4 ms·

“Technopoly is a state of culture. It is also a state of mind. It consists in the deification of technology, which means that the culture seeks its authorizatio

“Technopoly is a state of culture. It is also a state of mind. It consists in the deification of technology, which means that the culture seeks its authorization in technology, finds its satisfactions in technology, and takes its orders from technology.” “Technopoly is to say that its information immune system is inoperable. Technopoly is a form of cultural AIDS, which I here use as an acronym for Anti-Information Deficiency Syndrome. This is why it is possible to say almost anything without contradiction provided you begin your utterance with the words “A study has shown …” or “Scientists now tell us that …” More important, it is why in a Technopoly there can be no transcendent sense of purpose or meaning, no cultural coherence. Information is dangerous when it has no place to go, when there is no theory to which it applies, no pattern in which it fits, when there is no higher purpose that it serves. Alfred North Whitehead called such information “inert,” but that metaphor is too passive. Information without regulation can be lethal.” ― Neil Postman, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology https://www.amazon.com/Technopoly-Surrender-Technology-Neil-Postman/dp/0679745408 https://www.amazon.com/Technopoly-Surrender-Technology-Neil-...

edmundsauto 8y ago
Cultural coherence sounds like newspeak for tribalism.
- Funes- 8y ago
  Yes, and that's actually something I do see imprinted on the Internet, all the time. If culture, on global terms, is defined by something right now, that thing is coherence, or homogeneity [0]. Almost everybody shares the same cultural referents and uses the same means of communication and entertainment. Cultural diversity has been (and is being) reduced, not enriched. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_homogenization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_homogenization
  - edmundsauto 8y ago
    Thanks for the link, very interesting! I've always used the term McDonaldization. If you look at % of people who trend towards similar culture affects, I think you're probably right (but would love to know how/where people are tracking this!) But, if you look at absolute numbers of people who are into something non-mainstream (e.g. not the primary culture), I bet we're way ahead of where we used to be. Also, I bet there are more subcultures flourishing out there -- bronies probably weren't a thing 500 years ago. Finally, I also think we have more acceptance for not being of the primary culture than years ago. That isn't to invalidate your point, I just have questions about statements that claim something about long term trends.
    - base698 8y ago
      It's definitely something tangential to McDonaldization. It's kind of Instagramization. IE. When cold brew coffee or whatever new trend gets popular then it's in every metro instantly. It's rare to go to a place that has it's truly unique thing--using the coffee example, Greek or Turkish coffee. Bronies sounds more like a marketing demo than a subculture.
kristianc 8y ago
> Technopoly is a form of cultural AIDS, which I here use as an acronym for Anti-Information Deficiency Syndrome. It's interesting how the moral panics of a time find their way into unrelated literature, and how jarring they can seem with a little distance (1993)
- munk-a 8y ago
  Woo, giving your random thought the acronym AIDS isn't going to create an immediate bias or anything - it's what I like to see in a neutral unopinionated highly scientific paper.
manfredo 8y ago
> This is why it is possible to say almost anything without contradiction provided you begin your utterance with the words “A study has shown …” or “Scientists now tell us that …” More important, it is why in a Technopoly there can be no transcendent sense of purpose or meaning, no cultural coherence. I don't think this is really related to the proliferation of internet connected technology, or even technology in general. People have always been using bad sources of information to justify false beliefs. Before Facebook, people cited the crap they read in tabloid magazines. Before that people cited untested (or poorly tested) theories like phrenology. Before that people cited philosophers like Aristotle who claimed that all matter could be infinitely subdivided. And before that people cited whatever their local priest or shaman told them. Information may have less regulation but it's erroneous to assume, as this excerpt seems to be doing, that regulation of information makes for better information. There is no shortage of instances in which those in charge of regulating information degraded the quality of information, often to suit their own interest. I'm still willing to defend the claim that in aggregate freer flow and production of information improves the average person's understanding of the world . Do we really think that people living in regimes with more tightly regulated flows of information have better understanding of the universe than people with freer access to information? Do we really think that people with lesser access to technology have better understanding of the world than those that have no internet access?
- codr7 8y ago
  You're entirely missing the point; which is blind faith in technology and scientific authorities, and humiliation and public shaming of anyone who dares to step out of line. Same, same but different. At least you can hold your local shaman responsible when you learn that he took money to feed you lies. Are you saying that matter can't be infinitely subdivided? Because I'm pretty sure the jury is still out on that one.
  - losteric 8y ago
    Blind faith in anything is wrong. The difference is scientific process invites peer review, reproduction, and alternative theories. > At least you can hold your local shaman responsible when you learn that he took money to feed you lies. Gods work in mysterious ways. The good shaman give advice that is always right no matter what happens, and fault you for misinterpreting the good word.
return0 8y ago
i believe the more commonly used term is technocracy
- base698 8y ago
  Postman defines societies as having three distinct stages: 1) Tool-using: where tools are just something humans use to further their basic needs. 2) Technocracy: Where inventing for the sake of inventing starts to happen for the sake of "progress" and the tools start to attack the culture. 3) Technopoly: culture becomes subservient to technology. At this point the reason for technology is to serve technology and not people or culture anymore.

edmundsauto 8y ago

Cultural coherence sounds like newspeak for tribalism.

