6 ms·

Neil Postman, Technopoly, and Technological Theology

45 points by longdefeat 8y ago

Glench 8y ago
If you're interested in this, you might also like Neil Postman's "5 Things We Need to Know About Technological Change": http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/classes/188/materials/postman.pdf http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/classes/188/materials/pos...
- bklaasen 8y ago
  This seems to be largely the same presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBlfPhsrvtw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBlfPhsrvtw
- Koshkin 8y ago
  > I offer them to you in the hope that you will find them useful in thinking about the effects of technology on religious faith Ouch.
geephroh 8y ago
Postman was ahead of his time. Also worth checking out is his 1985 book, "Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business." Can't say we weren't warned...
- cpr 8y ago
  Exactly, it's Brave New World and 1984 married--the jackboot on the neck plus the self-drugging anodynes.
- vertline3 8y ago
  Agree, Amusing Ourselves to Death is really good. I like the idea about how reading books impacts how deep we think. Also His comparison of the Lincoln Douglas debates to modern presidential debates. Not a long read either, about 200 pages I think. I bought a copy from a bookstore closing, which fits the theme of the book sadly.
- bps4484 8y ago
  "Amusing Ourselves to Death" is one of if not the best books for its avant garde cultural criticism.
sewercake 8y ago
The progression from technocracy to technopoly (and beyond?) reminds me of Forster's famous short story The Machine Stops.
ilaksh 8y ago
It seems like an important book. And good points. But practically speaking, dismissing the entire culture as being technologically obsessed doesn't solve the real problems that we have related to technology and its interaction with society today. I feel that a more useful definition for the word "technopoly" is to just to refer to the (real and specific) monopolistic technology companies that we interact with on a daily basis. Such as Google, Facebook, Amazon, Uber, etc. Maybe on a deeper level part of the reason they have become so large is the "technopoly" that Postman is talking about. But in my opinion the more practical use of the word is to point out these specific companies. And I guess my surface reading of the premise is that technology is not the only or the best framework for viewing the world. I will admit that I have a technology-centric worldview. Well, technology just means applying our knowledge to solving problems. In my opinion this is mostly sensible and rejecting it does not create progress. My view is that what needs to improve is our integration of technology into our social systems.
ilaksh 8y ago
"The first idea is that 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." This is a very popular belief which I reject wholeheartedly. Certainly there are often trade-offs in some way related to use of a technology, but it is not a rule, and there is no correspondence. Despite the last sentence, framing things dualistically like this provides quite a false sense of equivalence and ambiguity. In the end its an over-simplification and on some level a rejection of technology. Rejecting technology means rejecting the application of knowledge. I have no problem with criticizing the selection of technology or how it interfaces with society, but rejecting technology outright leaves you with the same old problems. And then you must rationalize about how your old problems were better than your new ones. I would like those people to go back and live in that state -- without ubiquitous running water, without flush toilets and good sewage systems, with horse shit in the street, or live as a _biological_ computer where you spend 10 hours a day doing arithmetic.
- cobbzilla 8y ago
  Where did you get the idea that anyone was suggesting rejection of technology? The idea that all technology is 100% beneficial for all people with zero downsides is just as ridiculous. There is a third path, which has some nuance; if you're wearing tunnel-vision blinders you might not see it.
  - ilaksh 8y ago
    Maybe my argument was too nuanced for you.
    - mokus 8y ago
      It would help if you could give an example. Is there even one technology that is an unequivocal good with no possible downsides?
beat 8y ago
Way back in the '90s, Postman was speaking at college. I was late getting there, and ran into a close friend coming out as I was going in. I asked my friend how it was so far, and he scowled and said "He's a cretin". Now that I'm olde, I find myself occasionally agreeing with Postman. but reading past the first paragraph here, I'm right back to "He's a cretin". Sigh. On the plus side, he makes an excellent bonfire out of the strawman he built.
- Jtsummers 8y ago
  It may be that I'm tired and haven't really spent enough time processing this article, but what about it gets you to "He's a cretin"? Any particular points of Postman's that you'd call out?
  - beat 8y ago
    His generalization that modern culture has become completely machine-driven and dehumanizing. Quoting the article quoting him... “the primary, if not the only, goal of human labor and thought is efficiency” “technical calculation is in all respects superior to human judgment” “human judgment cannot be trusted because it is plagued by laxity, ambiguity, and unnecessary complexity” “subjectivity is an obstacle to clear thinking” “what cannot be measured either does not exist or is of no value” “the affairs of citizens are best guided and conducted by experts.” Now, I'll join Postman in criticizing Fredrick Taylor and scientific management all day, but Postman is utterly reductionist in his argument, turning a valuable and important point into a mere strawman. For a much more subtle and cogent critique, read Matthew Crawford's "Shop Class as Soulcraft".
  - beat 8y ago
    Adding to this, the original quote of “the submission of all forms of cultural life to the sovereignty of technique and technology” is what makes me say "cretin". Because it's BS. The degree to which technology is interfering with culture is a real concern, yes. But "all forms of cultural life"? Nonsense. If he could resist absurdist generalizations like that, he'd be a much more valuable thinker. Instead, he's just telling people what they want to hear. I just suffered through a brutal, dehumanizing call where I spent ten minutes trying to convince a voice recognition bot to connect me to a human being. That's part of Postman's negative world, for sure. But tonight? I'm going to play music with a friend. We're recording some of his bass parts for an album. That's cultural life, too. And tomorrow? I'm going to an amazing concert, African singer Angelique Kidjo's reworking of the Talking Heads' "Remain in Light" album. That album exists because of technology. I found out about the concert because of technology. I get to hear her because of technology. Technology (and by "technology", I mean "stuff that wasn't invented yet when Postman was a kid"), in this case enriches the cultural experience. I remember seeing Postman bragging about how he uses a pencil rather than a computer to write, because Technology Is Bad. That's not sophisticated. That's a cretin. Pencils are technology, too. Paper is technology. The books he got printed are technology. But he doesn't get it, because he's a cretin. For Postman and his ilk, "technology" is "stuff that wasn't around when I was a kid". And it's bad why? Because it's unfamiliar and uncomfortable. Postman is just saying "Get off my lawn" in fancy academic language.

