking at the sky, cannot locate the constellations, cannot hunt, cannot skin or butcher, cannot cook, cannot can, cannot make wine, cannot play instruments (and if we can, often do not know the songs of our culture by which to entertain a variety of generations), cannot dance (that is, actual dances), cannot remember long passages of poetry, don't know the Bible, cannot spin or knit, cannot sew or darn, cannot chop wood or forage for mushrooms, cannot make a rock wall, cannot tell the kinds of trees by leaves or the kinds of birds by shape of wing--on and on, in a growing catalogue of abandoned inheritance."
This is why I really support scouting. Each troop varies, of course, and they all obviously don't address ALL these skills. Some more urban troops rarely venture out into the wilderness. But your average Scout can sew, start a campfire, treat a fracture or give CPR, cook on said fire, act out a few skits, sing a dozen or so ballad-style songs from memory, identify poison ivy, pitch a tent at a decent campsite, and mark a trail. Quite a few more can orienteer by map and compass, operate emergency radios, rescue a drowning swimmer, identify several edible plants and mushrooms, chop wood, shoot, fish, canoe or sail, recite long poems from memory, and a few other skills besides. Really, these are more skills than your average soldier knows anymore, as most of us living in the field or at war eat our food out of self-heating packets now.
I highly encourage anyone to get involved in the Scouts. If you don't have school age kids, they could probably still use the occasional adult volunteer. Chances are, you won't ever need any of these skills, but if, God forbid, you were in an emergency, you might be better off than average. You might even be of some use.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.