The Judgement Of Thamus In Technopoly Summary

Commentary #1
An examination of Neil Postman's chapter "The Judgement of Thamus" in Technopoly - by David Wood

The main argument this book explores is not between humanists and scientists, but between technology and everybody else. Most people believe that technology is a friend. It is a friend that asks for trust and obedience, which most give because its gifts are bountiful. The dark side it that it creates a culture without moral foundation, undermines certain mental processes and social relations that make human life worth living. Technology is both a friend and enemy. The book tries to explain when, how and why technology became a particularly dangerous enemy.

In the first chapter of Technopoly, author Neil Postman recounts the story from Plato’s Phaedrus of King Thamus of Upper Egypt. “For people such as ourselves,” Postman writes, “who are inclinded … to be tools of our tools, few legends are more instructive than his.” (Postman, 1992, p.3) The legend speaks of Thamus’ assessment and judgment of god Theuth’s many inventions that included numbers, calculation, geometry, astronomy, and writing. It is on the technology of writing that Postman picks up the story. The
inventor Theuth introduces writing as a tool that would improve both “wisdom and knowledge” of the king’s subjects. As the legend goes, Thamus respectfully disagreed stating, “Those who acquire [writing] will cease to exercise their memory and become forgetful; they will rely on writing to bring things to their remembrance by external signs instead of by their own internal resources. What you have discovered is a receipt for recollection, not memory.” (Postman, 1992, p.4) Of concern for Thamus, Postman describes, are the damaging effects of writing to memory and the subsequent establishment of false wisdom among his subjects. For Thamus, this technology was nothing short of a burden to his society.
Elaborating on Thamus’ judgments of the technology of writing, Postman believes Thamus was correct to have concerns for the effect the technology of writing would exert on knowledge, memory, and wisdom. Postman, instead, argues that Thamus was wrong in his beliefs that technology is only a burden. Here then is Postman arrives at the central theme that with adoption of technology comes both a burden and blessing. The warning derived from this theme is that all to often we fail to consider how new technologies alter our perceptions, interests, and communities. For Postman, the nature of technological change is neither additive nor is it subtractive, rather it’s ecological. (Postman, 1992) In other words, the introduction of a new technology into a society will introduce change to the workings of that society. Postman argues that it is therefore crucial to understand what any new technology is designed to do. “[W]hen we admit a new technology to the culture, we must do so with eyes wide open.” (Postman, 1992, p.7) Postman’s passionate call to question technology’s purpose is certainly not lost although it does seem overly alarmist.
James O’Donnell shares similar views as Postman, yet unlike Postman, O’Donnell takes a somewhat more pragmatic approach. In his presentation to the Cambridge Forum, titled Papyrus to Cyberspace, O’Donnell explains that with every new technology introduced there are both losses and gains. Using history as an example, O’Donnell speaks of the fifteenth century European critics of books who feared the written word would promote heterodox ideas and threaten the established orthodoxy. While the critics were for the most part right, O’Donnell points out that the additional belief systems were “manageable” and that the world did not need only one body of values. O’Donnell points out that with respect to new technologies there are often claims of both doom and utopia and that in the end either doom or utopia come into existence infrequently. (O'Donnell, 1999) In light of O’Donnell’s conclusions the question then is, are Postman’s warnings still significant?
To demonstrate technology’s affect, Postman points to the changes that new technologies have on language.
Beyond the introduction of new terms to describe new things, technology changes our definition of existing terms. As an example, both television and computers changes the definition of ‘information’ from that of books. Postman elaborates in suggesting that the terms, “news” and “political debate” have each been altered by television. (p. 8, 1993) The message of warning here is that the reshaping effects technology has on language occur often without any questioning as to why. Of course language is always changing and not always due to technology, however, taking into considering Postman’s views, if technology easily alters language what else is technology changing in
society?
One concern is the creation of knowledge monopolies from the introduction of new technologies. For Postman, control over the workings of a technology results in power. An example he offers is the change of control from traditional knowledge monopolies with the introduction of the television. This has also been observed in the subsequent introduction of the computer. Postman argues that there are always winners and losers when new technologies are admitted to society, with the winners often representing the individuals who possess knowledge of the workings of the technology. When such shifts in power occur the benefits and the deficits of a technology are not equally distributed. With that said, the benefits of new technologies are often equally praised by the all individuals, winners and losers. Postman believes that this is the result of the winners actively and enthusiastically promoting technology’s advantages to all even if a technology enhances the situation of a few. This is perhaps what is most distressing to Postman, the almost blind adoption of technologies. (Postman, 1992) While this certainly a concern, it is near impossible not to return to the ideas offered in O’Donnell’s presentation in that, “we’ve been there before.” (O'Donnell, 1999) With all of the new technologies that have been admitted to society over history in each case the changes brought by new technologies have been manageable.
Throughout the chapter one, although it is never explicitly stated, there is a sense that Postman would like to see technological progress slow so to allow for reflection on the consequences of introducing technology. It is certainly important to recognize and understand the changes that are occurring in society, however, with technological change proving to be manageable by society, even if not desirable by all, it can be challenging to use the “Thamusian skepticism” (Postman, 1992, p.5) necessary to address the concerns raised in Technopoly.