Tools for Degrowth? Ivan Illich's Critique of Technology Revisited
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e10 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Cleaner Production journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro Tools for degrowth? Ivan Illich's critique of technology revisited Silja Samerski Department of Anthropology and Cultural Studies, University of Bremen, Enrique-Schmidt-Str. 7, 28359, Bremen, Germany article info abstract Article history: This article revisits Ivan Illich's call for limiting the use of tools and elaborates its implications for Received 11 February 2016 degrowth. Illich analyzed growth not as an economic ideology, but - more radically - as the result of a Received in revised form historically unique mindset that turns tools from means into ends. Unlike many advocates of degrowth, 22 August 2016 he did not propose alternative modes of resource consumption and distribution, but instead tried to Accepted 10 October 2016 defend vernacular subsistence and conviviality against the industrialized satisfaction of needs. Any Available online xxx meaningful limit to growth, Illich insisted, has to be rooted in the defense of a sphere beyond production and consumption. Yet, as he himself realized, in an advanced technological society this distinction be- Keywords: e Degrowth tween autonomous action and heteronomous need satisfaction is blurred. Modern tools and especially Technology the computer - not only paralyze innate capabilities, but shape self-perception and subjectivities so as to Ivan Illich increase dependencies on technological systems. On the basis of Illich's works, this article will argue first Conviviality that degrowth requires limits to material as well as immaterial technologies, including political man- Disembodiment agement and professional services; second that these limits have to be based on the appropriate balance between vernacular subsistence and engineered instrumentalities: and, third, that political decisions demand the cultivation of a critical awareness of the symbolic power of modern technologies. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. The need to limit the consumption of resources and to refuse the Scheidler and Vetter, 2015). Discussions about technology and “religion” (Latouche, 2009, 7) of economic growth are two as- degrowth, even when they draw on Illich's concept of convivial sumptions generally agreed on by proponents of degrowth. No tools, exclusively focus on material devices (Best and Vetter, 2015; matter if ‘green’ or ‘qualitative’, economic growth inevitably exac- Deriu, 2015). In doing so, degrowth discussants overlook or even erbates social inequality and ecological exploitation. Yet, when it perpetuate the fundamental intellectual topology of growth, comes to the question of what to limit, and how and why, funda- namely the underlying certainties and assumptions that have led to mental differences open up. No degrowth proponent doubts that the contemporary expansion of industrialized products and energy intensive technologies such as air and car traffichavetobe technologies. heavily restricted for ecological reasons, as well as nuclear power Based on the works of Ivan Illich, this article reformulates and oil consumption. But what about the computer and its de- growth not as the result of a certain economic imperative or rivatives or the professional service industry, e.g. the educational ideology, but as a question of technology e namely as a histori- system and the health system? Strikingly, in most degrowth dis- cally unique relation of humans to their instruments. This sheds cussions, these fast growing markets, namely health care, educa- new light on a key question of degrowth, namely what to limit, tion and digital technologies, are either appreciated as desirable and how and why. First, it emphasizes not the ecological, but the public goods that only need some democratic restructuring or are social harms of growth, namely the paralyzing and disembodying not mentioned at all (u.a. Borowy, 2013, Cattaneo, et al., 2012, effects of modern technologies, be they high speed trains, D'Alisa et al., 2015, Paech, 2012, www.degrowth.org). Apparently, smartphones or health care services. For this purpose, it draws on most degrowth authors understand growth as an economic ideol- Illich's basic distinction between autonomous action and heter- ogy and criticize it in the light of its ecological impacts and its onomous need satisfaction, between vernacular subsistence and distributive injustice (a.o. Paech, 2012; D'Alisa et al., 2015, Muraca, industrial production, between convivial and manipulative tools. 