What do you think?
Rate this book
Selbstbegrenzung. Eine politische Kritik der Technik.
Questo libro analizza la particolare relazione uomo-strumento che si è affermata nel contesto della società industriale.
174 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1973
187 people are currently reading
3881 people want to read
About the author
Ivan Illich
108 books460 followersIvan Illich was an Austrian philosopher, Roman Catholic priest and critic of the institutions of contemporary western culture and their effects of the provenance and practice of education, medicine, work, energy use, and economic development.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 125 reviews
March 8, 2008
Having a rather anti-professional stance myself, I was happy to come across Illich's work. He raises a lot of interesting issues and ideas. His basic premise is that over-industrialization has fashioned us into dependent clients of a professional elite. Or, in other words, our tools (using "tools" in the broadest sense, meaning both industry and social systems) have developed beyond our ability to use them as individuals/communities. We cannot learn on our own; we cannot heal on our own; etc. Sadly, however, I think his argument is weakened by being both too extreme and poorly argued. Still, as someone who on one hand didn't need much convincing and on the other wasn't going to be totally convinced, I found this a very interesting and provocative read. We should be talking about Illich.
November 30, 2019
Da un po' di tempo girovagando per la città, mi ritrovo a guardare più attentamente le automobili che tappezzano le strade, i marciapiedi e mi succede di analizzarle. il fatto è che senza farlo apposta ho realizzato che vedo tutte automobili nuove o comunque non così "vecchie". Perchè? La risposta è semplice, ormai gli "strumenti" che usiamo quotidianamente si "deteriorano" sempre più velocemente (obsolescenza programmata? :-P) e l'esempio delle automobili è palese, quanto inquietante. Mi ricordo al periodo della mia infanzia, ormai 30 anni or sono, il tappezzamento stradale dato dalle automobili parcheggiate o in transito c'era già, ma gli oggetti erano più vari, c'erano automobili molto più vecchie, antiche ecc... Quindi ci stiamo sempre più conformando alla suddetta obsolescenza?
L'esempio della automobile è un esempio, ma lo si può declinare a tutti gli altri (ormai sconfinati) "strumenti" della nostra vita.
Così arriviamo al saggio politico/sociale/ecologico che ho appena finito di leggere: "La convivialità". La convivialità c'è quando una società riesce (ci arriveremo mai?!) a eliminare i pregiudizi, la cattiveria, l'egoismo, insomma quando si arriverà ad instaurare una legame di relazioni sociali aperte alla gioia, al bene ed alla comodità altrui e proprie.
Ivan Illich in nemmeno 150 pagine ci racconta come la società odierna (nel caso del saggio, pubblicato nel 1973, di quegli anni, ma è declinabile tranquillamente anche alla nostra, di quasi 50 anni dopo, gli anni non li risente questo libro) è talmente narcotizzata e drogata dall'industrializzazione sfrenata, dove le libertà personali vengono meno e la creatività è sempre più messa a rischio dagli "strumenti" che l'industria ci propina e che noi consumiamo.
Libro fondamentale per chi come me vuol capire come funziona la "megamacchina" del potere costituito e vede nella convivialità e l'ecologia, il punto di partenza per una vita "nuova" e sana. Il sapere ed il conoscere sono indispensabili per potersi difendere dai soprusi.
Illich mi ha proprio sbalordito, scrittura a tratti anche complessa, ma sempre chiara ed aperta all'avvenire, non ha scritto un libro di regole da seguire, ma un saggio dove si analizza la società malata, sia nell'ambiente circostante che nell'anima degli individui che la abitano.
Un capolavoro, un libro che tutti dovrebbero leggere, per poi trarne le personali considerazioni/riflessioni!
L'industrializzazione moltiplica gli uomini e le cose. I sottoprivilegiati crescono di numero, mentre i privilegiati consumano sempre di più. Di conseguenza, tra i poveri aumenta la fame e tra i ricchi la paura. Guidato dal bisogno e dal sentimento d'impotenza, il povero reclama un'industrializzazione accelerata; spinto dalla paura e dal desiderio di proteggere il suo stare meglio, il ricco s'impegna in una difesa sempre più rabbiosa e rigida. Mentre il potere si polarizza, l'insoddisfazione di generalizza. La possibilità che pur ci è data di creare per tutti maggiore felicità con meno abbondanza, è relegata al punto cieco della visione sociale.
L'esempio della automobile è un esempio, ma lo si può declinare a tutti gli altri (ormai sconfinati) "strumenti" della nostra vita.
Così arriviamo al saggio politico/sociale/ecologico che ho appena finito di leggere: "La convivialità". La convivialità c'è quando una società riesce (ci arriveremo mai?!) a eliminare i pregiudizi, la cattiveria, l'egoismo, insomma quando si arriverà ad instaurare una legame di relazioni sociali aperte alla gioia, al bene ed alla comodità altrui e proprie.
Ivan Illich in nemmeno 150 pagine ci racconta come la società odierna (nel caso del saggio, pubblicato nel 1973, di quegli anni, ma è declinabile tranquillamente anche alla nostra, di quasi 50 anni dopo, gli anni non li risente questo libro) è talmente narcotizzata e drogata dall'industrializzazione sfrenata, dove le libertà personali vengono meno e la creatività è sempre più messa a rischio dagli "strumenti" che l'industria ci propina e che noi consumiamo.
Libro fondamentale per chi come me vuol capire come funziona la "megamacchina" del potere costituito e vede nella convivialità e l'ecologia, il punto di partenza per una vita "nuova" e sana. Il sapere ed il conoscere sono indispensabili per potersi difendere dai soprusi.
Illich mi ha proprio sbalordito, scrittura a tratti anche complessa, ma sempre chiara ed aperta all'avvenire, non ha scritto un libro di regole da seguire, ma un saggio dove si analizza la società malata, sia nell'ambiente circostante che nell'anima degli individui che la abitano.
Un capolavoro, un libro che tutti dovrebbero leggere, per poi trarne le personali considerazioni/riflessioni!
L'industrializzazione moltiplica gli uomini e le cose. I sottoprivilegiati crescono di numero, mentre i privilegiati consumano sempre di più. Di conseguenza, tra i poveri aumenta la fame e tra i ricchi la paura. Guidato dal bisogno e dal sentimento d'impotenza, il povero reclama un'industrializzazione accelerata; spinto dalla paura e dal desiderio di proteggere il suo stare meglio, il ricco s'impegna in una difesa sempre più rabbiosa e rigida. Mentre il potere si polarizza, l'insoddisfazione di generalizza. La possibilità che pur ci è data di creare per tutti maggiore felicità con meno abbondanza, è relegata al punto cieco della visione sociale.
January 25, 2026
A worthwhile critique of runaway technological society and the harm it does to individuals and our ability to relate to others and our environment.
Illich begins by distinguishing two “watershed” moments of tool development: the first being when a tool reaches its peak utility, meeting the demands set by the common good. The second is when the tool exceeds the demands set by the common good, where its development becomes an end in itself and the social demand for improvement becomes its own “rationale for the exploitation of society as a whole in the service of a value which is determined and constantly relied by an element of society, by one of its self-certifying professional elites” (7). Tools become “over-efficient” (51).
