Chapters 5 and 6: How do we defend ourselves against technopoly

As I read chapters 5 and 6 of Technopoly, I am left wondering how we can effectively defend ourselves against the rising technopoly.  When Postman says that our theories of family, school, religion, nationhood, and political parties have been washed out by the flood of information in our society (p. 83), it makes me wonder what there is left to stand on.  From his perspective, this is why rely extensively on technology to control information. 

When I consider the area of religion, I think it is possible to have foundational beliefs/theories that help us control the information coming in.  Because of what I believe, there are certain many sources of information I will not let in.  Postman seems to agree with this as well, but says this source of controlling information is failing because fewer people are tied to this and choose to make practical decisions instead of moral ones.  In my little bubble, it seems like most people I know still rely on their morals, so maybe this means I need to get out of my bubble more. 

Postman also talks about the theories of education being wiped out, but I think this is still a place that we can filter information.  It is clear that, as schools, we let certain information in and out based on what we deem to be necessary and valuable information.  We just have to make sure we have a solid foundation of beliefs and purpose which help us choose which information to use. 

I can definitely agree with Postman that technology and machines have changed the medical field.  It was astonishing to read the many statistics that referred to unnecessary deaths due to unnecessary surgeries/treatments/medicines/etc.  But when he pointed out the rational of why this happens, it makes sense to me.  Doctors are tied.  When technologies are available and they don’t use them, they could get sued.  I am thankful that I have a good relationship with my doctor and that he still wants to hear my stories and descriptions, but not everyone has that.  I wouldn’t sue him because of my morals and religion.  But again, not everyone has that foundation either. 

Postman argues that because many of these theories are failing, we are now relying on bureaucracies, technical machinery and experts.  In reference to experts, he says:  “The role of the expert is to concentrate on one field of knowledge, sift through all that is available, eliminate that which has no bearing on a problem, and use what is left to assist in solving a problem.” (p. 88)  What role do you think experts have in our world today?  When there is so much information available, does it make sense to have experts in certain areas?  Or is it impossible to be an expert in many of the areas we have talked about (education, family life, law, etc.)?  Do experts play any role in your school?

Ch. 3 and 4: Is Change Good?

During the last two chapters, a certain theme kept jumping out at me.  This was the theme of how change was happening so fast that no one had time to look back and reflect.  “There was no time to look back or to contemplate what was being lost.” (p. 45)  “The success of .. technology . . . was so obvious and promising that there seemed no reason to look for any other sources of fulfillment or creativity or purpose.”  (p. 54)  “What was being lost was not immediately apparent.” (p. 59)  “The world has never before been confronted with information glut and has hardly had time to reflect on its consequences.” (p. 61) 

I want to first acknowledge that I support change.  Change is a good and necessary part of life.  We cannot expect life to stay the same, and sometimes changes bring about new opportunities we may not have had before.  But after reading these two chapters, I am reminded of how important it is to look back and reflect on changes that are happening.  At my last school, at the end of the year we had to do a significant amount of reflecting.  We were required to look back at goals that we had set at the beginning of the year, and also consider what went well or what we struggled with in each of our classes.  Although this was sometimes difficult to do at the end of a school year when I just wanted to be done, I am very glad we had to take time to do that.  Reflection helps us see how the lessons we implement and the things we change affected what happened in our schools.  Were they good changes or not?

It was very interesting to see how our culture changed from a tool-using culture to a technocracy and finally to a technopoly.  There were some people that noticed the changes that were happening and challenged people to stop and think about what was happening.  But it mostly seemed like everyone was caught up in the excitement to keep inventing and finding new ways to do things faster and more efficiently.  Pretty soon there was so much information pouring in that it “. . .has become a form of garbage.” (p. 69)  I find it somewhat comical, but also somewhat disheartening, that professors at a college can be fooled into believing that some ridiculous made-up piece of information might be true.  But like Postman said, there is so much information out there that we probably wouldn’t be surprised by anything we heard. 

