Read & Respond #6

Chapter 11: The Loving Resistance Fighter

“You must try to be a loving resistance fighter. . .By ‘loving,’ I mean that, in spite of the confusion, errors, and stupidities you see around you, you must always keep close to your heart the narratives and symbols that once made the United States the hope of the world and that may yet have enough vitality to do so again” (p. 182). In this chapter, Postman gives his “reasonable response” to the problem of living in a Technolpoly. He says the individual live without going along with the technology-driven society or the culture can go on without paying attention to the individual. He lists 10 things a resistance fighter might look like or do on page 183-184 and ends by saying that person is someone who “understands that technology must never be accepted as part of the natural order of things, that every technology . . . is a product of a particular economic and political context and carried with it a program, an agenda, and a philosophy that may or may not be life-enhancing and that therefore required scrutiny, criticism and control” (p. 184-185).

His final advice is about how to make this change in Technolpoly occur—through the educational systems. He goes on to list ALL the things teachers should teach or the way teachers should teach. In the end, his conclusion is to educate students so that they can think about what is going on and problem-solve. Then they will be able to make informed decisions or make changes.

I liked this chapter a lot—I liked his honesty in that he knew his view on Technopoly was a hard battle and that there were no easy steps to “fix” it. And I liked his ideas—mostly because I see some of them being used, such as the integration of subjects and subject matter so that students can gain a better and more complete understanding of the world around them. I see that happening more and more. At my school, we are working towards designing Presentations of Learning and by doing so, we are trying to have students help in designing what we are studying, and tying in as much of the curriculum into a topic of study so that that learning is student-driven and authentic, real-life learning. It’s not an easy task, but it makes those connections Postman speaks of happen a little bit more.

On the other hand, I don’t whole-heartedly agree with him either. I looked at a lot of what he had to say and thought, “Wow! As teachers we have to do ALL that?” A little overwhelming! And I don’t think getting rid of all technology is the answer. His view on educating students so that they can think and problem-solve and evaluate and make informed decisions and make changes where necessary—I am 100% behind all that! I think as Christians we need to be doing that not only for technology’s sake, but also for the fact that we are Christians living in a secular world and we need to be salt and light. Technology—and all that goes along with it—is an additional hurdle in exploring and evaluating all of life under God! But I see so many things that technology has done for the better, such as giving students without voices or fluent writing and reading skills the ability to communicate their needs and wants and stories. But then I need to use technology to allow for that to happen, and not squelch such a voice via social networking and inappropriate website usage. All of our words and deeds must be done for the glory of God—which I think comes through actively learning to think about our world and our technological influences.

Burning Question: Where have you acted as a “loving resistance fighter”? Or in what area do you want to start acting like one?

Read & Respond #5

Chapter 9: Scientism

From page 147: Scientism has 3 interrelated ideas:

1. methods of natural sciences can be applied to the study of human behavior

2. social science generates specific principles which can be used to organize society on a rational and humane basis (control human behavior)

3. faith in science can serve as a comprehensive belief system that gives meaning to life

Postman uses this chapter as an opportunity to reflect on science under the influence of technology. He says, “What we call science, then, is the quest to find the immutable and universal laws that govern processes, presuming that there are cause-and-effect relations among these processes” (p. 148). He goes into the different areas of study that are classified as “science” in our society, and narrows it down to science, social research and storytelling. About that, he says, “Science itself is, of course, a form of storytelling too, but its assumptions and procedures are so different from those of social research that it is extremely misleading to give the same name to each” (p. 154). Science can be called true, he argues, while social research is based on interpretations, bound by time, situation, and cultural prejudices.

This final quote seems to sum up what the chapter was about:

“It is the desperate hope, and wish, and ultimately the illusory belief that some standardized set of procedures called “science” can provide us with an unimpeachable source of moral authority, a superhuman basis for answers to [life’s hard] questions. . .to ask of science or expect of science, or accept unchallenged from science the answers to such questions is Scientism. And it is Technolpoly’s grand illusion” (p. 162).

This was a very challenging quote to read—because I think he hit it on target. The same way both Postman and Pink talk about how people believe what is fed to them by the “authorities,” I feel that maybe that is also the very thing the world is searching for—prove to me that such and such is true so I can go along with what everyone else is doing/believing. (And it makes me think of all the studies that disprove and approve previous studies—for example, let’s say, studies on if immunizations are good for infants/children or not). I think this can hold considerable danger for Christians as Scientism and God may clash in areas. While science can “prove” something or tell us that there is no danger in this procedure or this principle or this product, God’s standards might be quite different. We need to be sure and strong in what God wants to not fall under the spell. Yet at the same time, if science is “proving” things (like when the life begins) that coincide with what the Bible says, then the danger of it all seems less. I wonder if we need to be spending more time studying the Word, rather than what Technolpoly is throwing at us as Scientism.