The larger issue is that this exploitation shows up in the development and warping of institutions like politics, education, medicine, transportation (and others) which are built out to accommodate the development of tools and society is left to adapt and become a part of the new institutional order. Individuals are then subjected to years of compulsory schooling (19) to become skilled operators of tools, subject to moral and ethical governance of tools by political and legal systems, and living in far flung, fast moving municipalities that are developed to the limit the tools provide (e.g., like cars). All of these institutions become, at a certain point, utterly necessary in order to ensure that humans are “fitted to the service of [their] tools” (46). Humans become “over-programmed” (57) and are continually threatened with obsolescence (73) depending on how much education and credentialing one can afford (59) for new programming to fit into ever more specialized slots (62). It is not just obsolescence for operating tools but even for minimal functionality in the societies that are materially organized around those tools.
If this was all that we knew about Illich’s argument, it would seem that he is arguing for a return to a less-fraught, pre-technological society, but he attempts to distance himself from that view, noting that he is not arguing for privation and subsistence. There is little denying that tools, as extensions of human capabilities, have value (this is the first watershed). It is when tools become ends in themselves and humans become the means to those ends that we have an amoral inversion (85).
It is a moral argument that Illich is making — tools should be means to human ends (35), and the societies that spring up around those tools should be ones where “liberty for one person is constrained only by the demands created by equal liberty for another” (41).
Illich is looking for a return to tools that work for us and not to a situation in which we work for tools. The word Illich chose for these kinds of tools was “convivial,” a term that he defines as encouraging “autonomous and creative intercourse among persons, and the intercourse of persons with their environments” (11) or rather the use of tools that is least shaped by the interests of other people (20).
Importantly, these tools are “responsibly limited” (xii), which can only happen through acts of politics and law. The limitation of these tools is in their scope of development, where they maintain their peak utility but are not so developed that humans must be altered, differentially to make use of them, at which point we no longer personally relate to the tools.
Neither should the development of technological society get to the point where the efforts of our human abilities becomes insufficient for living a happy life. But how many of us know how to grow or raise our own food, build our own shelters, heal ourselves, educate ourselves? And even if we were to develop those skills through training and apprenticeship do the politics and legal requirements of our modern civilization (i.e., “public controls” [12]) allow room to practice those skills? Do we have enough access to land on which to grow enough food for ourselves? Do we have the ability to purchase all the medicines or medical equipment needed to provide for our own care? Do we have access to the educational materials that allow us to understand and thrive? Or are these resources unavailable as commodities except to those in the professions, which are defined by the restrictions related to credentialing?
In thinking of a solution, Illich talks about the possibility of “negative design” (110) and I’m inclined to want such a solution to this industrial system, but I just don’t see how this is possible without harmful regression. It seems possible that with certain kinds of technological development that societies push past points of no return. For instance, we have reached the world population that we have, in part, because of large-scale industrial agriculture. So, how does one implement negative design to agricultural technology to create more conviviality without a harmful alternation to the society we have? Maybe it’s not sudden regression but rather a change in policy or law that makes it possible to survive on an individual’s own efforts: how much food we can grow for ourselves, how far we can travel on foot or bicycle, etc. (40).
Illich begins by distinguishing two “watershed” moments of tool development: the first being when a tool reaches its peak utility, meeting the demands set by the common good. The second is when the tool exceeds the demands set by the common good, where its development becomes an end in itself and the social demand for improvement becomes its own “rationale for the exploitation of society as a whole in the service of a value which is determined and constantly relied by an element of society, by one of its self-certifying professional elites” (7). Tools become “over-efficient” (51).
The larger issue is that this exploitation shows up in the development and warping of institutions like politics, education, medicine, transportation (and others) which are built out to accommodate the development of tools and society is left to adapt and become a part of the new institutional order. Individuals are then subjected to years of compulsory schooling (19) to become skilled operators of tools, subject to moral and ethical governance of tools by political and legal systems, and living in far flung, fast moving municipalities that are developed to the limit the tools provide (e.g., like cars). All of these institutions become, at a certain point, utterly necessary in order to ensure that humans are “fitted to the service of [their] tools” (46). Humans become “over-programmed” (57) and are continually threatened with obsolescence (73) depending on how much education and credentialing one can afford (59) for new programming to fit into ever more specialized slots (62). It is not just obsolescence for operating tools but even for minimal functionality in the societies that are materially organized around those tools.
If this was all that we knew about Illich’s argument, it would seem that he is arguing for a return to a less-fraught, pre-technological society, but he attempts to distance himself from that view, noting that he is not arguing for privation and subsistence. There is little denying that tools, as extensions of human capabilities, have value (this is the first watershed). It is when tools become ends in themselves and humans become the means to those ends that we have an amoral inversion (85).
Every aspect of industrial society has become part of a larval system for escalating production and increasing the demand necessary to justify the total social cost (25)
It is a moral argument that Illich is making — tools should be means to human ends (35), and the societies that spring up around those tools should be ones where “liberty for one person is constrained only by the demands created by equal liberty for another” (41).
Illich is looking for a return to tools that work for us and not to a situation in which we work for tools. The word Illich chose for these kinds of tools was “convivial,” a term that he defines as encouraging “autonomous and creative intercourse among persons, and the intercourse of persons with their environments” (11) or rather the use of tools that is least shaped by the interests of other people (20).
Importantly, these tools are “responsibly limited” (xii), which can only happen through acts of politics and law. The limitation of these tools is in their scope of development, where they maintain their peak utility but are not so developed that humans must be altered, differentially to make use of them, at which point we no longer personally relate to the tools.
Neither should the development of technological society get to the point where the efforts of our human abilities becomes insufficient for living a happy life. But how many of us know how to grow or raise our own food, build our own shelters, heal ourselves, educate ourselves? And even if we were to develop those skills through training and apprenticeship do the politics and legal requirements of our modern civilization (i.e., “public controls” [12]) allow room to practice those skills? Do we have enough access to land on which to grow enough food for ourselves? Do we have the ability to purchase all the medicines or medical equipment needed to provide for our own care? Do we have access to the educational materials that allow us to understand and thrive? Or are these resources unavailable as commodities except to those in the professions, which are defined by the restrictions related to credentialing?
In thinking of a solution, Illich talks about the possibility of “negative design” (110) and I’m inclined to want such a solution to this industrial system, but I just don’t see how this is possible without harmful regression. It seems possible that with certain kinds of technological development that societies push past points of no return. For instance, we have reached the world population that we have, in part, because of large-scale industrial agriculture. So, how does one implement negative design to agricultural technology to create more conviviality without a harmful alternation to the society we have? Maybe it’s not sudden regression but rather a change in policy or law that makes it possible to survive on an individual’s own efforts: how much food we can grow for ourselves, how far we can travel on foot or bicycle, etc. (40).
April 18, 2013
Illich is an author that I frequently find being quoted by numerous authors that I value and respect. It was time for me to read directly from the source. This book was originally published in 1973, but it has stood the test of time, and Illich's insights into the nature of present day technologies and the need for fundamental technology reform are as relevant today as they were then. At the core of Illich's argument is a call to develop and implement technologies that promote and sustain the creative faculties of autonomous individuals living in authentic communities of deliberation and debate. I especially appreciated his shrewd insight that such a reform is not merely a matter of redirecting technologies to new or different ends/goals, but instead to design technologies differently. In many respects Illich anticipates Langdon Winner's superb point that the specific design of technologies precipitates distinctive forms of political relationship (i.e. including some, excluding others, giving voice and silencing, etc.) that should be the subject of ethical deliberation. Illich's style is succinct and accessible and I would recommend this book to a wide audience.
