In this post, I am going to do two things. First, I am going to give you a brief introduction to one of my favorite authors, cultural critic Neil Postman. Second, we’re going to look at one of the key generalizations Postman makes and then consider whether there is any merit to his claim. In the end, not only do I hope we all have a little better knowledge of Postman and some of his work, but also a better understanding of how awareness of some of Postman’s principles can help enhance our lives.
Neil Postman, born March 8, 1931, is best known for his criticism of technology in books such as Amusing Ourselves to Death and Technopoly. In addition to these two books, Postman wrote an additional 16 books and more than 200 articles for magazines and newspapers. Because of his strong viewpoint, Postman can evoke emotions in his readers ranging from complete cynicism to full support. Postman wasn’t completely pessimistic in his outlook, but he did have strong feelings about the impacts that technology is having, and could have, on society as a whole. While not exclusively humanistic in principle, many of the opinions Postman gives in his work can be attributed to his humanist worldview.
Now that we’ve very briefly looked at Postman as a person, let’s take a look at a couple “generalizations” he made in his 1992 book, Technopoly.
In talking about technological change, Postman claims that it is neither additive nor subtractive, but rather ecological. In other words, Postman claims that when it comes to technological change, “One significant change generates total change.” While not as chaotic in theory as something like the “butterfly effect,” where a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can set off a tornado in Texas, Postman essentially argues that culture cannot remain the same with the introduction of a significant new technology. Is this an oversimplification? I would argue that it is not.
Think of a significant technology introduced in the last 100 years. The Wright Brothers flew in 1903, and the Model T was introduced in 1908. The first communication satellite was launched into space in 1958. The atomic bomb was first tested in 1945. Were these additive technologies, or did their invention completely change our society?
You might be thinking to yourself right now, “well you’ve picked some of the most influential technologies ever invented! Of course they changed things.” Well then let’s consider some more minor technologies such as the light bulb, typewriter, toothbrush or scissors. Whether we will admit it or not, even each of those minor technologies has changed our society. Rock-Paper-Scissors, anyone?
If we can agree that significant technology absolutely changes culture, then the next question we have to ask ourselves is, “what is the impact of that change?” Postman states, “[It] is a mistake to suppose that any technological innovation has a one-sided effect.” For example, the airplane is a wonderful invention that has enabled us to traverse the globe in hours as opposed to months. However, the plane also makes it possible to attend business meetings 2,000 miles away. Well that’s a positive, right? Not always. What if the meeting happens to be scheduled for the week of your child’s first birthday? In the not too distant past, there would be little expectation for someone to attend a meeting outside of your local community due to the infeasibility of traveling such a long distance. Now, with the convenience of air travel, many employees are not only expected to make such trips, but also to be available to make them on short notice.
This is just one example out of many that testifies to the dual impact of technology. Television both entertains and desensitizes. Computers enable the sharing of both ideas and child pornography. Guns can be used to both protect the peace and incite violence. All that said, I believe, and Postman would agree, that technology is not inherently evil! In fact, Postman and I would both be hypocrites if we claimed it was since we have both relied on the technology of printed language to convey our thoughts. However, some final conclusions can, and arguably should, be made in light of the dual nature of technology.
First, you’ve heard it said before and the same is true of technology: education is the key to prevention. We should never assume that technology is good or that just because something is newer it is better. It is our job to be both responsible citizens and consumers by educating ourselves on the technology we chose to utilize.
This leads to the second conclusion, we need to be aware of the potential consequences of the technologies we use. For example, a new laptop computer may make writing emails to friends or following a web-based recipe much easier, but what will the drawbacks be? Perhaps you or your loved ones will now spend more time on the internet now that it is so portable, taking away time that used to be spent together. A notorious drawback of the cell phone, an amazing technology which gives us the ability to contact people whenever we need to, is the creation of the compulsive texter. I can’t remember the last time I went out to eat with friends where our conversation wasn’t interrupted by a text-based conversation. A social faux pas of the past has now become common place thanks to the convenience of mobile-based communication.
Finally, we must evaluate our “values” and then evaluate the potential impacts that technology could have on them. If “family” is our priority, then perhaps the new two-seater sports car isn’t such a great idea. If we value privacy, then we may want to stay away from a public Facebook page.
In closing, there is no doubt that technology can enhance our lives. However, when we choose to allow a new technology into our lives, we must do so, as Postman puts it, “with our eyes wide open.” For the most part, technology has no moral value. It is our personal application of technology that dictates the moral consequences of its use.
References
Technopoly: the Surrender of Culture to Technology (1992)
