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?

 

 

Read and Respond #3

Chapter 5: The Broken Defenses

Postman says “Technopoly is a state of culture. It is also a state of mind. It consists in the deification of technology, which means the culture seeks authorization in technology, finds its satisfactions in technology, and takes its orders from technology” ( p. 71) This seemed like a very strong statement to me! He seems like he is saying that all technology is bad, but it isn’t. There are people who may use is in ways that don’t help the world, and there is definitely cultural and personal responsibility that goes along with using it—as does EVERYTHING in this world.

However, I also think he is on to something—something I didn’t give much thought to from the perspective of technology. Postman goes on to say “Technology increases the available supply of information. As the supply is increased, control mechanisms are strained. Additional control mechanisms are needed to cope with new information” (p. 72) He goes on to explain that the control mechanisms that are created to deal with the new information are often technical and then we are in a vicious circle of dealing with new information because of the technology that keeps being introduced.  

The sad part that I see is all of life is that our control mechanisms are never enough. I think originally our control mechanisms should have been enough. God said obey me and I will bless you. That should have been all we needed. . .except for sin. We sinned and can't obey Him.

My burning question (or my need for clarification on this topic) is this: The need for control mechanisms. . .why are they there? Why can’t be have or handle the new information? Is it because we are using the information inappropriately or wrong? Or is it because someone out there wants to limit what we know to control us? And to both questions. . .why? J

 

Chapter 6: The Ideology of Machines: Medical Technology

I found this chapter quite intriguing . . . and true! I liked how he pointed out that the technology used for medical purposes have a GOOD purpose and can show real problems (I’m not about to give up the ultrasounds or blood test during pregnancies or x-rays for broken bones, etc.—that is pretty factual and reassuring data to me! That part can definitely stay—that is when I love technology and what it can do for me!), but often completely replaces the stories and experiences that a patient needs to tell in order to get a true diagnosis. Postman says, “Medicine is about disease, not the patient. And what the patient knows is untrustworthy; what the machine knows is reliable” (p. 100). I can relate this to my teaching in a sense—I can use specialized reading tests to find out what grade level a student might be reading at (ie: PM readers, Reading A-Z website)—reading test that provide a running record and where miscues can be written down, where it can be timed and comprehension questions are provided—and while it would free up my time to have someone else administer all of these tests or have technology take over by some computer program doing this for me, I think I would still choose/continue to do it on my own because I need to hear their reading, hear their answers, figure out what reading skill each child might need to work on by hearing each of them individually, identify how their thinking patterns are shaping as they answer comprehension questions—the like. On the flip side—I don’t think a child is going to argue with me and ask me to redo a test or use an alternative test if he/she doesn’t like the result I came up with the way Postman said (North) Americans are getting technology-based testing done because that is what they think they need or because of the risk of lawsuits!

The sad part of this all, and I think the point Postman is making, is the general trend that technology is breaking down relationships because we believe that technology can provide the answers and human through processes (empathy, relationships, etc.) can’t. “When it comes to machinery, Technolpoly insists upon most is accuracy” (p. 93).

My burning question for this chapter: Do you feel that technology has increased or decreased your relationships? What is the “price” of gain in relationship to technological advances?

Read and Respond #2

Chapter 3: From Technocracy to Technopoly

Postman began Chapter 3 saying that from the time of the steam engine (1765), not a decade went by without inventions of machinery (p. 40). Later on in the chapter appears this quote:

“We had learned how to invent things, and the question of why we invent things receded in importance. The idea that if something can be done it should be done was born in the nineteen century” (p. 42) It is interesting that in this shift of thinking—ignoring the why and worrying about the how—a shift in the way people viewed each other occurred as well. People were no longer seen as wholly children of God but as consumers and markets. It’s ironic how most groups lobbying for human rights of some sort is asking for this change to be reversed—to see people for who they are individually, not as a stereotype or a generality!

“Technocracy gave us the idea of progress. . .promise of new freedoms and new forms of social organization. . .  also speeded up the world. . .Time in fact, became an adversary over which technology could triumph”  (p. 45) Technology vs. tradition. These two became opposing world-views. The rise of technology redefined traditional thought, rather than eliminating it. And by redefining it, traditional thought and culture began to submit to the rule of technique and technology (the how taking over the thought to even ask why).