January 3, 2022
almost gave 4 stars. a few thoughts:
- illich is a super engaging writer / polemicist and his takedowns are super satisfying/often resonate
- this book feels way more thorough / thoughtful than deschooling society and integrates a lot of its points—I would def reach for this over it, although I think they are somewhat redundant / have a lot of the same ideas
- there's a ton of bizarre shit about population control that totally strikes me the wrong way in here
- there's def a 70s bent here where illich (who is an avowed socialist) uses a ton of stuff from milton friedman ('enlightened self-interest' LMAO) that strikes me as totally bizarre. especially when this is paired with a ton of degrowth stuff
Overall I agree pretty strongly w/ critics of Illich; while this was an interesting read / feels useful as a cultural reference point in tech I think a lot of it is super naive. Illich IDs the problem as institutionalization/formalization of industrial process but fails to get to *why* this happens—I don't actually think that 'changing our tools' is a valid solution bc capital's incentives will always compel it to make tools which deskill labor. A lot of this feels 'folk political' in the sense of hating formalization/scalable stuff and really focusing on the individual.
Regardless, pretty interesting/well written re issues w/ professionalization and 'treadmill' of consumer society. Def will take away some of the stuff around 'radical monopolies' and general idea of convivial tools.
- illich is a super engaging writer / polemicist and his takedowns are super satisfying/often resonate
- this book feels way more thorough / thoughtful than deschooling society and integrates a lot of its points—I would def reach for this over it, although I think they are somewhat redundant / have a lot of the same ideas
- there's a ton of bizarre shit about population control that totally strikes me the wrong way in here
- there's def a 70s bent here where illich (who is an avowed socialist) uses a ton of stuff from milton friedman ('enlightened self-interest' LMAO) that strikes me as totally bizarre. especially when this is paired with a ton of degrowth stuff
Overall I agree pretty strongly w/ critics of Illich; while this was an interesting read / feels useful as a cultural reference point in tech I think a lot of it is super naive. Illich IDs the problem as institutionalization/formalization of industrial process but fails to get to *why* this happens—I don't actually think that 'changing our tools' is a valid solution bc capital's incentives will always compel it to make tools which deskill labor. A lot of this feels 'folk political' in the sense of hating formalization/scalable stuff and really focusing on the individual.
Regardless, pretty interesting/well written re issues w/ professionalization and 'treadmill' of consumer society. Def will take away some of the stuff around 'radical monopolies' and general idea of convivial tools.
Read
October 4, 2025A painful, painful book to read in 2025. The things we build are designed not to serve humanity but to be new golden calves for us to worship and placate, all to ensure solid ROI for those in the golden-calf sector. But of course the last person anyone in the public policy space is going to listen to in 2025 is a politically dissident Catholic priest who sought a world of human thriving beyond the profit motive. I read this, nod, and go to bed amid my decidedly un-convivial tools. Is that a Slack notification I see?
Want to read
January 13, 2008How to live together without power or dehumanizing each other? Sounds good in my book. I love Ivan Illich.
July 26, 2018
When everyone was a farmer, you simply could not find yourself in your particular line of work. Everyone was a farmer! Illich sees this circumstance as one in which you were forced to find your identity in your character: What kind of farmer are you? That is, what kind of man, or person are you? Are you generous? Are you patient? Are you kind? Are you sober? Are you chaste? Are you temperate? Are you humble?
Just because the modern world is specialized, I see no reason not to look to the way things were as a guide to reality. We may not all be farmers, but we are all workers; all work has dignity. What really matters ultimately is one's character, not career -- or multiple careers. If you are x, or were x, but are no longer x, are you no longer you? Must you constantly look back to find yourself? If you are y today, but may cease to be y tomorrow, are you in danger of losing yourself? This inner anxiety due to attachment to a fake identity can be overcome by nurturing Illich's view that we are our character.
One can make the course of their life the inner person, not the particular circumstance in which that person lived, such as occupation. Society may be blinded by the present moment to confer greater honors on your past, present, or future, but the wise man, in my opinion, transcends human opinion and attaches to the reality of the one person he or she will always be -- the soul. And in this naked exposure to the reality of who one is, there is always a realization of what is truly right or wrong with oneself, not supressed by momentary accolades at work. There is also an awakening to seeking the truth, holding onto it, and becoming more and more morally excellent in light of it.
In this, one can die peacefully, not attached to childhood, young adulthood, a particular career one had -- or never had, having died too young, parenthood, and so on. One can seek virtue, be defined by it. Furthermore, one can stop evaluating others by their momentary property, beauty, and reputation, but by their true person as well. Friendships can be entered into, perhaps for the first time. They can develop, they can mature, they can embrace the truth about who we really are and foster the greatest intimacy possible. There can be no hidden pride about how one may be x or y instead of the z of one's companion; nor can one feel falsely inferior due to being a or b. The one soul we all are manifests itself and allows for a bond of mutual respect and love, patience for real faults, persistence in helping each other overcome then, and a developing -- not of a false identity, pushing each other to greater delusion, but of a real identity, where both become the truest persons they could ever be.
I believe this book can help make a man most adaptable to any situation, diligent to take the work available to him, knowing himself intimately -- who he really is, as well as those around him. At peace, compassionate, generous, patient, ... virtuous.
Just because the modern world is specialized, I see no reason not to look to the way things were as a guide to reality. We may not all be farmers, but we are all workers; all work has dignity. What really matters ultimately is one's character, not career -- or multiple careers. If you are x, or were x, but are no longer x, are you no longer you? Must you constantly look back to find yourself? If you are y today, but may cease to be y tomorrow, are you in danger of losing yourself? This inner anxiety due to attachment to a fake identity can be overcome by nurturing Illich's view that we are our character.
One can make the course of their life the inner person, not the particular circumstance in which that person lived, such as occupation. Society may be blinded by the present moment to confer greater honors on your past, present, or future, but the wise man, in my opinion, transcends human opinion and attaches to the reality of the one person he or she will always be -- the soul. And in this naked exposure to the reality of who one is, there is always a realization of what is truly right or wrong with oneself, not supressed by momentary accolades at work. There is also an awakening to seeking the truth, holding onto it, and becoming more and more morally excellent in light of it.
In this, one can die peacefully, not attached to childhood, young adulthood, a particular career one had -- or never had, having died too young, parenthood, and so on. One can seek virtue, be defined by it. Furthermore, one can stop evaluating others by their momentary property, beauty, and reputation, but by their true person as well. Friendships can be entered into, perhaps for the first time. They can develop, they can mature, they can embrace the truth about who we really are and foster the greatest intimacy possible. There can be no hidden pride about how one may be x or y instead of the z of one's companion; nor can one feel falsely inferior due to being a or b. The one soul we all are manifests itself and allows for a bond of mutual respect and love, patience for real faults, persistence in helping each other overcome then, and a developing -- not of a false identity, pushing each other to greater delusion, but of a real identity, where both become the truest persons they could ever be.
I believe this book can help make a man most adaptable to any situation, diligent to take the work available to him, knowing himself intimately -- who he really is, as well as those around him. At peace, compassionate, generous, patient, ... virtuous.
August 12, 2013
This essay takes a critical look at many large systems and structures that we take for granted. Read this if you like to think deeply about how society shapes you.