As I have read these two chapters, I continue to wonder whether some of this change is okay.  The way I am understanding Postman is that he has a somewhat negative view towards all this change and how it happened so fast that here we are now in a world with so much information that “information has become a form of garbage” (p. 69) and “now we are suffering from information glut.” (p. 70)  He also says that technopoly has redefined “what we mean by reigion, by art, by family, by politics, by history, by truth, by privacy, by intelligence, so that our defininitions fit its new requirements.  Technopoly, in other words, is totalitarian technocracy.” (p. 48)  Would you agree with my assessment of his negative view?  I said at the beginning of this post that I believe changes can be good and sometimes necessary.  Was any of this change from a tool-using culture to a technopoly good and necessary?  Would it have worked to actually stay in the age of a tool-using culture forever?  If not, then what can we do to make sure that we don’t move too fast in the future?

Chapter 2

While the first chapter shows several examples of technologies that have changed how we think and what we think about, it is interesting to learn in the second chapter how this all started.  It seems like at one time tools could be added and integrated into a culture without completely changing their beliefs and traditions, their education and social organizations.  An example was given of making eyeglasses for nearsightedness.  The eyeglasses didn’t change tradition and how people thought, they just helped people see better.  It seems pretty simple.  But then the rest of the chapter left me with many questions. 

In the tool-using culture, tools seemed to come out of necessity.  Postman notes on page 24: “Tool-using culture, in other words, may be both ingenious and productive in solving problems of the physical environment.”  Eventually this changed to a technocracy where tools start to become the culture.  I am interested to see as the book goes on how this changes to a technopoly.  Is it possible that eventually man/culture did not need any more ‘things’?  If so, what led to new technologies?  Were people during the tool-using culture much more focused on religion and living in line with that, and now people are not as religious?  Is it possible that technopoly also came out of a sense of necessity?  And in the schools we work in now, do new technologies seem to come out of necessity?  Or is there another driving force behind it?  What seems to drive new technologies in your schools?

Chapter 1

Wow!  In the first chapter of Technopoly, Neil Postman has already challenged many of the thoughts I have had about the ever-increasing role of technology in school.  I was very interested in this course because that seems to be such a hot topic of discussion lately among faculty and parents. 

The biggest challenge I face is how do I help students learn who were born into this technological age that I am trying to adjust to?  Sometimes I feel like some teachers (including myself) try to be so lively and entertaining and have all sorts of activities/videos to hold students’ attention.  But should we have to do that?  Or should they have to learn like we did 10 or 20 or 30 years ago?  On page 17 in his book, Postman talks about how some students now might be considered failures because they can’t sit through a lecture.  But soon, those who are now considered failures might be considered successes. 

As I read through the first chapter, it was quite obvious to me through his many examples that this time we are living in is not the first time that technology has had an impact on the way we live and function in society.  As I read the piece by Socrates, I couldn’t help but think how man once viewed writing the same way some of us view technology today.  I have to admit that I am a technophile who focuses more on how technology can be a burden and I am very cautious about how it is used as a learning tool.  I loved the Smartboard I had in my classroom for the last 4 years, but I tried to be very careful to use it in ways that enhanced what I was doing.  However, during my past year as a substitute teacher, I spent a lot of time in a district that decided to give Ipads to every student.  I spent the whole year trying to find anything educationally meaningful that came from this venture.  More often than not I saw it being used for entertainment and not education.  I could spend a lot of time taking about this, but maybe I will save that for another time!   The point is, I think Postman has a good suggestion that it is important to look at how technology can be beneficial, but not to forget to analyze the long-term changes it will bring.

On page 18 Postman says:  “Technological change is neither additive nor subtractive.  It is ecological. . . It changes everything.”  Would you agree with this?  Do you have example from your teaching that show how you have simply added a technology without changing everything?  Or is it ecological and it does change everything?  I would say the Ipads in the school changed many things.  One negative aspect I noticed is that I feel like the quality of learning went down a lot because kids rushed through work so they could play games.  On the flip side, I guess you could say a positive aspect is that kids were a little more disciplined in the hallways. . . because they were playing games during breaks and before/after school.  This also has long term affects on how students communicate with each other.  Again, I could write a lot on this, but now I am interested in your examples.