A fictitious image of Ned Ludd, leader of the Luddites. The anti-Luddite print is dated to 1812. It shows Ned Ludd in women's clothing, indicating his opposition to 'progress'.In a blog of a few days ago I talked about the Brave New World conference, with the theme 'Indifference,' which I attended last week here in Leiden and where I gave a short presentation on the issue of 'indfference to textiles.'Since then I have been thinking about one of the questions I was asked after my talk, namely about the role of textile machines and the future of textiles and what would I do.
Oh, oh, oh, I remember thinking, how do I answer this question without sounding too much like a Luddite! And then later on I wondered whether the audience realised who and what is a Luddite?
I first learnt about Luddites in a (British) school history class when I was a young teenager (just a few years ago), and those people had stuck in the back of my mind. Basically, they were small-scale weavers in England during the early 19th century, who went around destroying the newfangled spinning and weaving machines that by that time were quickly taking away their livelihoods. They were named after a fictional weaver called Ned Ludd.
Modern poster by Shaun Slifer, recalling the Luddite riots in the early 19th century.Charlotte Brontë, the famous British author (compare Jane Eyre), wrote in her book Shirley (1849): "Certain inventions in machinery were introduced into the staple manufacturers of the north, which, greatly reducing the numbers of hands necessary to be employed, threw thousands out of work, and left them without legitimate means of sustaining life. . . . Misery generates hate; these sufferers hated the machines which they believed took their bread from them; they hated the buildings which contained those machines; they hated the manufacturers who owned those buildings."
Nowadays the word Luddite is used for anyone who opposes new technology or ways of working. Am I a Luddite? Am I opposed to textile machinery? People have to be clothed, we need textiles, I agree, but I wonder whether the machines have to get bigger and bigger and have to be operated in far-away places, which means that the resulting textiles and garments are shipped incredibly long distances, half-way across the world.
Why not produce them nearer to home? All of the new technologies and new production centres, mainly in East Asia, are simply being developed in order to produce and sell things more cheaply. But is this all worth it?
We know about the vast piles of excess clothing that are being dumped as part of the fast fashion process. We know about the exploitation of cheap labour. We know about the costs of shipping all those textiles. Am I being a Luddite for questioning these developments?
Luddites destroying powerlooms. Wood engraving, 1844.We need and/and, not either/or. We need textiles in all their many forms, just as we need to grow more food and build more homes. What many people now lack is a basic range of textile knowledge, so that better choices can be made, clothing can be made at home. Garments can also be repaired and mended at home, or recycled.
How do we change this situation? My initial, and simple reaction was to say ‘bring back the needle’, but perhaps this sounds a little too much like bring back hanging. Basically, I think, we should encourage more people to take up the needle. To achieve this goal, we need more easily available and affordable textile education at all levels, from school children to adults, to make sure that as many people as possible have access to the basic knowledge and practical ‘life skills’ associated with making and mending textiles and garments. And by everyone I mean everyone, which reminds me I must teach my husband how to sew on a button …..
Gillian Vogelsang-Eastwood, 17 September 2024