June 24, 2015
Kernels of insight buried in piles of manure
An interesting look back at 1970 utopian socialism. Many, if not most of the prescriptions are ridiculous, suggestions such as limiting all transportation to the speed of bicycles or setting maximum and minimum incomes very close.
The book does offer some healthy critiques of technology and its potential for dehumanization (not the language used in the book). Also some of the analysis of institutional structures like education, which is condemned as conditioning only for industrial production have some validity. Politics and even language are indicted as creating a society of consumers who are slaves to addiction or slaves to envy.
Offers a historical perspective on anti-progress arguments that still appear today, but today, the sharp teeth are covered by benign dentures.
An interesting look back at 1970 utopian socialism. Many, if not most of the prescriptions are ridiculous, suggestions such as limiting all transportation to the speed of bicycles or setting maximum and minimum incomes very close.
The book does offer some healthy critiques of technology and its potential for dehumanization (not the language used in the book). Also some of the analysis of institutional structures like education, which is condemned as conditioning only for industrial production have some validity. Politics and even language are indicted as creating a society of consumers who are slaves to addiction or slaves to envy.
Offers a historical perspective on anti-progress arguments that still appear today, but today, the sharp teeth are covered by benign dentures.
August 30, 2014
Before reading this, I already shared a lot of his theses -- state socialism and capitalism are sides of an industrial coin; it is the structure of growth-focused institutions that is a problem, not who masters the structure; medicine, schooling, and transportation are corrupted and corrupting tools; credentialism and professional-protectionism are damaging society deeply;
But — and — this gave me the opportunity to do much more than self-congratulatorily stroke my pet bailiwick.
Win Win. Within limits. ;)
But — and — this gave me the opportunity to do much more than self-congratulatorily stroke my pet bailiwick.
Win Win. Within limits. ;)
January 29, 2026
Could barely make it through the incoherent first chapter, which presents without irony the following argument: it is a mistake to attribute 20th century decreases in mortality to medical science, and modern medicine is in fact a "major threat to health," but modern medicine is also TOO good at keeping people alive and is to be blamed for the crime of reducing infant and maternal mortality in poor countries, which is bad because of the environment. Alright buddy, YOU die as an infant and see how you like it then! Reactionary, Malthusian garbage founded on vague gestures towards evocative but unsubstantiated concepts.
May 6, 2022
Pretty good screed.
Illich defines "conviviality" as the opposite of industrial productivity, or "autonomous, creative intercourse among persons and between individuals and their environment". Tools for conviviality are those which maximize an individual's autonomy and impose the fewest constraints on their freedom.
It's a thought-provoking work. Given that it's written in 1973, I naturally start to wonder what the same lens would say about the internet and its giant corporate rulers and gatekeepers. While Illich says not all centralized systems are incompatible with conviviality, the ways we're able to interact with tools like social networks, streaming platforms, etc. are very tightly constrained. It's interesting to imagine what a "convivial" twitter would look like, for example. Maybe the "fediverse" is more suited to conviviality.
Illich defines "conviviality" as the opposite of industrial productivity, or "autonomous, creative intercourse among persons and between individuals and their environment". Tools for conviviality are those which maximize an individual's autonomy and impose the fewest constraints on their freedom.
It's a thought-provoking work. Given that it's written in 1973, I naturally start to wonder what the same lens would say about the internet and its giant corporate rulers and gatekeepers. While Illich says not all centralized systems are incompatible with conviviality, the ways we're able to interact with tools like social networks, streaming platforms, etc. are very tightly constrained. It's interesting to imagine what a "convivial" twitter would look like, for example. Maybe the "fediverse" is more suited to conviviality.
May 9, 2011
Having read this again in my mid-life and after seeing with more open eyes the manipulative and oppressive state and culture of government, institutions and corporations, while experiencing a more intentional simple life by choosing the harder way (e.g., gardening, a using a bike as alternative transportation) I am beginning to parse services and products on a continuum between convivial and manipulative while tracking aspects that give them their place on the range of these two terms. This exercise is helping to see more fully the choices I have and setting boundaries to the “tools” that have greater promise of conviviality.
“I intend it to mean the autonomous and creative intercourse among persons, and the intercourse of persons with their environment; and this in contrast with the conditioned response of persons to the demands made upon them by others, and by a man-made environment. I consider conviviality to be individual freedom realized in personal interdependence and, as such, an intrinsic ethical value.” (Illich, Ivan (1975). Tools for Conviviality. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, Inc., 11).
“I intend it to mean the autonomous and creative intercourse among persons, and the intercourse of persons with their environment; and this in contrast with the conditioned response of persons to the demands made upon them by others, and by a man-made environment. I consider conviviality to be individual freedom realized in personal interdependence and, as such, an intrinsic ethical value.” (Illich, Ivan (1975). Tools for Conviviality. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, Inc., 11).
June 4, 2013
Much as I find Illich's social aims to be congruent with my own I still couldn't get into this book. As radical as Illich is (or is known to be) I found his views almost conservative in this book. For one there's a distorted romanticism with the past, as in admiring the builders of the pyramids because they were physically invested in their labor, as opposed to it being mediated by technology; ancient Egypt hardly seems like a beacon for a progressive labor movement. Also rolled my eyes at a "contraception leads to mass murdering" argument. Even the better parts of the book were pretty pedantic; easy to declare something, but harder to dig into the root of the problem and offer a roadmap to a solution.
January 26, 2015
If you are interested in science and technology studies, this is pretty cool, from a historical standpoint, anyway. If you are not, you will probably be disoriented - as I was - by Illich's occasional casual remarks to the effect that he thinks Mao is doing a great job in China and maybe one day the United States will follow his lead. So.
December 1, 2025
Cool! Cant believe this was written almost 50 years ago given how eerily it seems to be about today. Short book (long essay? plea?) about the different ways in which “tools” (like education, health care, transportation) can and should be used. Must read (I think) for people who care about science and technology and specifically their role in society (past, present, future), eg policy makers!
November 30, 2022
Rereading for a C4SS paper I'm writing.
June 2, 2025
Voor de boekenclub gelezen, voorgesteld door Jan.
Ik ben heel blij dat we dit boek samen hebben kunnen bespreken, want het was lastig leesbaar: Illich doet veel grootse uitspraken, springt met concepten en ideeën van hot naar her, en uitleg volgt later pas, of gewoon vaak niet. Door die afwezigheid van structuur is het vaak best zoeken naar zijn punt.
We zijn er een beetje op uitgekomen dat hoofdstuk 1 "two watersheds" beschrijft welke twee keerpunten we door technologie hebben doorgemaakt dat we nu als mens onderdeel zijn geworden van geinstitutionaliseerde systemen die ons een middel in plaats van een eind maken; hoofstuk 2 beschrijft hoe we kunnen zien wat er allemaal niet werkt; hoofdstuk 3 hoe tools systemen uit balans brengen op 6 manieren (biological degradation, radical monopoly, overprogramming, polarisation, obsolescence, and frustration); hoofdstuk 5 over de oplossingen; en als laatste hoofdstuk 6 die de politieke dimensions weer belicht.
Hoewel Illich de lezer ontzettend veel stof tot nadenken geeft, is hij in de uitwerking niet concreet en praktisch genoeg, ookal wekt ie wel de suggestie dat hij dat zou willen zijn. Een groot spanningsveld die hij niet expliciet raakt, maar door zijn onderwerp zeker wel aanraakt, gaat over de rol van de mens zelf en het mensbeeld.