Burning Question: How do you teach your students to believe or not believe what the media is throwing at them?

Chapter 10: The Great Symbol Drain

From page 165, Symbols are:

1. endlessly repeatable but not in exhaustible

2. the more often a symbol is used, the less potent its meaning

“What we are talking about here is not blasphemy but trivialization, against which there can be no laws. . .the trivialization of significant cultural symbols is largely conducted by commercial enterprise” (p. 165). I liked Postman’s example of the obscenities—that when used “appropriately” they have much meaning. But since they are at times overused, their meaning has become lost. Critiquing TV and movies now as a parent makes me see how right on Postman is in what he is saying. I can recall a recent conversation I had about this topic—how meaning has seemingly been lost in today’s culture. The person I was speaking with talked about how we just watch whatever movie is out there and seem to be more oblivious to the content that would have never been suggested when he was a kid. Or how church has changed—what is said and viewed at church might lack the reverence that he was taught to observe for his Saviour or how the sacraments and the 10 Commandments seemed to have “changed” to suit our lifestyles instead of us changing to suit our Saviour. And it reminds me that I am a Christian in a symbol filled world and need to honour God in what I see, hear, and what I do with the symbols around me. And hopefully, that I can do my part in restoring what God wants to keep His people centred on Him.

Burning Question: What is a symbol that you feel has been drained? And might it need restoring in some way?

Read and Respond #4

Chapter 7: The Ideology of Machines: Computer Technology

Postman argued in this chapter that our culture has a belief that personal and public levels require technical solutions—because our ability to get lots of information and to get it quickly as the computer has allowed. In talking about these specific problems (nuclear catastrophe, starvation, crime, etc.), he says, “Our most serious problems are not technical, nor do they arise from inadequate information . . . mathematical equations, instantaneous communication, and vast quantities of information have nothing whatever to do with any of these problems. And the computer is useless in addressing them” (p. 119). He also showed concern in this chapter about human efforts and innovations equal (or even subject to) to that of the computer. He notes that medical technology is good but doesn’t take into account how the various parts and organs of the body work as a unified whole. He says the same about modern industrialization—how can a machine work and problem solve on an emotional level as humans can?

picture found from google search here

Postman addresses what we might lose if we allow computers to take over what humans can be doing and thinking about instead of letting the technology lead us. I found his examples of the Dallas Cowboys and the writing of prose quite humorous—that they really do have nothing to do with the computers being used! But I know students (and ahem—us at times, embarrassingly enough!) use that same kind of thinking! How easily we have fallen under the thinking Postman describes here!

Burning questions:

When do you refuse the use of technology in your teaching and for what reason?
How can we use computers and use problem-solving skills simultaneously?

Chapter 8: Invisible Technologies        

In this chapter, Postman talks about human thinking that has been taken over by technological advances and that the technology is directing our thinking, our ability to generate or make changes to ideas and expose or hide facts (examples being the zero and statistics). “In Technolpoly, we tend to believe that  only through the autonomy of techniques (and machinery) we achieve our goals . . .that the technique becomes sanctified and rule out the possibility of other ones” (p. 142).

I’m not sure I am quite as radical as he is in his thinking, but I could appreciate what he said about polling—and how those same ideas are used in teaching. In some ways I think our limiting questions don’t allow students to “really think” because we have a lesson plan and a goal and we need to get so much done in so short of time that we are not interested in “outside-of-the-box” thinking or opinions. It reminds me of the pre-school answer to a question about the Bible and the darling little one answers, "Jesus!" We are trained to provide the "right" answer or give the yes or no to an opinion questions without voicing what is going on in our heads about the topic. Here he shows how we are still being treated that way. I know that in some voting opportunities (whether political or at school or at church, etc.) sometimes it feels like my vote doesn’t count or that no one really wants to hear what I have to say because there is no room for opinions or other ideas. Maybe a speaker in a conversation is not an "expert" in a discussion at hand and therefore his or her opinion becomes invalid--when it could be just what is needed to work with and find a great idea! I’ve had parents talk to me about certain issues in the school and when I encourage them to speak to the higher-ups, they shrug it off because they don’t feel like their ideas or issues are heard or seriously considered. I know those kinds of opinions have taught me to be available and be a listener to parents because their opinion does matter--I see their child as a student, while they see them as their child. That is two completely different perspectives that need to be joined if the child is going to learn well.

Burning questions: How do we encourage voicing our opinions (especially if they are based on real ideas and facts)? How do we teach students to have an opinion—and that it matters what they think? How do we learn to listen?