Technological Dystopias as Conservative Allegory

written by a member of the WCB

Technological Dystopias as Conservative Allegory:

An Analysis of "Gamer" (2009) and "The Island" (2005)

Institute for Cultural and Political Analysis

Part I: "Gamer" and the Spectre of Technological Totalitarianism

Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor's 2009 cinematic offering "Gamer" presents itself initially as mere visceral entertainment—a hyperkinetic action vehicle for Gerard Butler. However, beneath its frenetic exterior lies a remarkably prescient conservative critique of technological determinism and the erosion of human autonomy in an increasingly digitized society. The film's dystopian premise—wherein human beings become unwilling avatars controlled by others in a literal manifestation of technological enslavement—functions as a powerful allegory for conservative anxieties regarding the encroachment of technocratic control upon individual sovereignty.

The film's fictional "Slayers" game, where death row inmates are controlled by teenage gamers in lethal combat scenarios, represents the ultimate commodification of human dignity. Society's willing participation in this dehumanizing spectacle reflects what conservative philosopher Roger Scruton identified as the "culture of repudiation"—a rejection of traditional values that safeguard human dignity in favor of increasingly debased entertainment. The corporation behind this technology, run by the film's antagonist Ken Castle (Michael C. Hall), embodies what conservative thinkers have long warned against: the unholy alliance between technological innovation and unchecked corporate power operating beyond traditional moral constraints.

Most compelling is the film's implicit defense of free will—a concept central to Judeo-Christian understanding of human nature and, by extension, conservative political philosophy. The protagonist Kable's struggle against his technological puppeteer represents the quintessential conservative resistance to deterministic systems that reduce human beings to mere biological machines. His fight for autonomy echoes Edmund Burke's defense of "little platoons" of family and community against distant, impersonal forces seeking to remake humanity according to utopian visions.

The film's portrayal of resistance fighters, led by the character Humanz, represents what political philosopher Patrick Deneen might recognize as "counterrevolutionary" forces fighting not merely against a corrupt corporation but against an entire paradigm that subordinates human freedom to technological "progress." Their mission to preserve authentic human autonomy against synthetic control systems resonates powerfully with conservative critiques of technocratic governance.

Part II: "The Island" and the Commodification of Human Life

Michael Bay's "The Island" (2005), while emerging from a decidedly different aesthetic tradition than "Gamer," nevertheless advances a similarly conservative critique of unfettered biotechnological innovation divorced from traditional ethical constraints. The film's premise—human clones created as living organ banks for wealthy clients—represents the logical endpoint of what conservative bioethicist Leon Kass termed the "technological imperative," wherein technical capability trumps moral consideration.

The hermetically sealed facility housing these clones functions as an apt metaphor for what conservative critics have identified as the progressive tendency toward utopian social engineering. The facility's inhabitants are fed manufactured histories, controlled information, and false promises of salvation (the eponymous "Island")—not unlike what conservative thinkers from Richard Weaver to Roger Scruton have identified as the false promises of secular utopianism that replace transcendent truth with manufactured meaning.

The corporation at the film's center, Merrick Biotech, embodies what Russell Kirk described as the "chirping sectaries" of modernity—entities that reduce human beings to mere biological material for manipulation and exploitation. Dr. Merrick's justification for his enterprise—that the clones are "products, not people"—reflects the utilitarian calculus that conservative philosophy has long resisted in favor of inherent human dignity.

Conservative Imperative: Technology, Humanity, and Young Conservatives

Both films offer young conservatives a cinematic vocabulary for articulating resistance to technological determinism. They illustrate what Roger Scruton identified as the "dangerous ideas" of post-humanism—the notion that human nature itself is merely another material to be engineered and controlled. The protagonists' resistance in both narratives reflects the conservative insistence that human flourishing requires certain boundaries and limitations on technological manipulation of human nature.

These films prove particularly relevant to young conservatives navigating an increasingly technologized culture. They provide dramatic illustrations of the conservative principle that technological innovation must be guided by pre-existing moral frameworks rather than merely technical or economic considerations. The resistance movements depicted in both films echo what Patrick Deneen terms "counterrevolutionary" action—not a rejection of technology per se, but a reassertion of its proper subordination to human flourishing and dignity.

Furthermore, both narratives implicitly advocate for what conservative thinkers have termed "ordered liberty"—freedom constrained by moral purpose. The protagonists fight not merely for freedom as license (to do whatever one wishes), but freedom as self-governance according to an inherent human dignity that precedes and transcends technological manipulation.

In our contemporary moment, when questions of algorithmic governance, biotechnological enhancement, and artificial intelligence increasingly dominate public discourse, these films offer young conservatives compelling narratives for articulating resistance to technological determinism. They remind us that the most fundamental political questions remain anthropological ones: What is a human being? What conditions enable authentic human flourishing? What limitations must we observe to preserve human dignity?

As technological capability accelerates, these cinematic parables remind young conservatives that the most essential political task remains the preservation of the conditions for authentic human freedom—not as mere absence of constraint, but as the positive capacity for self-governance according to enduring truths about human nature and purpose.