2012; Trainer, 2012; www.degrowth.org; as an exception see Second, it argues that degrowth, if it does not want to degenerate into an alternative strategy with which to manage scarce re- sources, has to seek limits to all manipulative tools, be they E-mail address: [email protected]. digital technologies or social technologies. These limits, if they http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.039 0959-6526/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Please cite this article in press as: Samerski, S., Tools for degrowth? Ivan Illich's critique of technology revisited, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.039 2 S. Samerski / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2016) 1e10 are to be meaningful, cannot be defined by experts or determined 1.1. The age of tools by ecological indices, but have to be rooted in the common will to defend a vernacular and convivial sphere against industrial and Throughout this book, Illich uses the term “tools” in a very broad technological encroachment. Thirdly, based on Ivan Illich's later and, at the same time, very specific way. Tools are all means or work on the way contemporary technologies shape bodily instruments with which modern humans try to realize their goals; experience, it calls for the cultivation of a technological ascesis, thus, he includes simple devices such as knives or plows as well as that is a critical distancing from the symbolic effects of mind- complex systems and institutions such as universities or medical boggling tools such as the computer that increasingly shape systems. self-perception and subjectivity. I use the term 'tool' broadly enough to include not only simple hardware such as drills, pots, syringes, brooms, building elements, 1. Ivan Illich's critique of tools or motors, and not just large machines like cars or power stations; I also include among tools productive institutions such as factories fl With his books on “Energy and Equity” (1974), “Tools for that produce tangible commodities like corn akes or electric Conviviality” (Illich, 1971/75)1, “Deschooling society” (1971) and current, and productive systems for intangible commodities such as “Limits to Medicine” (1976/1995), Illich remains one of the most those which produce 'education', 'health', 'knowledge,' or 'de- radical critics of industrial society. Though most influential during cisions'. I use this term because it allows me to subsume under one the 1970s, his thinking has remained topical: “Deschooling Soci- category all rationally designed devices, be they artifacts or rules, ety” is still a key work for alternative pedagogues, homeschoolers codes or operators, and to distinguish all these planned and engi- and unschoolers; critical physicians consider “Medical Nemesis” as neered instrumentalities from other things such as basic food or lucid today as it was in the 1970s (Smith, 2003); and his ques- implements, which in a given culture are not deemed to be subject tioning of the premises of modern life is as surprising and pro- to rationalization. School curricula or marriage laws are no less vocative as it was 40 years ago (Samuel, 2013). Social movements purposely shaped social devices than road networks (Illich, 1975, disenchanted by the promises of technological progress and eco- 34). nomic growth are recovering his ideas on the commons and According to Illich, modern humans have a peculiar relation to fi conviviality. These include the Commons-movement (Bollier, their environment, or more speci cally to their tools. In his his- 2013), the Convivalists (Convivialistes, 2014), the Zapatistas in torical studies on technology he shows that it is only in the 12th Southern Mexico (Zaldivar, 2009) and intellectuals in Belarus century that scholars started to conceptualize the plow or the “ ” (Illich, 2013). The degrowth-movement, too, is rediscovering hammer as instruments separate from the human body. The Illich's writings of the 1970s and recognizing him as one of their Greeks, he argued, knew no fundamental distinction between the e “ guiding intellectual forefathers (Cattaneo et al., 2012, Demaria hammer and the hand that holds it both were a organon. The et al., 2013; Latouche, 2009; Paech, 2012). Yet, a closer reading of word organon means both, this pencil which I am holding in my Illich affords surprises: it reveals him as a radical critic not only of hand, and the hand which holds it. My hand without the pencil, and industrial society but also of some undisputed assumptions of my hand armed with the pencil are both organa. There was no way ” degrowth. The degrowth movement generally accepts goals such of distinguishing the pencil from my hand (Illich in Cayley, 2005, fi as health, mobility, and education, and their appertaining in- 73). But in the 12th century, the classical organon was rede ned as stitutions; it thinks that a reformulation of economics will open a instrumentum, an instrument or tool, which was endowed with a path towards social