"I will focus on the structure of tools, not on the character structure of their users" p 15
Hij lijkt vrijheid alleen als negatieve vrijheid te begrijpen, en kijkt niet naar positieve vrijheid. Daarbij laat hij te raden waar de verantwoordelijkheid van de mens is, aangezien we niet passieve figuren zijn. Het zou kunnen zijn dat de mens in zijn ogen de techniek is gaan volgen, en er niet actief in is, omdat er al door die 2e watershed zijn gegaan en de discours van het systeem ons wereldbeeld vormt. En dat hij juist dat beeld aan ons wilt voorhangen, maar hij overbrugt het niet. De regie en autonomie van de mens is een vraagstuk wat blijft hangen.
Ook de genderrollen die hij op een gegeven moment aanhaalt vonden we interessant. Hij herkent hoe alleen het formatieve wordt erkent als werk, en dat je niet wilt dat je wordt gereduceerd tot VVD's output machine. Hij kent een speciale rol to aan de vrouw om hier een punt van te maken, aangezien zij veel niet formatief werk doen wat zeker moet worden gezien als werk. Hij lijkt hier te impliceren dat vrouwen, omdat ze door het systeem nog niet helemaal zijn geïndoctrineerd, daar een kans hebben liggen. Toch zorgt het vasthouden van die man/vrouw rollen voor problemen.
Er moet wel gezegd worden dat er ontzettend mooie, goede, sterke uitspraken worden gedaan - ook al is de weg er naartoe niet altijd even logisch of volgbaar. Hoe lastig ook, ik denk wel dat hij echt steengoede observaties maakt.
- p.49 "man has evolved to fit into one niche in the universe. The earth is his home. This home is now threatened by the impact of man"
- p.50 "the only solution to the environmental crisis is the shared insight of people that they would be happier if they could work together and care for each other "
"People must learn to live within bounds. This cannot be taught. Survival depends on people learning fast what they cannot do. They must learn to abstain from unlimited progeny, consumption, and use. It is impossible to educate people for voluntary poverty or to manipulate them into self-control. It is impossible to teach joyful renunciation in a world totally structured for higher output and the illusion of declining costs." p.65
3/5 sterren
Voor de inspirerende en ontzettend kritische observaties en argumenten, 2 sterren aftrek door de slechte leesbaarheid en lijkende inconsistenties in zijn algehele verhaal..
Ik ben heel blij dat we dit boek samen hebben kunnen bespreken, want het was lastig leesbaar: Illich doet veel grootse uitspraken, springt met concepten en ideeën van hot naar her, en uitleg volgt later pas, of gewoon vaak niet. Door die afwezigheid van structuur is het vaak best zoeken naar zijn punt.
We zijn er een beetje op uitgekomen dat hoofdstuk 1 "two watersheds" beschrijft welke twee keerpunten we door technologie hebben doorgemaakt dat we nu als mens onderdeel zijn geworden van geinstitutionaliseerde systemen die ons een middel in plaats van een eind maken; hoofstuk 2 beschrijft hoe we kunnen zien wat er allemaal niet werkt; hoofdstuk 3 hoe tools systemen uit balans brengen op 6 manieren (biological degradation, radical monopoly, overprogramming, polarisation, obsolescence, and frustration); hoofdstuk 5 over de oplossingen; en als laatste hoofdstuk 6 die de politieke dimensions weer belicht.
Hoewel Illich de lezer ontzettend veel stof tot nadenken geeft, is hij in de uitwerking niet concreet en praktisch genoeg, ookal wekt ie wel de suggestie dat hij dat zou willen zijn. Een groot spanningsveld die hij niet expliciet raakt, maar door zijn onderwerp zeker wel aanraakt, gaat over de rol van de mens zelf en het mensbeeld.
"I will focus on the structure of tools, not on the character structure of their users" p 15
Hij lijkt vrijheid alleen als negatieve vrijheid te begrijpen, en kijkt niet naar positieve vrijheid. Daarbij laat hij te raden waar de verantwoordelijkheid van de mens is, aangezien we niet passieve figuren zijn. Het zou kunnen zijn dat de mens in zijn ogen de techniek is gaan volgen, en er niet actief in is, omdat er al door die 2e watershed zijn gegaan en de discours van het systeem ons wereldbeeld vormt. En dat hij juist dat beeld aan ons wilt voorhangen, maar hij overbrugt het niet. De regie en autonomie van de mens is een vraagstuk wat blijft hangen.
Ook de genderrollen die hij op een gegeven moment aanhaalt vonden we interessant. Hij herkent hoe alleen het formatieve wordt erkent als werk, en dat je niet wilt dat je wordt gereduceerd tot VVD's output machine. Hij kent een speciale rol to aan de vrouw om hier een punt van te maken, aangezien zij veel niet formatief werk doen wat zeker moet worden gezien als werk. Hij lijkt hier te impliceren dat vrouwen, omdat ze door het systeem nog niet helemaal zijn geïndoctrineerd, daar een kans hebben liggen. Toch zorgt het vasthouden van die man/vrouw rollen voor problemen.
Er moet wel gezegd worden dat er ontzettend mooie, goede, sterke uitspraken worden gedaan - ook al is de weg er naartoe niet altijd even logisch of volgbaar. Hoe lastig ook, ik denk wel dat hij echt steengoede observaties maakt.
- p.49 "man has evolved to fit into one niche in the universe. The earth is his home. This home is now threatened by the impact of man"
- p.50 "the only solution to the environmental crisis is the shared insight of people that they would be happier if they could work together and care for each other "
"People must learn to live within bounds. This cannot be taught. Survival depends on people learning fast what they cannot do. They must learn to abstain from unlimited progeny, consumption, and use. It is impossible to educate people for voluntary poverty or to manipulate them into self-control. It is impossible to teach joyful renunciation in a world totally structured for higher output and the illusion of declining costs." p.65
3/5 sterren
Voor de inspirerende en ontzettend kritische observaties en argumenten, 2 sterren aftrek door de slechte leesbaarheid en lijkende inconsistenties in zijn algehele verhaal..
July 16, 2025
I never expected to like a card-carrying socialist as much as I do this book. Illich's work is short, powerful and dense; with having no fluff or frills it is my favorite style of writing.
He levels powerful critiques against the industrialization of society, which can perhaps be thought of as capitalism (whatever that nebulous word means). But his socialist critiques are motivated by a humanitarianism that I deeply agreed with. It seems right to have limits to our tools, and 'the two watershed moments' he describes as well as various insights into industrial (and locomotive) acceleration were forceful and prescient.
One thing that remains a question is his application. Though many of his suggestions sound idealistic, he contends that idealistic doesn't mean they can't be implemented. His main exhortation for those who desire a convivial society was to wait for a catastrophe on the same or greater level as the Great Depression and then seize the chance to, by legal and political process, remove the essential foundation of our bloated industrial society. The book ended with two short, apocalyptic chapters which I'll need to ponder.
A fantastic book nonetheless, by an author I hope to revisit in the future.
He levels powerful critiques against the industrialization of society, which can perhaps be thought of as capitalism (whatever that nebulous word means). But his socialist critiques are motivated by a humanitarianism that I deeply agreed with. It seems right to have limits to our tools, and 'the two watershed moments' he describes as well as various insights into industrial (and locomotive) acceleration were forceful and prescient.
