Lost In Technopoly By Neil Postman



Lost in Technopoly

The book Technopoly (1992) by Neil Postman, published more than two decades ago, before social media as we know it today in the 21st century. Despite the passage of time, Postman’s critique of technology remains current and relevant, even though technology has made advances that he could not have been able to fathom. Whether the reader agrees or disagrees with Postman, what he is trying to accomplish is to raise a heightened awareness of ourselves, so that we can get back in touch with our non-technological culture and reconnect with being human; to wake up and reexamine the way we use technology and not allow technology to gain control of us.
Neil Postman argues: “Technopoly is a
state of culture” that “it is also a state of mind” and that “it consists in the deification of technology, which means that the culture seeks its authorization in technology, finds its satisfaction in technology, and takes its orders from technology.”(p.71) Postman points out the “lack of awareness” of people that reside in the Technopoly and states that its users “ are largely unaware of both the origins and the effect of their technologies.” (P.138) Postman is trying to encourage us to keep things in perspective; we can find a healthy middle ground that allows us to use technology without it exploiting us. While Postman references America’s society, actually his message is applicable to all technology- using cultures today. He generalizes about people who “feel most “comfortable” in the Technopoly, and that they are “convinced that technical progress is humanity’s supreme achievement and the instrument by which our most profound dilemmas may be solved.” (p.71) Postman makes assumptions about the general population and their convictions without offering empirical evidence. Postman at times comes across as arrogant and assuming that people are not able to control their impulses.
Postman argues that Technopoly decenters traditional values and roles, “that Technopoly requires the development of a new kind of social order, and of necessity leads to the rapid dissolution of much that is associated with traditional beliefs.” However, he lacks support for his claim and what he is suggesting is not clear. (P.71) Postman also states that the family is one of the most noticeable social institutions that controls information. Postman reveals that the “late eighteenth century’s theoretical premise of the family, the family needed an emotional protection from a cold and competitive society.”(P.76) Nevertheless, every family is different so he is not able to assume every family is sharing in his ideas of what a family and how they operate amongst each other. People have different ideas about parenting and there are families that do not censor or shield their children from the “cold and competitive society” he references.

