Luddite Club: New York high school girls abandon smartphones and (a) social media

Literally “consumed” by the “epidemic” of social media, Logan Lane and Lola Shub, two high school girls from New York, decided to abandon their smartphones. Several of their comrades quickly joined the movement, and in 2021 the Luddite Club was born. The name is inspired by a 19th-century revolutionary movement led by the legendary character Ned Ludd. In 1811, artisans in the English textile industry smashed machines to protest against a decline in their rights and the deterioration of their working conditions caused, among other things, by mechanization. The Luddite insurgency lasted for several years and often won “the support of local public opinion.^[1] ”, according to the historian François Jarrige. For this reason, the movement was severely suppressed by the British authorities, through executions and deportations.

Now with 25 members, the Luddite Club meets every week on Grand Army Plaza, in the Brooklyn neighborhood of New York. On the agenda: discussions of new projects for the club, reading, manual activities — without being distracted by a telephone screen. In an article by Business Insider, Lola tells the story of the genesis of her club:

“We all hated our smartphones and everything that goes with them: the relentless use of social media, the amount of time spent scrolling, snaps and selfies. We no longer wanted to be “screenagers”^[2]”, but it was hard to get away from it. So we created the club to provide a space where we could put aside our small computers and experience life without^[3].”

But the Luddite Club does not require its members to throw their smartphones in the trash. The only rule that should be respected is to put the telephone aside during weekly appointments.

The lives of Lola and her classmates changed instantly after the abandonment of the smartphone:

“Here's something I noticed right away when I ran out of an iPhone in my pocket: all the times when I would normally have taken it out reflexively — on the subway, in the queue at the store, in the bathroom — were now moments of silence. For some people, this can become a problem. It takes an effort to just sit back and face your thoughts, and I know that can be hard. But it's also a really wonderful thing to learn and practice.

Without a telephone, I had to live these moments and enjoy them. I found myself reviewing my plans for the day, or a memory from five years ago, or trying to find the answer to a problem that was stressing me out. Whatever topic I was thinking about, it seemed much more lively and detailed than before, when my attention was immediately diverted by my phone and the uninteresting videos that were wasting my time. Thanks to all the time saved by leaving my smartphone behind, I found space to think creatively. I started reading more and was able to focus better. Overall, I felt that my thinking skills were improving.^[4].”

For his part, Logan used to fall asleep at late hours by the light of the blue screen on his phone. Now she wakes up naturally at 7am, with no need to set an alarm. However, Logan and Lola were held back by anxious parents encouraging them to get a flip phone.

In addition, we learn in an article from New York Times that Logan and his friends were called “classists”^[5] ”. Some critics of their Luddite club indeed believe that expecting people to abandon their smartphone is a “privileged” idea. This is a classic argument for attacking anti-tech resisters used by those who misunderstand the social implications of technology. Recognizing that technology creates growing structural inequalities, and that modern comfort is based on the exploitation of millions of slaves in the countries of the global South, it is taking the defense of technology, which is a classist position. It is undeniable that it is difficult to do without a smartphone in industrialized countries. But it should instead lead us to question the totalitarian world shaped by technological development.

Towards the creation of “Technology-Free Zones”?

“If I had one overarching message to my teenage peers, it would be this: spend time getting to know yourself and exploring the world around you. The latter is so much more rewarding — and so much more real — than the one in your expensive pocket box.”

— Lola Shub

https://youtu.be/oN2zIoImDN0

A report where members of the Luddite Club are interviewed: “For me, technology easily disconnects you from reality.”

The initiative launched by these high school students is significant of the technocritical moment we have been going through for several years now. Netflix released a series^[6] and a documentary^[7] on the Neoluddite Theodore Kaczynski; the ideas of the author of Industrial society and its future seduce people from very diverse backgrounds (anarchists)^[8], environmentalists or conservatives^[9]); and many teens express their rejection of techno-industrial modernity on TikTok^[10].

This is a breach that must be plunged into, especially since technocracy is already preparing its response to neutralize what the Anglo-Saxons refer to by the expression “tech backlash.”^[11] ” (the backlash of public opinion against big tech companies). A common criticism addressed to anti-tech resisters capitalizes on individual acts or “consum'action”, which is itself based on the following theory: any activist worthy of the name should, in order to be accepted into the highly popular circle of radicals, embark on an almost religious quest for moral purity. Thus, only a hermit living isolated in a cabin, away from the modern world, would have the right to criticize technology. We showed The absurdity of such an idea. Others before us have noticed the counter-revolutionary nature of this quest for moral purity that is plaguing activist circles.^[12].

The system is always looking for a way to retrieve criticism in order to remove subversive content and thus prevent any change in technological trajectory. The environmental movement suffered the same fate. To realize this, it is enough to compare today's Climate Movement to the ecological struggles — especially anti-nuclear ones — that were much more massive and virulent in the 1970s. Following the attempt to recover environmentalism by technocracy, whose founding act can be traced back to the publication of the Meadows Report in 1972^[13], the environmental movement has lost popularity and its revolutionary potential has faded away; the environmental movement has now become a mostly technocratic movement. Like all technocratic parties, it celebrates technology and science, and advocates for massive state interventionism. To confirm this, you can consult “The vision for the worlds of tomorrow^[14] ” proposed by Greenpeace or even “the plan to transform the French economy^[15] ” of the Shift Project, a think tank of the Polytechnic engineer and business man Jean-Marc Jancovici.

This is why initiatives like the Luddite Club are essential but insufficient to effectively and sustainably transform the dominant social order. In general, it is illusory to hope to change anything at Status Quo by limiting themselves to individual actions, without seeking to organize a mass movement to establish a relationship of power with the authorities. And it is just as utopian to hope to mobilize massively by depriving ourselves of modern means of communication (for more details on this point, see the Principle No. 9 antitech resistant).

Creating communities aimed at emancipating our tech-dependence is an excellent starting point for building an effective anti-tech movement. Les activities that we propose to develop are all part of this logic of reclaiming our bodies, our thoughts, our senses and our means of subsistence. Ultimately, we can imagine the establishment of ZSTs, “Technology-Free Zones”, areas free from technological oppression, areas without wifi, without 5G, without screens, without cameras, without microphones. These places would make it possible to nourish creativity and to share moments of exchange, from human to human, without technological interference, and thus escape the suffocating atmosphere to which the technological system condemns us.