One thing that remains a question is his application. Though many of his suggestions sound idealistic, he contends that idealistic doesn't mean they can't be implemented. His main exhortation for those who desire a convivial society was to wait for a catastrophe on the same or greater level as the Great Depression and then seize the chance to, by legal and political process, remove the essential foundation of our bloated industrial society. The book ended with two short, apocalyptic chapters which I'll need to ponder.
A fantastic book nonetheless, by an author I hope to revisit in the future.
May 8, 2025
RIP Ivan Illich, you would have hated ChatGPT
July 3, 2018
Illich espone le sue idee con forza, coraggio e senza cercare di imbonire il lettore: ne è prova l'uso non immediato del linguaggio (la stessa parola "convivialità"), l'assumere un ruolo necessariamente impopolare, il proporre tesi certo non immediatamente condivisibili, perché lontane anni luce dai valori oggi operanti. Un grande testo, davvero rivoluzionario, che mette necessariamente nella condizione di porsi tutti i problemi sollevati nel testo. Questo è il libro da leggere per affrontare il tema dei necessari freni allo sviluppo. Scritto nel 1973.
January 10, 2008
Illich's usual fair of gadfly anarchism and pseudo-empirical observations on the immanent collapse of western society under the weight of its radically monopolizing institutions. Read him, get a little drunk, if you can figure out a way to apply it, use it as a hermeneutic, or reference, by all means do so...but most people don't.
Read
October 15, 2008Ivan Illich is very smart, and a neglected perspective for radicals that I hope changes. I feel like there are not many people how have a perspective like he does even though he's written a few decades ago now.
Read
August 11, 2016The seeds of SonicRim's basic philosophy in respecting, harnessing and empowering the creativity and imagination of everyday people can be found in the brilliant vision of a Convivial Future outlined by Illich
December 6, 2014
Illich, a catholic priest, anarchist, and general social critic, correctly identifies that our machines possess us (perhaps somewhat like a demon requiring exorcism), and not the other way around as we commonly believe.
June 25, 2020
There's a lot here that will feel redundant if one has read Medical Nemesis or Deschooling Society, but the examples from those two fields serve well to prove Illich's broader points here about the structure of production and industrialization.
April 25, 2020
The modern West has fallen prey to the tools they use. Tools have grown out of man's control, first becoming his master, and then ultimately man's executioner. The way forward from our current situation is not to abstain from tools, but to make convivial tools.
Convivial tools are tools which are free, creative, and can be used by anyone with minimal special training. Ivan Illich spends much of the book outlining examples of convivial tools and how many of our current tools aren't convivial. An example of a convivial tool is the alphabet. Almost anyone can learn to use the alphabet, and for his own purpose. The alphabet is cheap, it is not easily controlled by third parties, and people can take them or leave them as they wish. Other examples include the printing press (and I think email).
Contrasted with convivial tools are many of our modern tools. A nonconvivial tool would require special training, be too expensive to be used by most people, or would be limited to only a certain group of people. A dental drill could be convivial, but the licensing required limit it to dentists and make the tool nonconvivial. An example of a nonconvivial tool is a car. Like many nonconvivial tools, cars share the same serious problem where the means have turned into an end. Cars are also tools which require special training not available to everyone to use. They are too expensive to be used by all people, and not all people can use cars. In addition, cars create what Illich calls a radical monopoly on transportation. If I wanted to get from one side of Houston to the other, I can get there quite easily using cars, but I am not free to walk or bike there, at least not if I want to get there safely. Cars then have a monopoly on how to travel within the city. Cars are also not available for everyone to use, but only for the rich. Cars don't benefit the poor, but the poor have to pay for the usage of cars by the rich. Highways are considered public services, but they aren't. They are for private usage of those wealthy enough to own a car or have access to good public transportation. If highways were truly public utilities, then all would have the same access to them, but they are instead limited by income level.
Much of Tools for Conviviality is devoted to the themes I have written about above. The need for convivial tools and the captivity of modern, Western society to nonconvivial tools. As you may guess from what I have written above, this is not a cheerful book. Illich is profoundly pessimistic about modern, Western culture, and rejects many of the assumptions our society operates on unthinkingly. He denies that modern technology, public schooling, and modern medicine are good. All three have fallen out of balance with nature, and have become nonconvivial. As a result, the tools can no longer achieve their purpose. Public schooling no longer helps educate society, and modern medicine creates medical issues and limits our ability to be healthy. Tools for Conviviality is a challenging read, especially for those of us in the West.
Tools for Conviviality is also a challenging read because of the density of the material covered. A quick glimpse at the title and the chapter subsections will alert the reader what kind of book they should be expecting. Subsections titles include biological degradation, obsolescence, the demythologization of science, and the rediscovery of language. None of those sections are easy to read, but working through them to understand what Illich is saying is a worthwhile experience.
One of the reasons reading Illich is a worthwhile undertaking is because of the depth of his learning. Illich was a uniquely gifted man, and also one who was blessed with a unique life situation and community. He was one of the last true polymaths, a scholar of the middle ages who worked in 10 languages and developed his critique of Western society with the help of many other intelligent people and in several cultures. He does not reveal the depth of his erudition with copious footnotes (the book is free of footnotes), but you can tell the depth of his knowledge from his writing. The combination of individual brilliance, plus working in Latin America combine to give Illich a truly unique perspective.
My summary above of the book is woefully inadequate. I have mentioned what I understand to be the main ideas of the book, though many of the twists and turns and arguments I have left out. I hope I have conveyed the depth and importance of this book, and all thinking people would benefit from engaging with his arguments. Like Wendell Berry, Illich makes arguments which aren't easily rejected. They can be rejected, but more often they present hard truths we don't know what to do with. Even if you do end up disagreeing with Illich (or Berry), you need to face the depth of their struggle, the depth of their disagreement with our modern world, and their rejection of cultural axioms.
The weakest part of the book was the final chapter where Illich turned to predicting what will bring about a convivial society. I suspect he will be right about some things, but I am doubtful all of his predictions will prove accurate. For example, his hope in politics seems misguided and doesn't take into account the power political parties have over their voters. But I don't think the benefit of this book comes from the prognosis of the future. The strength of the book lies in Illich exposing modern Western assumptions and trying to shape our imaginations to what a better future looks like. More than any specific predictions, those two strengths make the book worth reading.
Reading the last chapter is also interesting in light of Illich's last years. He later would go on to repudiate his hopeful belief that a new future could be had. Instead we must renounce the assumptions of the world. This is what led to him dying of cancer and refusing to receive treatment. As I read Tools for Conviviality, I find myself wandering what a more mature Illich would have written as his conclusion. I also find myself wandering what does hope look like? Illich was a Catholic priest, and I am curious what part his faith played in providing him with hope. Faith is not explicit in this book, but from what I understand of Illich's life, his faith was always a guiding source for him. What would Illich's hope be given his faith? And how can that hope guide and shape my hope? And what does renunciation of the assumptions of the world look like for us? If Illich's prognosis is correct, then we are headed towards a crisis, but in the meantime our current ways are not working. We can learn much from Illich, though we still have to figure out our own path forward.
Convivial tools are tools which are free, creative, and can be used by anyone with minimal special training. Ivan Illich spends much of the book outlining examples of convivial tools and how many of our current tools aren't convivial. An example of a convivial tool is the alphabet. Almost anyone can learn to use the alphabet, and for his own purpose. The alphabet is cheap, it is not easily controlled by third parties, and people can take them or leave them as they wish. Other examples include the printing press (and I think email).