Bureaucracy is one of the three means by which American Technopoly controls information according to Postman.
He defines bureaucracy as “ simply a coordinated series of techniques for reducing the amount of information that requires processing.” (p.84). Paperwork goes through a series of approvals before the context of the information actually reaches its intended destination. Although some would consider this efficient some would also argue that these kinds of repetitive tasks, these robot like motions and procedures is what adds to creating a dull and unimaginative atmosphere, which reduces efficiency in fact. Postman argues that “ Bureaucracy has no intellectual, political, or moral theory, except for its implicit assumption that efficiency is the principal aim of all social institutions and that other goals are essentially less worthy, if not irrelevant.” (p.85) The examples he gives are mostly quotations and writings from historical figures and writer’s deceased from the past, Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill never experienced modern-day technology. C.S Lewis and Vaclav Havel had had their own philosophical and moral agendas. Perhaps if these historical figures from the past had a chance to comment on Postman, they would critique him on how he interpreted their words and
meanings.
In Chapter 6, Medical Technology, Postman refers to the “aggressive” nature of the American character and highlights our over- usage of medical technology and procedures compared to our Western counterparts in Europe, for example. Without providing comparative statistics, how often or not was America’s aggressive nature in regards to medicine able to prevent morbidity, saving the lives of patients due to early detection, preventive invasive measures and other aggressive treatment techniques. I find many of his statements overgeneralized and not supportive of his argument. I remain curious about these doctor strikes and where they took place and why Postman did not back up his so-called findings directly in the book, breaking up the reader’s flow of absorption. If wanting to locate this evidence one would have to conduct research outside of this book. Postman should have spent less time making these short statements and spent more time backing these up within his book, creating more credibility for his arguments. Nartonis (1993) replies to Postman’s Technopoly: “We are not overpowered by our technologies as his language suggests.” “Instead we have accepted a particular, anti-cultural ideology which leaves us no basis for the dominion we should have over our tools.” Sharing similar views with Nartonis, he is relatable and delivers his message in an eloquent manner. Brindley (1993) offers us his view here. “Postman vilifies three technologies in order to establish his rationale: medical instrumentation, computers, and among other so-called “invisible technologies.” the IQ test. Here is where it gets interesting. “In each, human purpose and use are redefined so that the machine, rather than ideas, direct outcomes, and the result of the machine, either an amount, a printout, or a score, determines what action is to be pursued.” This is reminiscent of the determinism vs. free-will controversy in philosophy, each side of which having its fervent believers, but with the reductionist ideology in decline and out of favor these days.
Another concern of Postman has to do with doctors. Rather than examining patients thoroughly or trusting their own judgments, doctors are now frequently utilizing machines and software that make diagnoses and create reports which devalues the doctor-patient relationship. In a separate instance, Postman (p.105) makes a claim of which he has no proof. He states, “It is also well- documented that wherever doctor- strikes have occurred, the mortality rate declines.” He provides no documentation of this at all, and does not provide the source of that information within his text, which is cumbersome when reading. When there are doctor strikes there are, also no surgeries being performed translating into; how can patients possibly die when surgeries and procedures are not performed.
Postman acknowledges that computers can be useful, such as when they are able to convert facts into statistics. “Computers make it easy to convert facts into statistics and to translate problems into equations.” (p.119) He also states how they interfere in our society by his statement: “It is diversionary and dangerous when applied indiscriminately to human affairs.” (p.119) The problem with computers is that they have no feelings, emotions or any human qualities and it is dangerous to factor these things in while making decision about humans. However, computers serve a purpose and humans make human errors which is why Postman states in the introduction of his book that “ the accusation can be made that the uncontrolled growth of technology destroys the vital sources of our humanity. It creates a culture without a moral foundation. It undermines certain mental processes and social relations that make human life worth living.” (P.xii)
I disagree with Postman in that culture maybe influenced but it is not created by technology, and morals can be taught in other venues. As an antidote, our schools and colleges and, yes, our parents need to be proactive in acquainting the present generation with the knowledge and values of the past rather than taking a backseat. Moreover, as to the danger of mental atrophy, Postman perhaps needs to also consider that there are certain processes that only computers are able to calculate. People become comfortable and lazy perhaps by the convenience of relying on these technologies but we all have a choice to take part in using them. For those with an international upbringing or in the military and expatriates who live in other countries, technology has improved far-flung social relations, via phone, video Skype, FaceTime, and other social networks.
The assumption that computers are smarter or are never wrong leads to overdependence and excessive trust, and now computers have been placed in the position that humans need to ask for authorization. A computer cannot “think” or “reason” for human kind. Postman is trying to make that distinction. I disagree with Postman’s claim. He implies that people are unable to assume their own responsibilities using these technologies. As with using any “tool”, there are dangers and the possibility of misuse, but if used properly and cautiously in the proper context there are many advantages to be gained. Just as with a driver’s license manual, if there are guidelines and how to manuals available, this would allow the user to learn how to utilize technology responsibly and conscientiously.
Postman (p.138) points out the “lack of awareness” of people that reside in the Technopoly and states that its users “ are largely unaware of both the origins and the effect of their technologies”.
Although I have been largely antithetical to Postman’s critique of technology, he is at bottom trying to encourage us to manage keeping things in perspective; we can find a healthy medium that allows us to use technology without being used by it. While Postman references America’s society, actually his book and message is applicable to most technology using cultures today.

References

Brindley, T.A. (1993). Technopoly [book review]. Educational Studies,24(2), 187- 191. Retrieved from http://www.erlbaum.com/Journals/journals/ES/es.htm
Nartonis, D. (1993). An Answer to Postman, Neil Technopoly. Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, 13(2), 67-70.
Postman, N. (1992) Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. New York: Vintage

Books