Yes, We Might Question Technology….
Neil Postman was one of those
writers/educators that I ran into at the right time…at just the time I needed
some influencing. I didn’t run into him literally; I ran into him literarily—I found his books: Amusing
Ourselves to Death, Teaching as a Subversive Activity, The End of
Education, and others. I was a young grad student at U of L…passionate to
be a good teacher, a life-changing teacher. Postman gave me a lot to think
about. I didn’t buy everything he was selling, but I bought enough to know that
he and I were kindred spirits in a way—we were going to question everything.
In March 1998, Postman
presented “Five Things We Need to Know About Technological Change” at a
conference in Colorado. I wasn’t there…but I was with him all the way. Even
though he penned and voiced these words some 14 years ago, we need to hear them
again. Below, I’ve pulled out his five main ideas, in his own words. At the
end, there is a link to the full text of his presentation…in case you want to
go deeper, in case you want to enjoy his delightful examples and anecdotes.
Here are the Five Things in Postman's own words:
First,…all technological change
is a trade-off. I like to call it a Faustian bargain. Technology giveth and
technology taketh away. This means that for every advantage a new technology offers,
there is always a corresponding disadvantage. The disadvantage may exceed in
importance the advantage, or the advantage may well be worth the cost. …Idea
Number One, then, is that culture always pays a price for technology.
Second,…the advantages and
disadvantages of new technologies are never distributed evenly among the population.
This means that every new technology benefits some and harms others. There are
even some who are not affected at all. …That there are always winners and
losers in technological change is the second idea.
Third,…embedded in every
technology there is a powerful idea, sometimes two or three powerful ideas.
These ideas are often hidden from our view because they are of a somewhat
abstract nature. But this should not be taken to mean that they do not have
practical consequences. …The third idea, then, is that every technology has a
philosophy which is given expression in how the technology makes people use
their minds, in what it makes us do with our bodies, in how it codifies the
world, in which of our senses it amplifies, in which of our emotional and
intellectual tendencies it disregards.
Fourth,…technological change is
not additive; it is ecological. I can explain this best by an analogy. What
happens if we place a drop of red dye into a beaker of clear water? Do we have
clear water plus a spot of red dye? Obviously not. We have a new coloration to
every molecule of water. That is what I mean by ecological change. A new medium
does not add something; it changes everything.
Fifth, …media tend to become
mythic. I use this word in the sense in which it was used by the French
literary critic, Roland Barthes. He used the word "myth" to refer to
a common tendency to think of our technological creations as if they were
God-given, as if they were a part of the natural order of things. …What I am
saying is that our enthusiasm for technology can turn into a form of idolatry
and our belief in its beneficence can be a false absolute. The best way to view
technology is as a strange intruder, to remember that technology is not part of
God’s plan but a product of human creativity and hubris, and that its capacity
for good or evil rests entirely on human awareness of what it does for us and
to us.
And Postman’s closing words: “Our
unspoken slogan has been "technology über alles," and we have been
willing to shape our lives to fit the requirements of technology, not the
requirements of culture. This is a form of stupidity, especially in an age of
vast technological change. We need to proceed with our eyes wide open so that
we many use technology rather than be used by it.”
I wonder about our world as we
rush forward with new technological advances without even thinking to ask,
“What will be the results?” “What could be some consequences?” It came home to
me just yesterday as I sat in a doctor’s office. In one corner, there were the
three children fighting over their mom’s smart phone. Then, there was the child
in her mother’s lap beside me was watching a show on the TV about the effect of
TV on children. The reporter on the tele was saying that children under age 12
should not have televisions in their bedrooms. The six-year-old girl looked up
at her mom and whispered, “She’s stupid…isn’t that dumb?” And they both just
smiled….
(revised Oct. 16, 2019)
Comments