View Full Version : Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology
120mm
04-19-2007, 01:15 PM
Since Marc and I had the discussion about how History of Technology relates to Small Wars, I've been rooting around, and surprisingly found the book "Technopoly; The Surrender of Culture to Technology" by Neil Postman in our post library.
He makes the point that things like writing and math are also forms of technology, in that they are tools, created by man, to accomplish man's tasks. So, therefore, I don't feel so all alone in asserting that the various forms of warfare also fall in the category of "man's tools" designed to solve political/sociological problems.
selil
04-19-2007, 01:32 PM
That's in my summer read list I've got it sitting here on my desk.
For those who don't wish to wait on the summer read list, here's an interesting start for free :)
What Neil Postman has to say ...
http://www.ibiblio.org/cmc/mag/1995/mar/hyper/npcontexts_119.html
by Nancy Kaplan
On this page, you will find extensive passages from Postman's recent book, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. I have chosen these excerpts because they provide the context for ideas and quotations to which my essay refers (http://www.ibiblio.org/cmc/mag/1995/mar/kaplan.html). Thus, I attempt to allow Professor Postman to speak for himself, to represent his own views in his own way. Some of the links in the text will take you to the bibliography while others will take you to some portion of my essay.
120mm
04-25-2007, 04:42 AM
Just finished it, yesterday, and it was a good read. Postman's points about the destruction of religion and morality by "science" are well taken. Where we fall down is when we allow "scientists" to make what are fundamentally "moral" decisions, I cannot think of someone more ill-equipped to make moral decisions than a scientist. Provided that "science" has purposely removed morality from it's equation.
Postman is not a Luddite. He doesn't single out and condemn any particular technology; rather, he condemns our ready acceptance of technology as improvement.
In Neil Postman's honor, yesterday, on the standardized form that I filled out pursuant to getting my over 40 physical, I wrote in "interpretive dance" as my preferred method of receiving information, instead of "in a classroom, face-to-face, or on-line."
I think this book is relevant to the conduct of Small Wars, especially in our criticism of the "management by numbers" crowd who fight via powerpoint.
marct
04-25-2007, 02:44 PM
Postman is not a Luddite. He doesn't single out and condemn any particular technology; rather, he condemns our ready acceptance of technology as improvement.
I must admit that, having read a lot of Postman's stuff, I do find myself "irritated" by it. While I think 120 is right that he is not a targeted Luddite, I do get the feeling that he is a philosophical Luddite. Then again, he is writing for a fairly specific audience and I think that his points are useful - it's just that I'm not part of that audience ;).
In Neil Postman's honor, yesterday, on the standardized form that I filled out pursuant to getting my over 40 physical, I wrote in "interpretive dance" as my preferred method of receiving information, instead of "in a classroom, face-to-face, or on-line."
I love it! Now, if they come back at you and say "Okay, give us a name", you can tell them to contact Dr. Anne Marie Gaston (stage name Anjali) who is an Anthropologist and a Kathkali dancer. I will be glad to certify that she has some of the most interesting "lectures"that I have ever seen :eek:.
I think this book is relevant to the conduct of Small Wars, especially in our criticism of the "management by numbers" crowd who fight via powerpoint.
A very good point, and that is really the type of audience I believe he was aiming at.
Marc
selil
04-25-2007, 07:57 PM
Do I get the impression that I'm not the only person who reads a book with a highlighter and paragraph stickies?
marct
04-25-2007, 08:38 PM
Do I get the impression that I'm not the only person who reads a book with a highlighter and paragraph stickies?
LOLOL - Personally, I would never abuse a book like that! That's why I keep computer notes on all of them :D.
Marc
Steve Blair
04-25-2007, 08:40 PM
I do the same as Marc, though I tend to keep more of it in my head than on computer.
I'm the guy who has books that have been read 20+ times and don't have creases in the spine (paperbacks).
marct
04-25-2007, 08:50 PM
I do the same as Marc, though I tend to keep more of it in my head than on computer.