45 points by longdefeat 8y ago

If you're interested in this, you might also like Neil Postman's "5 Things We Need to Know About Technological Change": http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/classes/188/materials/postman.pdf http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/classes/188/materials/pos...

bklaasen 8y ago
This seems to be largely the same presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBlfPhsrvtw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBlfPhsrvtw
Koshkin 8y ago
> I offer them to you in the hope that you will find them useful in thinking about the effects of technology on religious faith Ouch.

geephroh 8y ago

Postman was ahead of his time. Also worth checking out is his 1985 book, "Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business." Can't say we weren't warned...

cpr 8y ago
Exactly, it's Brave New World and 1984 married--the jackboot on the neck plus the self-drugging anodynes.
vertline3 8y ago
Agree, Amusing Ourselves to Death is really good. I like the idea about how reading books impacts how deep we think. Also His comparison of the Lincoln Douglas debates to modern presidential debates. Not a long read either, about 200 pages I think. I bought a copy from a bookstore closing, which fits the theme of the book sadly.
bps4484 8y ago
"Amusing Ourselves to Death" is one of if not the best books for its avant garde cultural criticism.

sewercake 8y ago

The progression from technocracy to technopoly (and beyond?) reminds me of Forster's famous short story The Machine Stops.

ilaksh 8y ago

It seems like an important book. And good points. But practically speaking, dismissing the entire culture as being technologically obsessed doesn't solve the real problems that we have related to technology and its interaction with society today. I feel that a more useful definition for the word "technopoly" is to just to refer to the (real and specific) monopolistic technology companies that we interact with on a daily basis. Such as Google, Facebook, Amazon, Uber, etc. Maybe on a deeper level part of the reason they have become so large is the "technopoly" that Postman is talking about. But in my opinion the more practical use of the word is to point out these specific companies. And I guess my surface reading of the premise is that technology is not the only or the best framework for viewing the world. I will admit that I have a technology-centric worldview. Well, technology just means applying our knowledge to solving problems. In my opinion this is mostly sensible and rejecting it does not create progress. My view is that what needs to improve is our integration of technology into our social systems.