Contrasted with convivial tools are many of our modern tools. A nonconvivial tool would require special training, be too expensive to be used by most people, or would be limited to only a certain group of people. A dental drill could be convivial, but the licensing required limit it to dentists and make the tool nonconvivial. An example of a nonconvivial tool is a car. Like many nonconvivial tools, cars share the same serious problem where the means have turned into an end. Cars are also tools which require special training not available to everyone to use. They are too expensive to be used by all people, and not all people can use cars. In addition, cars create what Illich calls a radical monopoly on transportation. If I wanted to get from one side of Houston to the other, I can get there quite easily using cars, but I am not free to walk or bike there, at least not if I want to get there safely. Cars then have a monopoly on how to travel within the city. Cars are also not available for everyone to use, but only for the rich. Cars don't benefit the poor, but the poor have to pay for the usage of cars by the rich. Highways are considered public services, but they aren't. They are for private usage of those wealthy enough to own a car or have access to good public transportation. If highways were truly public utilities, then all would have the same access to them, but they are instead limited by income level.
Much of Tools for Conviviality is devoted to the themes I have written about above. The need for convivial tools and the captivity of modern, Western society to nonconvivial tools. As you may guess from what I have written above, this is not a cheerful book. Illich is profoundly pessimistic about modern, Western culture, and rejects many of the assumptions our society operates on unthinkingly. He denies that modern technology, public schooling, and modern medicine are good. All three have fallen out of balance with nature, and have become nonconvivial. As a result, the tools can no longer achieve their purpose. Public schooling no longer helps educate society, and modern medicine creates medical issues and limits our ability to be healthy. Tools for Conviviality is a challenging read, especially for those of us in the West.
Tools for Conviviality is also a challenging read because of the density of the material covered. A quick glimpse at the title and the chapter subsections will alert the reader what kind of book they should be expecting. Subsections titles include biological degradation, obsolescence, the demythologization of science, and the rediscovery of language. None of those sections are easy to read, but working through them to understand what Illich is saying is a worthwhile experience.
One of the reasons reading Illich is a worthwhile undertaking is because of the depth of his learning. Illich was a uniquely gifted man, and also one who was blessed with a unique life situation and community. He was one of the last true polymaths, a scholar of the middle ages who worked in 10 languages and developed his critique of Western society with the help of many other intelligent people and in several cultures. He does not reveal the depth of his erudition with copious footnotes (the book is free of footnotes), but you can tell the depth of his knowledge from his writing. The combination of individual brilliance, plus working in Latin America combine to give Illich a truly unique perspective.
My summary above of the book is woefully inadequate. I have mentioned what I understand to be the main ideas of the book, though many of the twists and turns and arguments I have left out. I hope I have conveyed the depth and importance of this book, and all thinking people would benefit from engaging with his arguments. Like Wendell Berry, Illich makes arguments which aren't easily rejected. They can be rejected, but more often they present hard truths we don't know what to do with. Even if you do end up disagreeing with Illich (or Berry), you need to face the depth of their struggle, the depth of their disagreement with our modern world, and their rejection of cultural axioms.
The weakest part of the book was the final chapter where Illich turned to predicting what will bring about a convivial society. I suspect he will be right about some things, but I am doubtful all of his predictions will prove accurate. For example, his hope in politics seems misguided and doesn't take into account the power political parties have over their voters. But I don't think the benefit of this book comes from the prognosis of the future. The strength of the book lies in Illich exposing modern Western assumptions and trying to shape our imaginations to what a better future looks like. More than any specific predictions, those two strengths make the book worth reading.
Reading the last chapter is also interesting in light of Illich's last years. He later would go on to repudiate his hopeful belief that a new future could be had. Instead we must renounce the assumptions of the world. This is what led to him dying of cancer and refusing to receive treatment. As I read Tools for Conviviality, I find myself wandering what a more mature Illich would have written as his conclusion. I also find myself wandering what does hope look like? Illich was a Catholic priest, and I am curious what part his faith played in providing him with hope. Faith is not explicit in this book, but from what I understand of Illich's life, his faith was always a guiding source for him. What would Illich's hope be given his faith? And how can that hope guide and shape my hope? And what does renunciation of the assumptions of the world look like for us? If Illich's prognosis is correct, then we are headed towards a crisis, but in the meantime our current ways are not working. We can learn much from Illich, though we still have to figure out our own path forward.
April 5, 2022
I've been looking for books that help me understand our world, and help me articulate my struggles with it for a while now. This is one of those books.
For example, it laid bare why I find difficulty in managing the speed at which the world operates - we've opted for a world that wants to go too fast at everything: cars, growth, new tech, travel, work. And my sense of being doesn't operate at that speed. It has taken me years to justify to myself that its ok to operate at my own pace. Now I can actually tell you why it's ok.
We make our tools and our tools make us. Illich takes the adage and truly sees how this affects our world. Seeing the word tool in the broadest sense, as:
"... those aspects of our current society that have been rationally designed." So any system that was created through some form of reasoned thinking is a tool.
Our most dangerous tool right now is industrial productivity. It has taken over our minds and our actions, and is steadily, no exponentially, chipping away at our world. At no point was this a convivial tool, still, it originally did improve lives enough that it wasn't resisted completely. But I don't totally know that story. It may also have just been imposed from on-high at a time when the working class really had little to no power. Regardless it generated wealth and products and people eventually liked it.
Illich sees how industrial productivity's ends have embedded themselves as values now. It has taken over many aspects of our thinking to the point that every person wants to be productive, have everything occur on the large scale ("making an impact"), and to have everything happen fast - from getting our knowledge on Google to making social change happen instantly, or never. "Better becoming the enemy of the good".
One of the biggest things I learned from this book, represented by how we have been warped by industrial productivity, was that we have a cognitive bias: we lose focus on the means and end up focusing on the ends. When something - an action, a tool, a way of being - is good (providing value) we tend to forget the origin of the goodness; instead we misattribute it to the thing itself.
The first happens when we see that something is of value (the means for something) and the second when the something that had value becomes divorced from the source of the value and is worshipped for its own sake (the ends).
Take schools. They were a tool intended as a place for learning. Which has value. But we inverted it. Schools now act as an overstructured place of learning where learning is measured by way of tests. The tests end up representing learning itself.
On top of that we see years of schooling as also representing learning instead of realizing anyone can learn. We have even socially stratified around the idea of years of schooling. With people who don't go through school or dropout being socially shunned. I always knew it was stupid to think this way but could never fully articulate why - the ends have become the means.
Schooling is now a commodity that doesn't really impart any learning, it imparts certification: how often do we now say that colleges are just a place for networking? Or that we should do a safe degree that ensures us a well-paying job? Or that we should go to prestigious schools - why do schools have prestige anyway? Because we've forgotten what we valued about schools in the first place.
This leads into the overprofessionalization of jobs. The sense that only a professional can practice law or medicine or be a professor. That you need certifications that testify to this. The certifications have become the means, losing what was actually valuable - the learning needed to help continue the dialogue of justice or the practice of healing or the practice of exposing what is not immediately obvious.
Illichs thoughts on medicine, another tool, are revealing too. Here's another modern institution where our cognitive bias has come to play a role. Originally it was made to help provide value by healing systematically. Now it offers us "get out of suffering free" cards. Instead of guiding us through the process of being human we are overdosed on opiates. And our lives are extended far beyond times when we can continue to have real meaning.