I'm the guy who has books that have been read 20+ times and don't have creases in the spine (paperbacks).
I'll admit that I "abuse" books :o. By the time I'm done with them, they look read. It might be the coffee stains, it may be the brandy stains (usually on philosophical tracts), or it might be teeth marks from my cat. Then again, I won't throw out a much read (and cat-abused) book... much to my wife's dismay!
Marc
120mm
04-26-2007, 04:34 AM
I must admit that, having read a lot of Postman's stuff, I do find myself "irritated" by it. While I think 120 is right that he is not a targeted Luddite, I do get the feeling that he is a philosophical Luddite. Then again, he is writing for a fairly specific audience and I think that his points are useful - it's just that I'm not part of that audience ;).
Marc
Oddly enough, I was "irritated" by it, also, until I figured out that the guy appears to have the courage to take on all the elements of technology, regardless of benefit. His point appears to be that it's okay to accept the "evils" of a technology, as long as you are aware that there ARE evils and are willing to accept them. What is wrong, in his eyes, is denying that the evils exist, and dogmatically condemning those who (logically) point out the evils as heretics against the religion of science and technology.
I am so used to the unreasoning screed that the typical granola-crunching pseudo-liberal "cool guy" puts out against technology, that I reflexively condemn them in my "idiot" corner.
I've moved on to Edward Tenner's "Why Things Bite Back" which is nowhere near as good as "Technopoly." I'm only up to page 30 and so far his views on tech have been inconsistent and he makes liberal use of CW as truth. Despite that, it isn't all bad. His points on "effects" caused by technology are well taken and ironically, he is big on categorizing things, which would drive Postman up a wall.
goesh
04-26-2007, 12:24 PM
It's a problem of free time afforded by technology. It is about impossible in the mundane, work-a-day world of the average person to simply be alone with their thoughts. Convenience and efficiency afforded by technology leaves gaps in phases and cycles of activity - come on, we weren't given hundreds of muscles to sit and push buttons - and in these gaps we are invariably faced with our mortality and frailty, limitations and weakness, unattained goals, failed relationships, disease, aches and pains, deterioration of what we have accumulated and ultimatley death. Goals and action keeps death from the doorstep of our minds and what better way to accomplish something than with upgraded, updated, cutting edge technology, which in itself is also a status symbol, proof of success, power and ability? If you doubt that people are very uncomfortable and essentially incapable of really being alone with their thoughts, try sitting perfectly still with no distractions and minimal noise, doing nothing but thinking, not moving except to breathe, blink the eyes and occasionally slightly shift the posture for comfort for 45 minutes. Who can loaf anymore without doing something? Recreation involves motion and planning, accomplishing something. We are driven to engage and addicted to the means and methods of engagement, not the end results, and techology is the juice, the drug, the fix, the symbolic needle in the arm that promises euphoria and the lessening of psychic and physical pain.
~ they were flying kites
I cursed the wind
I guess they thought I'd sinned
for slandering such heights
sought by their paper kites
when they were on the other end
marct
04-26-2007, 01:02 PM
Oddly enough, I was "irritated" by it, also, until I figured out that the guy appears to have the courage to take on all the elements of technology, regardless of benefit. His point appears to be that it's okay to accept the "evils" of a technology, as long as you are aware that there ARE evils and are willing to accept them. What is wrong, in his eyes, is denying that the evils exist, and dogmatically condemning those who (logically) point out the evils as heretics against the religion of science and technology.
Actually, it's his moral ascriptions that I object to :). I've always disliked the idea of anthropomophizing technology and ascribing the capability of social action to it. I'll admit that I far prefer to view technology as a series of interlocking "environments" that condition social action and perception. I've always been happier with the conception of technology as an "extension" of humans abilities, a la Harold Innis, Marshal McLuhan and George Grant (although McLuhan went more than a little wonky in his terminology).
I am so used to the unreasoning screed that the typical granola-crunching pseudo-liberal "cool guy" puts out against technology, that I reflexively condemn them in my "idiot" corner.
