Neil Postman's book, Technopoly: The Surrender of a Culture of Technology is an interesting read about a skeptic’s view of how technology’s emergence into the world, or rather a culture, is detrimental to its future. Starting with the introduction, Postman states, “The accusation can be made that the uncontrolled growth of technology destroys the vital sources of our humanity.” (Pg xii) He goes on to explain that a culture twined with too much technology is a culture without moral foundation. Interestingly enough, Postman admits that there is a line that separates the good and the bad technology; confirming that technology is both a friend and enemy with costs and benefits. This thought brings the author to chapter 1 where he discusses the Judgment of Thamus. He distinguishes two separate categories among society calling one side the Technophiles (those who only see the benefits of technology), and the skeptics (those who only see the harm of technology.) Upon accepting a technology however, both skeptics and technophiles much analyze the technology with their “eyes wide open.” (Pg. 7)
Absurdly, Postman observes an interesting theory. He tells us that those who cultivate competence in the use of a new technology will become an elite group—granted undeserved authority. Arguably, I cannot agree with this. I feel like those who do achieve competence in a technology are credited into this elite group and thus it is not underserved. Page 9 in the book describes this theory a little further. Harold Innis believed in what are called Knowledge Monopolies. This mindset creates a variable subset of winners and losers where the winners are competent and the losers are not. Then, he states that losers eventually succumb to learning a new technology leaving no more room for an incompetent subgroup. What I don’t understand about this proposed theory is why there cant be a balance between the two. Why cant there be one large group adding to universal knowledge?
Chapter 2 describes ‘tool using cultures’ as technology being integrated in culture, but not obstructing its prevalence. However, when tool-using cultures begin to take advantage of their tools, is when they begin to transform into technocracies. Postman declares that there is a difference between tool using cultures (Descartes, Galileo, Newton) and technocracies (beginning with innovators like Sir Frances Bacon.)
Chapter 3 describes the transition from a Technocracy to a Technopoly. On page 45, Postman says, “Technocracy gave us the idea of progress and the necessity loosened our bonds with tradition—whether political or spiritual.” He goes on to describe the beginning of the shift when Henry Ford started his industrial empire. Technopoly started in America for 4 main reasons. 1. “The Distrust of Constraints” 2. “The genius of American Capitalists” 3. The “convenience, comfort and speed” of technology and 4. The “devaluation of traditional beliefs.”
Chapter 4 describes the improbable world where human progress is taken over by technological progress. This is clearly stated on page 70, “cultures may also suffer grievously from information glut, information without meaning, information without controlled mechanisms.” Postman’s closing in Chapter 5 says that what technopolies want, they cannot have, and the consequences will follow later.
No comments:
Post a Comment