My response was to Deneen’s moral reflection on “free-riding” in or on the liberal order. I there said that such accusations (or self-accusations) only could really apply if we could demonstrate that the thing in which we participate (modern communications technology) were directly and inextricably tied to the liberal world order in some causal way. This reflection therefore did not enter into the much broader questions of the nature of technology or its moral quantum.

On the latter point, I almost entirely agree with Stewart, whose argument is perfectly expressed. I can agree with him despite the appearance of our comments coming as responses to each other precisely because it does not seem that they are really answering the same question.

To the extent that they do overlap on a single question, it is on whether such modern technology can be evaluated as good or evil. Stewart says that it is not morally neutral, but can potentially be harnessed for good or evil. I think if a given technology can be used for good or for evil ends, then it must in itself be morally neutral. But, moreover, I would agree with him that no technology is morally neutral, and one way a traditional conservative might evaluate the merits and demerits of, say, the internet, is to discern to what extent that thing is merely an offspring of the liberal order. To offer a more obvious example, genetic material “selection” such as that soon to be offered in the United States (so the paper said yesterday) clearly bears the marks of our consumerist and post-humanist age. Is it possible to identify this technology as morally neutral? Only to the extent that it is either not used at all or used for some purpose unrelated to that for which it was invented. Only knowledge, an idea, can arguably be so neutral — since by definition it is not determined to an action.

But let me retreat from this long rumination and draw attention once more to the sure-footed analysis Stewart makes of techne and technology.

I see the place of technology as incomplete, but always holding the possibility of completion. Objectifying the world makes power itself a goal, not power for something. Technology today is closely related to the Cartesian mind-body dualism in which the entire world is a collection of objects. What should we be concerned with? Techne. Beauty. Truth. What are we concerned with today? Affluence, longevity, youth–but for what? The technology of life has subverted the techne of life, but this does not mean that a computer, typerwriter, or pen is somehow “bad” in itself. Each offers vital opportunities and perhaps an equal number of dangers. Shunning technology only handicaps the cause and places power in the hands of those who use it indiscriminately. Technology is not precisely “neutral” but holds the possibilities for great harm and great good. Not owning a computer will not likely help others, and probably not yourself. But I say this with a qualifier: I hope to reach a point in my life where I do not need a computer. It’s not that I refuse to use them (I work with them!) but that I see they are merely tools.

As an artist has his tools, and so we have our technology. We can play with technology as if it were a toy or we can use it to create art. Or we can hide from it. Technology is always part of art and today’s technology holds great possibilities.

Let me provide a narrative rather than a conclusive argument, in hopes of clarifying my thoughts.

I read Berry’s “Why I Don’t Own a Computer” (or whatever the precise title) and the essays that followed from it many years ago. They convinced me, and yet I continued to use a computer. It is possible — some would say likely — that I simply continued skating on the ice of contradiction and hypocrisy of which traditionalists in the liberal age have always been accused. But I would suggest (in a rare, Hegelian or Adornian moment) that Berry’s critique was accurate but inadequate. There are aspects of technology that neither ratify nor derive from the morphology of our moment.

If I am patently incorrect on this, please let me know. If I am convinced of my error, however, then I will be retreating further from the techno-splendor of our age than I already have. For the moment, let’s bear in mind that a great deal of rational inquiry and practical ingenuity went on before our present age, and its spirit is not definitively soiled by the horrendous features of liberalism. It would require a highly sensitized critical instrument to discern what aspects of the technological present are expressly owed to the liberal order. Stewart’s comments shed some light on this, but I at least cannot see how his claims — again — create a clear and exclusive causal relationship between liberal society and the internet.

Perhaps, in any case, I should make some effort to work this out and provide a post.

Unfortunately, the only alternative of being a hypocritical critic seems to be the Nietzschean view that the only path out is to move further into decadence. But it seems impossible to do so without “turning evil into innocence” (Simone Weil).

