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?