“Liberty, for what? Fools, for what? Let me have a little more time, you work diligently, and I will soon take complete care of you; I will insure you against all risks (except against the loss of liberty, of course); I will marry you off, I will raise your children. What more could you ask? Why demand freedom? Since it’s I who will even take the trouble to think for you, I can also be free in your place.”
Such is the question the modern state imposes on its citizens in Georges Bernanos’ prescient essay titled “Liberty” written shortly before his death in 1948. Elsewhere he wrote: “Liberty, for what? One might as well ask…. Why civilization? And, summing it all up in one single phrase: Why man?”
Technology plays an increasingly critical role in our lives. At the same time the production of goods and services is more and more concentrated in an automated economy. When the outreach of centralized production harnesses the power of ‘techne’ our lives may become less toilsome, but do they become less free?
As we are more and more dependent on technology do we experience the diminishment of our individual constructive and creative faculties? Are we relying less on each other and more on ‘systems’? Are we less personal, more isolated? In exchange for the securement of comfort and ease do we accept the dehumanizing and homogenizing effects of standardization? While the case is persuasively made that ‘job-killing’ innovation yields new forms of employment do we become more or less human as we become more technological? The Luddites were textile workers in 19th century England who revolted against the introduction of labor-saving machinery because it threatened their livelihood. Does the all-powerful Algorithm threaten our humanity? If so, will we realize it in time?
Like everything else technology is a gift, a gift for us to enjoy and cultivate. However, we are not the source of the gift, a source we forget at our own peril as we succumb to the belief that technology is its own source. Blinded by hubris, we betray our divinely rooted humanity as we indulge in the folly of Eden and Babel. Isn’t It ironic that the more we espouse this Pelagian insistence on our independence of God the more we compromise our uniquely individual personality? As technology rids us of toil does it rob us of liberty? What happens to humanity in the absence of liberty?
These reflections about the role of technology and the rise of centralized production are prevocative to be sure. Among other thoughts they bring to mind the principle of subsidiarity as articulated in the Catholic Catechism: “A community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life and community of a lower order”, or, human affairs are best handled at the lowest possible level.
Philanthropy facilitates subsidiarity. It enables individual donors to support others at the lowest possible level to resolve the challenges of their local communities. As important, philanthropy prompts individual donors to exercise their own unique creativity and in doing so to practice solidarity, another principle in Catholic social doctrine. Certainly, those associated with the National Catholic Community Foundation understand the interplay of these two fundamental principles.
As he writes about ‘technological determinism’ Bernanos does not abandon hope. Mindful of the divine spark that humanizes each of us and referring to the technocratic state, he concludes one of his essays with: “ For like all monsters it is frightened by the fixity of the human gaze!”
Sage observations, especially the impact of misused technology. In Catholic circles, especially of late, there has been a misplaced emphasis on solidarity and ignorance of the important Catholic social teaching principle of subsidiarity. Bernanos’s “Liberty” sounds like a good read, I would commend E.F. Schumacher’s Small is Beautiful as a helpful discussion on economic policies which promote, rather than stifle, human flourishing.
Dana,
As usual, a well-thought-out, prayerful brief commentary.
Thank you,
George Creel