ilaksh 8y ago

"The first idea is that 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." This is a very popular belief which I reject wholeheartedly. Certainly there are often trade-offs in some way related to use of a technology, but it is not a rule, and there is no correspondence. Despite the last sentence, framing things dualistically like this provides quite a false sense of equivalence and ambiguity. In the end its an over-simplification and on some level a rejection of technology. Rejecting technology means rejecting the application of knowledge. I have no problem with criticizing the selection of technology or how it interfaces with society, but rejecting technology outright leaves you with the same old problems. And then you must rationalize about how your old problems were better than your new ones. I would like those people to go back and live in that state -- without ubiquitous running water, without flush toilets and good sewage systems, with horse shit in the street, or live as a _biological_ computer where you spend 10 hours a day doing arithmetic.

cobbzilla 8y ago
Where did you get the idea that anyone was suggesting rejection of technology? The idea that all technology is 100% beneficial for all people with zero downsides is just as ridiculous. There is a third path, which has some nuance; if you're wearing tunnel-vision blinders you might not see it.
- ilaksh 8y ago
  Maybe my argument was too nuanced for you.
  - mokus 8y ago
    It would help if you could give an example. Is there even one technology that is an unequivocal good with no possible downsides?

beat 8y ago

Way back in the '90s, Postman was speaking at college. I was late getting there, and ran into a close friend coming out as I was going in. I asked my friend how it was so far, and he scowled and said "He's a cretin". Now that I'm olde, I find myself occasionally agreeing with Postman. but reading past the first paragraph here, I'm right back to "He's a cretin". Sigh. On the plus side, he makes an excellent bonfire out of the strawman he built.

Jtsummers 8y ago
It may be that I'm tired and haven't really spent enough time processing this article, but what about it gets you to "He's a cretin"? Any particular points of Postman's that you'd call out?
- beat 8y ago
  His generalization that modern culture has become completely machine-driven and dehumanizing. Quoting the article quoting him... “the primary, if not the only, goal of human labor and thought is efficiency” “technical calculation is in all respects superior to human judgment” “human judgment cannot be trusted because it is plagued by laxity, ambiguity, and unnecessary complexity” “subjectivity is an obstacle to clear thinking” “what cannot be measured either does not exist or is of no value” “the affairs of citizens are best guided and conducted by experts.” Now, I'll join Postman in criticizing Fredrick Taylor and scientific management all day, but Postman is utterly reductionist in his argument, turning a valuable and important point into a mere strawman. For a much more subtle and cogent critique, read Matthew Crawford's "Shop Class as Soulcraft".
- beat 8y ago
  Adding to this, the original quote of “the submission of all forms of cultural life to the sovereignty of technique and technology” is what makes me say "cretin". Because it's BS. The degree to which technology is interfering with culture is a real concern, yes. But "all forms of cultural life"? Nonsense. If he could resist absurdist generalizations like that, he'd be a much more valuable thinker. Instead, he's just telling people what they want to hear. I just suffered through a brutal, dehumanizing call where I spent ten minutes trying to convince a voice recognition bot to connect me to a human being. That's part of Postman's negative world, for sure. But tonight? I'm going to play music with a friend. We're recording some of his bass parts for an album. That's cultural life, too. And tomorrow? I'm going to an amazing concert, African singer Angelique Kidjo's reworking of the Talking Heads' "Remain in Light" album. That album exists because of technology. I found out about the concert because of technology. I get to hear her because of technology. Technology (and by "technology", I mean "stuff that wasn't invented yet when Postman was a kid"), in this case enriches the cultural experience. I remember seeing Postman bragging about how he uses a pencil rather than a computer to write, because Technology Is Bad. That's not sophisticated. That's a cretin. Pencils are technology, too. Paper is technology. The books he got printed are technology. But he doesn't get it, because he's a cretin. For Postman and his ilk, "technology" is "stuff that wasn't around when I was a kid". And it's bad why? Because it's unfamiliar and uncomfortable. Postman is just saying "Get off my lawn" in fancy academic language.