Ch 11 - So Now What?

            I am actually quite impressed with Postman’s summary in this final chapter.  He offers several good guidelines to follow when we consider the role of technopoly in our world today.  Although I agree with some of his guidelines, I don’t necessarily agree with the specific ideas he ties into them.  Let me explain.

            The first guideline I agree with is that, in his words, we should be loving resistance fighters.  Basically, we should hold fast to the truths and values our nations was established upon.  I believe that we should always stay grounded in our beliefs and not let things of this world overtake us. 

            Another guideline I agree with is that school is a unique technology because it is consistently evaluated and improved.  He also mentions how school is one place where students and others can find meaning in this world, and that for this to happen, schools have to have everything focus on a specific purpose.  I agree fully that education must all have a purpose, otherwise, what is the point of all we do each day in the classroom?  What ultimate goal are we working towards?

            What I don’t fully agree with is the purpose that Postman suggests which is to join art and science into what he calls the “ascent of humanity”. (p. 187)  If I was writing a book on this topic, I would propose that all schools focus education on the purpose, “Our World Belongs to God.”  Everything we teach and do should be done in  light of the fact that God created everything, and everything belongs to Him.  As we dig into different subjects, we can try to understand some of the depth and interconnectedness of God’s creation and stand in awe of what He has done.  What overall purpose might you suggest if you were writing this book?

            Under this purpose, Postman suggests that we should focus on history being taught as part of every subject, we should teach the philosophy of science, and that every teacher should be a semantics teacher since we cannot separate language from knowledge.  Would you agree with this? 

            About history, Postman says, “To teach the past simply as a chronicle of indisputable, fragmented, and concrete events is to replicate the bias of Technopoly, which largely denies our youth access to concepts and theories, and to provide them only with a stream of meaningless events.”  (p. 191)  What are your thoughts about this statement?  Do you agree?  Could this apply to other subject areas we teach? 

Chapters 9 & 10: The Role of Faith in Technopoly

“The third idea (of scientism) is that faith in science can serve as a comprehensive belief system that gives meaning to life, as well as a sense of well-being, morality, and even immortality.”  (p. 147)  Throughout this book, I have been trying to understand where faith fits in.  This comment by Postman in his 9^th chapter helps me understand why it does not fit in.  As Postman indicates in this chapter, many people are looking for explanations as to how things work – laws that govern the processes of the world and also human behavior.  So they put their “faith” in science (something they can control and figure out) instead of a God that they cannot see.  I use faith loosely here because I don’t think they really have faith at all.  From what I have learned, “Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” (Hebrews 11:1)  They say they have faith, but it is in something they can see and rationalize and prove.  It is not complete trust in something.  Webster says that faith is “Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.”  Even with this definition, we could not say that they actually have faith. 

            There was much discussion in this chapter about the differences and similarities between science and social science.  It was interesting to see our religion and belief in God as a social science.  Science requires being able to do experiments to reveal that something could be false.  Since there is no evidence to show that there is no God, it falls in the realm of social science.  In the social science world, it was hard to hear Postman put Jesus on the same level as other sociologists that tell good stories.   What all this came down to is that all of these sciences were attempts by humans to try and explain our lives and experiences.  Again, there is a lack of faith and trust.  Some things aren’t meant to be understood and explained.

            So then, why do we do what we do each day?  I appreciate that Postman brought this idea up related to education in chapter 10.  It is important to consider what learning is for and what the purpose of education is.  He pointed out how the purpose of education was different for so many people throughout history.  At this point, I figured it would make sense to point to what could be considered one consistent reason throughout history – “that learning is done for the greater glory of God and, more particularly, to prepare the young to embrace intelligently and gracefully the moral directives of the church.”  (p. 178)  But even this is downplayed as something that could not be achieved in Technopoly.  What do you think?  Is it possible to hold this as a basis for education, even in a Technopoly?  What might be missing from this simple purpose?  What important elements are included in your schools’ mission statement?  Could these items be true for a public or private school?

Chapters 7 & 8: Reflections

As I read through this book, I continue to wrestle with whether or not I agree with the ideas that Postman is presenting.  In chapter 7, I would dare to say he is stretching ideas a little too far when he says humans are computers and computers are human.  When we talk about computers having a virus, it doesn’t mean they are like humans; I think it is more a way for humans to simply understand what is going on and talk about it in terms of what we are dealing with.  When we say we can’t work because the computers are down, we are not saying that they have human characteristics of being able to make mistakes or get ill like Postman suggests.  We are simply saying that they are not working.  It’s a fact.

Along with considering the human vs. machine debate, this chapter also made me consider the use of calculators in my classroom.  Because of the increasing technology that computers do provide, there are many forms of calculators and other machines that do calculations that we really don’t need to do any of it by ourselves.  This leads many people to think that we should just let students start using calculators at an early age because the skill of calculating long division or multiplying by hand is becoming obsolete.  In my math classrooms (grades 6-8), I make students do most calculations without calculators.  I start to shift that thought when they get to Pre-Algebra and Algebra where they should really have those skills grounded and the goal is to now work on a different skill set.  I had some parents and even some teachers that didn’t agree with me – we have calculators so we should use them.  What do you all think?  Should students still learn how to multiply and divide whole numbers, decimals, and fractions without calculators?  Or is that something that really won’t be important in the future?

Another topic that stirred thoughts in my head related to Postman’s view that questioning and language are forms of technology as well, for the fact that they have assumptions that direct our thoughts and give shape to the world.  As a teacher, asking good questions is a skill I continue to work on.  I want to be able to ask questions that promote thinking and challenge students to apply what they are learning.  When disciplining students, I try to ask questions that direct them to understand the problem at hand.  So in a way it is true that questions are powerful and can get people to believe one way or the other. 

A final thought I want to mention of the many ideas that Postman put forth in these chapters is the idea of polling as a technology.  He suggests that “the definition of a ‘good’ television show has become purely and simply a matter of having high ratings.”  Later he suggests, “Popular literature now depends more than ever on the wishes of the audience, not the creativity of the artist.” (p. 136)  To what extent does this apply to our schools today?  What makes education good?  Does it depend on the audience?  Could we say, “Education now depends more than ever on the wishes of the parents, not the creativity of the teacher?”  Teaching in a Christian school for the past 9 years, I have definitely struggled with some of the ideas in here, but I am interested to hear your thoughts first!