Technopoly II

Now that I have finished Technopoly, here's a little review/summary of the book for those who are interested.

Postman begins with an introduction to the nature of technology. He points out that technology is not neutral, but each technology has its ideological agenda. While most technologies may have positive, negative or both beneficial and harmful effects, technologies change not only the way we do things, they change the way we think about things, the things we think about, the symbols we think with, and the nature of community (in which we do our thinking); in short, they change everything.

He proceeds to discuss the progression (for lack of a better word) of culture from what he calls "tool-using" (in which belief directed invention) to "technocracy" (tradition and technology in tension) to "technopoly" (invention prevents belief; tools attack culture). Technopoly involves the "submission of all forms of cultural life to the sovereignty of technique and technology" (chapter 3); humans are less valuable than their machines. Postman believed that the American culture was the only one, so far, to reach Technopoly. America, with its frontier mentality, immigrant population, political and religious freedom, and unlimited potential, was prime breeding ground for technopoly. Americans have alway "distrusted constraint", believed that newness implies improvement, and assumed there is no limit to human enterprise. As we lost confidence in our belief systems we turned to a reliance on, and belief in, technologies. A few chapters discuss more specifically the development of technopoly and the various events that contributed to it. He also reviews the problems with technopoly and why it cannot (or at least should not) work.

In Technopoly we tend to believe that only through the autonomy of techniques (and machinery) can we achieve our goals. (snip) The question....., is and always has been, Who is to be the master? Will we control it, or will it control us? (chapter 8).

Throughout the book, Postman tackles various types of technology with special attention paid to medical technology, the social sciences, statistics, computers, bureaucracies, ideological technologies. The sections on ideological (or invisible) technologies (such as language, the zero, and management) and social "sciences" were most fascinating to me. For one thing, I have always questioned social science being lumped in as a science with biology and chemistry and such, but had never been able to put my finger on why. Postman has the answer: "science depends on the requirement that theories must be stated in a way that permits experiments to reveal that they are false" (chapter 9). Since almost none of the theories purported by social science could be proved false, the field should not be considered science.

As an example of one results of Technopoly's hold on us, Postman refers to the field of education in which there is the issue of "learning technologies". He states:

At the moment it is considered necessary to introduce computers to the classroom, as it was once thought necessary to bring closed-circuit television and film to the classroom. To the question "Why should we do this?"the answer is: "To make learning more efficient and more interesting." Such an answer is considered entirely adequate, since in Technopoly efficiency and interest need no justification. It is, therefore not usually noticed that this answer does not answer the question: "What is learning for?" "Efficiency and interest" is a technical answer, an answer about means, not ends; and it offers no pathway to a consideration of educational philosophy. Indeed, it blocks the way to such a consideration by beginning with the question of how we should proceed rather than with the question of why. (chapter 10)

This seems to be a common theme in technocracy and technopoly: all of the focus is on How while Why is ignored. Part of the problem is that there is no coherent worldview in American culture; we've done away with that. Therefore, since we do not expect or assume that there is any design or order in the universe, we believe (even the ridiculous), because we have no reason not to.

The final chapter of the book does not really provide solutions to living in a world of technopoly, presumably there are no clear-cut answers here. His primary recommendation is to remain rooted in history. This involves maintaining a focus on the stories and symbols that the United States was established on. As an educator, naturally, much of the focus of the book is on education; this section is no exception. Postman recommends centering education around learning and understanding the history of any subject. This would recognize that all histories are continuums rooted in culture, stages in humanity's development, and therefore must be examined as such. He also admonishes readers to ask the Why? question and to avoid allowing efficiency to be the primary goal in human interactions.

One last thought as this post becomes so long that no one is likely to read this far: Postman mentions briefly that it is important to understand the difference between the sacred and the profane (i.e. maintain the line of demarcation between the two). This is interesting to me because the concept of "erasing the lines between the sacred and secular" has been touted by churches in recent years as positive consequence of post-modernity. What do you think? Is this a good thing, or a bad one? Why? Also, what should be the role of technology in our lives, and what tests should a new technology "pass" before being embraced by us?

I have not answered these questions myself, but have thought and am thinking about them. I love my computer. I love having a world of information available at my fingertips through the Internet. I also appreciate that some technologies do increase efficiency. Today I was deeply grateful for my cell phone (which I typically resent and despise) because it enabled me to make a number of changes to my tutoring schedule quickly, easily, and conveniently. I think that there are legitimate uses for most technologies (though I'm not sure about bureaucracy☺). However, I do recognize the problems of information overload (a big problem these days....as narcissistic as it may sound: I do not care what's happening in Angelina Jolie's life, if I can't tell Tom Hanks from Tom Cruise, or if I don't know who the latest American Idol winner is--I don't know them and they have no impact of my life or the lives of my friends and family) and technological dependency, and certainly it is a bad sign when the technology takes control.

I do not understand why Postman thinks the USA is the only technopoly in the world today. I would be surprised if Western Europe (which typically goes through its phases before the US...abolition of slavery, modernism, postmodernism, socialism, etc.) was not a technopoly. I don't know enough about European cultures to know what their relationship is to technology: who is in control, but I do know that they have just as much faith in science's ability to provide all the answers as we do, and much less faith in God or a higher power. I also think that several Asian countries today might need to be examined: Japan, China and Korea all come to mind as possible technopolies.

I listened to another good book today: Elie Wiesel's Night. Haunting, but thought provoking and well-written. I'm listening to Treasure Island next. Next up from Postman when I have a chance to do some actual reading is Teaching as a Subversive Activity courtesy of Paperback Swap and then The Disappearance of Childhood. Can't wait to see what he had to say about these very important and highly-charged issues.