Chapter 4: The Improbable World

From a writers standpoint, I loved Postman’s “. . .the ways of technology, like the ways of God, are awesome and mysterious” (p. 58). What a loaded and scary statement to make! But I definitely think he is onto something. He went to explain that “What was being lost was not immediately apparent. The decline of the great narrative of the Bible, which had provided answers to both fundamental and practical questions, was accompanied by the rise of the great narrative of Progress” (p. 59-60) Information distributed through new technologies was becoming the new “god” of the culture, a “deceiver.”  He points out a dangerous assumption made in this new information culture. Now that the information is out there, we have a desire to access the information, and because we can access it, we know what to do with it and how to use it for our own interests and benefit.  He argues that information, usefulness and reason no longer go hand in hand (p. 66-67), as it had in pre-technolpoly times. “In Technolopy, we are driven to fill our lives with the quest to “access” information. For what purpose or with what limitations, it is not for us to ask” (p. 61).

Burning Questions:

1. Do you feel that technology serves as a source of quantity or quality information?

2. How do you (or how do you teach your students to) find and use meaningful information rather than information glut (p. 70)?

Read and Response #1

Neil Postman: Technolopy

Chapter 1:The Judgement of Thamus

The first "quote" that popped out at me was this one:

“our task is to understand what that design is—that is to say, when we admit a new technology to the culture, we must do so with our eyes wide open” (p. 7, bottom) That, once a technology is admitted, it plays out its hand. Whether positive or negative, it will do something!

I had never realized the story behind the clock before, but was saddened by the way a "tool" can be used for the opposite of its intent.

“The paradox, the surprise, and the wonder are that the clock was invented by men who wanted to devote themselves more  rigorously to God; it ended as the technology  of greatest use to men who wished to devote themselves to the accumulation of money. In the eternal struggle God and Mammon, the clock quite  unpredictably followed the later" (p. 15, top). It reminded me of how the curse of sin affects all of creation--even the "creations" that have not yet come to be. It reminded me of the tower of Babel--the idea of building something great may have been good--but the focus of worship changed. Instead of being God-centred in their lives, the switch to me-centered happened, and God had to confuse them. The other sad thing is, I don't feel he is over-reacting. I also agree with his line: “A new technology does not add or subtract something. It changes everything” (p. 18). This was related to his example about the taking away of caterpillars—it would changed the ecosystem completely.

photo from google images

Again, when the author pointed out the viewpoint of the preacher and the politician, I cannot help but think maybe we didn't learn from the Babel story. . .or the clock story. . .or many other stories/experiences that seem to keep changing our focus away from God, when he designed us to be  in relationship with Him. "A preacher who confines himself to consider how a medium can increase his audience will miss the significant question: In what sense do new media alter what is meant by religion, church , even by God?. . .and to the concept of citizenship?" (p. 19)

One question he voiced that I have often wondered was: “Will the computer raise egocentrism to the status of a virtue?” (p. 17) Now that I can do most things on my own, am I going to loose the value of community. . .and haven't we already to a large degree.

Yet on the flip side, I think there is a way these tools can be used to keep our focus on God. I know I use the computer for devotionals for myself and for the children I teach. I use youtube for praise songs or pictures of God's wonders. But that is because I am looking for it. I'm setting my focus on it--the same way the monks were--they were trying to keep their focus on God.

 

Chapter 2: From Tools to Technocracy

“Marx understood well that, apart from their economic implications, technologies create the ways in which people perceive reality and that such ways are key to understanding diverse forms of social and mental life “ ( p.21)

Chapter two seems to seems to show a bit of a contrast from the negativity in Chapter 1. Postman points out how many "Great thinkers" chose not to let their tools and discoveries interfere with their belief in God or the institution of the church of that day. Everything they did was designed around that, and so were their research and projects.

“Tools did not prevent people from believing in their traditions. In their God, in their politics, in their methods of education, or in the legitimacy of their social organizations. Their beliefs in fact directed the invention of tools and limited the uses to which they were put. . . spiritual ideas and social customs  acted as controlling forces” (p. 23).

“Theology, not technology, provided people with authorization for what to do or think” (p. 26)

“Moreover, the science they created was almost wholly concerned with  questions of truth, not power” (p. 35) All inventors, scientists, clung to the theology of their age—they didn’t compromise their belief about God because of what they researched or because of the tools they used. They allowed their discoveries to add to what they knew about God. Postman then pointed out Francis Bacon, whose main aim was the happiness of mankind. (p. 35) It seems that is where the contrast began, the shift was set in motion. Is that what tools and technology is doing today: pursuing only human happiness? Only we are still not happy? Tools don't provide happiness, only God can.

To repeat the words of a song I sing often with my grade one students (who at this point still get where true joy and happiness come from--when they are singing the song): "I've God the joy, joy, joy, joy, down in my heart. . .I've got the love of Jesus in my heart. And I'm so happy. . ."
By contrast: I wonder if we often sing: "I've got an iPad, Smartphone, iPod, laptop all of my own. . .I've got the latest technology in my hands. . .but I'm not happy, so very unhappy. . .

Burning Question: What about technology makes you feel happy at your school? What about technology makes you feel discouraged?