I have to agree with Will on this. The internet grew specifically because of mobility. Of course, it was first to share information between schools, but obviously it grew beyond that. Here’s a question: is it possible for the internet to have grown the way it did in such a uniform fashion were it not for Microsoft’s monopoly on operating systems? If there were less “big business” I really doubt that the internet would exist the way it does today. The connections on the internet now exceed the complexity of a single human brain… If this didn’t happen because of “rootlessness” I have a much harder time saying it happened because of “rootedness.”

Certain technologies really were collaborative efforts, such as the cellphone. Corporations banded together to create a product none of them individually could create… of course, whether that’s a good thing is a totally different question.

The internet, whether it grew from “roots” or not–it didn’t–now facilitates the search for place, community, and quality. I don’t mean virtual communities, but the monopoly Microsoft maintained held within it the seeds of its own destruction. By facilitating a Word Wide Web and with the introduction of Broadband internet, Open Source software has emerged: Ubuntu, OpenOffice, Firefox, Wikipedia… The quality of things is regulated not by a bureaucracy or big business but by people who care about things. In Open Source software, if it is bad, it is not used. In Wikipedia, if it is false, someone corrects it.

But is the internet itself part of having roots? I need a convincing argument to agree with that.

I look forward to your essay on Kalb. I did have one quibble with your earlier comment, however.

I find it hard to imagine the Internet springing up in a culture that doesn’t privilege rootlessness, innovation, and mobility. At the very least, I think many of liberalism’s defects have certain salutary side-effects (extremely rapid technological development comes to mind). Whether this trade-off is worth it is another question entirely, but a comprehensive critique of liberalism ought to at least acknowledge its very real achievements.

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,’ it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’

‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master – that’s all.’

Accusations against the traditionalist or would-be aggrarian of “free-riding” on the liberal largess make no sense at present. All western persons now live in liberal societies of some kind and therefore to the extent that they live, eat, and breathe, they are beneficiaries of those societies. As I said just above, however, liberal society itself feeds on the achievements of the pre-liberal. I pray that we might “cut out the middle man,” dispense with the myriad and malevolent projects of liberalism, and at long last coax the present back into cautious and fruitful continuity with the riches of our forefathers.

On a more pedantic note, I do not see how the inventions of modern ingenuity bear a causual dependency on liberal society. Does anyone really believe that the internet, or other such technologies, are the direct off spring of a rootless, administered political order? If it were, it would not flourish nearly so well as it does in the caves of Pakistan.

If I owe a debt in justice to the liberal order, I shall be happy to pay it. But I would greet with disgust any suggestion that the totality of my life is so indebted and that, therefore, it would be a violation of justice for me to undermine or counter that order.

I have done.

Modern capitalism is eminently worth of criticism, but it has also opened up remarkable opportunities for leisured pursuit of wisdom. I think of my own alma mater, the University of Dallas, which was founded by wealthy capitalists interested in furthering Catholic liberal arts education. There is a balance to be struck between criticism and gratitude. I am more than sympathetic to Dr. Deneen’s critique of the liberal tradition, but I am interested in seeing how we avoid “biting the hand that feeds us.”

I am also put in mind of T.S. Eliot:

“The fact that a problem will certainly take a long time to solve, and that it will demand the attention of many minds for several generations, is no justification for postponing the study. And, in times of emergency, it may prove in the long run that the problems we have postponed or ignored, rather than those we have failed to attack successfully, will return to plague us. Our difficulties of the moment must always be dealt with somehow: but our permanent difficulties are difficulties of every moment. … There is one class of persons to which one speaks with difficulty, and another to which one speaks in vain. The second, more numerous and obstinate than may first appear, because it represents a state of mind into which we are all prone through natural sloth to relapse, consists of those people who cannot believe that things will ever be very different from what they are at the moment. From time to time, under the influence perhaps of some persuasive writer or speaker, they may have an instant of disquiet or hope; but an invincible sluggishness of imagination makes them go on behaving as if nothing would ever change. Those to whom one speaks with difficulty, but not perhaps in vain, are the persons who believe that great changes must come, but are not sure either of what is inevitable, or of what is probable, or of what is desirable.”