He doesn't say much about politics, trying to be focused on tools more directly, but he does have one of my favorite lines ever: "Changes in management is not a revolution."
**What is a convivial tool?**
A convivial tool is like the abacus or the telephone or the mail. You can work with it, use your primary experience to feel for how it functions, not necessarily its internals but just what it was meant to do and apply yourself creatively in the act of using it. As a complement to your own ways of being. You can also forget about it and live your life without feeling a sense of something truly missing.
I remember watching a documentary (called 100UP) about a woman who was able to manage a farm while past an age of 100. Every tool she's using to pull that off is convivial. They're helping her use her energy in a way she wishes to use it and in the best way she could use it for herself.
**How can we recognize when a tool is convivial?**
When we can identify what the source of value was for the tool. And identify that we're able to use it to gain that value to whatever degree we want to use it. So it can also be possible to be not used at all.
A lot of our current tools are not convivial. I can't imagine being without a car. Or a smartphone. Or the internet. Or my 15 years of schooling. I can't imagine not being without a sense of constant growth and a worldwide supply chain. Can't imagine pleasure-seeking not being my primary mode of being.
That last one is truly perplexing. We live in a world that, for those in upper economic strata, is filled with options for open ended hedonism. Yet the world always feels not enough: in other words, FOMO. Like we've overcommitted our hedonism. What a paradox!
Illich's suggestion for dealing with our current inhuman situation is to enforce humanity back onto it. To pull everything - productivity, speed, consumption - onto more human scales rather than industrial productivity scales. Essentially a form of what we would now consider 'austerity', though in my eyes it seems more luxurious than ascetic. To be slowed down. To be more and know (when it's only in the abstract) less. To use less. Sounds lovely. This isn't a design change. This is a systemic overhaul. We have systemic scalism and it needs to go.
There's more. So much more in this book. And I'm still wrestling with it. I love that!
For example, it laid bare why I find difficulty in managing the speed at which the world operates - we've opted for a world that wants to go too fast at everything: cars, growth, new tech, travel, work. And my sense of being doesn't operate at that speed. It has taken me years to justify to myself that its ok to operate at my own pace. Now I can actually tell you why it's ok.
We make our tools and our tools make us. Illich takes the adage and truly sees how this affects our world. Seeing the word tool in the broadest sense, as:
"... those aspects of our current society that have been rationally designed." So any system that was created through some form of reasoned thinking is a tool.
Our most dangerous tool right now is industrial productivity. It has taken over our minds and our actions, and is steadily, no exponentially, chipping away at our world. At no point was this a convivial tool, still, it originally did improve lives enough that it wasn't resisted completely. But I don't totally know that story. It may also have just been imposed from on-high at a time when the working class really had little to no power. Regardless it generated wealth and products and people eventually liked it.
Illich sees how industrial productivity's ends have embedded themselves as values now. It has taken over many aspects of our thinking to the point that every person wants to be productive, have everything occur on the large scale ("making an impact"), and to have everything happen fast - from getting our knowledge on Google to making social change happen instantly, or never. "Better becoming the enemy of the good".
One of the biggest things I learned from this book, represented by how we have been warped by industrial productivity, was that we have a cognitive bias: we lose focus on the means and end up focusing on the ends. When something - an action, a tool, a way of being - is good (providing value) we tend to forget the origin of the goodness; instead we misattribute it to the thing itself.
The first happens when we see that something is of value (the means for something) and the second when the something that had value becomes divorced from the source of the value and is worshipped for its own sake (the ends).
Take schools. They were a tool intended as a place for learning. Which has value. But we inverted it. Schools now act as an overstructured place of learning where learning is measured by way of tests. The tests end up representing learning itself.
On top of that we see years of schooling as also representing learning instead of realizing anyone can learn. We have even socially stratified around the idea of years of schooling. With people who don't go through school or dropout being socially shunned. I always knew it was stupid to think this way but could never fully articulate why - the ends have become the means.
Schooling is now a commodity that doesn't really impart any learning, it imparts certification: how often do we now say that colleges are just a place for networking? Or that we should do a safe degree that ensures us a well-paying job? Or that we should go to prestigious schools - why do schools have prestige anyway? Because we've forgotten what we valued about schools in the first place.
This leads into the overprofessionalization of jobs. The sense that only a professional can practice law or medicine or be a professor. That you need certifications that testify to this. The certifications have become the means, losing what was actually valuable - the learning needed to help continue the dialogue of justice or the practice of healing or the practice of exposing what is not immediately obvious.
Illichs thoughts on medicine, another tool, are revealing too. Here's another modern institution where our cognitive bias has come to play a role. Originally it was made to help provide value by healing systematically. Now it offers us "get out of suffering free" cards. Instead of guiding us through the process of being human we are overdosed on opiates. And our lives are extended far beyond times when we can continue to have real meaning.
He doesn't say much about politics, trying to be focused on tools more directly, but he does have one of my favorite lines ever: "Changes in management is not a revolution."
**What is a convivial tool?**
A convivial tool is like the abacus or the telephone or the mail. You can work with it, use your primary experience to feel for how it functions, not necessarily its internals but just what it was meant to do and apply yourself creatively in the act of using it. As a complement to your own ways of being. You can also forget about it and live your life without feeling a sense of something truly missing.
I remember watching a documentary (called 100UP) about a woman who was able to manage a farm while past an age of 100. Every tool she's using to pull that off is convivial. They're helping her use her energy in a way she wishes to use it and in the best way she could use it for herself.
**How can we recognize when a tool is convivial?**
When we can identify what the source of value was for the tool. And identify that we're able to use it to gain that value to whatever degree we want to use it. So it can also be possible to be not used at all.
A lot of our current tools are not convivial. I can't imagine being without a car. Or a smartphone. Or the internet. Or my 15 years of schooling. I can't imagine not being without a sense of constant growth and a worldwide supply chain. Can't imagine pleasure-seeking not being my primary mode of being.
That last one is truly perplexing. We live in a world that, for those in upper economic strata, is filled with options for open ended hedonism. Yet the world always feels not enough: in other words, FOMO. Like we've overcommitted our hedonism. What a paradox!
Illich's suggestion for dealing with our current inhuman situation is to enforce humanity back onto it. To pull everything - productivity, speed, consumption - onto more human scales rather than industrial productivity scales. Essentially a form of what we would now consider 'austerity', though in my eyes it seems more luxurious than ascetic. To be slowed down. To be more and know (when it's only in the abstract) less. To use less. Sounds lovely. This isn't a design change. This is a systemic overhaul. We have systemic scalism and it needs to go.
There's more. So much more in this book. And I'm still wrestling with it. I love that!
Read
January 21, 2025This was perhaps not the best Illich book to start out with (though listening to several podcasts did help to get the broader scope and nuance of his thought). All the same, it's a provocative and fascinating read. Illich is more radical than I had imagined, and yet he so often clearly perceives the problems (and strengths) of modern society. Illich would not, I imagine, be terribly surprised by any of the developments in technology, politics, or culture over the fifty years since this book was written. Except perhaps in his dogged attachment to the theory of overpopulation (which has been significantly debunked). Even where Illich is frustrating, he is worth wrestling with and I look forward to reading more of his work soon.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 125 reviews