What prompted this, is a post I read on the internet. (I know. I know.) The post said something along the lines of "how many more variations of 'thomas edison is a witch' can Black Mirror come up with". The obvious criticism here is, that Black Mirror is not only uninventive but that all their episodes have the same reactionist theme of 'technology is bad and we should all be afraid of it'. On the surface that might even be true. The show is, after all, named after the smartphone screen and freatures bleak dystopias that aim to teach us something about the present. In the folowing, however, I will argue that this interpretation of Black Mirror is far too simplified and that, in fact, the show doesn't present the message that technology is bad per se and rather abuse and misuse of technology is bad. Additionally, it showcases how technology can be used to amplify the worst in people and society as a whole.
Using a few episodes as an example, I'll explain what I believe to be the "moral" of the respective episodes and no, it's not going to be 'technology is bad'. (While I'm tempted to, I won't discuss all episodes, 1. because I'm not finished with the newest season and 2. because that would take too long.)
Examples:
15 Million Merits: The plot takes place in a future clearly very different form our world and still what it criticizes is present nowadays, too: consumer culture and the monetization of just about anything. Technology here is just the framework.
The Entire History of You: On first glance every problem in this episode wouldn't have happened if it weren't for the 'grain' imbedded in one's brain recording everyone's every move. In the end the main character even cuts his out to be rid of it. BUT the actual source of the problem isn't the grain itself, it's the main character's (somewhat obsessive) jealousy (and the fact that his girlfriend cheated on him). These are conflicts that happen with or without technology. Furthermore, the episode calls into question the human desire to know everything for sure and to have a record of everything. The technology of the grain is here just a means to an end.
White Bear: It doesn't even feature technology all that heavily and criticizes an apathetic (or even extatic) spectator culture and lust for violence.
The Waldo Moment: While this episode features a criticism of social media, it's about how social media can be misused by those in power and by the masses who don't reflect on social media hypes. Furthermore, the plot of this episode sadly and scarily did somewhat happen in reality even without futurized technology to aid it.
Nosedive: Social media again, this time as a source for validation. The plot, however, would work just as well without social media and did in fact in similar stories. Nosedive criticizes the reliance on outside validation and using someone's social standing as a determinator for their life.
Shut Up and Dance: This is just straightforward blackmailing. No criticism of technology at all. Just a, don't be an asshole and be careful who knows your darkest secrets.
San Junipero: This episode, one of BM's only happy episodes, actually shows us how technology can be good. Allowing the main women to lead a happy "life" together in a computer generated heaven after their death.
Men Against Fire: Here, the propaganda strategy of dehumanizing enemies (around ever since humans came together in groups and started fighting against other groups) is taken to the max with the help of technology. It is the strategy itself and not the implants that is the main focus.
USS Callister: The antagonist is the creepy asshole who put these people into the simulation against their will, not the simulation itself. In the end, the people manage to escape him and lead a happy life (so is the implication) in the simulation that is used in the real world as an immersive video game. The fact that this simulation exists, is not presented as in any way harmful. Harmful is what the creepy asshole does with it.
So yeah, I hope I have shown that BM is much more than simple progress and technology critique. And even if it was, the issues it raises are varied enough not to be repetetive (at least in my opinion). Furthermore, I believe that just because BM cautions against the abuse of technological advancements (and the related phenomena) and shows how dystopias could theoretically grow out of them if we continue on this "slippery slope" (a nod to Margaret Atwood), it doesn't mean that BM condemms technology as a whole and tells us we should move back to the Stone Age. Knowing the risks of something is a first and necessary step to responsible use and further development.
Over and Out