Funes- 8y ago
Yes, and that's actually something I do see imprinted on the Internet, all the time. If culture, on global terms, is defined by something right now, that thing is coherence, or homogeneity [0]. Almost everybody shares the same cultural referents and uses the same means of communication and entertainment. Cultural diversity has been (and is being) reduced, not enriched. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_homogenization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_homogenization
- edmundsauto 8y ago
  Thanks for the link, very interesting! I've always used the term McDonaldization. If you look at % of people who trend towards similar culture affects, I think you're probably right (but would love to know how/where people are tracking this!) But, if you look at absolute numbers of people who are into something non-mainstream (e.g. not the primary culture), I bet we're way ahead of where we used to be. Also, I bet there are more subcultures flourishing out there -- bronies probably weren't a thing 500 years ago. Finally, I also think we have more acceptance for not being of the primary culture than years ago. That isn't to invalidate your point, I just have questions about statements that claim something about long term trends.
  - base698 8y ago
    It's definitely something tangential to McDonaldization. It's kind of Instagramization. IE. When cold brew coffee or whatever new trend gets popular then it's in every metro instantly. It's rare to go to a place that has it's truly unique thing--using the coffee example, Greek or Turkish coffee. Bronies sounds more like a marketing demo than a subculture.

kristianc 8y ago

> Technopoly is a form of cultural AIDS, which I here use as an acronym for Anti-Information Deficiency Syndrome. It's interesting how the moral panics of a time find their way into unrelated literature, and how jarring they can seem with a little distance (1993)

munk-a 8y ago
Woo, giving your random thought the acronym AIDS isn't going to create an immediate bias or anything - it's what I like to see in a neutral unopinionated highly scientific paper.

manfredo 8y ago

> This is why it is possible to say almost anything without contradiction provided you begin your utterance with the words “A study has shown …” or “Scientists now tell us that …” More important, it is why in a Technopoly there can be no transcendent sense of purpose or meaning, no cultural coherence. I don't think this is really related to the proliferation of internet connected technology, or even technology in general. People have always been using bad sources of information to justify false beliefs. Before Facebook, people cited the crap they read in tabloid magazines. Before that people cited untested (or poorly tested) theories like phrenology. Before that people cited philosophers like Aristotle who claimed that all matter could be infinitely subdivided. And before that people cited whatever their local priest or shaman told them. Information may have less regulation but it's erroneous to assume, as this excerpt seems to be doing, that regulation of information makes for better information. There is no shortage of instances in which those in charge of regulating information degraded the quality of information, often to suit their own interest. I'm still willing to defend the claim that in aggregate freer flow and production of information improves the average person's understanding of the world . Do we really think that people living in regimes with more tightly regulated flows of information have better understanding of the universe than people with freer access to information? Do we really think that people with lesser access to technology have better understanding of the world than those that have no internet access?

codr7 8y ago
You're entirely missing the point; which is blind faith in technology and scientific authorities, and humiliation and public shaming of anyone who dares to step out of line. Same, same but different. At least you can hold your local shaman responsible when you learn that he took money to feed you lies. Are you saying that matter can't be infinitely subdivided? Because I'm pretty sure the jury is still out on that one.
- losteric 8y ago
  Blind faith in anything is wrong. The difference is scientific process invites peer review, reproduction, and alternative theories. > At least you can hold your local shaman responsible when you learn that he took money to feed you lies. Gods work in mysterious ways. The good shaman give advice that is always right no matter what happens, and fault you for misinterpreting the good word.

return0 8y ago

i believe the more commonly used term is technocracy

base698 8y ago
Postman defines societies as having three distinct stages: 1) Tool-using: where tools are just something humans use to further their basic needs. 2) Technocracy: Where inventing for the sake of inventing starts to happen for the sake of "progress" and the tools start to attack the culture. 3) Technopoly: culture becomes subservient to technology. At this point the reason for technology is to serve technology and not people or culture anymore.