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?
I would definitely agree with your assessment that Postman views change, or at least the way things changed, in a negative way. I think that there are certainly good things that have come from advancing past a tool-using culture. One area in which I think we have benefitted is communication. We are so much more able to stay in touch with people who are important to us but do not live near us. However, I think Postman would advocate that we take time to reflect on what this communication has done to our lifestyle. Many of us are tied to our phones or computers. Some people are losing face-to-face communication skills in the name of keeping up with their virtual communication. I am certainly glad that we have so many communication tools available to us, but I also recognize the need to assess what it does to our lifestyle and the way we communicate with others.
ReplyDeleteI have the same concerns about how are lifestyles are changing as a result of some technologies. It makes me wonder what communication will look like 10 years from now or even 5 years from now. How personal will it be if so much of it is through screens and messaging and texting already? I have actually stopped using facebook as much because I realize how much I value face to face communication. It is nice to be able to keep in touch with friends across the US (something I wouldn't be able to do without facebook), but I don't feel the need to post day to day events for the whole world to see. That is for those who are involved in those daily activities.
ReplyDeleteTechnology changes communication but also relationships as well.
** Sorry for the typo in line 1! "Are" should be "our"!
ReplyDeleteI love your last line, Karla - "Technology changes communication but also relationships as well." I find it amazing that when you look at any group of teens or young adults, they are together but also connected to their phones. It's their link to the outside world! You can't have a conversation with people anymore without it being interrupted by a text message. I have a brother who's 22 and I am always bugging him about texting at the table. It is almost physically impossible for him not to check a text when it beeps - he twitches! Our relationships have not only become less personal and more public, but they seem less sacred to me. If I meet a frend for coffee I don't want our phones on the table, buzzing every Facebook notification. I want her to be there both physically and mentally while we visit. Unfortunately, those types of meetings have become the minority nowadays.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with your assessment of Postman's view. It has been beneficial for me to consider his view, as I haven't seriously reflected on the impact of technology on our culture until now. Those who still live in tool using cultures today may not be worse off than those of us living in a technopoly. Some may even prefer it. But, after reading some things from my book of choice, Curriculum 21, I agree that there has to be some kind of litmus test that helps us to see when technology has gone too far. The book actually says that in the future, "Humans will achieve a power to create new species at will". It sounds too much like humans may try to play God, and that is where a line must be drawn. Now is the time for teachers and students to consider what the line is for how far technology should go.
ReplyDelete