Neo-Luddism and Literature: The Resistance of Lusophone Writers in the Age of Artificial Intelligences
- CERES
- 1 day ago
- 5 min read
The term Luddism refers to the workers’ movement of the early 19th century, between the years 1811 and 1812, when English textile workers destroyed machines that threatened their livelihoods. The name of the movement derives from a supposed worker, Ned Ludd, who is said to have broken his employer’s machines. Even without any proof, the story served as inspiration for many workers who saw machines as the cause of their miserable condition.
However, the term came to express a political concept known as “neo-Luddism,” which is used today to describe critical attitudes toward digital technologies and the logics that sustain them. Concerns focus on algorithmic surveillance, mass collection of personal data, automation of cognitive labor, and the dehumanization of social processes mediated by AI.
Although situated in a specific historical context, the concept has been revived and is generally linked to the anarcho-primitivist labor movement, in order to analyze contemporary forms of social resistance against technologies that redefine work, the economy, and everyday life—just as occurred in the 19th century.
At the present moment, the rapid advance of Artificial Intelligences (AI) raises questions such as: “To what extent can automation and intelligent systems compromise employment, human autonomy, and social structures?” However, this type of questioning is not new in history. Whenever a new technology threatens to profoundly transform a profession—especially those connected to art—resistance arises. A practical example in the artistic field was the emblematic emergence of photography in the 19th century. Many portrait painters saw their activity lose value almost overnight. After all, why would someone commission a painted portrait when a machine could capture a person’s image in just a few seconds?
In today’s debate on artificial intelligence, various artists (especially writers) have expressed concerns that bring us back to the tensions experienced during the Luddite period. The Luddites (English workers at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution) became known for destroying machines installed in factories. However, their protest was not directed against technology itself, but against the way it was being implemented—often at the expense of workers.
Their struggle focused on the replacement of skilled professionals by mechanized processes designed to maximize production and profit, disregarding the human value involved. Machines were attacked, but the goal was not to stop industrial development, but rather to challenge the social injustice resulting from it.
A large portion of the Luddites consisted of skilled artisans with deep technical knowledge. What outraged them was not the existence of machines, but the speed with which their expertise (until then essential) became disposable.
The dissatisfaction many writers express regarding the advance of artificial intelligences in literary production is not merely born from fear of losing space in the publishing market. Above all, there is a deeper conflict—a conflict of creative and narrative insertion in a time when machines are capable of generating texts with fluency, coherence, and even a supposed “sensitivity.” This concern has gained public and academic expression in recent years.
The issue has ceased to be only a diffuse concern and has become a central topic in debates, meetings, and round tables. A recent example of this mobilization occurred at the University of Cape Verde, which promoted, on October 16 of this year (2025), a discussion under the theme “Independence, Literature, Artificial Intelligence,” as part of the 13th Meeting of Portuguese-Language Writers. The panel brought together figures such as Princezito, Manuel Pereira da Silva, Nardi Sousa, Paulo Veríssimo, Ozias Filho, and Ricardo Araújo Pereira, in addition to invited authors from Galicia and Mozambique.
This meeting, which extended over several days and included sessions dedicated to themes such as “Literature and Development” and “Culture and Artificial Intelligence,” reflected a broader movement within the Lusophone world. The debates showed that the fear or discomfort writers feel toward AI is not merely technical; it is profoundly existential.
At the university panel, several authors emphasized the human specificity of the act of writing. Ricardo Araújo Pereira recalled that literary humor depends on a critical consciousness that machines do not possess: “I write humorous texts (…) whose purpose is to make people laugh. (…) Humorous laughter is the most interesting of all, because it laughs at what is bad.” This statement expresses a common concern among writers—namely, the idea that certain dimensions of language, such as humor, irony, pain, and memory, emerge from human experience and not from statistical patterns.
Meanwhile, Mozambican writer Sérgio Raimundo shared an equally critical and personal perspective, stating that he writes to “cover the holes of my existence and the disguised holes of my country; as long as there are holes, I will continue to be a writer.” Literature, in this sense, appears as an act of citizenship, as a gesture of repair—something that can hardly be delegated to an automatic system. Avelino Pereira, João Branco, and Silvino Évora reinforced this idea, discussing processes of migration, editing, multiple belonging, and the challenges of circulating works within the Lusophone space.
And it is precisely here that a truly important point emerges—one that is rarely discussed regarding Luddism. Little is said about the positive impact the movement had. Although the Luddites did not demand labor rights in the modern sense of the term, they played a pioneering role in organizing workers’ resistance against the abuses of the emerging industrial system. Their actions marked the beginning of an essential debate, showing that the working class was not condemned to passivity in the face of technological transformations, and that it was capable of mobilizing collectively. This stance generated significant pressure on employers and public authorities, paving the way for later forms of labor organization.
Now, just like the Luddites of the 19th century, these writers do not oppose technological advancement in itself. What they contest is the way technology is being integrated into a market that privileges speed, profit, and mass reproduction of content—often at the expense of human creativity. At the meeting, it became evident that the central issue is not “stopping AI,” but rather ensuring that the literary future is not built on the margins of those who give it its soul.
Therefore, the study of historical Luddism and its contemporary repercussions shows that resistance to technological change is not a rejection of progress, but rather a way of preserving human value in the face of automation. Just as the Luddites of the 19th century challenged the replacement of their knowledge by machines, today’s writers question the way artificial intelligence is being integrated into literary and cultural production.
Recent meetings, such as the one held at the University of Cape Verde, demonstrate that resistance is not limited to an economic or professional dimension—it is a defense of experience, creativity, and human sensitivity, elements that give meaning to literature and art. By asserting itself, the artistic class shows that it remains active, conscious, and capable of influencing how technology is adopted, promoting ethical, cultural, and social debates about AI.
Ultimately, historical reflection and contemporary movements converge on a central idea: technological advancement is inevitable, but the way it takes root and the priorities it serves can—and must—be shaped by human intervention.
Gomes Dias: Graduated in Social Communication from Agostinho Neto University (UAN). He conducts academic research on social networks, with an emphasis on teaching and learning processes, as well as Artificial Intelligence. He is the Institutional Director of Juventude Unida dos Países de Língua Portuguesa (JUPLP). He is also a junior associate member of the Angolan Association of Institutional Communication Professionals (AAPCI). Researcher and member of the Research Council of CERES.
Social Media:
Bibliographic References
Comments