LOLOL - Well, if it makes you feel any better, that's also the crowd that usually can't use a photocopier or make coffee :D. I remember taking a class from Heather Menzies (http://www.heathermenzies.ca/) during my MA. Given what she writes, she would normally be put into the "granola-crunching", virulently anti-technology category. In reality, she actually takes a "technology as environment" position and has little time for twits who take a "we should all go back to the way we were intended to live" ideology. Her stuff is worth reading, although the left wing rhetoric may be a turn off. One thing I'll say about Heather's stuff is that she is an excellent researcher who is totally unafraid of taking on any sacred cow.
I've moved on to Edward Tenner's "Why Things Bite Back" which is nowhere near as good as "Technopoly." I'm only up to page 30 and so far his views on tech have been inconsistent and he makes liberal use of CW as truth. Despite that, it isn't all bad. His points on "effects" caused by technology are well taken and ironically, he is big on categorizing things, which would drive Postman up a wall.
You may want to also read some of George Grant's stuff, Technology and Empire comes to mind, and Harold Innis' The Bias of Communications. They are from the 1950's and are much more "philosophical" and scholarly than most of the stuff being produced now.
It's a problem of free time afforded by technology.... If you doubt that people are very uncomfortable and essentially incapable of really being alone with their thoughts, try sitting perfectly still with no distractions and minimal noise, doing nothing but thinking, not moving except to breathe, blink the eyes and occasionally slightly shift the posture for comfort for 45 minutes. Who can loaf anymore without doing something? Recreation involves motion and planning, accomplishing something. We are driven to engage and addicted to the means and methods of engagement, not the end results, and techology is the juice, the drug, the fix, the symbolic needle in the arm that promises euphoria and the lessening of psychic and physical pain.
That's a good point, Goesh. A lot of the metaphysical underpinnings of our culture (i.e. the Anglo Culture Complex or ACC) revolve around "work as meaning". A lot of this was brought to the fore during the Industrial revolution which pretty much created a cultural polarization of "work" and "play"; note that the concept of "contemplation" is pretty much left out - thanks, Calvin!.
try sitting perfectly still with no distractions and minimal noise, doing nothing but thinking,
Try sitting still without thinking if you want something really hard :D!
One of the nastier effects of certain types of technologies is that they "externalize" or "exteriorize" part of our ability to think/contemplate. This was a point that Socrates made when he was talking about the effects of books and writing destroying individual memory.
Let me take this a step further - our culture (ACC) has exteriorized contemplation to a limited number of "professionals", e.g. "academic specialists" for "contemplation of the profane" and "religious specialists" for "contemplation of the sacred". By the 1960's, the "skill" of contemplation was so divorced from popular culture that we started to see open revolts against these specialists and specialties. This trend of revolt has been exacerbated by the spread of the Internet and the information and communications explosion (see McLuhan on the Global Village) but, because our culture has compartmentalized these contemplative areas, people have had to go to other cultures for contemplative skills.
Marc
selil
04-26-2007, 02:18 PM
I'll have to move the book to the top of the stack. I'm reading "The Craft of Research" right now.
I'm wondering if Techopoly is more about "Apropriate Technology". I've been thinking about I've been wondering if Keynesian economic models have a detrimental effect on society when selecting technology. The Buddist economic (Schumaker et. al.) model seems much stronger for selecting correct or apropriate technologies.
Tom Odom
04-26-2007, 03:12 PM
Try sitting still without thinking if you want something really hard !:D
I dunno 'bout that....
I know sevral politicans who sit an tawk and nevah think....
Forrest G.
marct
04-26-2007, 03:18 PM
I dunno 'bout that....
I know sevral politicans who sit an tawk and nevah think....
Forrest G.
True, but you just know that there are "thoughts" running around in their minds: "will I get that donation?", "Can I get a job with the pharmaceutical industry after Congress?", "I wonder if she is a natural blonde?" :D.
I'll agree that that type of stuff isn't "thinking" in the sense we were talking about, but it is still "thought" (yeah, I've been reading too much Buddhist literature ;)).
Marc
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.