Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology

[120mm]

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]

That's in my summer read list I've got it sitting here on my desk.

[Stan]

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/...texts_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]

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]

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 .

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]

Do I get the impression that I'm not the only person who reads a book with a highlighter and paragraph stickies?

[120mm]

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.